ON BEING AND CREATION
By Vincent E. Giuliano
"I searched for God and found only myself. I searched for myself and found only God." Hafiz, 14th-century Persian mystic and poet.
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." Albert Einstein
“I am not what happened to me, I am what I choose to become.” Carl G. Jung
"The known is finite, the unknown infinite;
intellectually we stand on an islet in the midst of an illimitable ocean of
inexplicability. Our business in every generation is to reclaim a little more
land, --" Thomas Huxley
Copyright 1990, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2016, 2017, 2019 by Vincent E. Giuliano – all rights reserved
Note Dec 2019: Significant extensions to the
discussions in this treatise written in 2017, 2018 and 2019 can be found in
postings in the Being
and Creation Blog
Note Dec 2019: Significant extensions to the discussions in this treatise written in 2017, 2018 and 2019 can be found in postings in the Being and Creation Blog
This is probably the most important of the over-800 publications I have generated in my lifetime. It is important because of its scientific and philosophical implications and because it suggests a very powerful approach available to everybody for creating the realities in which they wish to live.
I noticed that I was somehow creating my own realities back in the early1960s and started making paper notes to that effect then. Later, because of my scientific training, I started inquiring more deeply about the mechanisms involved in personal reality creation. It appeared that the models for explaining quantum phenomena apply equally to personal reality creation. I made extensive notes about the subject for my own use in the mid-1980s. Desiring to share these insights, I wrote the first complete draft of this treatise in August 1990. And I have re-written and expanded it numerous times since, publishing versions of it on my Writings Site since about 1994. A version published in 2008 includes a dialog with Jim Seltzer which is preserved here. I have included new discussion sections on the limits of understanding and three central interpretations of quantum physics that apply equally to reality creation. Recent-year additions include new Sections IX and X on the physical basis for reality creation including Cramer’s transactional interpretation of quantum physics, and the Penrose-Hameroff hypothesis of a quantum physical basis for reality creation. The latest Versions of 2016 and January 2017 include numerous clarifications and additions.
This treatise spans three domains: personal and traditional philosophy, science, particularly that applicable to quantum phenomena, and a how-to approach for reality creation. It should be readable by educated people with general backgrounds. Some of the scientific explanations are rather technical and provide additional depth for those who can read them. A Chapter Guide identifies these.
This treatise is a summary of my personal philosophy and beliefs regarding the universe and its origins, creation, science, my purpose in life, and the game of life. I put forth a model for the creation of realities that goes beyond planning and acting. I relate this Macroscopic Reality Creation model(MRC) to well-established models for creation at the quantum scale, and argue that the quantum models and mine are virtually identical. I show how the model for reality creation I lay out here conforms to at least three major approaches to interpreting quantum phenomena. I suggest how an individual can practically generate creations using this model and describe a number of examples from my life.
Many of the ideas here can be found in the philosophies of contemporary science, in existing religious traditions, and in traditional mystical and New-Age philosophies. The particular synthesis here is my own.
The framework of MRC is aimed at more than just understanding. It is intended to be actionable. There are ways for me to be and things for me to do to create the world I want to live in. I believe they will work for you too. So this treatise is also a practical manual for getting the results you want in life. I have explicitly lived according to this philosophy for most of my life and stand by it today, January 25, 2017. As I have delved deeper and deeper into the sciences of biology in recent years, I have been frequently reminded that this material could be important to others. This has also occurred each time I have experienced a materialization of another major reality creation.
PREAMBLE - Winners and losers in life and the difference between causation and intention-based creation.
I. OUR UNIVERSE, SCIENCE, AND CREATION - A general discussion relating to both science and philosophy that provides background for the principles of reality creation and introduces key distinctions including our universe, everything-nothing, source and creation. What is believed to be known about the creation of our universe. Why personal reality creation is no stranger than quantum physics, and that the same models of reality can be used to explain both.
II. OUR UNIVERSE, SCIENCE, AND CREATION - Delves deeper into the relationships between the philosophical underpinnings of personal reality creation and science. The extremely strange nature of reality at the fundamental level as fully acknowledged by science but unknown to most. The limits of our understanding of reality based on our perceptual capabilities which are evolved from those of our primate ancestors. Basic paradoxes and unanswered questions in science. Emergence in basic physics and cosmology of multiple universe interpretations.
III. A MODEL FOR PERSONAL CREATION OF REALITY - More key distinctions including consciousness, beings and experience records. Ordinary and extraordinary ways for determining the future. Causation vs. intention-based creation.
IV. CREATION AND UNIVERSES - About reality. Under-determination of the past, the act of creation, multiple universes and creation, introduction to macroscopic reality creation and quantum physics.
V. INTRODUCTION TO MACROSCOPIC REALITY CREATION AND QUANTUM PHYSICS - Duality, uncertainty, complementarity, non-locality, entanglement and interference as properties of quantum systems. Applicable for MRC as well. Limits and conditions of creation.
VI. SOME PERSONAL REALITY-CREATION ADVENTURES - Some stories of personal MRC from my life. Characteristics of the creation process.
VII. THE HOW-TO OF CREATION - The very simple process of creation.
VIII. PURPOSE OF LIFE AND MORALITY - Relating to my personal ethics, morality and spirituality. Winners and losers in life, about good and evil, entropy as related to good and evil, purpose of the universe, my mission in life, playing to win in life.
IX. MACROSCOPIC REALITY CREATION IN THE CRAMER TRANSACTIONAL INTERACTION INTERPRETATION - Quantum physics vs interpretation of quantum physics, and how the TI interpretation works. More technical.
X. PENROSE-HAMEROFF PHYSICAL BASIS FOR REALITY CREATION - A possible explanation for how conscious acts of creation can generate powerful quantum waves in terms of quantum biology. quantum computers in the brain with coherence states which create consciousness, central points of the PHMC model. More technical.
PREAMBLE -- WINNERS AND LOOSERS
Some people have all the luck. They naturally attract good company, lead wonderful lives, have money and friendship, and enjoy fame. Their lives seem charmed. Others attract wonderful human feelings but no wealth. Some attract money but not happiness. Others yet are accident-prone, sickness-prone, or are prone to having certain things happen to them, such as repeatedly being robbed, or betrayed by the opposite sex. Others lead the life of martyrs -- Gandhi, Martin Luther King and even Christ of Galilee -- and, sure enough, sooner or later someone assassinates them.
Borrowing a concept from modern chaos theory, people seem to be "strange attractors," able to attract to themselves experiences that confirm that they are who they believe themselves to be, experiences that confirms that the universe is in fact as they believe it to be.
Often, people who are known to those around them as being such a "strange attractor" of a certain kind of experience manage to have those experiences come to them through non-obvious means. The experiences seem to happen as a result of dumb luck or the action of unconnected strangers. A dear past friend of mine; a "bad-luck Charlie,” had a car cross over from the opposite lane to smash into his and a falling tree crushed his house. Yet, we are used to such people. We speak of "luckysonovabitches," "victims," "winners," "losers, and "bad-luck Charlies." What causes people to fall in such categories: is it dumb luck; is it the result of how they behave; or is there something more basic going on?
There is a school of belief that a human's experience of life is a direct consequence of what that human believes. Positive thinking produces positive results; negative thinking produces negative results. This belief is the premise of some new-age schools of life philosophy, has roots in philosophical thoughts going back to the most ancient of times, and is a basic postulate of many contemporary approaches to self-improvement.
Moreover, the belief that mental attitude determines experience seems to have empirical validity and be consistent with our day-to-day experience. People who have mostly positive attitudes towards life usually lead better and happier lives than those who think negatively. Yet, this belief has struck me as questionably scientific. What causes what? One could argue equally that a history of good experiences leads to a positive set of attitudes about life. Also, exactly what is "positive" and "negative" thinking? Are not "negative" thinkers just being realistic about their lives? Even if we accept that positive thinking produces positive results in life, there is a question of what the mechanisms are that make this happen. Is it that positive thinkers get better results because they do more, communicate better, are trusted more -- or is something more involved?
I suggest here that positive thinking indeed produces positive results (as does negative thinking produce negative results), and that this comes about through two sets of mechanisms:
causation - which involves the cause-and-effect mechanisms of ordinary life, and
creation based on pure intentionality - which is a process that actually operates through real and powerful means that are not understood or acknowledged in our mainstream culture. This kind of creation is the focus of this treatise.
The results of intentionality-based creation do not necessarily require doing anything! Yet, they invariably show up as having come about through causation, a chain of events that caused an intention to become manifest in the world. When an authentic intention is generated, it may seem like it would take miracles for the creation to come into reality. After the intended-creation becomes real in the world, it is usually possible to identify a clear chain of events that caused it.
I believe that those people who experience success in life -- and I define this as leading the lives they consciously choose to lead -- do so through creation as well as causation. This treatise is concerned with laying out a model of how creation happens, showing how this model is completely consistent with science and our ordinary experiences, and saying how to do it. I relate a few stories of how I have created situations in my life leading to the “me” that has generated this treatise.
I. OUR UNIVERSE, SCIENCE, AND CREATION
I start this document by introducing certain important distinctions like Our Universe, Everything-Nothing,Source, and Creation. These distinctions are further clarified and refined in later parts of the document.
A. OUR UNIVERSE
Our Universe is the domain of ordinary observable reality, described by our traditional sciences but excluding what goes on at the quantum scale. Things in the Universe can be characterized, measured, and described, and these characterizations, measurements, and descriptions are "objective" in the sense that they can be repeated and fit in more or less coherent scientific frameworks.
Space, time, energy, the traditional laws of physics, chemistry and biology, the stars, stones, snakes and atoms -- all are part of Our Universe. Doings, actions and processes all take place in the space-time of Our Universe. Energy, matter and forces exist there. Beginnings and endings mark boundaries in Our Universe. I sometimes here refer to Our Universe simply as the universe.
Our Universe appears to be governed by the laws of science, although we know that at any given time the laws we believe to be true are approximations to more refined and powerful laws yet to be discovered. Assertions about the universe are verifiable through the scientific method, e.g., hypothesis formulation and experimental validation.
I assert that there is a domain of all possibilities for things that could exist - objects, processes, abstractions and what-have-you. This domain is not in Our Universe as a physical entity, nor in any other particular Universe. It is non-observable, outside of space and time, everywhere and nowhere, always and never. I call this domain of possibilities Everything-Nothing (EN).
There are neither space, time, energy, matter nor forces in EN as we know them, though all of these things exist there in every possible configuration. Nothing is differentiated in EN; it contains no things (as well as all things in potentiality). EN is a domain of pure and unbounded possibility, of all things conceivable, things conceivably conceivable, and things inconceivable. You can think of EN as being a database of incredible dimensionality. Like the number One, this domain exists as a mathematical abstraction. As such, it is not in itself observable.
Because EN, like all mathematical abstractions, is outside of Our Universe. Assertions about it cannot be validated or invalidated through the scientific method. We all know what the number One is, but we cannot point to it, hold, hide, squeeze, stretch, measure, heat or freeze it. We can't point to all instances of it. Its existence is a matter of definition and declaration.
A concept similar to EN exists in physics. There is no thing such as a physical nothing. Empty space, a vacuum, is filled with bound quarks and antiquarks, gluons and anti-gluons which are constantly separating and re-fusing together. Nothingness is a sea of possibilities.
I declare that, like the number One, EN exists as a useful abstraction, one that gives understanding and that can assist in providing a framework for action. Later, I will develop the notion that EN can be expanded into an infinity of possible parallel universes, each of which contains a different mix of what is and what isn't.
I declare that there is some organized *will* or *being* or set of *principles of organization* capable of manifesting the existence of things, processes or conditions in at least one physical Universe (ours) out of EN. It accomplishes this manifestation through systematic setting and modifications of possibilities and probabilities for processes, things and events. I call this will or being or set of principles (he/she/it/I/thou/we) by the name Source. Source is not the laws of nature; those laws are arbitrary, sourced by something else, that something being Source.
JS: Source is a manifold which contains all possible sets of laws.
VG: Not quite my intended definition. EN can admit all possible sets of laws. Source is defined in the first sentence of the above paragraph and the sentence directly following this comment.
Source consists of the generating principles according to which Our Universe and all things in it are created and constantly being recreated or uncreated. Source produces the intentionality behind all the probability distributions that limit and channel the possibilities inherent in the EN flux so as to create what is in Our Universe.
Source's actions in manifesting reality in Our Universe have resulted in a stable Universe of great complexity, governed by laws which ultimately reflect a carefully contrived and balanced web of probabilities for what can exist, when and how. If there are other universes they could have different Sources and physical laws
JS: One of infinite possibilities in EN?
VG: Right. Given that what exists or even existence as we know it is only one of the infinite possibilities in EN. Principles of organization or design leading to the particular possibilities on Our Universe must exist. I call these principles Source.
Source's actions reflect design, organization, intentionality and planning of the very highest order, for we know from our sciences that just slight alteration of countless physical constants in the Universe and relating to our planet would make life or existence as we know it unfeasible. In this sense, I assert that there is evidence in the observable Universe of the existence of Source. Given our universe as an outcome, there must be Source.
JS: This does not follow since it implies purpose or intent, something akin to the teleological argument.
VG: It may appear that my argument for the existence of Source is a version of the ancient Argument From Design used to prove the existence of God. There are important differences however. The usual steps of the Argument From Design are 1. The properties of the universe and the conditions allowing the support of life are so complex and fine-tuned that the probability of these arising through pure randomness is zero. 2. Since these properties and conditions could not arise randomly they must reflect design, very sophisticated design. 3. Given the existence of design there must be a designer; call that designer God. 4. This God is the same as Jehovah of the Old Testament; a study of the scriptures and Book of Revelation and ancient wisdom establishes that.
My argument for the existence of Source starts out with the same 1. The properties of the universe and the conditions allowing the support of life are so complex and fine-tuned that the probability of these arising through pure randomness is zero. (Note that if there is an infinite set of conditions and physical parameters that do not support life, then the probability of random occurrence of the particular existing set of conditions and parameters is zero, the reciprocal of infinity. This point is refined in a later comment.) The subsequent steps of argument are different however: 2. For the universe we know to exist, there must have been and must continue to be principles of organization at work to allow this situation of zero or near-zero a-priori probability to emerge and continue to exist. I call these principles Source. I do not try to anthropomorphize Source by talking about a “designer” nor do I try and build a link with any existing religion.
It is fashionable for thinkers to ignore this argument for our existence and to argue instead that no matter how extremely unlikely Our Universe with its life-sustaining properties may be, it is the one universe we have - so we might as well accept that fact that we were somehow the result of a rare lucky throw of the dice. I don’t buy this because I think the chance of this is much less than that of winning the grand-slam prize in the state lottery every day in a row for 10 years in a row. Yes, possible. But I won’t bet my philosophy on it.
We can discover and know in the domain of science, but we shall never know all science, that is, everything about the universe, for it is constantly being created and uncreated. Science is of the Universe. To the extent we can discover and know Source, we might be able to know more about the source of science.
While there is no time before the Big Bang in the sense of time as we understand it, Source is prior to it, or, perhaps more accurately stated, outside of it, prior in the sense of being more basic. Source exists outside of time and space and has access to the past of the universe as well as its future. Source is what gave shape to the Big Bang and all the events that followed it, to the Universe we know today and all life in it. This Source is Source to Our Universe and possibly to others as well. And there may be other Sources to other Universes. These are not knowable matters using the tools of science which are the tools for studying this universe.
JS: If not knowable by perception, knowable at all?
VG: Yes, I think so, at least in terms of our being able to build a model of its operation as I start doing here.
Because these statements are not verifiable using the tools of science they belong to the domain of philosophy, not science, and cannot be proven by rigorous experiment or observation.
JS: Bertrand Russell: “Whatever knowledge is attainable, must be attained by scientific methods; and what science cannot discover, mankind cannot know.”
Wittgenstein: “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent"
VG: Right about what these guys would say. I know that having been a strong logical positivist in my early university years. However, many major advancements of science were not discovered by the Scientific Method. They were first formulated as abstract theories that did not violate known observations and only later were validated by experiment, often only partially. I am talking about relativity theory, quantum chromodynamics, string and brane theory. Many postulated phenomena have never been the object of observation, like dark matter, dark energy and the Higgs Boson until very recently.
Since Source, as I describe he/she/it/I/thou/we, exists outside of time, space and ordinary experience as we know it, there are no good words to describe either Source or its relationship to the universe. "*Creator*" and “*God*” are traditional words that encompass a central aspect of Source but they carry many other irrelevant cultural and religious connotations and imperatives. I also speak of Source as possessing consciousness of some kind. That is, it's results are of the kind we would expect from exercise of great intentionality. This is not to say that Source plans, designs or thinks as we do or is intentional in ways we can fathom.
The total consciousness of Source may or may not resemble our own, but I later argue it subsumes our own individual consciousnesses. Being also outside of our Universe, Source is not subject to proof, discovery or validation using the scientific method. His/her's/it's/my/your/our existence is also a matter of declaration. The evidence for the existence of Source I cite here is not proof.
Was Source purposeful in creating Our Universe and everything in it? This question is of course in the domain of philosophy. Purposefulness like intent are human anthropomorphic concepts and may be inadequate as they stand. But going with the question for the moment, I would first comment that happenings, processes and development require time and space which are properties of Our Universe. According to the General Theory of Relatively, matter, time, space and processes started with the Big Bang that created Our Universe. And it is meaningless to discuss these entities separate from one another. Time and space are the playgrounds for process and change. Time us a feature of the universe that allows processes; it stops everything from happening at once. Try to envisage a football game or soccer game without time, No time or space, no game of the universe and no game of life. And we know from Relativity Theory that time is relative and is different for different observers.
So nothing can really happen in EN though virtually everything happens there. In simplistic terms then, the purpose of the Universe is to provide a container, a framework, in which things can happen or as philosophers say, become manifest.
I assert that *Creation* is a process of altering or fixing the probabilities relating to space, time and matter, so as to alter the course of our Universe, that is, to cause things, processes, events to come into manifest being or go out of manifest being.
JS: Wave function collapse?
VG: Yes, related to that but I prefer not to use that particular terminology. An excellent guess at where I am going here! The Macroscopic Reality Creation theory proposed here is discussed mainly in the conceptual framework of the Parallel Universes Interpretation of quantum mechanics. The idea of a wave function collapse is found in the so-called Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics. I discuss this point later and in a final section added to this document in 1988, I show how Macroscopic Reality Creation can be formulated in the framework of a third interpretation of quantum mechanics, known as the Transactional Interaction Interpretation. Since I believe Macroscopic Reality Creation is a scaled-up version of well-established quantum-level reality creation, I would bet that this theory could be explained using any interpretational framework that explains quantum mechanics.
Creation thus refers to the relationship between Source and matter and energy in our Universe. We know the results of creation; we see it happening. Altering probabilities relating to space, time and matter is not itself a physical process subject to or explainable by the laws of our universe. In fact, I contend the laws of the universe are the results of the alteration of probabilities.
It is meaningless to speak of creation of EN or creation of Source; both are prior to the Universe.
JS: Outside of the Universe?
VG: Yes, although reflected in Our Universe. And being outside of Our Universe they are also prior to and subsequent to any time-based event, if that makes any sense.
In classical quantum physics we talk about an Operator operating on a Wave Function to produce an Observable Result (such as the position of a particle). The analogy is this: Source operates on EN to produce our Universe. There are many different quantum operators and each produces its own characteristic observable results when applied (like operators for momentum, spin or energy of a particle). In the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum physics, the position of an elementary particle associated with a wave function does not exist until the moment that operator is applied, that is, a measurement of position of the particle is made. It is unknowable beforehand. Up to that point the position of the particle does not exist; its position is just a probability distribution. Later I argue that as part of Source, when a human creates a clear belief, that belief operates on EN to shift the reality context that human lives in. That shifted reality context does not exist until there is the belief even though that reality context may be viewed by us as having originated in the past. This will all become clearer as we proceed.
JS: Until there is the observation? Was there a “reality context” before there was a human, that is, before there was a belief?
VG: There was some kind of reality context all along reflecting what had been created up to that point. Later in this document I argue that the reality context consists of a manifold of highly-similar parallel universes. This reality context was the result of Source, whatever form it had, operating on EN.
JS: Is your Schrödinger’s cat still neither dead nor alive if someone peaks into the box but doesn’t tell you what he sees?
