Common Elements In David Bohm's Physics, The
Perennial Philosophy, and Seth
Common Elements In David Bohm's Physics, The
Perennial Philosophy, and Seth
AUTHOR: Norman Friedman PRICE: $14.95 SIZE: 6"x9" 326 Pages Paperback CATEGORIES: New Science/ Philosophy ISBN: 0-9636470-0-8 PUBLISHER: Living Lake Books PHONE: 800-488-1805 ENDORSEMENTS "I think Bridging Science and Spirit is one of the most insightful, comprehensive, and brilliant expressions of knowledge. I shall certainly use it as a reference guide. Many abstract ideas that I was not comfortable with are now more meaningful." Deepak Chopra, M.D. - Author of Ageless Body, Timeless Mind; Creating Affluence "Bridging Science and Spirit accomplishes a formidable task. This book will be a valuable research document for many years to come for those concerned with a perspective that honors both science and spirituality." Fred Alan Wolf, Ph.D. - Author of Taking the Quantum Leap; Parallel Universes; The Eagle's Quest "A courageous and visionary work. . .consistent not only with good science but with humankind's perennial spiritual visions. This is a very important book." Larry Dossey, M.D. - Author of Space, Time and Medicine; Recovering the Soul; Meaning and Medicine; Healing Words "An insightful synthesis of the outer frontiers of theoretical physics with the deep revelations of mystical insight, throwing important light on the reality we live in." Peter Russell - Author of The Global Brain; The White Hole in Time ". . .I think Friedman's approach is more intriguing and more subtle than the many already worked out new paradigms that so many writers have in recent years been demanding. . .a brave attempt to open a door in an extended definition of 'normal science' and more significantly, for me, a possible world view in which the likes of Seth, Bohm and Wilber can live together happily ever after." Donald Factor for Network: The Scientific and Medical Network Review ". . .This book sets a standard of excellence for further discourse on the relationship of physics and metaphysics." Noel McInnis for The Noetic Sciences ReSource Magazine "Some future historian will, I feel confident, identify the "Great Debate" of the twentieth century around the question: 'What is science going to do about consciousness?' I would surmise that Norman Friedman's book Bridging Science and Spirit will turn out to be a benchmark in that inquiry. . . . No one can read it without gaining some clarity on their own nature." Willis Harmon, Ph.D. - President, Institute of Noetic Sciences. Author of Higher Creativity: An Incomplete Guide to the Future "Bridging Science and Spirit correctly asks, 'How does matter originate from consciousness?' This is the fundamental question of a growing body of literature regarding the new paradigm of an idealist, consciousness-based science. Norman Friedman has made an important and thoughtful contribution to this new science." Amit Goswami, Ph.D. - Professor of Physics, University of Oregon. Author of The Self-Aware Universe ". . .a masterful job of bringing innate physic understanding and scientific knowledge together, brilliantly showing us how all is one and one is all." Robert F. Butts - Husband of the late Jane Roberts, channel for Seth ". . .Very thorough, masterful, synthesizing a vast amount of knowledge and research. . . . Bound to be the bible of spiritual-based science. We need new paradigms desperately and Friedman provides a powerful synthesis that brings together all the worlds." Jay Bails - Publisher/Editor, The Book Reader "Few have understood both science and metaphysics well enough to remove our blinders to their underlying similarities -- and universal truths. Kudos to Norman Friedman for proving to be a master bridge-builder." Lynda Dahl - President, Seth Network International. Author of Beyond the Winning Streak: Using Conscious Creation to Consistently Win at Life ". . .a brilliant synthesis of the ageless wisdom and modern science. Friedman's writing provides pictures for our minds so we can 'see' reality, and he causes us to think. . . ." Jacquelyn Small, MSSW - President, Eupsychia, Inc. Author of Becoming Naturally Therapeutic; Awakening in Time; Transformers: The Artists of Self-Creation "Even readers who 'skip or skim the hard parts,' as the author cheerfully advises, will enjoy this rocket ride through the rarefied air of a new world. . . . We are left with a path into the unknown and profound admiration for all those, whether scientist, sage or mystic, who love Truth enough and have courage enough to go beyond themselves." Sita Stuhlmiller - Editor, The Light of Consciousness TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword 11 Preface 15 Introduction 19 Consciousness: A Paradox The Mind in Physics and Biology The Observer in Physics Casting a Finer Net PART ONE: THREE PERSPECTIVES, ONE REALITY 1 David Bohm: A Physics Perspective 31 The Physics Metaphor: A Second Level Bohm's Ideas: An Overview The Causal Interpretation: An Early View The Holographic Metaphor Order: An Infinite Spectrum The Holomovement: Carrier of the Implicate Orders Time, A Derivative of the Timeless Soma-Significance: Mind-Body Three-Dimensional World as a Multidimensional Derivative Form, A Process of Projection and Injection Wholeness as an Aspect of Quantum and Relativity Theories Summary 2 The Perennial Philosophy: A Mystical Perspective 95 The Perennial Philosophy: The Mystic's Metaphor Consciousness as a Spectrum of Interpenetrating Levels Human Development: The Atman-Project and Involution Microgeny: Involution Moment by Moment Time as a Product of the Mental Level Summary 3 Seth: A Paranormal Perspective 15 The Ego, A Multidimensional Projection Basic Building Blocks: Elements of Consciousness Coordinate Points as Consciousness Transformers Matter Formation: Seth's Metaphor Matter Formation: A Physics Metaphor Electromagnetic Radiation as an Aspect of EE Units Probable Realities: A Quantum Physics Concept Pulsations, or Enfolding and Unfolding The Origin of the Universe as Continuous Creation Frameworks of Existence Dreams: An Educational Process Time, A Feature of Framework 1 Conclusion 4 Common Elements 167 Reality as Levels of Consciousness The Paradox of Levels Within Wholeness The Relationship Between Levels Meaning as Formative Cause The Origin of Forms Gšdel's Incompleteness Theorem and Infinity Time as a Construct The Creation of Matter The Levels Correlated with Seth's Frameworks Particles as Consciousness Units Motion as Sequantial Projections Conclusion PART TWO: SELECTED TOPICS IN PHYSICS AND PHILOSOPHY - A NEW FOCUS 5 Space-Time Creation and the Black/White Hole Metaphor Seth's Concepts: A Review Physics Concepts Seth's Space and Invisible (Virtual) Particles Electromagnetic Spectrum: A Common Velocity Strings, An Alternative Metaphor The Pulsating Black Hole, A Common Metaphor Spin and Time: Projection and Injection Matter, Antimatter, and Intervals: A Cycling Black Hole Creating Reality 6 The Mind-Body Problem from a New Perspective 233 7 The Measurement Problem: Schršdinger's Cat Revisited 8 A Closer Look at Bell's Theorem 255 9 Dissipative Systems: Nature's Creative Expressions 10 Eastern and Western Thought as Aspects of a Common Reality 271 Complementarity Wholism Mind as a Tool Physical Science and Inner Science An Underlying Unity 11 Toward a New Paradigm 281 The Evolution of Paradigms Elements of a New Vision Consciousness Levels of Consciousness Mind-Body Motion Matter Formation Multidimensional Space Time Purpose in the Universe Light Wholeness Notes 293 Glossary 313 Index 323 FOREWORD When I received a doctorate in theoretical physics, I joined a club of like-minded seekers who dreamed of capturing the Holy Grail of the ultimate knowledge of Life, the Universe, and Everything. We physicists were thoroughly trained in the workings of the universe, from the soupy fluids of thermodynamics in classical physics to subatomic nuts called particles in the farthest corners of space and the tiniest fleeting moments of time. Yet as we sought truth at every point and at every instant, we found something lacking. Perhaps I should speak only for myself in describing the sudden feeling of emptiness when I first saw that Einsteinian relativity theory was completely incomprehensible as an objective experience. Who would ever go speeding off at the velocity of light? The mere idea was mysterious, to say the least, that as one approached light speed, time would slow down compared to an earth-bound observer, and yet be experienced not as a slow- down but simply as taking less time to get wherever one was speeding off to. The mathematical theory of relativity is actually amazingly elementary, and after wrestling with it for awhile, I eventually grasped the idea. But understanding it in terms that my classical education would allow? That was a "horse-question" of a different color, involving concepts I had never encountered or imagined. Then, with quantum mechanics, suddenly the world was no longer made of tiny particles, fleetingly existing or not, but of mysterious flowing probabilities, which enabled physicists to predict with certainty only the probability of nearly everything, but not the actual occurrence of anything. Yet the mathematical structure of this "new physics" was compelling. After much soul-searching and many years of writing, teaching, and problem-solving, I can say that I have come to accept the mystery of the new-physics picture of the universe and the remarkable power it seems to have, based on something quite intangible and seemingly outside our everyday experience: the invisible flow of possibilities that exist in the abstract world of mathematics and intersect with our real world in terms of the prediction of probabilities of real events. It is understandable that I Ñ and perhaps other physicists who write about the new physics Ñ assumed that anyone outside the field would find it entirely baffling. I held that assumption until I read Norman Friedman's book, the one you are holding in your hands. This book impressed me, to say the least. Here is someone outside the field, looking in, and spotting both the logic and the magic of the discoveries of the last nearly one hundred years of soul-searching on the part of certain physicists, and bringing it together in a clearly written summation. This soul-searching has led many of us to a new realization, that the gap of understanding separating the two seemingly irreconcilable viewpoints of spirituality and science can be bridged. This idea is admirably presented by Mr. Friedman. Indeed, it is more than a