VG: A good question about that cat that exists apart from this discussion. Perhaps this is the most discussed cat in science!. I prefer the parallel universes interpretation which says the cat was alive in some universes, dead in others and when somebody tells me what he saw when he peeked (say the cat is alive) I get switches into the sub-manifold of universes where the cat is alive. That reality is then created. As discussed later, it is the same thing that happens when I make an unbounded declaration of what’s so as part of macroscopic reality creation.
JS: Is a “reality context” a personal thing, or can it belong to an entire society or even be a universal attribute of the physical universe?
VG: Parallel universes are again the best way to look at this question though it can also be done in terms of wave functions. A reality context can be any of these you mention, each corresponding to a sub-manifold of existing universes.
What happens to a human being may of course be determined by more than consciously-formulated beliefs of that being. A person may die of smallpox although they never recognized the distinction “smallpox.” A person may believe in an antibiotic and still not be cured by it. Christian Scientists die of diseases despite their beliefs. So, a shift in reality context may affect the probability of an outcome but by no means guarantees an outcome.
I return to the distinctions of Universe and Creation in more detail in Section III of this document below.
E. CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE
The beginning applies to the Universe; not to EN nor to Source since they do not exist in time, and since we know now that time, space and matter require each other for existence. According to the latest view of the Big Bang, in the beginning some 13.8 million years ago, a bubble of improbability burst out of nothing, in a way that led to creation of space, matter, time and all we know. Physicists and Cosmologists believe that this process is fairly well understood after the first ten to the minus fortieth of a second (that is, the fraction of a second represented by a decimal point followed by thirty-nine zeros and then a one). Before that there were no familiar laws of physics and we don’t know what happened. The key thing is that the different laws of physics and science we know today came into play at successive times in the process, as the universe cooled and expanded, starting as a point of intense temperature and containing all energy and matter in the universe today. Life on earth started some 5.3 million years ago. History has been one of emergence of ever-greater complexity, new laws, new relationships. The process continues today with human evolution, for example, happening faster than ever before.
In the process, there were countless branches, starting out from EN, differentiating what could-have-been from what became. The vast and overwhelming majority of possibilities associated with the high-order infinity of such branches would have led to a universe or conditions that are not life-sustaining. In fact, the odds were stacked overwhelmingly against us getting the Universe we know today, which is stable and life-sustaining, at least right now right here. The probability this could just happen starting with EN? It is unbelievably close to zero. Imagine that among all the grains of sand in the world there is one and only one grain somewhere mixed in with all the others that is microscopically labeled "life-sustaining." Now imagine that you picked out some beach at random, went there, say a beach in Arusha Tanxania. Then you dug around in the sand and selected a single grain of sand at random. And it turned out to be that particular grain of sand! The only grain in the world labled "life sustaining." The probability of this happening is very very small, but still vastly bigger than the probability of us getting a life-sustaining universe out of chaos without a principle such as Source.
JS: How can one speak of probabilities in an infinite probability space? EN contains all possible events. Certainly an infinite number of stable solutions are contained in EN not merely the one that was realized in our universe. Further, there must exist in EN an infinite number of identical representations of our universe. I find it impossible to talk about drawing a red ball from an urn containing an infinite number of balls of various colors each with an infinite representation in the urn. It seems to me that you are back to a teleological argument.
VG; Yes to your comments. This discussion shortcuts many complexities though I think it is basically correct. As you may know there is an infinity of different orders of infinities (aleph0, aleph1, aleph2, etc.) and you cannot map a lower-order infinity into a higher-order one. Now EN must allow an infinity of infinite rank of configurations (corresponding to functions of functions of functions, etc. indefinitely). What is the rank of the infinity of universes corresponding to a life-supporting universe like we have? I don’t know how to start to think about this but my intuition says it must be less.
JS: Further thoughts: If time and space are quantized, then is not the set of all space-time configurations denumerable (comprised of discrete points in probability space, therefore isomorphic to the set of natural numbers)?
"The Planck time is the time it would take a photon traveling at the speed of light to across a distance equal to the Planck length. This is the 'quantum of time', the smallest measurement of time that has any meaning, and is equal to 10-43 seconds."
If every possible universe in the EN manifold is so constituted (i.e., quantized space-time) then the cardinality of EN is aleph-nul. Similarly, the "stable and life-sustaining" set also has cardinality aleph-nul. EN is then isomorphic to the set of "stable and life-sustaining" universes.
Hence, the probability of drawing a "stable and life-sustaining" universe from the EN urn is undefined, but success of such a draw cannot be classified as "improbable."
On the other hand, one could argue that EN is comprised of both quantized and un-quantized space-time configurations (therefore has a higher cardinality in probability space). To do so, however, is similar to arguing that whatever universe can be conceived to exist must have a representation in the EN probability space. This is not unlike the ontological argument posited by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Anselm, to prove the existence of God.
VG: Yes. Your point is that there is an aleph-nul set of universes that satisfy our good-old-physics laws given discretely quantized space-time, and I don't argue that point at the moment. However, if we allow schemes of quantization corresponding to functions of basic quanta, functions of functions, etc., we can up the cardinality of the entire set of quantized universes beyond aleph-null to whatever we want even without the existence of non-quantized space-time configurations. Ex-definito as a purely mathematical construct, EN has all those "universes" and more.
Moreover, I doubt the idea of quantization and denumerability of the features of our universe. Once we get down near the Planck lengths, units of space and time get fuzzy and jittery. It becomes impossible to slice them up in a grid that makes sense.
And I don't underestimate the immense neuronal power that has gone into trying to prove the existence of God. Many steps of most of the ontological arguments I have seen for the existence of God smell to me strongly of hopeful bullshit. When the good ArchBishop declares "Unless I first believe, I shall not understand" he is asserting the antithesis of logical positivism. But what he is asserting is at the heart of all views of quantum theory, relativity theory, string and brane theory - and at the heart of the framework I am proposing. The positron and neutrino are among many particles that were long believed-in before they were seen. They were only seen because somebody believed in them enough to keep looking for them. Dirac postulated the existence of the positron based on a number of wave-function and relativistic abstractions including the existence of a quantum-sea model of physical reality - unobserved abstractions based on other abstractions based on others yet. By the time the positron was observed experimentally in 1932, it was already well believed-in. Just like dark-matter and dark-energy are believed in today though never directly observed. And now legions of physicists are spending billions of dollars looking for the Higgs particle which they believe in but have not yet seen. (No longer true as of 6/2016; it has finally been seen, very long after it was believed in.) I think the Archbishop was our kind of guy. If he were alive today and knew some physics he could well be participating in this conversation, perhaps running intellectual circles around me. Dirac once said something like "If you have a really beautiful theory but it seems to be incompatible with what is observed in the universe, don't worry, the universe will come around."
JS: Just a rambling thought...
VG: But a damn good and provocative one!
In an earlier draft of this treatise, I used the name "God" instead of "Source," since God for me is Source as I describe it here. I prefer using "Source" since it is relatively free of the enormous amount of meaning baggage carried by "God." Occasionally I do refer to God, however, and when I do I mean Source. My argument for existence of Source can be recognized as similar to the current “fine-tuning” variant of the “Argument from Design” has been long used to “prove” the existence of God. By allowing that Source may consist of principles of organization that produce results we would normally ascribe to intentionality, I hope to strip away many of the theistic attributes normally ascribed to God. Again, unlike the case for God, we know what Source does, not what Source is. Of what is attributed to God in our mainline religions, almost all of that is extraneous to the concept of Source laid out here. Source is a highly-distilled contemporary version of God compatible with science and freed of the immense baggage of any institutionalized religion.
JS: I recall Joseph Campbell’s retelling of the Upanishads story about the conceit of the god Indra:
The beautiful blue boy says to Indra, "Indras before you. I have seen them come and go, come and go. Just think, Vishnu sleeps in the cosmic ocean, and the lotus of the universe grows from his navel. On the lotus sits Brahma, the creator. Brahma opens his eyes, and a world comes into being, governed by an Indra. Brahma closes his eyes, and a world goes out of being. The life of a Brahma is 432,000 years. When he dies, the lotus goes back, and another lotus is formed, and another Brahma. Then think of the galaxies beyond galaxies in infinite space, each a lotus, with a Brahma sitting on it, opening his eyes, closing his eyes. And Indras? There may be wise men in your court who would volunteer to count the drops of water in the oceans or the grains of sand on the beaches, but no one would count those Brahmin, let alone those Indras."
VG: A beautiful analog! And each of us is Brahma-like.
This is similar to the current Multiverse concept where we are in only one of a possibly infinite number of universes which are given birth to by big bangs.
II. SCIENCE AND THE EDGE OF CREATION
Science consists of the principles according to which our universe (including the playing field we know) is organized. Science consists of approximate rules of the game of existence in the Universe. Each rule is valid only within limits; each describes only some aspects of what is. There are probably an infinite number of such rules; we as people can at best only keep learning more and more of them and refining the ones we already have. Moreover, what there is in the universe that the rules describe is itself undergoing constant creation. As the universe cooled there was a time when there only was only a super-hot quark-gluon soup. The rules of nuclear physics were not implemented yet. They did not exist. Somewhat later, there were atomic nuclei but no molecules. No rules of chemistry were working or discernable at that time. Later there were primitive molecules, but no viruses or microbes yet. No rules of biology or microbiology were working at that time. It is likely that phenomena in the universe requiring brand new rules of science are emerging right now. It seems like I keep coming across such in biology.
JS: Hmm… interesting thought! Is this a parallel to Bergson’s creative evolution but extended beyond life to the entire physical universe?
VG: Well said. That is indeed what I intend to say.
For me, learning about science is very useful for understanding:
· the limits and inconsistencies of scientific knowledge,
· the incompatibility of science carried to the very-big or very-small with everyday experience,
· explanations of quantum reality given by quantum physicists that are about the relationship of Everything-Nothing to the physical universe,
· how our Source role in creating the reality we have is in fact completely consistent with our understanding of science, because essentially the same explanations are required to reconcile quantum paradoxes, and
· possibilities that science leaves open or even suggests for us as human beings.
The philosophy espoused here is not provable; it just is. You can’t prove it any more than you can prove a potato. Like a potato, though, you can derive sustenance from it. Although not provable, what I have described is remarkably akin to current scientific thinking about the known frontiers of the Universe, about the quantum boundaries where creation of the physical world took place and is still taking place.
These understandings relate to what happened at the time of origination of the Universe, and to the physics of very high energies and subatomic particles. The fields of science involved are respectively Cosmology (in particular, how the Big Bang happened), Quantum Physics and Relativity Theory. And, for those with the necessary mathematical skills and backgrounds in physics, today there are String Theories and Brane Theories which are attempts at a unified theory of everything. Several excellent books have been written on these subjects for laypeople, incidentally. Here are some of the things those bodies of science tell us:
· The process of creation during the first second of existence of the Universe is fairly well agreed-upon -- that is back to the first ten to the minus forty three parts of a second (e.g. 10(-43), a fraction of a second described by a decimal point followed by forty two zeroes and then a one), at which time the entire Universe was a ball of undifferentiated energy having a temperature of ten to the 32nd power Kelvin (e.g. the number of degrees is a number consisting of a one followed by thirty two zeroes before the decimal point). The Universe at that time was 10(-50 power) centimeters across, infinitesimal compared to the size of the smallest subatomic particle that exists today. The Universe was very rapidly expanding then, but not into empty space around it. That tiny bundle contained all the mass and energy in the Universe today -- in the form of radiation since matter did not then exist. The only space that existed then (or that exists now) was space contained in the Universe itself.
· We do not know what happened prior to that time, except that there was one universal "superforce" at work, that everything was the same as everything else, e.g. everything was symmetric, and none of the laws of physics we know today were operable. The laws of physics that make the universe we know work were inoperable; they did not exist. That is, the "strong" and "weak" forces that bind subatomic particles together and the electromagnetic force on which all chemistry is based came into play only as the universe expanded and cooled. It is fairly well agreed that Gravity separated out from the superforce at the first 10(-43) of a second. The Strong Force separated out at 10(-35) second, the Weak Force at 10(-10) second, and the Electromagnetic Force at 10(-4) second.
· The Universe thus came into being through successive breaking of the symmetries inherent in the superforce flux. The entire Universe as we know it seems to have emerged as a quantum fluctuation in pure nothingness; both time and space came into being along with the matter in the Universe. Unless you buy the Multiverse concept, there was no empty space or time beforehand. That’s how it looks from the framework of classical cosmology.
JS: Not in the sense that these can be tracked by us beyond the singularity. Yet some hypothesize a time before time and a space before space embedded in a cycle of collapse and expansion – an accordion universe.
VG: Yes. The Multiverse concept. Brane theory and some of the string theories admit the time-before-time possibility, way beyond what logical positivism allows us to contemplate. This brings us back away from the Genesis story to the Vedic story of Brahma you summarize above. In Vedic Indian culture, the lord Shiva presides over the the Tandava, the dance in which the universe is created, maintained, and destroyed in cycles. By the way, my science fiction story Supercollider deals with this theme.
In terms of the creation framework I described above, the Big Bang is simply the original transition from pure possibility, e.g. Everything-Nothing, to the something that that has continued to evolve into the something else that exists now. My framework addresses two major questions that arise in contemplating the Big Bang scenario:
· First, why did the Universe blink into existence in the first place? Note that science tells us that it makes no sense to ask what came before it or what caused it in a time-process sense, since there was no time until it blinked into existence. I come back to a speculation on this “why” question a bit later.
· Second, what if anything guided the process of differentiation and creation of the laws that make the Universe we know feasible? Perhaps nothing. Perhaps what we have is just luck, the result of a random probabilistic process. However, just slightly alter any of the billions of billions of billions of choices that ball of energy made in cooling down -- choices that translate into initial conditions, physical constants and physical laws as we know them -- and the very fabric of our existence would turn into unfeasible moosh. So that is why I postulate Source as having something like intentionality.
JS: Again, the mind balks at this: probabilities defined in a transfinite probability space with no time grain setting limits on number of tries.
VG: Yes, my mind boggles for sure. And some argue that since we are here we must have been the result of that one lucky roll of the cosmic dice, no matter how improbable that roll was. Note that I do not claim to prove that Source has intentionality. Rather, I define and postulate Source as focused intentionality because the existence of this distinction facilitates this framework for understanding the process of creation.
The physics of the very-small or the very-energetic requires rejection of the idea of objective reality as we usually know it. The founders of quantum physics thought there had to be a cozy and highly intertwined relationship between observed physical reality and the state of the observer of that reality. This relationship has been the subject of much thought and inquiry examining the underpinnings of both quantum and relativistic physics, the underpinnings of all contemporary theories of basic physical reality. Some theorists claim that, for the very small or very fast, reality only comes into existence when it is observed. Others say that reality jumps instantly from one state to another when observed. Others say that there is a constantly unfolding infinite manifold of parallel universes, and that each time we make an observation or a choice, we shunt ourselves from one such universe to another. Others yet hold that there indeed can be descriptions where the observer is not necessary for creation of reality. I keep coming back to these issues throughout this treatist.
JS: Once again, does it matter who does the observing? What if I leave my unattended camera to record the slot the photon passes through, but I never check my camera?
VG: These questions have been on the mind of quantum-theoreticians since the 1920s. I prefer the parallel universes approach to explanation. I have added more discussion on this topic below. In this framework if you never check your camera then your universe manifold contains universes where the photon went through the slot and other universes where the photon did not go through the slot.
A governing principle of the Universe is that matter and energy and all the laws governing them - be they of physics, chemistry biology and I believe sociology - behave so as to support the evolution of higher and higher forms of life and consciousness. This is clearly seen in the very large number of choices made in physics and chemistry to elect options that are life-supporting. It can be seen in many aspects of biological evolution. Recent thinking about transposable DNA elements suggests that evolution works to protect a species rather than an individual, to see to the enhancement of survivability of species, and if necessary for species themselves to evolve to related species which have better survivability. This is also possibly true for social behavior and the co-evolution of social and biological systems.
A. THE LIMITS OF UNDERSTANDING
While we have a capability to create reality through intentionality, our ability to understand the process of creation or to understand what we create is seriously limited. The whole idea of understanding properly belongs in the domain of science which applies to realities in the universe as we may know them. Creation, defined here as intentionality operating of Everything-Nothing, is in the domain of possibilities, a domain which includes all the scientific rules of nature as we know them, and also includes a high-infinity of alternate rules that might apply in alternative universes somewhere. However, the limitations of our brains and frameworks of reference may prevent us from ever truly understanding even this universe, let alone the process of creation.
We know now that our senses can directly allow us to observe only a tiny subset of reality - a subset related to evolutionary survival. We tend to trust our senses for what is real. - Our ability to understand what exists is limited by our evolutionary history which gave us sensory and processing tools for living in the very particular subsets of this particular universe in which we exist.
Our models of what exists are delimited by the capabilities of our species. From a very early age we explore and sense our environment so as to build up an actionable model of what is real. I see this today in my 4-month old and 15 month-old grandchildren. This leads to our common-sense views of what I call here “ordinary reality,’’ a 3-dimensional world with a 1-way dimension of time in which cause-and-effect works. This is highly species specific and the models of “understanding” built are to preserve the survivability of members of the species . Bees see the world through different frequency spectra than we use and with very different coordinates. Caterpillars probably cannot grasp Euclidian geometry but function fine in the topology of branches, twigs and leaves. Bugs that skitter on the surface of water need mainly to master 2d geometry. And as far as their individual consciousness’s are concerned, nothing in this thesis makes sense to mice.
But what if our commonsense understanding is too limited to allow us to understand what is really out there in nature, as I believe is the case? What if the time and space we experience are survival-assisting illusions? What if remotely related objects are the same thing, if matter is mostly empty space, if empty space is far from empty, if there are multiple uiverses, etc.? We would have great difficulty understanding such a world but the problem would be in our limits, not in what exists. That is why even some of the founders of quantum mechanics including Einstein didn’t believe in it.
Until about the 16th century, our distinctions of what existed were based on what we could directly observe with our senses. Then came the telescope, the microscope and a progression of other instruments that led to scientific advances. We developed increasingly more sophisticated electromagnetic, mechanical and optical technologies that continued to expand our senses and range of distinctions. Important distinctions emerged that were unthinkable in medieval times. Distinctions emerged related to bacteria and viruses, a spherical earth, other heavenly bodies, electromagnetic waves, and eventually with the emergence of quantum and relativity theory distinctions related to the nature of reality itself, galaxies and the nature of the universe. In biology we have powerful distinctions related to DNA, to genetics and to epigenetics and molecular biology. And the understanding has led to practical applications in areas of public health, electronics and communications and atomic energy.
All of these are based on distinctions that did not and could not exist in earlier eras. We could not talk about what we had no words for and was not in any way known to exist. And if someone did suggest a distinction about nature that violated the religious code, that person could be boiled in oil or burned at the stake.
Starting over 100 years ago with the first initial unsuccessful attempts to reconcile relativity theory and quantum theory, the number of inconsistencies and paradoxes in basic physics and cosmology has grown. Today, at the edges of the very small and the very large, science and our tools of thinking don’t work well and our best science consists of a set of glued-on patches which don’t necessarily fit together. Everything is local to a region of the universe, yet there is basic non-locality. Nothing travels faster than the speed of light, yet doing something to a particle instantly sets the state of a quantum-correlated particle far across the universe. Check out the EPR paradox. Schrödinger's cat is dead and alive at the same time. From the viewpoint of an outside observer, a capsule with a human in it falling into a black hole is rendered into pure energy when the event horizon is crossed. Yet, from the viewpoint of the person in the capsule, nothing particularly happens when the event horizon is crossed. “Light emitted from beyond the horizon can never reach the observer. Likewise, any object approaching the horizon from the observer's side appears to slow down and never quite pass through the horizon, with its image becoming more and more redshifted as time elapses. The traveling object, however, experiences no strange effects and does, in fact, pass through the horizon in a finite amount of proper time.(ref)”
Dark matter is an invented never-observed patch substance. “In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is matter that is inferred to exist from gravitational effects on visible matter and gravitational lensing of background radiation(ref).” But the dark matter patch was insufficient. To explain why the universe was expanding at an accelerating rate, it was convenient to go further and invent the dark energy patch. We confronted a situation where our favorite theories told us that for the universe to be expanding as it is, there had to be about 4 times more matter in the universe than we could see or infer based on observation. The patch was simple: declare that such matter exists and call it dark energy. “In physical cosmology, astronomy and celestial mechanics, dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and tends to increase the rate of expansion of the universe.[ref]
Dark energy is the most accepted theory to explain recent observations that the universe appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate. In the standard model of cosmology, dark energy currently accounts for 73% of the total mass-energy of the universe.[ref]” Again, the conventional wisdom is that dark energy has never been observed. Initially, it was an intellectual patch made up to explain a major discrepancy. Recently, a relatively a good explanation for dark energy emerged, one that suggests why we have in fact already observed it. Dark energy is now thought to be the quantum energy of empty space, that of particles boiling in and out of existence, self-annihilating before they can be observed. Possibly Higgs condensate and quark-antiquark condensates. Empty space is filled with bound quarks and antiquarks, which are constantly separating and re-fusing together. We have evidence for that happening. According to this hypothesis, dark energy is the Everything part of Nothing. Yet, this quantum energy hypothesis is only one of several on the table right now.