bridge that this author has built; he has shown us that these two approaches aim toward the very same truths. It is as if one were to cross a bridge from one country to another and find that one had arrived right back where one had started. Reading this book, I was struck with a feeling of satisfaction. I had felt, after writing about such concerns as addressed by Mr. Friedman, that hardly anyone really understands just what the problem is: namely, the outrageous logic that shows that the physical cannot exist independently from the mental, that ontology and epistemology are the same. Certainly the connections between the deep philosophical issues raised by the fact of human consciousness and the seemingly very different viewpoint taken by the new physics seemed much too difficult to be grasped by someone outside the field. I was wrong. Mr. Friedman really understands the problem and has put together a remarkable book that explores the "bridge" with skill and insight. Bridging Science and Spirit accomplishes a formidable task. Every important facet of the problem has been addressed both with intelligence and with heart. The key areas of overlap that form the basis for Mr. Friedman's insights are in the work of physicist David Bohm, the mystical perspective as elucidated by the writings of Ken Wilber, and the visionary teachings of Seth, the discarnate entity channeled by Jane Roberts. Remarkably, I first became acquainted with Seth's teachings shortly after a period of study and research at the University of London's Birkbeck College where, as fortune would have it, I occupied an office next to Professor Bohm. Bohm would often tell me about his latest insights into the implicate order, an invisible, pervasive "isness" from which all matter, energy, and meaning ultimately emerge. At the end of these discourses I felt as bewildered as the woman who met Einstein on a ship sailing from Europe to the U.S. and remarked after Einstein had explained his theory of relativity to her, "I am convinced that he understands it very well." Bohm went well above my intellectual head, but left me with an intriguing new sense of underlying mystery. Seth came to my attention later. After Jack Sarfatti, Bob Toben, and I published our popular book Space-Time and Beyond, a reader told us that we had explained, in the terminology of modern physics, the very same things that Seth talked about. We had not intended to go into the subject in any real depth; we simply wanted to sketch the relationship between science and spirit in a very light way. Mr. Friedman has developed those sketches, has looked deeply into these comparisons, and has written with skill and insight. Although we had certainly placed our feet on the bridge in our attempt to "explain the unexplainable," it was left to Norman Friedman to cross over. The essential element in all of this, I would say, is that all viewpoints of understanding our experience of the Universe rest on the simultaneous existence of a deeper level of reality out of which the duality of the physical and mental aspects emerge. The book is divided into two parts. The first part clearly explains the unity that underlies the three separate perspectives of deeper reality: David Bohm's concepts of how physics leads to this underlying element, Ken Wilber's description of how mystics experience it, and Seth's discussion of the hidden reality from the unique perspective of one who lives there. After this introduction to the strange landscape of the new physics world, Part Two presents a range of topics expressed in metaphors taken from modern science, including not only physics but mind science and dream research. A particularly apt image for the view we will gain from Mr. Friedman's book comes from Edwin A. Abbott's Flatland. In the words of Mr. A. Square, when he was taken by a strange sphere from his flat world of two dimensions into the bewildering reality of three-dimensional space: An unspeakable horror seized me. There was a darkness; then a dizzying sensation of sight that was not like seeing; I saw. . . .Space that was not Space: I was myself, and not myself. . . .I shrieked. . .,"Either this is madness or it is Hell." "It is neither," replied the voice of the sphere, "it is Knowledge; it is Three Dimensions: open your eye once again and try to look steadily." I looked, and, behold, a new world! For many of us, the new landscape we see from the bridge built by Norman Friedman may seem as strange as the third dimension did to Mr. A. Square. We have lived our lives assuming that the dimensions marking the spirit lie well beyond those marking the physical landscape. The proposition that the two are identical is bewildering to say the least. But this book encourages us to look boldly, and with Mr. Friedman as our able guide, we need only to open our eyes to "behold a new world." Fred Alan Wolf, Ph.D. Author of Taking the Quantum Leap, Parallel Universes, The Eagle's Quest, The Dreaming Universe, and other books. LaConner, Washington INTRODUCTION A religion contradicting science and a science contradicting religion are equally false. P. D. Ouspensky We all want to know that the universe is a harmonious place in which we can live in comfort and peace. Some of us may sense that intuitively. But for those of us who want scientific evidence, answering the question, "What's it all about?" would seem to require comprehension of vast spheres of knowledge beyond our grasp. Metaphors reduce that requirement to something more attainable. That is, an image we can empathize with condenses the vastness of the universe into a meaningful symbol and satisfies much of our need to know. My purpose in this book is to present images of reality that are both illuminated by spirit and grounded in science. In this pursuit, I have been inspired by the following words of physicist Mendel Sachs: It behooves those who seek truth to study the abstract features of the truths of as many disciplines as possible, in order to determine which of the ideas of each of them correspond and which do not, with the notion that those ideas that do recur in a varied range of domains of knowledge are more likely to be true than those that do not. Thus the seemingly invariant truths are the ones that should be pursued further, as significant investigations toward our future understanding of the real world.1 Following this advice to truth-seekers, I have examined three radically different frames of reference: aspects of theoretical physics, mysticism, and the paranormal. I have found in these three sources enough similarities to construct what I believe to be a coherent image of reality that could open the door to a profound new understanding of the universe. The first of these is the work of David Bohm, a theoretical physicist. His concept of reality is indirect, arising from the logical consequences of the algorithms of quantum theory and relativity theory. The second is Ken Wilber, a modern authority on the Perennial Philosophy. His overview is based on the accounts of mystics who, through altered states of mind, have directly experienced a mysterious domain beyond our ordinary perceptions. Wilber has distilled from this material (much as I have attempted here, albeit with more disparate sources) a common conceptual framework that underlies all experience and gives a spiritual dimension to that fragment of it that we call everyday reality. Our third source is "channeled" through a medium. He is Seth, a discarnate personality whose prolific views on the nature of reality were communicated through Jane Roberts. Although this notion is guaranteed to elicit strong emotional reactions along the range from skepticism to scorn, the ideas presented by this "entity" are not only intriguing but intellectually challenging. As we shall see Ñ and in considerable detail, for it constitutes the main thrust of this book Ñ Seth's descriptions are remarkably consistent with the physical theories of David Bohm. The ideas of Bohm, Wilber, and Seth, presented through the vastly different means of reason, revelation, and channeled communication, are the subject of Part One. Considered together, they at once broaden our perspective and act as a lens that refocuses our examination of reality. In Part Two, with this lens before our eyes, we examine six of the most thought-provoking issues of our time, which leads us into perplexing but fascinating territory of the fundamental nature of the universe. CONSCIOUSNESS: A PARADOX Like all scientific and philosophical constructs, what I propose in this book is tentative, incomplete, and subject to change. This is especially true of a treatment as broad as the one presented here, encompassing as it does such diverse aspects of our knowledge territory. Let us begin boldly, then, by stating that at the center of this whole discussion is consciousness, which is not easily definable, for reasons that will become clear in Chapter 1. Consciousness heretofore had no place in the equations of physics. In the classical model of the universe, irreducible balls of matter bounced about in three-dimensional space, obeying fixed laws of motion. This universe was both objective (independent of an observer) and determined (predictable). Modern physics offers a much less comforting picture. Quantum theory rests on a bed of indeterminacy at the particle level, and, while the predictive power of quantum theory is awesome, its philosophical underpinnings are vague. Reality cannot be said to exist in any fixed, solid way, and even the physical nature of matter is questionable. How, then, do we account for our perception of such things as buildings and trees? With this Zen koan-like proposition: that the building is real, but does not have existence until it is observed. In the words of physicist John Wheeler, No elementary phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is a registered (observed) phenomenon. . . . Useful as it is under everyday circumstances to say that the world exists "out there" independent of us, that view can no longer be upheld.2 The paradox is this: we need particles of matter to make up the objects of our everyday world (including us), and we need an object in that very everyday world (us) to define and observe those particles. Observation implies consciousness. Most physicists resist this implication, but at least some would agree that any construct that purports to describe reality in terms of contemporary physics clearly must include a role for consciousness. In the late nineteenth century, the theoretical structure of physics appeared to be virtually