The dark energy and dark matter patches remind me of phlogiston theory, a science patch invented before the development of chemistry in 1667 to explain fire. “The theory holds that all combustible resources contain phlogiston, a substance without colour, odour, taste, or mass that is liberated in burning(ref).” The centuries-long snark hunt to find phlogiston led nowhere and the existing snark hunts devoted to finding dark matter and dark energy might well end up in the same place. Large amounts of intellectual and physical energy being devoted to finding these substances seem often to result in less rather than more agreement(ref).
The sudden super-inflation of the universe postulated to have happened just after the big bang is another such scientific patch. The patch jams an incredible amount of happening into an unthinkably small time frame. The super-inflation started “approximately 10 to the minus-36 seconds after the big bang.” And it ended approximately 10 to the minus 32 seconds after the big bang. “In physical cosmology, cosmic inflation, cosmological inflation or just inflation is the theorized extremely rapid exponential expansion of the early universe by a factor of at least 1078 in volume, driven by a negative-pressure vacuum energy density[ref].” And inflation theory itself has its major problems including inconsistency with the observed distribution of mass in the universe.
So, understanding is becoming a more and more difficult objective to achieve even in the domain of science as we push it to its limits. This is not surprising since understanding is something done by members of our species and our ability to do that something is limited by our neural and social systems and the ways we make distinctions. We have capability of fairly reliable differentiating between things on the ordinary-reality level. A donkey is a donkey and a turtle is a turtle and an animal cannot be both. And a donkey cannot morph into a turtle. If I am in Boston I cannot simultaneously be in Los Angeles.
So we see things in terms of categories and Aristotelian logic and this largely works in the day-to-day level. Either A is true or not A, but never both at the same time. As I have discussed, for several quantum and cosmological phenomena, it appears that this common-sense system of distinctions and logic break down. The closest approaches we have to a theoretical unification of quantum theory and relativity are the string and brane theories already mentioned. But, with their 8 to 23 dimensions and incredible mathematical complexities, these theories are counterintuitive and inscrutable to all but a small handful of physicist-mathematicians.
An ant can go about its species-specific survival tasks using a very complex biological and social system, and so can a squirrel. But neither is capable of figuring out the inner workings of the universe. And we should face the fact that the same is probably true for us humans. Like for ants and squirrels, our nervous systems, brains and technical culture evolved to assure and propel our survival and that is about it. Even some well-established “bedrock” theories of science are very shaky and not really understandable. The big bang theory is central to “standard” cosmology, but yet this theory is rife with mysteries, contradictions and paradoxes. “The universe started as a spec that was infinitely small, infinitely dense and, emerging from nothing contained everything.” “The universe started as a random quantum fluctuation in nothing when there was no time or place.” Give me a break! These come across like fantasies of a kid or a religious zealot and yet we are taking them as scientific truths. Speaking as a biped ape, albeit a literate one, I say evolution did not equip my kind really to fathom such things. See this discussion: The Unanswered Questions that Expose the Untenability of the BIG-BANG Scenario.
Some leading physicists/philosophers agree that we may never fully comprehend reality, Leonard Susskind being a good example.
B. EMERGENCE IN BASIC PHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY OF MULTIPLE UNIVERSE INTERPRETATIONS
Those concerned with fundamental physics and cosmology are increasingly embracing multiple universe viewpoints, driven to this by the fact that no other framework of explanation seems to work so well. In the first instance there were string theories which postulated a high number of dimensions and a potential for the existence of multiple alternative universes. According to Wickipedia: “The theory has its origins in the dual resonance model (1969). Since that time, the term string theory has developed to incorporate any of a group of related superstring theories. Five major string theories were formulated. The main differences among them were the number of dimensions in which the strings developed and their characteristics. All of them appeared to be correct, however. In the mid 1990s a unification of all previous superstring theories, called M-theory, was proposed, which asserted that strings are really 1-dimensional slices of a 2-dimensional membrane vibrating in 11-dimensional spacetime. -- As a result of the many properties and principles shared by these approaches (such as the holographic principle), their mutual logical consistency, and the fact that some easily include the standard model of particle physics, some mathematical physicists (i.e. Witten, Maldacena and Susskind) believe that string theory is a step towards the correct fundamental description of nature. Nevertheless, other prominent physicists (e.g. Feynman and Glashow) have criticized string theory for not providing any quantitative experimental predictions.”
Membrane theory, or simply brane theory, represented a unification of the string theories that is becoming accepted by a few that can grasp the mathematics. “In M-theory our universe and others are created by collisions between p-branes (The variable p refers to the number of spatial dimensions of the brane. That is, a 0-brane is a zero-dimensional pointlike particle, a 1-brane is a string, that can either be open or closed, a 2-brane is a "membrane", etc. Every p-brane sweeps out a (p+1)-dimensional world volume as it propagates through spacetime).in a space with 11 and 26 dimensions (the number of dimensions depends on the chirality of the observer); each universe takes the form of a D-brane . Objects in each universe are essentially confined to the D-brane of their universe, but may be able to interact with other universes via gravity, a force which is not restricted to D-branes. This is unlike the universes in the quantum multiverse, but both concepts can operate at the same time(ref).”
If trying to understand p-branes, d-branes, superstring theories or 11 or more dimensions makes you uncomfortable, welcome to our species. I doubt that anyone is really comfortable trying to grasp these intellectual structures.
So, both quantum physics and the string/membrane theory for unifying physics are explainable by the postulation of multiple parallel universes. The quantum version of multiple parallel universes is also one of the three main framework used in this treatise to explain intentionality-based reality creation. And in these frameworks, to a limited extent at least, what goes on in one universe can affect what goes on in related universes.
III. A MODEL FOR PERSONAL CREATION OF REALITY
My intent is to address the central question of what this all has to do with me or you day-to-day. The next step in the process is to clarify a few additional distinctions including consciousness, being, experience, and experience records.
A. SOME KEY DISTINCTIONS
By consciousnes, I mean that which experiences, records, and creates.
By a *being*, I mean an entity that has consciousness. We know of human beings. Human beings are manifest in time and space. They can also take actions in time and space. There may well be other beings besides humans, conceivably ones that have consciousness but that cannot or do not act in time and space as we do.
JS: Speak for yourself, Vince! You may think you are a solipsist, but you are living in MY universe!
VG: The way I look at it there is the you in my universe sub-manifold and the me in your universe sub-manifold. I am talking to the former. You are talking to the latter.
JS: How about strong AI? I suspect Alan Turing would suggest that today’s computers can not only emulate consciousness, but may even be conscious.
VG: Don’t know how to take that on. I was an early contributor to AI and had many arguments with Minsky and others over the years. Up to this point my take is that we have perhaps been successful in creating Artificial Stupidity as well as real stupidity, but not artificial intelligence.
More seriously, I think consciousness has to be interpreted much more broadly than as manifest in humans. As such, yes: plants, insects and even computers may exhibit it. Since the invention of antibiotics, many forms of bacteria have successfully evolved to become resistant to them. There has been a race where, on the one hand there are thousands of very smart scientists in laboratories with Ph.D. degrees working to make better antibiotics and on the other hand there are the evolving bacteria. And the bacteria seem to be winning the race, outsmarting the scientists. Are they collectively intelligent? Do we need to expand our definition of intelligence to include them? It seems obvious that evolution is an expression of intentionality to survive.
Experience is a primitive in this discussion; it is that which a being experiences in the ordinary sense of meaning. Human beings experience experiences as a function of time. As time progresses, a human has more experiences of the universe.
About experience records
By the experience record of a human being at a particular time, I mean to includes everything that has happened to or impacted on that being up to that time that he or she is conscious of or capable of being conscious of. Included in the experience record is all knowledge, physical consequences, perceptions, intuitions, emotions, thoughts and beliefs that human has had, whether consciously recollected at a given moment or not. The experience record of an individual is the sum total of impact the universe has had on the consciousness of that individual. If your mother is dead or you have lost a finger it is part of your experience record. If you think your brother-in-law is a lazy fool, that is part of your experience record. If you think that Joseph Stalin was a brutal dictator, that is part of your experience record. If you think the city of Chicago exists that is part of your experience record. If you believe in the magic of snakes, that too is part of your experience record.
JS: Does my experience record include my remote ancestor’s (perhaps a bacteria) experiences that were incorporated in its DNA and passed on to me?
VG: Your experience record incorporates everything you know or think you know or believe that can impact on your intentionality, either consciously or unconsciously. It includes beliefs about DNA if you have any. This experience record applies to the manifold of universes in which you are in at the moment. In some of those universes you have inherited a defective NRF2 gene. In others you have not. When genetic testing reveals a faulty inherited NRF2 gene, then you are switched into the sub-manifold of universes where this is so. It’s just like the Schrödinger’s cat situation.
Note that an individual's experience record far under-determines the state of the universe. Most details of most people's lives have no impact on my experience record at this moment. I don’t know whether George Washington was scratching his nose at 5:14PM on October 11, 1772; whether he did or didn't is not part of my experience record. Perhaps he did, perhaps he didn't -- it seems to be of no consequence to me. I don't know how often my grandfathers brushed their teeth, if at all. I don’t know whether anybody right now is setting out to do me good, or to do me harm. I don’t know the thoughts fleeting through Barach Obama’s mind right now, I don’t personally know most details of my genome and whether there is any special susceptibility to disease in certain of my gene polymorphisms. I don't know the detailed methylation status of my genome and the consequent probabilistic impact on my longevity. Besides not knowing things like these matters I know something about, of course I don’t know what I don’t know. Most of what has happened in the universe, in the world, in the US, in my home town of Wayland, in my neighborhood, in my family and even in me -- is not part of my experience record.
In other words, there are many-many possible past and present events that are compatible with the experience record I have.
This does not mean that all past events outside of my experience record will always be of no consequence to me. Most will probably be of no consequence, but some could well have major consequence. Suppose my boss has put me in for a large bonus without telling me? Suppose someone has left a banana peel on my sidewalk at home that I will slip on and hurt myself when I go home tonight? Suppose my car has a tire ready to blow out? Suppose an airplane up in the sky had an engine explode 3 minutes ago, and is now spiraling down out of the sky and will destroy the house next door?
So, now and any time, operation of the causal mechanisms of the universe may lead to something in the past not in my experience record causing something to happen that indeed impacts my experience record from that point forward. The Macroscopic Reality Creation model I am suggesting is about how to affect the probabilities connected with those uncertainties.
JS: One can visualize personal experience as comprised of cones of events tied at the vertices (an hourglass) with the inflow of all past events to a fixity at the present to the expanding cone of future possibilities. Only the present is fixed, and the present is the immeasurably small instant.
VG: Exactly, exactly, exactly. What I am claiming is that our experience records vastly under-determine what is either in the past cone or the future one. That is, we live at every instant in an immense manifold of possible universes consistent with our experience records. An act of creation such as I define later narrows that mainfold, past and future, down to a sub-manifold where the desired creation is manifest.
As an example, a disease-free 36 year old man who has never been gene tested but with a family history of early-onset Alzheimer's disease may or may not have an APOE4 gene mutation which confers susceptibility to that disease. According to the Copenhagen interpretation, he both has and has not got such a mutation, a situation indeterminant until he is tested for the mutation. According to the multiple universes interpretation, his manifold of universes include some with such a mutations and others without such a mutation. If he gets gene tested and the result is positive for the mutation, or if he later gets the disease, his experience record shifts and he is shifted to a subset of universes heaviy weighted with ones where he has one or more such mutations. (Early-onset Alzehimer's disease, often referred to as Familial Alzheimer's disease can be caused by any one of a number of different single-gene mutations, such as a mutation on chromosome 14 which leads to the production of abnormal presenilin 1, and a mutation on chromosome 1 leading to production of abnormal presenilin 2 and mutations on chromosome 21, which cause the formation of abnormal amyloid precursor protein).
B. ORDINARY AND EXTRAORDINARY WAYS FOR DETERMINING THE FUTURE
1. Surface mechanisms of creation
The central question I am concerned with here is "What determines the future?" In other words, what determines what one experiences? I assert that on the surface there are three mechanisms, but on a deeper level there is only one -- and that is the deliberate choice of consciousness, which is in fact creation. Regarding the three surface mechanisms:
a. The first appears to be the consequence of luck or random event: something appears to just happen that impacts on the direction of a human's life, perhaps an auto accident, an illness, a random act of kindness of a stranger, winning the lottery or an "act of God" like a tornado.
b. The second appears to be the cause-and-effect workings of ordinary reality. A bullet fired from a gun aimed at a person's head an instant before it hits. A virus contracted a few days earlier causes a cold, a good job done at work causes the boss to complement you. Exposure of disgraceful sexual conducts leads to a political situation that forces the governor of New York to resign.
c. The human being makes a choice, acts accordingly, and produces a result as a consequence of the action.
In the first two mechanisms above, the human being appears to be passive -- something is done to him or something happens to him. Only in the third mechanism is he proactive. He takes conscious action and gets results through a chain of cause and effect. Most behavior in the civilized world is predicated on these mechanisms being the only choices. You study hard to get a good degree from a good college to get a good job. You take an antibiotic to cure a strep infection. You drive with caution to avoid accidents. Note that the third option, choice followed by action, may not work in many cases due to unforeseen factors. E.g. the company with your good job goes bankrupt, you get in accident anyway due to somebody else’s fault, the strep is resistant to your antibiotic.
The conventional wisdom is: to take charge of your life you must take conscious action (the third choice) and thereby hope to minimize the negative consequences of the other two mechanisms (luck, and events already in motion).
JS: You are aware that this possibility has its detractors. That which makes decisions might simply be a brain’s neuronal connections (the “wetware”) which are configured as they are by genetics and past experience, and as now configured are as deterministic in relating input to output as my Dell PC.
VG: Right on! Some brains may have even contracted “malware” installed by parents or the media.
This thinking and way of proceeding is on the level of causation. While necessary and important, I assert that causation by itself is insufficient to provide a complete and satisfying life. I assert there is a much more powerful means of taking charge, but to get to it one has to go to the deeper level, and that is the level of creation, a level that sets chains of causation into motion.
2. Basic creation
*Creation* by a human being is a process of bringing something forward into existence in the universe that did not exist before. Creation in the normal sense of the term can certainly be manifest through cause-and-effect actions. A painter buys paints and canvas and physically paints to create a painting. I type on a computer keyboard to create this treatise. I can see a lawyer and communicate with him to create a trust for my children. In fact, much of what is created can be explained, after the fact, as the working of cause-and-effect, and seen to be the working of ordinary reality, the result of interactions of physical entities. These examples are ones where the creator also provides the physical agency for creation.
I believe there is also personal creation where most or all of the physical action of creation happens apart from the human being, where the human may not be involved in the action at all, where the chain of causation is initiated and takes place apart from the human initiator of the creation.
I suggest a model here of how humans contribute to creating the experiences they have, be these good or bad. In preparation, I continue with a number of additional declarations, definitions and observations. I then describe how an individual can go about creating something -- the steps that the person can take.
In my ontology:
· I speculate that Source encompasses all consciousness in the Universe though it itself is beyond the Universe.
· Given that a human being expresses consciousness and that Source represents the totality of consciousness in the Universe, a human being is part of Source as well as a manifestation of Source, whether he or she knows this or not. Although I am a part of Source, Source is indefinitely vaster than what my own consciousness encompasses.
· Personal creation can come about through the self by expressing Source. Being part of Source, within certain limits I can do what Source does: alter the probabilities relating to space, time and matter so as to initiate chains of causation and alter the course of our Universe. That is, I can cause things, processes, and events to come into manifest being without physically initiating a causal chain for this to happen.
· Creation starts as a state of being, an intention and a commitment, expressed as a declaration to the self. Doing, if any, comes afterwards.
· What exists in the universe - what was, is and will be – is created by Source acting on Everything-Nothing
JS: I suppose a Panentheist would call God “EN,” whereas a Pantheist would call God “Source.”
VG: Right. I fall in the second category.
· My consciousness is part of the larger consciousness of Source. As such I can participate in the creative actions of Source, operating on EN so as to affect what is above and beyond any physical actions I may take.
· The universe I am in is objective. It exists, it contains far more things, processes and developments than I could ever know about, past, present or future; I call these *creations*.
· Creations are the result of Source and more directly the operation of the normal laws of reality. For example, Source set up principles of physics, chemistry and biology that allow trees to grow; these are part of the laws of normal reality. Trees grow according to those laws. Some creations, particularly physical ones like a tree or rock can have apparent permanence, can persist in the universe. Others, like a thought, are recognized as fleeting. Actually nothing ever stays the same. Everything is changing, though sometimes imperceptivity. Creations we generate are all initially abstractions. They are based on concepts we hold which relate to distinctions we have drawn. They are essential for us but never fully characterize what is out there in the universe.
JS: At one time I conceived of humans as being God’s pseudopods – as though God were blind and needed the experiences of created entities to reach into the void and know itself.
VG: I think there is a lot of validity to that. In fact it is a central theme of this document. But I allow that there may be many other forms of consciousness through which Source (God) manifests itself. Animals, plants, insects, bacteria and other life forms are examples. And who knows the forms of consciousness that may exist elsewhere in the universe.
· I do not have distinctions (creations) for most of what exists and never will, although I can continue drawing distinction as long as I am alive, and learning about them from others. Creations may vary according to state of cultural knowledge. For example, suppose a person observes having a sudden fever, light-headedness, sniffly nose and not feeling well. The creations that could be used to described the cause of this condition could include: “being punished for a sin,” “being possessed by an evil spirit,” “having the grippe,” “having a common cold,” “having Acute Viral Nasopharyngitis due to an andovirus,” etc. My longevity science career requires me to learn several new distinctions every week.
· Creations I am unaware of can affect me, whether initiated past present or future. Many of these may be undistinguished by me, e.g Jane may not have a language distinction for a rare genetic disease that is affecting her, yet it may impact profoundly on her. Mary may not know of a person who will call her tomorrow with important bad news about her father.
· Humans are constantly creating, and among the things they create are their experiences of reality.
· What a human creates is an expression of who that human believe himself to be, of what he believes and declares to be so.
IV. CREATION AND UNIVERSES
"Reality is an illusion." But (lifting a line from Woody Allen), "As illusions go, it is a pretty good one"
I need to say more about Our Universe in order to lead up to a discussions of the cookbook how-to of creation, the conditions for and the limitations of creation, and quantum-like mechanisms of creation. I wish here to establish how the process of creation I suggest is compatible with the laws of physics and ordinary reality. I introduce and use the concept of *multiple parallel universes*.
I know that some of the assertions that follow are absurd from conventional cause-and-effect ways of thinking. Richard Feynman, Nobel Prize winner and creator of Quantum Chromodynamics said “So I hope you can accept nature as She is - absurd.” I believe my assertions are in fact not only completely consistent with science, but also part of a newly emerging mainstream of scientific/philosophical thought being engaged in by serious physicists and cosmologists.
A. Under-determinism and scientific laws
Let’s start out with a fairly supportable proposition: the cause-and-effect workings of known scientific laws vastly under-determines what happens. Most everywhere we look, the laws of science describe how things can happen, but don't say what will happen. What happens, with limited exceptions, is inherently emergent and unpredictable, even though it happens in conformity with scientific "laws." This is a message of Chaos Theory.
JS: “Minnesota Fats” would have disagreed – when he hit a cue ball it did exactly what the laws of physics predicted (at least in his macro world of the pool table). If my pocket calculator doesn’t get 2 when I add 1 + 1, there is something very wrong.
VG: Right, we humans pride ourselves for the few areas in which we have been able to create high predictability. The operation of the computer I am using to write this is an example. My point stands however. When Minnesota Fats drinks too much his hands wobble a little and the cue ball might not do exactly what it is supposed to do. My shelf has three pocket calculators that don’t work any more. I don’t know what will happen tomorrow morning right after I wake up, assuming that I do wake up. And sometimes my computer completely balks,
Electromagnetic laws limits how electrons move through computer circuits, but these laws don't give the designs of computer circuits. Computer circuits limit how bits are stored and flow, but do not determine the software that can be run. Word processing software may limit the efficiency with which I write, but does not determine what I write.
Biological laws limit the kinds of organisms that can survive, but don't determine what those organisms are. Laws of nuclear physics determine how subatomic particles interact, but don't tell what particles will in fact interact where and when. Laws of gravitation tell how astronomic bodies are constrained to move with respect to each other, but can only approximately tell which bodies are to be found in which movement patterns when there are initial observations. The point is that starting with any situation of complexity, lots of different things can happen in ways that conform with known scientific laws.
JS: Some argue that even the roll of a die is a deterministic event, and it is only our ignorance of all the hidden variables that make it seem random.
VG: Right, some do argue that. But I think determinism went out the window 90 years ago with the rise of quantum theory which is inherently probabilistic. Hidden variables don’t get much credit in theories of physics nowadays. Bell’s Theorem destroyed enthusiasm for them. It says that "No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics."
B. The act of creation
"I am not what happened to me. I am what I choose to become" Carl Jung
A physical processes of creation should not be confused with the act of creation in Macroscopic Reality Creation. The artist painting is giving physical expression to something else.
The act if creation is an unbounded declaration of something (what is being created) existing in the universe that the being lives in.
I will get to what I mean by "unbounded" when I discuss limits of creation. For now think of unbounded as authentically meaning “this is existing for me starting right now,” not meaning simply “this is how I would like it to be,” or “I want this to exist but I am not quite sure it is possible.” Such an unbounded declaration takes place at a given time, but once it is made there is a profound shift in the universe for that person -- a shift to where what was declared to be so *is* in effect so. The shift is not only in present and future, but in the past as well. The part of the past that is affected is not in the being's experience record, and was indeterminate up to that point. So there is no observable shift whatsoever in history or past as far as the individual is concerned, no discontinuity, no apparent change whatsoever. In fact, the whole universe has re-aligned itself though it seems to be the same.
Let's take an example, creation of a state of health. If I make an unbounded declaration "I am healthy and free of all but minor illnesses," all kinds of factors in the past of which I am unaware may shift to contribute to making me healthy now. They can shift because they were unknown, not part of my experience record or anybody’s as far as I know. For example, there may be a shift in my parent's genetic makeup defending their offspring against diabetes; there may be a shift in the diseases I was exposed to as a child; there may be decreases in the toxic substances my mother was exposed to while she was pregnant with me. There may be a decrease in my exposure to lead fumes as a child. There may be a drug now in development that will save my life in the future. They are shifts that create healthiness for me now and in the future, in cause-and-effect ways that will be understandable to science and medicine. These shifts in the past or unknown-present are not part of my experience record and are unperceived by me. They are in the previously indeterminate part of My Universe. (I made this declaration over 30 years ago. Now, 1/2017 I remain healthy and free of all but minor illnesses.)
JS: You are saying that your current decisions affect past events (something akin to Cramer’s Transactional Interpretation of quantum events)?
VG: Yes, I am saying that current acts of creation (different than decisions) can affect past events that are not in your experience record or determined by other events in your experience record. I do not know about Cramer’s transactional interpretation of quantum events but have glanced at the reference you provided me and intend soon to bury myself in it. (Reader please note: this comment by Jim Seltzer led me to look into this interpretation and I have written Section IX of this document describing Macroscopic Reality Creation from the viewpoint of Cramer’s interpretation.) I have long known that quantum operators can be read backwards as well as forward with interpretation being a quantum wave that goes backwards in time. (E.g. in Dirac notation going from ket> to <bra instead of <bra to ket>).
JS: How about the case where your father’s DNA contained a defective allele (known to his physician but unknown to you)? Does your decision alter your father’s medical record?
VG: If my experience record has nothing whatsoever in it relating to this defective allele, then in some of the universes in my current manifold my father’s DNA has the defective allele (say it is one that surely leads to Parkinson’s Disease) and his medical records may show that. In other universes in my universe manifold his DNA did not have the allele and his medical records did not mention any such thing. If my father lived till 90 and I make an unbounded declaration that my father was completely free of Parkinson’s Disease all his life, then I would be routed into the universe sub-manifold where there was no such alle in my dad’s DNA. If his body were dug up and genetically tested his DNA would not contain the allele and if his medical records were checked they would not show presence of the allele.
JS: I suppose the parallel universe theory accepts your interpretation insofar as the future track shifts to a past that conforms to your belief – nothing then in this switched track is incompatible with the past.
VG: Exactly. That’s why what a-priori appear to be miraculous creations appear after the fact to be the results of normal cause-and-effect. If my declaration is incompatible with what I know in my experience record of the past, then the declaration is not unbounded and won't work to make a creation, e.g. I have 14 fingers.
Next, let's take creation of art. Say I can and do make an unbounded declaration "I am a talented painter and produce wonderful works of art," and suppose I have never in fact painted before. The past shifts so I either already have or can easily develop a good sense of form and color and motor-sensory hand-eye coordination. It shifts so that the "reality" conditions that in the past never gave me enough time to start painting now allow it. Situations in the past turn out to have existed so that soon my current job comes to an end, but enough money appears so I don't any longer have to work at a regular job. It appears that these situations existed all along, or that I came to the necessary money through luck. No shift in the universe is visible, but soon I am painting away, improving my art work by leaps and bounds. (Personal Note: April 2008: When I wrote this in 1990 I must have also intended the result because becoming an active artist has indeed unfolded for me. See my art website http://www.giulianoart.com and the website of the art movement I started Artkoukouhttp://www.artkoukou.com.)
Everything always seems to have happened after-the-fact through innate undiscovered talent, cause-and-effect, hard work and good luck. In a universe I used to live in according to my experience records, if I suggested to anyone that I could create myself as a talented artist in an instant, that my creating something now creates a past that can make that something appear, I would have run the risk of ridicule. In the universe I have created now, the one in which this paper is being written, my intent is that these ideas will be taken seriously.
The assertions I have made leave open a number of questions. On the surface of it, the idea that anybody can go around creating anything he or she wants seems completely absurd. Would this not immediately lead to contradictions -- If I create A and someone else creates not-A, what happens? How does shifting things around in the past through the power of a personal intention work? I offer a model that makes my above assertions plausible, a model that draws on the notion of parallel universes as they are used as an explanatory framework for quantum physics. Later, I will show that macroscopic reality creation can also be explained according to the interpretations of Cramer's model of quantum mechanics.
The same explanations apply to both quantum phenomena and intentional reality creation. Again, in terms of our senses of ordinary reality, all these explanations are patently absurd. The absurdity does not lie in nature or in what exists. It lies in our limited perceptions and ways of looking at things as functioning animals. Our perceptions are geared to the necessities of our survival. A caterpillar crawling on a tree branch has only perceptions and processing capabilities enabling it to survive as an individual and as a species. It knows how to find food by crawling and what is good to eat and how to protect itself from common predators. It has no inkling of most things we think and talk about, like biology, democracy and income equality. For the caterpillar, those things are beyond absurd. Our human senses likewise do not tell us many important things that are so - such as that the firm earth beneath our feet is mostly empty interatomic space, we are whirling through interstellar space at over 14,000 miles per hour, and that we create our own futures.
Parallel Universes was one of the possible interpretive frameworks put forward about eighty years ago to explain the strange realities of quantum physics. This theory remains no more off-the-wall than the other theories suggested to explain the completely weird phenomena of quantum mechanics. In fact it is more satisfying in many ways. It has survived the test of time. And the latest theories of physics, String Theories and Brane Theory, recognize parallel universes. Parallel universes also figure importantly in works of philosophy, cosmology, religion and science fiction.
By *a universe* I mean that which would be described by a complete description of what exists: past, present, future, from the beginning of time to the end of time, in as much detail as is possible.
A universe is characterized by a complete detailed description of the behavior of all matter, all energy and all forces, in all space and all time (granted that actually creating such a characterization would be impossible). There are lots and lots of universes. There are universes in which Napoleon was a nice guy, in which bananas are four feet long, in which dogs write papers for the New England Journal of Medicine. Consider a universe, and then vary it a teeny weenie almost-imperceptible bit to get a second one. Now vary this one a teeny-weeny almost-imperceptible bit to get a third universe. This can be done over and over, an infinite number of times, still keeping all the universes quite similar. Such an infinite collection of rather similar universes can be thought of as a manifold of universes, to loosely apply a mathematical concept. There are infinities of manifolds of universes, perhaps a continuous manifolds of manifolds, nested infinitely deep. In these universes everything is possible. The set of all these manifolds of universes is sometimes called the *multiverse*.
JS: If there is an infinity of such universes, in which of these do you exist? If you exist in an infinite subset of these, is the YOU in each the same? If not, is the YOU in any of these accessible to the YOU in another?
VG: I exist in an infinite manifold of universes and may be slightly different or even more than slightly different in some. In some I may be strikingly different, so much so that I would not recognize that entity as me. Since I am simultaneously in a vast manifold of universes, these are all accessible to me, some requiring acts of creation to manifest themselves. Are the almost-me entities accessible? I think so in some sense but am not completely clear about this.
Thinking about the last point years later (2017), it is clear that Jim’s question is profound and deserving of more than my initial response above. The basic question is “Who am I?” In all universes there are infinite ways in which me (as shows up in this universe) can gradually shade off until they are not me (not the me that I think I know, that shows up in this universe). I would guess that as they shade off they probalistically become less accessible to the me in this universe. Again, I would like to get more clear about this. By “accessible,” I am mostly referring to ease of switching from one manifold of universes to another submanifold via reality creation. It is fairly easy for me to switch to a submanifold where my nose is just slightly less stuffy, A submanifold in which I am a unicorn is probably much less accessible as well as not being where I want to be.
All universes are simultaneously present, the sea of all possibilities, the Everything-Nothing of EN.
I am mainly concerned with the sub-manifold of universes that behave according to the laws of ordinary reality; I call these *ordinary universes*. Those are the universes in which all the laws of the sciences as we know them hold, in which "cause and effect" relationships can be attributed, e.g. in which certain (but by no means all or even most) situations can be explained after the fact as having been "caused" by earlier conditions and events. A universe behaving according to the laws of ordinary reality has within it well-behaved and continuous space and time, as we are accustomed to their being. Many but by no means all ordinary universes are ones that would seem more familiar to us if we could visit them. They don’t allow the fantasy or discontinuous happenings of dreams or myths. Myths, dreams and fantasy worlds are imagined excursions into universes of non-ordinary reality.
Focusing on a particular human being at a particular time in a particular universe with a particular experience record there is clearly an infinite manifold of very high dimension of other parallel ordinary universes in which there is an identical or near-identical human being with an identical or near-identical experience record. These include universes with pasts that are different outside of that human's experience record, e.g. a universe only different in that there was one less Cherio in the bowl of Cherios I had for breakfast October 16, 1952. And for a given human being there is an infinity of ordinary parallel universe differing only in very minor details in the present, e.g. a universe only different in that there is one more spec of dust in my vacuum cleaner's bag. And the same is true of universes that only vary in tiny future details.
Rather than thinking of a different human being in each of infinitely many universes, it is simpler to assert that a human being at a given point of time exists simultaneously in the manifold of ordinary universes that are consistent with his experience set. This idea of simultaneous existence in multiple universes is also found in contemporary physics. Going back to the example of a particle, it exists with different positions in an infinity of different universes right up to the time when its position is measured.
Hoping I can become more precise about this later, a human can be defined by a resonance of personal consciousness among all those similar parallel universes consistent with his experience record. According to the multiple-universe theory of quantum physics, physical existence itself depends on existence in parallel universes.
JS: I notice that some of my questions are being answered as I proceed further in your essay. Nonetheless, I am left to ponder whether there is a linkage (resonance of consciousness) that bundles these YOUs together.
VG: That seems to me to be a good way to think about it. I am the resonance crossing over a manifold of universes. There is no individual me separate from it. This resonance is a part of Source operating on EN. My senses tell me that I am having experiences in a single universe but the reality is that there is a constant narrowing of my universe manifold. Perhaps my perception of this narrowing is what we call time.
The resonance that is me does not reflect all universes equally, but rather weights them according to their similarity to the main ones I am in here-and-now, the ones most consistent with my experience record. The weighing is probably according to a bell curve. So extremely little or no weight would be given to a universe consisting of super-hot gasses with no suns or planets, for there is nothing like me in it. But a universe just like this one except only that Revere Beach has one less grain of sand at some instant would be weighted relatively heavily.
So, if I am a resonance crossing over a multidimensional manifold of universes, some of those universes will have strange versions of me, bordering on or crossing over to the not-me. I need point over that this is true for essentially all physical object distinctions. When is a table a table and when is it just a bench? When is a tree a tree and when is it more of a bush? When is a house a house and when is it just a hut or hovel? We are good at drawing such distinctions in the real world, but there are always borderline cases.
Quantum physics says that the wave functions for the particles in my body extend out over this entire universe, so in some sense I am everywhere in the universe. Or, depending how you lie to look at it, I am nowhere in particular.
At any given time, then, a human has his universe manifold which is vastly underdetermined with respect to past, present and future. Looking backwards, this means very different things have happened in different universes in his manifold, things which have not yet impacted on his experience record. Most such things will never impact on his experience record. Some will, though. The same is true looking out in the present. Looking forward, there are of course all kinds of alternatives.
As time progresses, a human moves progressively at each instant into a sub-manifold of the universe manifold present at that instant. For example, consider a human at a given instant, and then 5 seconds later. The universe manifold of that human at the end of 5 seconds is the sub-manifold of the universe manifold he started with that includes only universes with the actual experience record of the last 5 seconds. Universes with other unrealized experiences (like ones where the person was killed by a gas main explosion) are excluded. So as time progresses, a human moves to a narrower and narrower (and hence more defined) sub-manifold of all possible universes. Since we are dealing with infinities raised to the power of infinite exponents, there are still plenty enough universes to go around as this process goes forward. What I have previously characterized as My Universe is actually the manifold of universes I exist in at a given time.
JS: Hmm… I visualize an expansion of possibilities with time rather than a narrowing. Anyway, what should I care living here in Universe 6231 what fate befalls the ME living in Universe 4983.
VG: As I see it, creation is continuing differentiation from EN and therefore is indeed a narrowing process. At the singularity point of creation of the universe, there was no structure or differentiation whatsoever. Countless creations since have yielded what we know exists – an infinitesimally tiny fraction of the possibilities in EN.
You should care about the you in Universe 4983 because he IS you, just like the you in Universe 6231 is. Your paths are bound up together, you are correlated resonances of each other. As of now, your fates have been completely intertwined. But at some point in the future if one of you makes a creation the other one does not, then the two of you will split off to being in different universe sub-manifolds. A correlation will still exist, but not as strong a one. One of you will be an “almost me” with respect to the other.
This process of differentiation proceeds in one direction. It is what we experience as the process of time and one that science characterizes as the increase in entropy in time. Entropy has to do with richness of distributions of states of a system and is easily identified with chaos. A wine glass falls on the floor and shatters. This is a one-way interaction and entropy increases. Smoke and greenhouse gasses come out of a smokestack and mix into the atmosphere. Again this is a one-way interaction of increasing entropy. Heat moves to the cooler part of the system - never the other way around.
In both the formulas and interpretations of physics, entropy is the only one consideration that keeps things from running in reverse. Try and imagine smoke gathering itself up in the sky and going back down the chimney. Try and imagine a campfire burning in reverse time, starting with ashes and ending up with logs. Entropy is increasing locally and in the universe as a whole. So we can interpret this to mean that the universe is on a one-way journey of increase of entropy and therefore chaos. However, the paradox is that there is more and more order, complexity and sophisticated organization such as what is observed in biology and social systems. What gives? Does increasing entropy reflect chaos or order? Actually it is both. Useful energy can be produced through an increase in entropy. That is how steam and gasoline engines work. But also energy can be expended to locally reduce entropy. That is what refrigerators do to slow down the processes of entropy that spoil food. And fortunately, there are virtually endless sources of energy in the universe, including matter itself. The Shannon-Weaver theory of information tell us that entropy and information are measured by the same mathematical formula which takes into account the probability distribution over states of a system. So, if entropy in the universe is increasing so is the measure of information, and this is a measure of the order and complexity in the universe.
The second law of thermodynamics which dictates that entropy is increasing is not a physical law tied to any form of matter. It is a statistical meta-law. It is theoretically possible for the pieces of shattered glass on the floor to re-assemble themselves back like the original fine goblet, and for this goblet to jump back on the table, and for the puddle of spilled wine to jump back up into the glass again. But the probability of this event is so small that none of us will ever see it happen.
Now it is possible to look at the act of creation in a new light. In the multiple universes interpretation:
When a human being makes an unbounded declaration of what is so, he or she is simply selecting a sub-manifold of universes into which he or she then passes.
The sub-manifold consists of universes in which what was declared to be so is actually so. The shift into the sub-manifold is effortless and seamless; it does not involve mobilization of energy in any particular universe. The human being is acting as part of Source, and making a shift of creation with the same degree of incredibleness as was the creation of anything else. My Universe shifts. It’s that simple, philosophically at least. And its amazingly simple to do too as laid out in Chapter VII.
V. INTRODUCTION TO MACROSCOPIC REALITY CREATION AND QUANTUM PHYSICS
First some general comments about quantum dynamics and interpretational frameworks:
1. Quantum Physics is a body of mathematical formalisms that is coupled with observed physical behavior. Quantum Physics both explains and predicts many phenomena on both the subatomic and macroscopic level. Established some 90 years ago and at an early point called quantum mechanics, the theory has been extended mathematically and tested physically over the years. It now constitutes a comprehensive and robust framework that has become a bedrock of physics. It has many practical applications and much of our electronic as well as nuclear technology was developed based on understanding quantum effects.
2. Explaining how Quantum Physics works with matter, time and energy is another matter. Interpretations of quantum physics are intellectual frameworks for attempting to explain quantum physics in ways to make sense to us accustomed to only seeing matters in terms of ordinary reality. Our senses and macroscopic understandings of science, location, time and place and causality do not allow us to explain many quantum phenomena such as wave-particle duality, non-locality, complementarity and many seeming-paradoxes. We have the equations. We know they work. But do not know for sure how to interpret them physically in terms of our ordinary reality. In fact, ordinary reality is inadequate to explain what we know about how physics works on a quantum scale.
3. Therefore various interpretations of quantum theory have been propounded. They are ways of explaining quantum behavior that give interpretations to the equations that are palatable to our intuitions, useful models of reality, ways to help us think about the otherwise-unthinkable.
4. The main interpretations I am concerned with in this treatise are the Copenhagen Interpretation (CI), the Parallel Universes Interpretation (PUI) and the Transactional Interaction Interpretation (TI). These come in various flavors and there are other proposed interpretations as well, all presumably equivalent. I will not bother further explaining CI or PUI for they are already simply explained earlier in this document and they are historically well-documented.
5. Each interpretation has its own conceptual framework, strengths and advantages. Each hypothesizes the existence of basically strange and unintuitive entities and happenings, e.g., quantum wave functions, collapse of the wave function, parallel universes, wave-function signaling that moves backwards in time. And each requires us to think in terms of its own entities and ground rules.
6. Since quantum phenomena can be explained from the viewpoint of each of these interpretational frameworks, the same should be true for Macroscopic Reality Creation if what is going on behind the curtain is indeed basically the same. In fact, if MRC can be interpreted using other interpretational frameworks besides the CI and PUI as described above, additional insights about MRC might be possible.