complete raising the distinct possibility of eventually explaining everything. Newton's laws and Maxwell's equations provided a mathematical foundation for the universe, a universe considered to be thoroughly predictable. Since every cause had an effect, and every effect had a cause, if one knew the initial conditions of a state, its past and future could be ascertained. Physicist Banesh Hoffman, a former member of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, described in this way the air of complacency that permeated nineteenth-century physics: Had it not now reduced the workings of the universe to precise mathematical law? Had it not shown that the universe must pursue its appointed course through all eternity, the motions of its parts strictly determined according to immutable patterns of exquisite mathematical elegance? Had it not shown that each individual particle of matter, every tiny ripple of radiation, and every tremor of ethereal tension must fulfill to the last jot and tittle the sublime laws which man and his mathematics had at last made plain? Here indeed was reason to be proud. The mighty universe was controlled by known equations, its every motion theoretically predictable, its every action proceeding majestically by known laws from cause to effect.3 Physicists of the time felt confident that they had deciphered God's plan. This view applied to the entire universe, organic life and sentient beings included. An attribute of life such as consciousness, which arises from a preferred arrangement of elementary particles, was considered an epiphenomenon of the underlying structure, and, in principle, could be explained fully by the basic constituents and the forces between them. As Voltaire said, It would be very singular that all nature, all the planets, should obey eternal laws, and that there should be a little animal, five feet high, who, in contempt of these laws, could act as he pleased, solely according to his caprice.4 An ongoing debate arose among some scientists and philosophers over how consciousness originates from matter. (That the question might be reversed Ñ that is, how does consciousness produce matter? Ñ has been and still is largely inconceivable.) In expressing the view of his time that physics was essentially complete, a leading theoretical physicist, William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) noted only two exceptions: the failure to detect the ether and the failure to understand black-body radiation (a body that absorbs all radiation falling on it). Lord Kelvin's confidence not withstanding, these minor matters not only refused to disappear, but by the turn of the century took on major importance. The black-body radiation problem led to quantum mechanics (dealing with subatomic particles), and the negative results of the Michaelson-Morley experiment (failure to detect the ether) led to Einstein's theory of relativity Ñ the foundations of modern physics. Classical physics was thereby reduced to a special case of these new, more encompassing principles. In relativity theory, the particle described in classical physics is no longer a "thing" but a vortexlike disturbance in a continual field. Consciousness was introduced into physics in a sense because relativity theory requires that the frame of reference of the observer be taken into account. In quantum theory the introduction of consciousness is even more basic. Physicist Fred Alan Wolf puts it this way: Classical physics holds that there is a real world out there, acting independently of human consciousness. Consciousness, in this view, is to be constructed from real objects, such as neurons and molecules. It is a byproduct of the material causes which produce the many physical effects observed. Quantum physics indicates that this theory cannot be true Ñ the effects of observation "couple" or enter into the real world whether we want them to or not. The choices made by an observer alter, in an unpredictable manner, the real physical events. Consciousness is deeply and inextricably involved in this picture, not a byproduct of materiality.5 Exactly how the relationship between consciousness and matter occurs is still an open question. In fact, it will be central to our discussion in the chapters to follow. THE MIND IN PHYSICS AND BIOLOGY Harold J. Morowitz, a molecular biophysicist, wrote a perceptive article in 1980 illustrating the changes in the worldview emerging from the new physics and its effect on the psychological and biological sciences. He said: Something peculiar has been going on in science for the past 100 years or so. Many researchers are unaware of it, and others won't admit it even to their own colleagues. But there is a strangeness in the air.6 Morowitz then described an interesting situation. Biologists originally believed that the human mind occupies a special position in the scheme of things. Influenced by the rampant successes of nineteenth- century physics, however, they shifted toward a more mechanistic orientation. But around 1900, physics changed direction in response to the quantum and relativity theories, and the mind began to assume an essential role in physical events. (The participation of an observer Ñ or consciousness Ñ was codified by the Copenhagen interpretation in the 1920s; see