The personal creation of reality through nothing but a thought intervention has been accepted as a respectable scientific idea for over 100 years now for phenomena on the quantum level. I am talking about CI, the Dirac/Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics as exemplified in a set up where photons are shot at a target consisting of a mask with of two slits with photodetectors behind them. The photon has it the dual nature of being a wave and a particle. If no efforts are made to measure which slit particles go through, the result is an interference pattern suggesting that the particles each passed through both slits as waves. This holds for individual particles and for collections of particles. If on the other hand a conscious measurement is made of which slit particular particles go through, then it appears that the particles each passes through an individual slit and there is no interference pattern. The classic Copenhagen model of quantum reality states that a photon has a dual nature of being both a wave and a particle. Photons exist only as wave functions when unobserved, but the wave functions "collapse" into particles when human observations are made. That is when the reality that is the particle is created The “reality” of photons as being individual particles only exists when they are consciously measured. This appears to require a human or other living being. If machinery or apparatus is substituted for purposes of measurement the collapse of the wave function only occurs when there is a conscious observer.
Over the years, numerous more sophisticated experiments have been conducted and it is now widely accepted for electrons, protons and other particles, that reality of the particle only comes into existence when it is humanly perceived. This video describes thousands of trials conducted over the last few years where the classic double-slit experiment is conducted both without and with the benefit of a human attempting to influence the outcome based on thought alone. The results are consistent and significant from 4 to 6 sigmas. The wave-pattern of particles is reduced to the realty of a particle simply and only when people direct their attention toward the system. Human thought and focus decreases the spectral intensity of interference patterns and this reflects increased reality creation of particles.
This occurs without any ordinary physical contact with the instrumentation. The result holds for people right next to the double-slit apparatus, and equally well when the human is thousands of miles away. This surprising evidence supports a consciousness-involving interpretation of quantum mechanics in quantum-level reality creation. This treatise suggests that the same holds for Macroscopic Reality Creation - for really big creations that can impact the course of a person's life.
The reader with a physics background will observe that there is an extensive analogy between the macro-scale reality-creation process I have described and quantum mechanics on the subatomic scale. It seems that The macroscopic processes of creation I am suggesting and creation of reality on the quantum level are essentially the same, except as have to be adjusted for scale. This sameness applies for all the models for interpreting quntum physics I know of. In this treatise I focus on the CI, the Dirac or Copehagen Interpretation, PUI, the Parallel Multiple Universes Interpretation. and CI, Cramer's Transactional Interpretation featuring negotiating waves. In Dirac's model, substitute the quantum physics action of applying a measurement operator for a personal action of making an unbounded declaration of what is so, and essentially everything in my discussion of reality creation remains the same in both frameworks. An action rather-mysteriously results in the creation of a reality – such as the “collapse” of a wave function for a photon into an actual photon particle when a measurement event takes place.
I mentioned that in CI, the classical interpretation of quantum physics (The Copehagen Interpretation propounded by Niels Bohr around 1927), the position of a particle associated with a wave function does not exist until the moment that a position measurement is made. It is unknowable beforehand. Up to that point the position of the particle does not exist; its position is just a probability distribution called a quantum wave-function. The Copenhagen Interpretation way of explaining this is that only when a measurement is made the wave-function collapses and the particle shows up somewhere with a well-defined position. Looked at another way (the Parallel Universes Interpretation), the particle exists in an infinity of alternative universes with a different position in each. Once the measurement is made there is an instantaneous switch of reality into the sub-manifold of universes that have the position measurement observed. Likewise my past, present and future lies in an infinity of parallel universes of very high order. Making an unbounded declaration of what is so (an intention) switches me into the sub-manifold of universes where the intention is reality.
So, duality in reality creation is that intentions have both quantum wave and real (that is physically realized) natures. An intention remains a quantum wave function until being declared as an unbound act of creation; it is just an idea up to that point. Once being so-declared, action, energy and physical change are involved. Then it becomes real though it retains both its wave and real natures.
A few examples can illustrate this point.
1. My nose itches. I intend to relieve the itch. I reach up, scratch my nose and the intention
is realized. Having full confidence in
the intention makes it unbound. Obvious
manifestation of the intention occurs when I reach up and scratch my nose .
2. I intend to share and urge adaption by others
of a personal philosophical-scientific framework for making a difference in the
world. I write this treatise, share it online and
talk about it with others. It is in
vocalizing and verifying the intention for myself that it first becomes real
and only then that I am really motivated to do the necessary writing,
publishing , talking and other steps to get the message
i ndication that the
there is now a physical, entity reflected in writing, electronic signals, encoded in media and
neurological changes in myself and others who consider or embrace my
framework. The intention is not yet real
in terms of being manifest in the world.
Full manifestation in the second
require many complex developments and take years.
3. One or several people note that the ancient wooden
rotating bridge connecting Boston and South Boston needs repair and is possibly
dangerous. They start to communicate
that something needs to be done about this and the issue is taken up in
community and government
meetings. Articles about this appear in
the Boston Globe and groups mobilize both to support and oppose building the
new bridge. Environmental agencies get
involved and historical preservation groups. A long complex processes of
negotiations ensues, and after a few years a decision seems to be made to
renovate the old bridge – pending of course additional government approvals and
the final securing of funding. Same
story. The intention to do something about
the bridge (as an intention) becomes real when vocalized and shared. Before tearing the old bridge down,
renovating it or building a new one many related intentions are expressed.
These examples focus on the actions and processes that are in the “real” aspect of reality creation. What about the dual “wave parts?
1. More often than not when I
2. I could simply intend that the framework of
this treatise be widely or universally adopted with me doing nothing about
that, and this could well happen. But I
am incarnated as a being in this universe and our culture and therefore do
things to make things happen. I have a
broad background of knowledge, can think and write fairly clearly, so I
do. So is all my contribution of this
intention all of “real” nature? I don’t
know. What if my desire to make this
contribution led me years earlier to study quantum mechanics via a reverse
quantum wave, for example, or switched me . into a universe manifold where I did
that? Did I switch into a universe submanifold in which Penrose and Hameroff
did their work because of this intention, in which Cramer
propounded his theory?
3. About the bridge between Boston and South
Boston, I wonder about how many thousands of residents and commuters noticed the
situation and wished and intended the something be done about it but stopped at
that point and said nothing about it.
Did all the actual happenings exist in the context of a powerful wave function?
Each of these examples demonstrate that physical manifestation
never happens instantaneously. It
requires a series of steps of manifestation in a causal chain. For complex creations like in the bridge
example, a very large number of intermediate manifestations may be required
requiring a large time
, And remember the principle of complementarity
that states that when you focus on a creation and not the path it is on, funny
things might happen. The itch in my nose
could return. It might take 100 years
for somebody else to popularize the ideas in this treatise. Or, we could see the wooden bridge finally
rebuilt, only to be smashed up by a loose barge the next day.
Working with MRC is working with the wave duality of
creation. I find it to be particularly
useful when I
a an intention into realization - the
necessary action is unknown or inaccessible to me. I have to start with the wave. See the examples in Chapter VI.
JS: If you are unfamiliar with The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, by John Cramer, you may find it interesting:http://www.npl.washington.edu/ti/
you. Thank you. It will take me some time to plow through the
essay and grasp the interpretation. My cursory
initial look suggests that the theory of creation proposed here can be recast
in Cramer’s interpretational framework.
Crudely put, macroscopic-level creation in this framework would be the
transactional outcome of quantum-like waves going both backwards and forwards
in time from the instant of creation, essentially negotiating between past and
future situations so that the creation comes about through causality. The “how-to” would be the same as here. (Subsequent to this
2008 reply I have studied the Transactional Interaction Interpretation further
and have outlined
You may not know that when I took my Ph.D. at
Harvard eons ago one of my three areas of pre-doc concentration was quantum physics. I
studied with giants of the field like Julian Schwinger and Wendell Furry. Coming to terms with this extremely strange
body of science was very difficult and the process rewired my brain in some
crazy way. I remember one morning when I
woke up and realized that this had happened.
My faith in singular objective reality had been completely crushed. And it remains crushed still
, Years later I had an opportunity to have an
exciting one-on-one discussion with Richard Feynman about the underlying philosophy
of quantum phenomena. That conversation
helped me refine some of the key concepts in this paper. I have always preferred the multiple-universe
interpretation to the Copenhagen interpretation as you can surmise here. It has
been a very long time since I have delved deeply into the mathematical physics
of it, though. And in no-way have I ever
contributed to the basic theory itself.
I drafted a paper long ago that applies quantum-theory concepts to the
interpretations of meanings in language.
In the press of my business activities I put that paper aside in
incomplete form twenty years ago and it was never published. It still sits in a moldy box in my back
In TI, Cramer’s transactional interpretation, making X, an unbounded declaration of what is so lets loose a wave function moving forward in time and another complementary wave function moving backwards in time across all proximate space, both searching for events that could contribute to making what is declared in X real. When such events are encountered they return a confirming wave function in the opposite time direction. These can combine at the space-time point of origin to make a transactional “deal” that makes the intentionality of the declaration X real. As in the other interpretations, the exact combination of events bundled into the deal (the causal chain of events that will eventually lead to X) is drawn from a probability distribution for such chains Since opposite time directions are involved this happens instantaneously for the being making the declaration, no matter how distant or far in the past or future the combined events are.
B. COMPLEMENTARITY AND UNCERTAINTY
To start, I loosely identify and discuss what I believe are two fundamental constraints on reality creation:
1. The more mobilization of mass and energy required for a creation to be materialized, the more can be the time required for materialization. In plain terms, big creations can take longer. You can ask for a small creation in a short specified time frame but an immense one may take years or more. Remember the sign you often see on lawnmower repair-shop counters “Reasonable requests will be handled immediately; impossible ones take longer.”
2. The more specific you are as to the “what” details of a desired creation, the less specific you can be about the “how” details of it coming about. And the less specific you can be as to how fast the creation will be changing when it shows up. Also the other way around, the more specific you are about how a creation comes about, the less specific you can be about exactly what the creation consists of.
From a common sense viewpoint these constraints seem reasonable. Reality creation as I have defined it is inherently an unreasonable process. I ask the universe to materialize a creation without physically doing anything myself to make that happen, and then the universe materializes the creation. Further, the universe disguises the miracle that occurred by making the creation look like the result of ordinary cause-and-effect. The two constraints cut the universe a little needed slack. Big creations take longer because the universe needs more time to re-arrange the matter and energy. If you want a complicated creation, don’t try to also tell the universe exactly how to make it, and the other way around
Looking a little deeper, readers with a physics background will recognize that these two constraints are loosely-worded expressions of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. In classical quantum theory, certain quantum measurement operators are conjugates of each other and exhibit complementarity, which means that the more precisely you know the value of one variable, the less precisely you can know its paired complementary variable. Thus, for example, the Heisenberg uncertainty formula for position and momentum of a particle being observed is
which states that standard deviation of position times standard deviation of momentum is greater or equal than the constant on the right, a small fixed multiple of Planck's constant. If you absolutely know the momentum of the particle being observed you can know nothing about the position, and the other way around. This position-momentum complementrity corresponds to the second constraint of reality creation identified above. You absolutely cannot specify both the what and the how-to-get-there of a creation and some similar formula must pertain. I currently have no ideas as how to quantify the variables or constant involved for creation on a macroscopic level, however.
Another way to look at the second constraint mentioned above is based on recognizing that the ways to bring about a creation we can think of are very limited compared to the rich collection of ways based on past events we don’t know about. Being highly specific about both the creation and the path to it, there may be no way. Specifying only the creation and not the path to it allows the universe to simultaneously explore all possible paths between past and future events that lead to the creation outcome, and choose between them. This is what happens according to Cramer’s framework as characterized later here.
Time and energy are another well-established pair of complementary variables in quantum mechanics subject to a similar uncertainty formula. Since mass and energy are inter-convertible, time-energy complementarity corresponds to the first constraint on creation identified above: big creations can take longer. Little ones can materialize quickly.
C. ENTANGLEMENT AND INTERFERENCE
Creations can become entangled, in the sense that one requires another for its existence and that you cannot fully characterize one without mentioning the other. For example, suppose the intention of one creation is that my new female beagle puppy will mother at least 25 puppies; that the intention of the second creation is that one of these puppies will be a female beagle with predominantly white fur; and that the third creation is that the white-fur female will give birth to a male beagle puppy with normal beagle markings. These creations require that the fates of the three dogs are quite entangled with each other and with other objects. The mother dogs must mate with beagles and the third creation presumes the second. The characteristics of the dogs are entangled with each other.
Applying the constraints of reality creation mentioned above in the beagle example, the creation process could happen through many different events since intended consequences are fairly clear but I have put no constraints on the mating processes required, e.g. when or where with what male dogs. And it could take some time for this all to happen. If I add an additional third creation, that every dog will be an excellent hunter and live to age of at least 15, there is further entanglement of the creations and the time and energy conditions are such that all of these things might require a long time to happen, or may not happen.
Entanglement in a quantum system exists when two objects, say particles, have linked quantum states making them, in some respect, aspects of some super-entity. See the discussion of non-locality below. You can’t fully describe one without mentioning the other. In the parallel universes interpretation every possible state of entanglement lives in a separate universe. In terms of the creation-process example involving beagles, if the creation process is successful what ends up is a sub-manifold of universes which is the logical intersection of the sub-manifolds for each of the three creations taken individually.
In terms of our history, cultures and sharing of DNA, it appears
I mentioned that locality of human thinkers seemed irrelevant in the recent experiments on two-slit collapse of wave function and particle creation experiments. Similarly, our normal spatio-temporal dimensions are not relevant for Macroscopic Reality Creations in the way they are in ordinary reality. More on this later when I discuss Cramer's model as applied against MRC.
D. QUANTUM COHERENCE
When two waves are in phase with each other, they are said to be coherent. Laser light is typically coherent, for example. And the lower-frequency waves of two giant loudspeakers next to each other can be coherent. Quantum coherence exists when wave functions are in phase with each other. In systems larger than at a subatomic scale where there are multiple particles, coherence tends to break down and the laws of classical physics prevail. That is why we don’t normally experience quantum strangeness. Yet, macroscopic systems far larger than in the quantum scale can exhibit some very strange properties because of quantum coherence. The physical dynamics of a super-cooled liquid, for example, are radically different than normal fluid dynamics. A single wave function governs the whole system of the supercooled fluid, and spacetime itself ceases to have certain important properties in such a fluid. It is characterized by a complete absence of correlations between spatial and temporal motion and unconventional scaling laws. There appear two fractal time decay processes and two divergent time scales as the superfluid cross-over temperature is approached. Likewise there can be complete disappearance of electrical resistance and superconductivity.
Human beings seem to be big, messy, wet, inherently incoherent systems, so a question exists of how we could possibly generate quantum waves for macroscopic reality creation. In other words, how can we broadcast a quantum wave reflecting an intention with sufficient coherence? An answer to that has been very seriously proposed. See Chapter X on the Penrose Hameroff Orch OR Model.
Aligned intentions of human beings satisfy the ordinary definition of being coherent, and could represent quantum wave coherency as well. We have the distinction “an idea whose time has come,” where we see the very rapid emergence of many people believing in, saying or working on more the less same thing. This can be surprising in its impact. An example could be the recent election of Donald Trump as president despite the contrary predictions of all the polls leading up to the election predicting otherwise. Is such a happening due to coherency among quantum waves of intentionality?
E. QUANTUM TUNNELING
On the quantum scale you can throw a cat at a brick wall and have it go right through and come out on the other side unscathed. This is called quantum tunneling and most electronic microcircuits like the ones in this computer absolutely depend on it. No problem for electrons. What passes through is the wave function, not the particle. And matter we know consists mostly of empty space. A big problem for actual cats.
I don’t know what
the counterparts of quantum coherence and quantum tunneling are in
macroscopic reality creation. Identifying
them might yield additional insights so I will be thinking about this. Quantum tunneling is an example of duality where
the wave function can do something the particle can’t do (or, more exactly,
could not do if duality did not exist).
So, I would infer that tunneling in macroscopic reality creation is
something that the wave function of an intention can do that the physical
manifestations of an intention can’t do.
That could be plenty. If you buy
into the alternative universes interpretation, this is switching into a
submanifold of alternate universes where your intention is realized. If you buy into Cramer’s transactional
interpretation, you are negotiating between past and future events that will
lead to an intended outcome. Try doing
that with your cellphone or computer!
You are tunneling through all kinds of past and future events and stuff
to get your desired outcome.
F. OTHER QUANTUM INTERPRETATIONS
My discussion of the parallels between reality creation and quantum-level phenomena is necessarily superficial. Besides the Classical Copenhagen and the Multiple Universes approaches to interpretation of quantum mechanics there are now several other interpretations, all strange and implausible-seeming in their own ways. And they come in multiple flavors. One school of thought started by Karl Popper, for example, denies the very existence of subatomic particles whether they have specific properties or not. According to this school there is no underlying reality, only “propensity fields” which satisfy certain equations. Other theories talk about reality consisting of “tendencies.” I discuss macroscopic Reality creation from the viewpoint of Cramer's Transactional Interpretation in Section VIII here. What is important from the viewpoint of reality creation:
· To the extent that I have looked at and have been able to understand different interpretations of quantum phenomena, it appears to me that the discussion of Macroscopic Reality Creation in this paper could be formulated in terms of any of them.
· All interpretations of quantum physics are bizarre and test our credulity to the utmost. We have to give up the idea of separate objects living in separate regions of time and space and even that of objective reality. Our human senses that were developed by evolution to allow us to survive as fruit-pickers and hunter-gatherers don’t work in this domain. And our minds can visit that domain only with great difficulty.
· Quantum physics describes what is going on at the sub-atomic but it is not just a set of theoretical constructs. Whole areas of our technology depend on quantum behavior including radiology, atomic energy, lasers, superconducting fluids and practically any computer or solid-state device including the wrist watch I am now wearing. All the strange stuff I have discussed is very real.
· The interpretations I am offering for Macroscopic Reality Creation are essentially the same ones used in quantum physics. I present them essentially stripped of mathematical complexity, first because I don’t know how to scale up the mathematics from a quantum to a macro scale, and second, if I did know how to do that most people would not be able to read this paper.
G. LIMITS AND CONDITIONS OF CREATION
A question that rises immediately is what are the limits of creation through the process of an act of creation -- an unbounded declaration of a being of what is so in the universe. Can I grow wings and fly tomorrow? Can I grow younger again? Can I disappear the moon, or Jupiter? Can I be President of the United States tomorrow morning? What's possible and what's not possible? What can I uncreate? Some light is thrown on these questions by thinking in terms of parallel universes.
1. I cannot create something contradictory to something created previously in My Universe (e.g. whatever I create must be consistent with previous creations so as not to violate the common-sense principles of ordinary reality), without discreating the original something first. E.g. If I weigh 380 pounds I cannot create being skinny without discreating being fat first. Trying to do so would require jumping out of the manifold of universes I am in into a different and completely strange manifold, a discontinuity.
2. My total being must be vested in the declaration -- it is something I must be able to declare and let loose in the universe without reservation, without a secret belief that it won’t work.
3. It must be possible for the creation to come into being in a way that is consistent with the operation of the laws of ordinary day-to-day reality, given my experience set and my associated beliefs . E.g. I cannot create myself as 25 feet tall or as having six arms tomorrow morning. This also would be an issue of trying for a discontinuous jump out of the My Universe manifold. Another way of saying this is that the laws of ordinary reality are previous creations. I can’t create something that contradicts the ordinary laws of day-to-day reality unless I were willing to modify or get rid of them first. And I like the laws of ordinary reality for now, and would find things too strange if I could discreate them.
An *unbound declaration* is one for which these three conditions are satisfied.
Let’s run through some examples starting with wanting to grow wings and fly tomorrow. I simply can't (or perhaps won't) make an unbound declaration of myself for this one.
· I have already created a comprehensive reality in which humans don't have wings and can't fly. The My Universe manifold does not include humans having wings;
· I am unwilling to vest my being in this declaration, first because it is not something I truly and deeply want, second because I feel foolish asking for it, and given my experience set and associated beliefs, I don't think I could grow wings tomorrow and fly without ordinary reality becoming very strange.
Disappearing the moon, making my wife suddenly 40 years younger, and being President of the US tomorrow morning are more or less in the same category -- they violate the same conditions. However, I can identify a number of life-status creations that I have made in the past and which are now real for me: health, a life of discovery, a rich life of intellectual creativity, contentment, prosperity, a wonderful relationship with my wife, loving children, interesting work, a spacious home in the woods and a summer home on an island, a large extended family in which there is much love and sharing including my eight children and the four women who are their mothers. These were all creations resulting from selections of sub-manifolds from the manifold of My Universe.
The parallel universe framework also lends light on what I can and cannot uncreate. I can uncreate some existing creations but not others that would require jumping into a universe outside the manifold of universes I am in now, e.g. violate the complementarity principle.
JS: I don’t appreciate this “jumping” thing at all. Your other self in the other universe probably doesn’t appreciate getting displaced either. How would you (existing as you do in your pleasant circumstances) like to get knocked aside by some vagrant slob of a you who decides to invade your turf? Perhaps you are the plenary YOU who has the singular option to decide the fates of all the other YOUs scattered about in other universes?
problem, Since I am a resonance of the differen
“me” in my manifold of universes at any instant I am they and they are me. We are us.
When we make a declaration resulting in a creation, it is the
cross-universe committee of me that is doing that. The whole essence here is to get away from
the idea that there is only a singular me in a singular universe.
I cannot violate the creations which define the ground rules of my existence as a physical being on this planet. More exactly, if I succeed in violating them I would blow myself out of this existence. I cannot create a creation that violates:
· The laws and rules of ordinary reality (e.g. I cannot repeal the laws of inertia and gravity unless I am willing to have everything fly apart and end this physical existence)
· Creations deeply held in my experience record
(e.g. I cannot uncreate the past and present
existence of the city of Detroit where I was
I can uncreate other creations, some fairly easily. Suppose I am no good at remembering names or birthdays or have no talent in composing music or have an angry disposition. These can be uncreated using a similar process to that for creation. I may also be able to uncreate the reality that follows from judgments, e.g. “It is impossible to reason with my mother.” In my mid-years of life I uncreated many negative aspects of how my mother was so it was possible for us to enjoy an intimate friendship through the middle and later years of her life. Did my mother change or was it just my attitude towards her that changed? Both I believe. She really was awful in some ways to me when I was a kid and she openly acknowledged that to me with apologies in her later years.
Can I create wealth, a great family, extended longevity and even a wonderful world environment in which my children and their children can thrive? Yes. No discontinuities from my experience record would be required. These universes along with a lot of awful ones are in the manifold of My Universe. All I need to do is muster the intentionality to do so without being sabotaged with the little voice of “That’s impossible.” My declaration must be unbound.
JS: Creating and discreating would seem to play havoc with your memories, therefore your synaptic connections, therefore the REAL YOU!!
VG: Fact is, a strongly held memory can make it very difficult to make an unbound declaration. And an unbound declaration may be impossible if it contradicts memories which are part of my experience record. I would have to uncreate too many memories to be able to realize a reality that I was born in Cairo in 1462 instead of in Detroit in 1929. Too damn discontinuous for comfort.
One simple way of knowing that a declaration is bound is that a little voice appears in your head when you make the declaration saying something that sabotages the declaration, be this a "Yes, but.. " thought, or a thought that "Of course this is not possible." or a thought that attaches some condition to the declaration. See Section VI below on the “how-to” of making unbound declarations.
H. FURTHER IMPLICATIOS OF QUANTUM INTERPRETATIONS OF REALITY CREATION
Assuming that the models for understanding quantum mechanics and reality creation ae the same as I am asserting, then what are the implications for reality creation of the strange quantum phenomena described above, non-locality, entanglement, interference, complementarity, etc.? I do not know what the answers are, but suspect they could be profound. Here are a few conjectural questions:
· Is there non-local quantum entanglement among members of a species? How could such entanglement contribute to survival of a species and/or its evolution? Could this help explain similar evolutionary tendencies happening among physically remote members of a species? Could it help explain aging and species-specific maximum lifespans? Could it help explain any of a number of phenomena only now being seriously studied such as age-related proliferation of alternative DNA splicing, retrotranspsons and repetitive segments?
· What in further detail can be said with respect
to the Hammeroff theory of microtubules serving as
quantum computers, consciousness, and MR
V? See Chapter X below.
You can see a 2011 blog I published giving evidence for quantum effects in biology, Quantum Biology,
I have been deliberately creating reality most of my lifetime. I mention a few examples or professional reality creation and then describe several more in story form. In each of these cases I went through some variant of an explicit reality-creating intent with reality materializing afterwards.
· Getting into the University of Michigan although my high school record did not qualify me
· Excelling at math at the University of Michigan despite having flunked this subject repeatedly in high school
· Serving a pleasant, relaxed and productive career after being drafted into the US army during the period of McCarthyism period while being formally investigated for my previous radical activities while at the University of Michigan
· Getting accepted into Harvard graduate school with all expenses for me and my wife covered
· Being exposed to early innovators leaders in the computer revolution starting in 1951
· Becoming one of the pioneers in the computer-communications field and making significant contributions over a large number of years
· Becoming a prominent consultant, writer and speaker
· Being both businessman and scientist
· Having always varying, interesting and exciting work
· Being highly productive as a writer, artist and videographer in my late 70s
Creating myself as a longevity science researcher and publisher of
widely-read biological science treatises in my 80s.
· As of the latest update of this treatise 1/2017 I am now 87 and am still highly productive
These can all be characterized as accomplishments resulting from hard work and luck. That is true. It is also true that they emerged from reality-creating intentions I started formulating early in my life.
I don’t exactly know when I started. Perhaps at the age of 5, perhaps much earlier. I know I formulated my intention to work in the computer field when I was 14 after I read an article in Popular Mechanics magazine about a “giant brain” at Harvard, the Mark I electromagnetic computer. I declared to myself I will be part of that “giant brain” line of development and I want to work in that place with that man who built the machine, Howard Aiken. That was in 1944. In 1956 Aiken took me in as a doctoral graduate student. I did my thesis research on a Univac I computer which was in the same room with the Mark I which was still running.
Here are a few personal reality-creation stories:
A. Getting to be a full university professor without climbing the academic ladder or passing go
After receiving my Ph. D. from Harvard in 1959 I took a job with the Arthur D. Little Inc, consulting firm, fulfilling an earlier intention to become an ace scientist-businessman consultant. My work, again by intention, involved dividing my time between basic research on problems of artificial intelligence and practical business consulting with major corporations of how to incorporate computers into their businesses. It was a very productive period from both viewpoints. I cranked out numerous scientific publications and was often invited to speak at international conferences. And from time to time I found myself sitting in corporate boardrooms. Seeing my success, near the end of 1966 I begin thinking “If I am so smart, why aren’t I at a major university where my other scientific colleagues are.” So I formed the intention to be a University professor. But I didn’t want to have to claw myself up through the academic ranks. It usually took ten or fifteen years of very hard work and faculty politics to go from Instructor to Assistant Professor to Associate Professor, to Full Professor. Most who entered this teach-like-crazy and publish-or-parish ladder never made it to the top and the pay did not get decent until the end of the process. My thought was “screw that.” My intention was to start out as a full professor with excellent pay.
JS: Did you get to know S.O. Rice? One of my personal heroes.
VG: No I did not know Rice. But I did get to interact with a lot or really great people there like William Shockley (the transistor) Gordon Moore (of Moore’s Law), and Doug McIllroy (the guy behind UNIX). I was on the MULTICS team during a seminal development in computer science. It was during the golden period of Bell Labs.
I did not put out any resumes or publicize the intention in any way. One day a couple of months later I “happened” to get two telephone calls out of the blue. One was from a new Provost at the State University of New York in Buffalo inviting me to come there to interview for a position as Professor and Dean of an intended new graduate school of library and information science. It just “happened” to be that my profile seemed to match what they were looking for. The other call was from Case University which “happened” to merging with Western Reserve University in Cleveland. They where they were looking for a new Dean for the new combined school of Business and Management Science and again “happened” to think I might be a good man for the job. They also asked me to come out for an interview. I set up back-to-back day visits with both Univesities in a few weeks. I choose the Buffalo opportunity as the better one for me. It came with a Deanship and a Full Professorship with tenure. I asked for a higher salary than I was getting from consulting, one that would make me one of the highest-paid people on campus. And they gave it to me. They offered me the position and I took it. There is a lot more to this story including a later intention to leave the university and go back into the world where I could make a bigger difference.. Enough to say that my intention fully materialized into reality.
B. Creating a great extended family
In 1971 I had an incredible family and personal intimacy mess on my hands. I was married to my second wife and was raising four children with her. I had divorced my first wife with whom I had had another two children. A lover, a woman who would become my third wife, had for several years been living in the house with me, my second wife and that family. A fourth woman friend of mine showed up with a baby that I had sired; she was to become my fourth wife. Then my third wife decided to have another baby with me and I concurred. I loved all of these women and children. I was telling the truth to everyone but there was a lot of anger and distrust among the three women. And at the time I was regularly sleeping with each of them. How could I sort it out so it would work? How could I fulfill my commitment to be a father present while the two new small children were raised?
JS: You should have been a Mormon. A little discreating could have fixed that.
VG: I indeed had to do a fair amount of discreating to fix the situation. But being a scientist at heart, becoming a Mormon would have meant too much bullshit for my taste.
Fortunately by then I had been exposed to some of the tools of reality creation and put them to work. I formed an unbounded intention to create a harmonious extended family characterized by love, compassion and generosity – one that works for everybody. Within three or four years that family materialized and has endured since. We regularly celebrate Thanksgiving, Christmas and other holidays with all the extended family members who live in our part of the country. There is friendship and love all around, and no remaining conflict. We brought a large house in the suburbs in 1985. My wife and our son and I lived on one floor, my third wife and my son with her lived on the second floor. We shared many dinner and family events as an extended family. People ask me “How did you pull that off Vince?” I didn’t pull anything off. I created an unbounded intention that served the interest of all concerned, and the results of the intention materialized. A lot had to do with what I did to make this possible, but a lot more had to do with what people would call “good fortune" and the generosity of the women concerned. My intentions with respect to family and intimacy have existed as reality since about 1973. And now looking back from 2016, things have continued to get better and better. Both my boys grew up living with their father and mother and are now close brothers as adults. They are off on their own but the two mothers and I remain in the family house as a close supportive unit. Each of those boys have great families of their own living very close, and me, my current and last wife enjoy four wonderful little grandchildren.
C. Creating ideal work with my wife
In 1993 my job as Chief Scientist of a software company was coming to an end and I was doing a lot of thinking about what I might want to do next. I had a number of discussions about this with my wife Melody and we decided it would be very nice if we could work together as a team and if our work could involve significant travel in Latin America. Why Latin America? Because it fascinated us though our exposure to it had been very minimal. We had spent a couple of days in Puerto Ricco and had made a short excursion into Mexico from San Diego. So I formulated an unbounded intention, essentially “Melody and I will do interesting work together in Latin America for which we will be well paid. And this will allow us travel together frequently to new and interesting places there.” I shared this intention with Melody and formulated it with a lot more detail. From the notes I made at the time: “The work should serve to bring balance to my life, and should not pose serious conflicts with my general intentions and goals. Thus, it should involve some travel, but not prolonged periods of work away from home.” “The assignments should provide me with variety, good people to interact with in interesting ways, and intellectual challenge.” “The number of days worked and the conditions of the work should match my internal needs for balance - balance between private creative work, interacting with others, travel and being home, working and being with family members, working for pay and playing and creating with music, etc.” “I should work between 75 and 150 days per year (work being days of consulting or consulting marketing) with average income per day of $1,000.” These quotes are lifted unedited from a 1994-1995 document I wrote recording the intention. All these details specified in the intention showed up in the reality created by the intention.
I had no idea about how this intention could be realized when I formulated it. Neither of us knew any Spanish or Portuguese. Neither of us had any work contacts in Latin America or had any inkling of what we actually could do there. We did not know the cultures or the countries. It took about a year for the intention to materialize into reality, in a completely unplanned and “lucky” way. I “happened” to write a paper about the successes and failures of newspapers creating online editions (a pioneering topic in 1993) and “happened” to send a copy to Tony Oettinger, my Ph.D. thesis advisor many decades before. Tony “happened” to share my paper with a visiting Spanish Scholar Juan Antonio Giner who “happened” to be the director of Innovation, a Spanish consulting group which “happened” to have major newspaper and magazine company clients throughout Latin America and in Spain. Juan Antonio contacted me and we had lunch in the Harvard Faculty Club and it soon became clear that I “happened” to have a major message for his Latin American Newspaper clients: “Now is the time for you to take your newspaper online.” And I “happened” to have credibility and background to deliver that message (I had “happened” to have been a Vice President of a major US newspaper chain Times Mirror) and I “happened” to have the depth of background in online services and consulting skills to allow me to assist those newspapers to go online. Finally, with the emergence of the Internet being just then, it “happened” to be a good time to excite the Latin American publishers about Internet and pursue consulting studies with them that actually helped them build their online services. The outcome was full realization of my intention. Melody and I were a small consulting team that traveled and did consulting projects in Latin America and Spain for about a 10 year period. I traveled, worked and lectured in Brazil, Venezuela, Costa Rica, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Chile, Paraguay, Uraguay, Argentina and Spain and Italy. For several years we made more money than I had been earning in my previous regular jobs. The projects involved frequent travel and Melody accompanied me on many trips. I also had an intention going at the time to have a rich home life and raise my two boys. So the projects involved a lot of our work being done from home. My intention materialized reality to every element of detail specified.
Later, in 2012 I formed another creating, that my wife Melody and my son Michael would become strong contributing partners with regard to my longevity science career and in creating a dietary supplement business to facilitate my intentions for facilitating greater health and longevity. That creation too is now becoming manifest as I write this in January of 2017.
Cruncher Longevity Test (Drafted Nov. 2007; updated October 12, 2010 and
In 1994 I decided to put my theory of creation to a real cruncher of a test – by declaring that my future would have a characteristic unknown previously in recorded history. The bottom line is not in yet but I will share what the declaration of intention was and what has happened with respect to it since.
While pursuing consulting work in Latin America, I was staying in a first-class hotel in Asuncion Paraguay on a business trip on a hot day, a hotel that would probably be third class if it were in Secaucus New Jersey. It was a Sunday after an essentially sleepless night and I was having a bad reaction to the country. I was wondering what I was doing there, whether I wanted to keep working or should retire (I was 64 at the time) and what my purpose in life was. After some suffering I remembered my ability to create whatever I want. I had already drafted the first version of this article prior to that time. I decided I loved life. I wanted to work, to contribute and be alive. I had a deep curiosity about just about everything.
So the way out of my funk was to declare the future I intended to live in, not see myself as victim of circumstances. The basic declaration came to me suddenly but it took me several hours to clarify it in detail and assure myself it was an unbounded declaration that reflected my full commitment. It went something like this: “In the universe in which I live I shall live a happy and productive life for another 165 years, mostly in the healthy physical body of a person 30-40 years old. This will take place with continuity of my consciousness and continuity of my relationships through the operation of ordinary reality. I will continue working and creating.” I made extensive computer notes then and have re-visited he intention many times since. This has not been just an intention; it is a reality in which I live. It is the basis of a new career for the present phase of my life.
In my experience record at the time of making this declaration, humans in history never lived to be more than 120 years old, give or take a few. I was declaring I would live until 230. There were no developments in science that I knew of that even remotely suggested the possibility. I knew that ordinary reality ruled out selling my soul to the Devil or becoming a vampire, but I had no inkling as to how this reality could possibly materialize. I knew this would be a very tough test of my approach to creation. Yet I reasoned that reality creation had served me many times earlier in my life, so why not take this approach now? And I did not think that living that long would necessarily violate any of the laws of ordinary reality. It seemed that my creation would have to be based on emerging science if I were to remain in a familiar universe of ordinary reality.
After making the declaration, elements of the
required reality started to materialize.
In 1996 I “accidentally” came across a seminal book on genetics and
that my intention could be more than fantasy.
I then got in touch with Michael Fossel the
author. Events unfolded rapidly and in
2007 I decided to embark on a new career, involving study of and contributions to
the sciences of health and longevity. I
created a second related reality - that I would pursue a serious career as a
longevity scientists, making the most important public contributions in my life
along the way. See item
As of writing this in January 2017, the
longevity creation is of course far from realized - that won't happen until the
year 2166. What I can say now - 21 years
later - is that my longevity intention might well be working. I seem to be in good health and very
productive for my age of 87. As far as I
know, I am free of any of the age-related degenerative diseases that kill off
people starting in their 70s.
to the second intention becoming a relevant longevity scientist, I can say that
creation is already manifest.
In this example I started with no known-agreement in the world as to the possibility of my intention becoming real. Now I experience agreement of the possibility among a number of highly-knowledgeable scientists – depending of course on specific longevity interventions still to be discovered. Looking backwards from beyond 2100, my having lived that long will be explained by looking at the cause-and-effect history of biomolecular longevity research and the aging interventions I pursued. My intention of 1994 will possibly be discarded by most scientists as having nothing to do with what happened to make my long life possible. That will be fine for me. I will be able to point to this document if anybody is interested in reading it. We shall see.
E Creating a Connection to my Grandfather’s Family
You are probably getting the point by now that
all of these stories of intentions-realized can be explained away
(after-the-fact) by accident and good fortune.
True. Here is another
example. In late 2006 I decided I would
like to do something with my two youngest sons, Joe then 27 and Mike then 29, a
something that brought us closer and
our family history in some way. My
grandparents were from Italy, We all share an Italian
name and I thought in terms of Italy and being Italian. So, I invited Mike and Joe to accompany me to
a trip to Italy in the summer of 2007.
They accepted and we had discussions about where we might go. Joe thought it might be great visiting the
wonderful cities, museums and cathedrals of the North –Venice, Florence, Padua,
Milan and the like. At first I agreed. I had visited Italy a few times over the
years and the whole family visited there when the boys were in their early
teens. But none of this travel took me
much further South than Naples.
We agreed to research the possibilities further. However I found myself formulating an intention to connect us all more directly with our family roots – to discover whether there are any Giulianos directly related to my grandfather, and if so connect with those people while sharing the experience with my sons. My grandfather was born and raised in Calabria, the southernmost province in mainland Italy. So my intention was to discover what the part of my patrimonial family there still is in Calabria and get us into relationship with and visit that family branch. When I made the intention I had no idea of how to proceed. I knew my grandfather was born around 1880 in a town in Calabria called Squillace, but that was about it. I had no documents that could help, so I thought. I had never been personally in contact with any relative in Calabria and had no idea whether any existed or if so where. The name Giuliano is almost as common in Italy as Jones is here. So that by-itself did not provide much of a basis for discovery. My grandfather died fifty years ago and only he knew who to look for where.
Here is what happened after declaring the intention. I half-heartedly started searching for Giuliano relatives in Calabria on Internet in Italian public records and genealogy sites. I came up with tons and tons of Giulianos but none were right. The trail remained stone cold. Then one evening my eye wandered up from my computer screen to the wall behind it. There happened to be hanging my Grandfather’s 1902 Honorable Discharge certificate when he finished his service with the Italian Army. My cousin had given this to me from my grandfather’s remains years ago. The certificate has been hanging on my wall for many years. Moving my head a bit I can see the document hanging there now as I write this. I got up to look at the document and discovered I needed a magnifying glass to read the hand-scrawled writing. The document says my grandfather was discharged in 1902 and his residence at the time was listed as in San Pietro a Maida. With aid of Google World I discovered San Pietro Maida is a town of 3,500 inhabitants nestled in the hills of central Calabria, in the arch of the foot of Italy. I had never heard of this town before. Internet revealed no way to contact the town government by e-mail so I wrote a paper snail-mail message in Italian addressed to the mayor of San Pietro Maida. I asked the mayor if he knew of anyone in the town government who could give me any assistance in identifying any relatives of mine who were still there. It was a very longshot and I was not surprised when there was no answer. But early one morning I received a phone call from somebody who spoke only Italian. We could talk because I happened to have learned some Italian as a youth and in the course of my travels. The person identified himself as Nicola Giuliano. He happened to be The Vice Mayor of San Pietro a Maida and the Mayor had handed my letter to him. In the course of further discussions and e-mails we also established he happened to be as close a cousin as I could possibly have in Calabria. His grandfather and my grandfather were brothers.
Nicola also happened to be warm and welcoming of a relationship with me and my sons and Joe and Mike and I ended up staying at his house in San Pietro a Maida. Nicola put us in touch with a rich network of other Giuliano cousins who happened to be either in town or visiting. The first evening we arrived Nicola had happened to have arranged a Giuliano family reunion of 96 people in a local restaurant. I happened to be warmly welcomed as the surrogate of my grandfather with the same name who had left the town 105 years earlier. Nicola and I happened to be able to forge a powerful bond together. The trip made and left a powerful emotional impact, and now Joe, Mike and I are in touch with a previously-unknown branch of the family in Calabria. Melody, my wife, and I visited there again in May 2008. It’s crazy-wonderful. The intention has fully materialized into reality.
From a common-sense viewpoint what was involved here was a combination of intentionality and luck, call it happenstance. Was it that, or the creation of an intended reality? I think it was both. The intentionality expresses itself through what looks after-the-fact as luck and propitious circumstances. It's always that way. In quantum physics, we would say that reality creation preserves causality.
It is an interesting exercise to as whether Nicola Giuliano existed before I formulated this intention according to the different interpretations:
· According to our understanding of normal reality: "of course he must have existed, and you are lucky to have found him. What a dumb question!" Nicola and his history are now in my experience record and this is naturally how I hold him.
· According to the Copenhagen Interpretation CI: "He existed before only as a wave function probability, but materialized when you formulated your intention."
· According to the parallel universes PUI interpretation. "Nicola existed in some universes you are and where in, the ones in the submanifold you are in now, but he did not exist in a sub manifold of universes you are no longer in."
· According to Cramer's TI interpretation: "He existed as a possibility in the past, as a reality after I formed the unbounded intention."
JS: As a computer scientists how do you relate your use of the word “intentionality” to the artificial intelligence and philosophy of mind use of the same term?
As to philosophy of mind I do believe that each of us consists of multiple interacting personalities, sometimes called “voices.” One or several of these personalities are managers, playing the role of an operating system. An example: I am in a subway car and a woman sitting next to me says “Would you please stop crowding me?.” Control is automatically shifted to the scared and shamed little boy in me and I respond “I am very sorry, I will move across the aisle.” As I move I feel anger swelling up in me and a judgemental-defensive me takes control and says to myself “Who the hell does she think she is. She weighs at least 350 pounds and then complains I am crowding her.” Then control is passed to the loving compassionate me as I remember my intention of contribution to others. Looking in her face, the dominant bitch I saw a few seconds ago now appears as an unfortunate person with many signs of suffering in her face. I see the woman has a bad cold and is coughing into a dirty handkerchief. I understand that getting me to move was a concealed gift to me because it reduced my chance of getting infected. I reach into my briefcase where I have an unopened packet of Kleenex. I walk across the aisle, smile at her` and say “Please take this.” She takes it, smiles back and thanks me. My operating system me says to myself “Damn good job, transforming this negative-sum game to a positive-sum one.”
Marvin Minsky, godfather of AI, wrote a book on the multiple-personality framework called Community of Mind. I speculate that some of these voices are stronger or weaker in the various parallel universes in my reality manifold. Further, I speculate that the probability distributions of voices across universes conditions which one that comes up and when. I will be thinking further about this topic and may write a separate essay on it.
Transforming myself into a longevity scientist (updated January
As mentioned in item D, "The cruncher longevity test," in 1994 I formulated an intention to live in good health until the age of 230. Projecting success of this intention left open the question of what I was going to pursue as a career over the next several decades. It was nice being a computer artist for a few years after my Internet-consulting career, but by late 2005 I wanted to devote my energies to a career that was more intellectually challenging and that had greater social impact. In 2006 I formulated a clear intention to enter a new career as a longevity scientist, requiring that I create myself as a highly-informed and internationally-known and respected professional in that area. In my previous careers I had enjoyed a reputation as a significant contributor and was frequently asked to speak at international conferences. I wanted that for starters in my new career too. I also wanted sufficient financial compensation to support my family as an aspect of my new career. From a conventional wisdom viewpoint these outcomes were highly unlikely because at the time a) I had no background whatsoever in the life sciences. I had not even taken a high school biology class, b) I did not at that time have enough background to be able to read many key journal articles related to the multiple facets of the aging sciences, c) I had no degrees or accreditation normally required for recognition or functioning in the highly structured academic areas of biological science concerned, and d) I was already 76 years old, too old given the conventional wisdom that "an old dog cannot learn new tricks." An in-depth background in biology, biochemistry, molecular biology, genetics, cell processes, genomics, protein dynamics and other arcane areas seemed to be required. Going back to college and graduate school would have required 6-8 years for me to take the necessary courses and get the necessary degrees. And that would have still left me as a nobody in longevity science, perhaps qualified to be a lab assistant somewhere. Further, I would have been left out of participating in the field during critical early years of its development. I choose a different route.
As of now,
June 201 6,
this creation has been unfolding into reality for several years in a most gratifying
way. I can read and understand important scientific publications related to the
multiple facets of aging. And I can
write cogently about how highly technical findings that cut across disciplines
can be combined. I generate a popular longevity blog now containing over 500
articles and technical treatises I have written on aspects of longevity
science, www.agingsciences.com These blog attracts 2,000 - 5,000
unique readers a day and I has more than 60,000 registered subscribers. I estimate it has something like 150,000 total
followers worldwide. I attend
professional conferences related to longevity science, am invited to speak from
time to time. I have accomplished
scientists as collaborators. and am known to many leaders in the field.
This particular creation has involved both application of the creative process of intentionality and hard challengingwork on my part. But being a competent hard-working longevity scientist is part of what I set out to create. The overall creation is well on its way to being there though the financial remuneration part is still not manifest.
As I think about it now, a number of other compelling reality-creating stories are coming to mind. Some of the characteristics of all the successful reality-creating initiatives I have taken are:
§ Looking forward from when I made the intention, I had no inkling of how the intention could be realized. There was no action plan, approach, no notion of how or where to get into action, only pure intentionality.
Many people have told me that it is ridiculous to formulate an intention without some action plan to make it real. They say things like “An intention without an action plan is meaningless.” The opposite is true for me. The best approach has been to declare the intention leaving the “how to” wide open. And then let the universe guide me through whatever tortuous paths that are required to getting my intended results. Given the complementarity I have mentioned between the what of creation and the how it happens, this approach makes the creation job a lot easier for the universe.
· After declaring the intention all kinds of things started to happen: relevant unknown past events were discovered, “accidental” or unforeseen things “happened,” and other processes occurred in the path of materializing my intention into reality. Events and circumstances over which I had no control combined in unpredictable ways to help me get what I want. That is, the universe took over the how to part for me. From the TI interpretation viewpoint, my intention resulted in all possible past-to-future causal paths that satisfied my intention being identified, and one being picked and made real.
· Looking backwards from when an intention is already realized, it can always be seen that there was a cause-and-effect chain of circumstances, happenings and luck that made the intention possible. Most people would leave it by saying: “He wanted something and by intelligence, hard work and luck he managed to get it.” Yeah. Right. Why does it appear this way? Because a new creation is made in the presence of profound set of prior creations, namely the laws of ordinary reality which include cause-and-effect.
VII. THE HOW-TO OF CREATION
How I create is relatively simple. I can happen anywhere. It is helpful if it is quiet and I am not distracted. I envisage the situation I want to create, attempting to formulate it in as simple and clear terms as possible. Say it is X. I don’t allow myself to get thrown by the facts that I have no idea of how X can come about and that I don’t know what to do to make X happen. I then pause a bit to see if the creation X would create any contradiction with my past or present reality. If so, I recast it so as to remove the contradiction. I may mull the possibility of X around for a while to see if I am fully willing to be committed to it being my reality. When I am ready to create it I simply declare “In the universe in which I exist, X is so.” I don’t say “X will be so.” Creation happens in the present instant even though the created situation might not be manifest for some time. If I am clear at that point and nothing comes up, I have created X and just need to wait for it to materialize. If a voice comes up that says “Yes, but what about something else, say Y,” then the declaration of reality is not unbounded and I have to go back either to discreating Y first or reformulating X to work around Y. I may discreate Y and find out there is something else Z in the way that I have to discreate or work around. I continue with the processes of reformulation and discreation until I am clear. Depending on the complexity and profoundness of X and what comes up, the whole process can take anywhere from a few minutes to a few hours. Normally I do not experience any change at all in my current reality even though I have shunted myself into a sub-manifold of universes. Or, if you prefer, I have lined up a chain of past to future events that lead to X, even though I don’t know what those events are.
Long after I started practicing reality creation and long after I formulated and wrote down most of what is in this document, I learned of an organization called AVATAR that systematically teaches practical processes of reality creation and discreation. One way to look at it is that I created AVATAR in My Universe to give me philosophical company. I took the basic AVATAR course in 2003 and found it largely compatible with my philosophy as expounded here. The AVATAR techniques for reality creation and discreation are proprietary to that organization and I cannot reveal them here. There are a number of them and they are taught in a systematic manner. Also a philosophical background is taught somewhat compatible with the one laid out here but in nowhere as great depth and without a scientific rationale such as offered here. If you would like to pursue reality creation for yourself seriously in a context of others who believe in and practice it, taking the AVATAR Course could be a way to kick-start the process.
VIII. PURPOSE OF LIFE AND MORALITY
A. PURPOSE OF LIFE
Taking from a deep concept of Western religion, I think the game also has winners and losers -- those who begin to know Source and those who don't. I am deeply committed to that game, and saying what is said here is part of my playing it.
JS: The so-called Axial Model which underlies most western religions seeks to prepare for existence in the after-life. It is premised on the idea that we do not really belong to the place we are at now. Christianity’s heaven and Islam’s paradise are typical of axial religions.
VG: True. I take a Marxian view of those religions. They were philosophies designed to help a ruling class maintain a structured society in which most people had to live in filth and poverty under tyrannical control with no hope of escape. What could be more effective than to tell people that they will get their rewards in an afterlife? Evolution, a major tool for the operation of Source, works on the societal level by evolving myth and belief frameworks that are required to support the society at hand. Also note, I make no reference whatsoever here to afterlife. However there is a strong parallel to the idea that our ultimate goal should be getting to know God or being an instrument of God.
Further in response to Jim’s point I think we definitely belong to
be in the place where we are now. I have
I assert that it is possible for me and you as humans to participate in creation -- the process of altering probabilities to give form to matter in space and time. This assertion is close to the classic assertion that humans have "free will." I assert, further, that this participation in creation is tantamount to knowing Source (knowing God), to the extent that such knowing is open to us.
Knowing how we are part of Source consists of giving expression to Source, becoming part of Source as force of intentionality, creating, bringing forth something from nothing, creating real differences in the universe that did not exist before.
B. WINNERS AND LOSERS IN LIFE
Creating and Winning in Life
So the winners in the game of life in my moral framework are those who know Source through creating as part of and on behalf of Source, and the losers are those who don't.
What about the looser, poor slob? The looser either doesn't create much or doesn't know that he can create, or creates chaos. He doesn't grasp his own special connection with Source, with the rest of the Universe, his own utter improbability, his own magnificence. That's the penalty of losing. It is isolation, not knowing Source. Note again that this is a lot like what religious philosophers have had to say about knowing God.
As to immortality, well I am suggesting here that when we exercise reality creation we are transcending the rules of spacetime in ordinary reality, just like this happens in quantum phenomena. When we do that we are functioning in an immortal domain.
C. ABOUT GOOD AND EVIL
One final question -- given no-end of evil-intending types around, if I intend niceness and good, sweetness, kindness and light, won't my intentions conflict with the intentions of the bad guys like Dr. Strangelove, Ghengis Kahn, Chemical Ali or Saddam Hussein? Yes. That’s fairly evident given the world as it is.
D. CHAOS AND EVIL
On one level, creation can happen independently of whether it is for good or evil, making something new or destroying something that is. Since there is a distinction, though, I have a choice as to how I orient my creations.
JS: You equate entropy with evil, yet there is a time vector pointing to increased entropy. Does this mean that evil will also increase with time?
VG: Good question. Source operates on EN to create structure, reducing entropy. I am not sure whether entropy is increasing in the totality of Our Universe, although many cosmologists think it is. The universe is spreading itself thinner and thinner and into eventual nothingness according to them. Yet, the historical evolution of the universe has been to more and more complex structures and corresponding laws. We started with the ultimate entropy of EN, and look at where we are now.
Your question is a good one, however, and I intend o do some further thinking about how information and entropy fit into my basic framework for creation. Information we know is negentropy, measured using the same Shannon-Weaver mathematical formula used to measure entropy. We know from physics that where there is non-locality, like Source operating on EN, there can be no transfer of information. So, information as we know it can neither cross universes or go backward in time. This seems to say the same of entropy. So, exactly where do information and entropy fit in then? They seem to belong to this particular universe and probably drive the direction of time.
This is a wonderful question and now in 2017 I want to
expand on my original 2008 answer given just above. Given the Shannon-Weaver equations that
equate entropy and information I no longer want to equate evil with entropy. With increasing entropy can come constantly
increasing complexity, higher forms of life and what we call beauty
, Higher entropy can reflect more chaos, more
sophisticated order, and in fact both.
I don't think creating evil represents Source's direction for humans at this time. We, humans with the intelligence and science we have, are very extremely improbable, as are the laws of nature that exist -- incalculably improbable unless there is some meta-principle that governs the creation of the laws of nature, e.g., the rules of the game. It is all so far-fetched and improbable that I, like countless thinkers before me, conclude that we and the rules of the game must be the expression of a purpose in Source's creation – a purpose that only we -- of all the things in the universe we know of now -- can express.
I hope so. In fact I would like to nudge the beginnings of that transition
along. I wonder sometimes, perhaps in
too-anthropomorphic terms what kind of a "bargain" it is if Source is
willing to grant me the extraordinary creation of a life lasting 230 years -
violating all known precedents of recorded history. What temerity I had to ask for that! So, I want the payoff for Source to be worth
it in terms of furthering the purpose of the universe, outlined as I see it in
Section E, F and G following - creating higher and higher forms of life. I have
therefore formulated a companion intention/creation that my life will be
devoted to extraordinary contribution - though I don't know the exact form of
that contribution yet. Perhaps it will
be in the domain of health and longevity science. It could even be the message of this very
should that message become widely known and
E. PURPOSE OF THE UNIVERSE
As I see it, that purpose is the application of consciousness, intelligence, values, knowledge, wisdom and organization to the processes of creation, and to the creation of ever-higher forms of consciousness, intelligence, values, knowledge, wisdom and organization. In other words, to establish the playground for the game of life. No other things we know of -- beasts, mineral or chemical or electronic entities -- have the potential we have now to express Source's direction already expressed in us and in our societies.
JS: How about computers? Kurzweil: “So will computers be smarter than humans? It depends on what you consider to be a computer and what you consider to be human. By the second half of the 21st century, there will be no clear distinction between the two.” Computers are evolving faster than humans.
VG: I tend to agree with Kurtzweil as our real-world and virtual-world existences continue to become more intertwined. But as yet we are far from where individual machines have what we would call consciousness. What I do see is humans becoming more closely interlinked by cell phones, instant messaging and the like and new cybercommunities evolving. We could have new forms of collective consciousness emerging as we become more cyber-entangled with machines, software and communications networks. I have written an essay on cybercommunity.
As of 1/2017 I see new forms of human communications and
relationships evolving connected with smart phones, instant messaging and the
like, and consumer-level virtual reality is taking off in popularity. I wear a smartwatch and a smartring
that constantly monitor my movement, temperature, heart rate, heart rate
variability and other health measures and allow me to
things about my wellbeing that are otherwise invisible. These body parameters are linked into shared
databases via my cell phone. But I know
of nothing like consciousness among machines emerging except in movies like The
F. MY MISSION IN LIFE
As a part of and agent for the rest of Source, I hold myself responsible, directly responsible, for the well being of all beings and things in the universe I can impact on, and for creating the conditions on this planet to assure the continuation of loving conscious life. In particular, I will give, communicate, and make real visions of a world in which each of us discovers more and more our connection with Source, in which we increasingly know Source.
This is a statement of a creation, why I am writing this treatise. I believe this has to be a world of increasingly greater organization; that we must create:
· a shared philosophy in the word that reconciles science and religion, leading to
· a world of caring, love and brotherhood of all peoples, which is
· a world with less and less war, starvation,
poverty, cruelty and other behaviors born of survival
I am talking here about my belief system. As should be clear, my belief system also holds open the possibility that you may have a quite different belief system, and be equally potent to create reality on the basis of your system.
G. PLAYING TO WIN IN LIFE
Another way of saying this is
that Source's intent in creating everything is/was and will be so we could play
the game of life in a way that
is possible for us to win -- that is, to know Source through giving expression
to Source. So I'm for playing the game
to win. Winning for me means furthering Source's purpose for the Universe, that
is, creating conditions in which life in this world can go on, in which the
pursuit of the game of life can go on with dignity and success, in which
aliveness and intentionality increases.
I believe some of my most important intentions and creations are highly aligned with the directions of Source. For example, consider my intentions for personal longevity and to be a respected longevity scientist. I believe that if mankind is to survive in a world of exponentially increasing complexity and major hazards that could destroy us all, we need mobilize the collective wisdom of older people and this can be served by increasing longevity. Thus, Source's direction of supporting ever-increasing forms of organization are supported by my longevity intentions. I have written about this in blog entries like The social ethics of longevity and am in dialog with Marios Kyriazis, a well known longevity researcher and deep thinker about the issue. See the blog post Indefinite life extension - Dialog with Marios Kyriazis.
IX. MACROSCOPIC REALITY CREATION IN THE TRANSACTIONAL INTERACTION INTERPRETATION
In earlier sections of
this paper I suggested a process of Macroscopic Reality Creation (MRC) that can
be interpreted using the Parallel Universes Interpretation (PUI) of quantum
physics. A question can be raised,
then, as to whether the processes of reality creation are just highly similar
on both the macroscopic and quantum level, or are they in fact the same. If they are essentially the same, it would be
expected that MRC could be explained in other quantum interpretational
frameworks as well. Here I look at how
interpreted using the Transactional
Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics of John G. Cramer, (TI).
A. REVISITING BACK-TO-THE-FUTURE
This is a first-look at applying TI to MRC.
I have long known about the backwards-in-time interpretation of certain quantum-mechanical wave functions and have wondered how they really worked. As pointed out in Cramer’s paper, these time-reversed waves were known to Dirac, Wheeler, Feynman and others and have been around for a long time even in classical physics. But are these wave functions “real” or merely mathematical artifacts? Cramer’s TI appears to be a comprehensive interpretational framework for quantum physics that postulates actual existence of wave functions that can go backward as well as forward in time. TI can be used to explain most traditional quantum paradoxes. Further TI like PUI does not seem to demand a central role for a conscious human observer as does CI.
B. HOW TI WORKS
"The interpretational problems of quantum
mechanics are considered. The way in which the standard Copenhagen
Interpretation (CI) of quantum mechanics deals with these problems is reviewed.
A new interpretation of the formalism of quantum mechanics, the Transactional
Interpretation (TI), is presented. The basic element of TI is the transaction describing
a quantum event as an exchange of advanced and retarded waves, as implied by
the work of Wheeler and Feynman, Dirac, and others. The TI is explicitly
nonlocal and thereby consistent with recent tests of the Bell Inequality, yet
is relativistically invariant and fully causal. A detailed comparison of the TI and CI is
made in the context of well known quantum mechanical gedanken experiments and "paradoxes". The TI
permits quantum mechanical wave functions to be interpreted as real waves
physically present in space rather than as "mathematical representations
of knowledge" as in the CI. The TI is shown to provide insight into the
complex character of the quantum mechanical state vector and the mechanism
associated with its "collapse". The TI also leads in a natural way to
justification of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the Born probability
Here is simplified description of how I understand TI works:
The possible states of a system are described by its State Vector which is interpreted in a statistical sense. The State Vector is the vehicle for describing probabilities of various possible outcomes (eigenstates) of a quantum event. The state vector is also identified with “knowledge of the system.” The state vector is represented as the “ket” in Dirac notation. /S>. In TI, the state vector is seen to be a physically-existing wave that propagates from a source and travels through space at the speed of light. The state vector is a mathematically complex function having both real and imaginary parts. Reversing the sign of the imaginary part reverses the time-direction of the wave, sending it back into the past. In TI unlike CI there is no special role of an observer or even observation itself. An event about to happen sends out an Offer Wave (OW) both forward and backward in time stating probabilities of possible outcomes. This wave interacts with other events in the past and future which send back conjugate Response Waves (RW). Subject to physical boundary conditions one or none of these RWs could be accepted, which means that it combines with the OW in a transaction. The product of an OW and a RW is an actual state of the system (eigenstate) which is then realized. Because the OWs and RWs travel in opposite time directions, transactions happen instantaneously. The process is essentially non-local and the RWs could come from long in the past or future or far away, and TI is compatible with relativity theory. The OWs and RWs do not have energy.