pp. 31-32.) News of this fundamental change apparently never reached the biologists, for they rushed headlong into materialism, while the physicists moved in the opposite direction. Morowitz used the metaphor of two fast- moving trains going in different directions, each unaware of the activity on the other track. For the past 85 years biological and psychological sciences have largely relied on reductionist methods, that is, explaining phenomena at a higher and more complex level by phenomena at a lower and more basic level. This approach is affirmed by Carl Sagan in The Dragons of Eden: "My fundamental premise about the brain is that its workings Ñ what we sometimes call 'mind' Ñ are a consequence of its anatomy and physiology and nothing more."7 Morowitz comments on Sagan's book: As a further demonstration of this trend of thought, we note that his glossary does not contain the words "mind," "consciousness," "perception," "awareness," or "thought," but rather deals with entries such as "synapse," "lobotomy," "proteins," and "electrodes."8 Thus, biology has busily pushed the mind out one door of the house of science, little realizing that it was reentering through the door of physics. Morowitz sums it up cogently: We are now in a position to integrate the perspectives of three large fields: psychology, biology, and physics. . . . [resulting in] a picture of the whole that is quite unexpected. First, the human mind, including consciousness and reflective thought, can be explained by activities of the central nervous system, which, in turn, can be reduced to the biological structure and function of that physiological system. Second, biological phenomena at all levels can be totally understood in terms of atomic physics, that is, through the action and interaction of the component atoms of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and so forth. Third and last, atomic physics, which is now understood most fully by means of quantum mechanics, must be formulated with the mind as a primitive component of the system. We have thus, in separate steps, gone around an epistemological circle Ñ from the mind, back to the mind. The results of this chain of reasoning will probably lend more aid and comfort to Eastern mystics than to neurophysiologists and molecular biologists: nevertheless, the closed loop follows from a straightforward combination of the explanatory processes of recognized experts in the three separate sciences. Since individuals seldom work with more than one of these paradigms, the general problem has received little attention.9 This is confirmed by the following comments. Werner Heisenberg, the father of quantum theory: Some scientists [have been] inclined to think that the psychological phenomena could ultimately be explained on the basis of physics and chemistry of the brain. From the quantum- theoretical point of view there is no reason for such an assumption.10 Physicist Paul Davies, a leading popularizer of modern physics: It is often said that physicists invented the mechanistic- reductionist philosophy, taught it to the biologists, and then abandoned it themselves. It cannot be denied that modern physics has a strongly holistic, even teleological flavour, and that this is due in large part to the influence of the quantum theory.11 THE OBSERVER IN PHYSICS The fact that an observer Ñ which in itself implies consciousness Ñ is an established and necessary ingredient in modern physics has profound implications. When scientists describe the world as made up of particles, they must of necessity include themselves in the construction. By definition, then, the scientist is a part of the universe, and this part of the universe is observing itself. To accomplish this, the universe must be divided into an observer and that which is observed. What the observer sees is only that portion of the universe that is being observed, which does not include the observer. A new level with a wider field of view must be postulated if we are to include both the observer and that which is observed. Thus, we are forced to consider a hierarchy of consciousness. A hierarchy is an essential metaphor for visualizing both the observer and that which is observed. (Such a hierarchy is a simplified version of the Gšdel incompleteness theorem, which can be construed as stating that if you have a finite theory of the world, there will always be certain truths that will not be provable by the theory; see discussion pp. 180.) A hierarchy is also seen in quantum theory. One of the basic postulates of quantum theory states that an initial system can potentially develop into a number of states, each with a given probability of occurrence. We know, though, that only one probability can actually take place. According to the accepted interpretation of quantum theory, the actual or "real" state of these probabilities is specified by an observation; that is, the "real" state is brought into reality by an observer. The observer thus becomes a creator and gives the system its form. Without the observer, the system is in a state of potential, waiting to come into existence. This approach has proved fruitful for closed systems with the physicist observing from outside. But when one contemplates the grouping of probabilities for the entire universe Ñ including the body of the observer Ñ then the universe can come into existence only by the action of an observer outside the universe. Even if one were to accept an observer outside the universe, that observer would also have to be brought into reality by still another observer. Again, we are faced with an infinite hierarchy of observers. According to quantum theory, mind gives form to potentia (Heisenberg's term), which then exhibits the property of matter. We have come full circle: matter appears to be an epiphenomenon of mind. This does not mean, however, that the electron is dependent on the human mind. Rather, if the electron is seen in some sense as being "alive," then it can have its own equivalent of observer and observed, its own form of consciousness. If we no longer see matter as primary, but see mind as primary, then the push-pull laws of the mechanistic worldview are not adequate. Instead we might say that an "alive" particle responds to information, and force fields (e.g., electromagnetic and gravitational) might be viewed as information fields. Seth comments on the primacy of consciousness: Science has, unfortunately, bound up the minds of its own most original thinkers, for they dare not stray from certain scientific principles. All energy contains consciousness. That one sentence is basically scientific heresy, and in many circles, it is religious heresy as well. A recognition of that simple sentence would indeed change your world. . . .12 A somewhat similar view is expressed by physicist Freeman Dyson: It's one of the joys of physics that matter isn't just inert stuff. In the Nineteenth Century one thought of matter as just chunks of stuff which you could push and pull around, but they didn't do anything. Quantum mechanics makes matter even in the smallest pieces into an active agent, and I think that is something very fundamental. Every particle in the universe is an active agent making choices between random processes.13 CASTING A FINER NET It is often said that most phenomena can be described with mechanical models Ñ that the Newtonian laws hold for large- scale events, and that it is only at the far reaches of existence (the subatomic world, or particles moving at nearly the speed of light) that we see the peculiar effects of quantum and relativity theories. But this is not necessarily so. Events that deviate from Newtonian laws may occur in our everyday world without being observed simply because we are not looking. The following parable, attributed to Sir Arthur Eddington, the distinguished astrophysicist, raises this possibility using a particularly apt image. In a seaside village, a fisherman with a rather scientific bent proposed as a law of the sea that all fish are longer than one inch. But he failed to realize that the nets used in the village were all of a one-inch mesh. Are we filtering physical reality? Can we catch consciousness with the nets we are using?14 In a remarkably similar statement, Seth said: Science itself must change, as it discovers that its net of evidence is equipped only to catch certain kinds of fish, and that it is constructed of webs of assumptions that can only hold certain varieties of reality, while others escape its net entirely.15 Do anomalies exist on the macro level that we are simply not noticing or are allowing to slip through our scientific nets? Certain events, casually assigned to the paranormal and thereby dismissed, may contain information that would clarify persistent problems in our evolving worldview. Philosopher Huston Smith imagines the Perennial Philosophy addressing science and noting, "You are right in what you affirm. Only what you deny needs rethinking."16 Certainly many insupportable ideas have been rightfully ignored, but one can speculate that useful information may have been overlooked as well. This is by no means confined to the science of our time. In the 1600s, the great Galileo Galilei (himself persecuted for heretical ideas) wrote the following attack on Johannes Kepler's idea that the moon affects the tides: Everything that has been said before and imagined by other people [concerning the origin of tides] is in my opinion complete nonsense. Among authorities who have theorized about the remarkable set of phenomena, I am most shocked by Kepler. He was a man of exceptional genius, he was sharp, he had a grasp of terrestrial movement, but he went on to take the bit between his teeth and get interested in a supposed action of the moon on water, and other "paranormal" phenomena Ñ a lot of childish nonsense.17 Perhaps, without being aware of it, science has narrowed its field of vision and enlarged the holes of its net. Of course, the quest to understand reality can never be completed. Some information will always be lacking; some ambiguity will always remain. Although there may be many brilliant insights, a total explanation is not and cannot be the goal. Rather, we try to unfold a bit more, expand our vision, and extend our understanding. Perhaps we can create nets with a finer mesh so that fewer fish escape our notice Ñ including that slippery one Eddington mentions, consciousness. The main aim of this book, we might say, is to cast a finer net. Copyright 1990, 1994 - Norman Friedman
© Copyright 1995 Waking World and Telegenics Internet Services