The idea of such transactions and backward-forward symmetry of quantum interactions is shared by other scientists. The quantum transaction is a Wheeler–Feynman handshake or transaction. " In TI, the source emits a usual (retarded) wave forward in time, but it also emits an advanced wave backward in time; furthermore, the receiver, who is later in time, also emits an advanced wave backward in time and a retarded wave forward in time. A quantum event occurs when a "handshake" exchange of advanced and retarded waves triggers the formation of a transaction in which energy, momentum, angular momentum, etc. are transferred. The quantum mechanism behind transaction formation has been demonstrated explicitly for the case of a photon transfer between atoms in Sect. 5.4 of Carver Mead's book Collective Electrodynamics. In this interpretation, the collapse of the wavefunction does not happen at any specific point in time, but is "atemporal" and occurs along the whole transaction, and the emission/absorption process is time-symmetric. The waves are seen as physically real, rather than a mere mathematical device to record the observer's knowledge as in some other interpretations of quantum mechanics.(Wikipedia)"
St Francis of Assisi said, "What you are looking for is what is looking." This is essentially what happens in the TI framework of quantum mechanics or reality creation. You are looking for the physical conditions necessary to satisfy an intention leading to reality creation. Quantum waves go backwards and forward in time from the instant of your intention looking for events that can contribute to satisfying those conditions (what you are looking for). Conditions that satisfy the intention send back return quantum waves in the opposite time direction to the time and place of your intention (what is looking for you), Because there is time reversal in each case the "deal" of the intention is sealed instantly at the time and place where the intention is made - even if the creation may not be manifest for many years.
So, put a little differently TI seems to work for Reality Creation this way:
An act of creation (an unbounded declaration of what is so as in my paper) sends out OW quantum waves both forward in backwards in time. These waves partially specify probability distributions of the possible eigenstates of the creation desired. The waves physically exist according to the TI theory, and travel at the speed of light. They do not have energy associated with them and are therefore not yet part of actualized “reality.” These waves are essentially requests for EN in the past and in the future to see if events could exist that satisfy any of the eigenstates (possible outcomes) of what is intended to be created. EN sends conjugate RW waves back in the opposite time direction from the request waves, stating willingness to create events that were requested and providing eigenstate probability values. If the responses satisfy physical conditions such as complementarity, the outgoing waves and returning waves combine in a transaction to make the creation, and the waves disappear. Exactly what is created depends on the probability distributions inherent in OW and RW. Transactions at the time of creation are instantaneous since time is always flowing in two directions (either present to future back to present or present to past back to present), so OWs and RWs meet up right now. (Although from another viewpoint, creation took place over the entire past and future time intervals spanned by the OW and RW that made the transaction.) Future and past are instantly fixed to be in accordance with the creation at the instant of creation, e.g. the wave function collapses, though not in the sense of the CI.
It is important to recognize that the instant of creation may be different than when the creation is scheduled to show up which may be years later. In this view a creation happens in the now. However as the waves travel back and forth in time it may have been brewing for many years in the past and will be happening in the future until it is finally manifest. No energy exchange is involved. Causality is preserved as a condition of the transactions. The wave into the past starts at the present, and only responses from the past that are consistent with the present are allowable. That is, the present situation is seen to be the caused by past events. Again I need to mention that the past is largely undetermined, limited only by the experience record of the individual concerned.
The TI interpretation helps see how in MRC the act of creation and the manifestation of the creation may be years apart and how past as well as future events mobilize themselves to eventually allow manifestation of the creation. The idea of an underdetermined past exists in TI as it does in the PUI. TI also elucidates the time arrow involved in creation and the need for preservation of causality.
One of the most difficult aspects to sell of my MRC framework is the idea that creation of something affects the past at the time of creation as well as in the future. It is hard to swallow the idea that to create something in the future I have also to create a bunch of stuff in the past that is needed to help cause that future something. Dirac notation clearly shows a time-reversed wave component, but it is very hard to interpret what this means from the viewpoint of the CI. PUI allows multiple universes with different pasts so by allowing the concept of universe manifolds it is possible to explain present-affecting-past in a way that preserves causality. TI goes further and suggests an actual physical mechanism through which the present can negotiate the existence of a previously-unknown something in the past.
Far out? Certainly, very far out. But remember this framework was created many years ago to explain far out but very real quantum mechanical phenomena.
IX. PENROSE-HAMEROFF PHYSICAL BASIS FOR REALITY CREATION
This Section. added in May 2011, addresses what
had prior to 2011 been a gap in this treatise.
Up to that point I discussed how the phenomenon of reality creation
seems to behave as a quantum phenomenon according to three of the main
interpretations of quantum theory. However, I had not addressed the question of
how an unbound intention physically expresses itself as a quantum wave leading
to a creation. I still do not know how
to do that in a provable way, but can point to a substantial
body of research that may lead to that.
Researchers as far back as 1924 have suggested that there exists a physical basis for this happening due to coherent quantum states arising in the brain. That is, they have suggested mechanism according to which an intention which is expressed as a kind of thought translates itself into a quantum wave which in turn either selects a subset of universes in which the intention turns into reality (the PUI parallel universes interpretation of quantum theory), or send out a quantum wave into the past and future that negotiates with events so as to bring the creation into reality (Cramer's TI interpretation of quantum theory). The history of theories of quantum consciousness is laid out in this interesting article. I focus here particularly on work of Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff, namely the The Penrose-Hameroff "Orch OR" model of consciousness (PHMC). I summarize what that model is and how it works here, provide citation references related to it, and discuss how this model relates to the central thesis of this treatise. I also refer to some online videos explaining the theory.
Please be warned that the material in this Section is quite technical and, unless you know some things about quantum physics and cell biology, you could easily get lost here.
A. QUANTUM COMPUTERS IN THE BRAIN WITH COLERENCE STATES WHICH CREATE CONSCIOUSNESS
The essence of the PHMC and its application to reality creation is that the brain functions as a network of quantum computers and that conscious thoughts and intentions correspond to quantum coherence states. Again such a state can either result in selection of a subset of possible universes (PUI parallel universes interpretation), or send out reality-creating quantum waves backwards and forward in time (TI Cramer interpretation).
The individual quantum computers are within microtubles, tiny filament structures within individual brain nerve cells that serve to provide structural integrity as well as "railways" for intra-cellular transportation between cell organelles. Microtubules also play central roles in cell division. Alzheimer's disease is a condition where abnormal tau protein disintegrates microtubules. Here is a blog entry I have written back in 2012 about microtubules and their biological roles..
"The nature of consciousness, the mechanism by which it occurs in the brain, and its ultimate place in the universe are unknown. We proposed in the mid 1990's that consciousness depends on biologically ‘orchestrated’ coherent quantum processes in collections of microtubules within brain neurons, that these quantum processes correlate with, and regulate, neuronal synaptic and membrane activity, and that the continuous Schrödinger evolution of each such process terminates in accordance with the specific Diósi–Penrose (DP) scheme of ‘objective reduction’ (‘OR’) of the quantum state. This orchestrated OR activity (‘Orch OR’) is taken to result in moments of conscious awareness and/or choice. The DP form of OR is related to the fundamentals of quantum mechanics and space–time geometry, so Orch OR suggests that there is a connection between the brain's biomolecular processes and the basic structure of the universe. Here we review Orch OR in light of criticisms and developments in quantum biology, neuroscience, physics and cosmology. We also introduce a novel suggestion of ‘beat frequencies’ of faster microtubule vibrations as a possible source of the observed electro-encephalographic (‘EEG’) correlates of consciousness. We conclude that consciousness plays an intrinsic role in the universe.()."
There is much detail to the current form of PHMC, which has been developed over decades in a series of papers, originally based on independent work by both authors. Hameroff published Ultimate Computing - Biomolecular Consciousness and NanoTechnology in 1987. In the first of these books, Penrose published The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and The Laws of Physics in 1989. There "Penrose hypothesizes that quantum mechanics plays an essential role in the understanding of human consciousness. The collapse of the quantum wavefunction is seen as playing an important role in brain function. -- Following the publication of this book, Penrose began to collaborate with Stuart Hameroff on a biological analog to quantum computation involving microtubules, which became the foundation for his subsequent book Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness, published in 1994.
Probably the best current description of PHMC is the 2014 review mentioned earlier Penrose-Hameroff "Orch OR" model of consciousness. This paper also links to a number of critical reviews of the theory, You can also watch the video presentation Clarifying the Tubulin bit/qubit - Defending the Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR Model (Quantum Biology) where Hameroff's lectures on what microtubules are and their quantum properties. He describes microtubules as "the cell's own onboard computer" and describes how information is encoded on microtubules and processed on microtubules which constitute an information processing network as well a substance transportation traffic highway system inside cells. Long-term information storage takes place in microtubules, while the information at synaptic nerve junctions is held only temporarily. Hameroff describes a specific biomolecular reaction whereby digital information can be written on microtubules.
Clock rate of microtublues information processing is thought to be 8 mhz, vastly faster than classical synaptic data transmission. Normally, tau proteins sit on microtubules and act as traffic signals to tell motor proteins where to pick up and leave off substances they are transporting along the microtubules. Hameroff proposes that the information may be stored on microtubules as quantum bits (qubits), and the processing is that of a quantum computer. This radical perspective holds that in the brain incredibly fast quantum computational capability as well as storage power exists within individual neurons as well as among them. Microtubule quantum data storage and processing vastly expand the power of the brain beyond that originally envisaged. "Classical microtubule automata switching in the nanosecond scale offer a potentially huge increase in the brain's computational capacity. Conventional approaches focus on synaptic switching (roughly 10 to the 11th power brain neurons, 1000 synapses/neuron, switching in the millisecond range of a thousand operations per second) and predict about 10 to the 17th power bit states per second for a human brain (e.g. Moravec, 1985). However as biological cells typically each contain approximately 10 to the 7th power tubulins (Yu and Bass, 1994), nanosecond switching in microtubule automata predicts roughly 10 to the 16th power operations per second, per neuron. This capacity could account for the adaptive behaviors of single cell organisms like paramecia, for example, who elegantly swim, avoid obstacles, and find food and mates without benefit of a nervous system or synapses. As the human brain contains about ten to the 11th power neurons, nanosecond microtubule automata offer about ten to the 27th power brain operations per second."
Important for this discussion, billions of
microtubule elements may represent qubits of quantum computing in
B. Central points of the PHMC model
Central points of the PHMC model are:
1. "Conformational states of individual tubulin proteins in brain microtubules are sensitive to internal quantum events (e.g. London forces in hydrophobic pockets) and able to cooperatively interact with other tubulins in both classical and quantum computation --- classical phase computation (microtubule automata) regulates chemical synapses and other neural membrane activities -."
2. "Quantum coherent superposition supporting quantum computation emerges among London forces in hydrophobic pockets of microtubule subunit tubulins -- In this phase, quantum computation among tubulins evolves linearly according to the Schrodinger equation (quantum microtubule automata). Actin gelation and a condensed charge phase surrounds, isolates and insulates microtubules during the quantum phase."
3. "Each brain neuron is estimated to contain about ten million tubulins. If, say, 10 percent of each neuron's tubulins became coherent, then Orch OR of tubulins within roughly 20,000 (gap-junction connected) neurons would be required for a 25 msec conscious event, 5,000 neurons for a 100 msec event, or 1,000 neurons for a 500 msec event, etc."
4. “Each instantaneous Orch OR event binds superposed information encoded in microtubules whose net displacement reaches threshold at a particular moment: a variety of different modes of information is thus bound into a "now" event. As quantum state reductions are irreversible in time, cascades of Orch OR events present a forward flow of time and "stream of consciousness."
Hameroff goes on to discuss applications of the PHMC model to enigmatic issues of consciousness: 1) the nature of subjective experience, 2) "binding" in vision and sense of "self," 3) transition from pre-conscious processing to consciousness, 4) non-computability and 5) free will. Quoting selectively from his treatise “Penrose objective (quantum state) reductions are bubble-like separations and collapses in fundamental spacetime geometry extending downward to the level of spin networks. Figure 11 illustrates quantum superposition and objective reduction of spacetime geometry. Orch OR events could be Whitehead occasions of experience In a panpsychist view consistent with modern physics, Planck scale spin networks encode proto-conscious ("funda-mental") experience (qualia) as well as Platonic values. Particular configurations of quantum spin geometry convey particular varieties of proto-conscious experience, meaning and aesthetics. The proposed Orch OR events occur in the brain, extending downward to processes in an experiential Planck scale medium. The basic idea is that consciousness involves brain activities coupled to self-organizing ripples in fundamental reality. -- How can near-infinitesimal proto-conscious information link to macroscopic biology? -- , the Orch OR process may be an emergent phenomenon in quantum geometry mediated through London forces in hydrophobic pockets of tubulin and other proteins.”
C. How seriously should this PHMC model be taken?
In my opinion, very seriously. The authors of the PHMC are distinguished scientists. "Sir Roger Penrose OM FRS (born 8 August 1931) is an English mathematical physicist and Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford and Emeritus Fellow of Wadham College. He has received a number of prizes and awards, including the 1988 Wolf Prize for physics which he shared with Stephen Hawking for their contribution to our understanding of the universe. He is renowned for his work in mathematical physics, in particular his contributions to general relativity and cosmology. He is also a recreational mathematician and philosopher(ref)." "Stuart Hameroff(Born on July 16, 1947, Buffalo, New York) is an anesthesiologist and professor at the University of Arizona known for his scientific studies of consciousness, and his theories of the mechanisms of consciousness(ref)." Hameroff has spent decades studying tubulins.
"Stapp's model of consciousness is tripartite. Reality is a sequence of discrete events in the brain. Each event is an increase of knowledge. That knowledge comes from observing "systems". Each event is driven by three processes that operate together:
i. The "Schroedinger process" is a mechanical, deterministic, process that predicts the state of the system (in a fashion similar to Newton's Physics: given its state at a given time, we can use equations to calculate its state at a different time). The only difference is that Schroedinger's equations describe the state of a system as a set of possibilities, rather than just one certainty.
ii. The "Heisenberg process" is a conscious choice that we make: the formalism of Quantum Theory implies that we can know something only when we ask Nature a question. This implies, in turn, that we have a degree of control over Nature. Depending on which question we ask, we can affect the state of the universe. Stapp mentions the Quantum Zeno effect, as a well known process in which we can alter the course of the universe by asking questions (it is the phenomenon by which a system is "freezed" if we keep observing the same observable very rapidly). We have to make a conscious decision about which question to ask Nature (which observable to observe). Otherwise nothing is going to happen.
iii. The "Dirac process" gives the answer to our question. Nature replies, and, as far as we can tell, the answer is totally random.
iv. Once Nature has replied, we have learned something: we have increased our knowledge. This is a change in the state of the universe, which directly corresponds to a change in the state of our brain. Technically, there occurs a reduction of the wave function compatible with the fact that has been learned.
Stapp's interpretation of Quantum Theory is that there are many knowers. Each knower's act of knowledge (each individual increment of knowledge) results in a new state of the universe. One person's increment of knowledge changes the state of the entire universe, and, of course, it changes it for everybody else. -- Quantum Theory is not about the behavior of matter, but about our knowledge of such behavior.
Thinking" is a sequence of events of knowing, driven by those three processes. Instead of dualism or materialism, one is faced with a sort of interactive "triality", all aspects of which are actually mind-like: The physical aspect of Nature (the Schroedinger equation) is a compendium of subjective knowledge. The conscious act of asking a question is what drives the actual transition from one state to another, i.e. the evolution of the universe. And then there is a choice from the outside, the reply of Nature, which, as far as we can tell, is random.
Stapp's conclusions somehow mirror the ideas of the American psychiatrist Jeffrey Schwarz, who is opposed to the mechanistic approach of Psychiatry and emphasizes the power of consciousness to control the brain. -- Stapp revives idealism by showing that Quantum Theory is about knowledge, not matter. The universe is a repository of knowledge, that we have access to and upon which our consciousness has control." (ref)
If intentions created in the brain indeed show up as physically-present quantum state vector waves going off into the past and future and TI and PHMC are correct, then macroscopic reality creation as laid out above in this treatise could be completely explained by the processes of abstract physics.
Why has the Penrose-Hameroff model of microtubule-based quantum consciousness and universe-shaping not been more widely embraced by biologists by biologists and neurophysiologists? I think there are several reasons: 1. Most biologists and neurophysiologists researchers are completely untrained in and are ignorant about quantum physics. This was not in their formal training, nor is it known among their peer researchers. They are only comfortable working with deterministic Newtonian models even though so many biological processes are impacted by quantum effects. 2. Scientists tend to be skeptical about the spiritual and philosophical, and about anything that cannot be reliably and consistently measured using the tools and methods of ordinary realty. 3. The universal implications of the model are so great that it turns them off from the outset. 4. Similarly, those who are fluent in quantum physics rarely know much about biology. They tend to be more comfortable working with abstract models and thinking about quantum computing, and are put off by the vast amount of uncorrelated detail encountered in biology. So, very few scientists have the sufficient depth of knowledge in both quantum physics and biology required to grasp this model and its implications
XI. WRAPPING IT UP FOR THIS TREATISE
This treatise stands at the crossroads of philosophy, science and spirituality, a shadowy unexplored domain profoundly concerned with reality but one where just about anything is possible but science figures heavily. Although I have argued that macroscopic reality creation (MRC) is remarkably consistent with what we know about quantum theory and that quantum wave phenomena including PHMC may be the mechanism of MRC, what I have offered is far from scientific proof that MRC exists. Scientific proof would require reproducible experiments by independent researchers under well-defined controlled conditions. MRC reality creation on the other hand is always for a different result by a different person who exist in different circumstances. Biologists caution against experiments with only one subject - i.e. N=1. On the other hand it can be argued that in the case of biological systems, all are unique and there is only a series of N=1.
Macroscopic Reality Creation is by definition a theory, a framework of thinking, beyond proof. So in fact is quantum theory itself and so is mathematics. While not provable, these frameworks of thinking are extremely useful because they work to describe what is going on in a way that can be grasped and exploited by us humans, put to work. I repeat that in terms of common sense, what is goes on according to quantum-theory is patently absurd, ridiculous. But it is an extremely useful bedrock of science. So also is intention-based reality creation as described here - ridiculous. It may, however, also be very useful. It certainly continues to be so in the author's life.
MORE TO READ AND LOOK AT
Creation and existence in alternative universes fascinates me as much today as ever. In 2008 I wrote a Science Fiction story related to that topic called Supercollider You can read it by clicking here.
Some of my declarations sound almost religious in nature, and this document itself is among other things a statement of my own personal religion. I have written an essay called Religion and Evil which summarizes my stand on various strains of religion. You can read it by clicking here
The theme of alternative universes and alternative interpretations of reality can be found in many of my art works. It is at the philosophical center of the ArtKouKou movement which I founded. It is also expressed in many of the galleries of my art web site, like Places That Never, Reality Check, Surreal Passages, Epoxy Art, , Surrealistic Scapes, and Formidable Floribunda.
I have written a number of other works which touch on themes in this paper from various viewpoints, both serious treatises and fiction stories. I encourage you to look over the items I have online by goingto my Writings Index Web Page. And do check out my many articles and those of my close colleague Dr. James Watson in agingsciences.com.
The 2008, 2010, 2011, 2016 and 2017 drafts include several major revisions and extensions.
The 2008 and later versions embody an e-mail dialog with Jim Seltzer which I have retained. (firstname.lastname@example.org). Jim’s comments at various points are shown in red, indented with the prefix JS. My responses to Jim’s comments are shown in green, indented with the prefix VG. In some cases distinctions are discussed in this dialog before they are introduced in the main text which shows like this in black. The August 2011 version first included a new Section IX which describes research of others that suggests a possible physical basis for intention-based reality creation. It also includes new discussion sections on The Limits of understanding and the Emergence in basic physics of the multiple universes interpretation.
Note Dec 2019: Starting in 2017, I stopped
modifying this treatise and instead started posting further discussions extending
this treatise in my Being
and Creation Blog. These postings are, so far:
Note Dec 2019: Starting in 2017, I stopped modifying this treatise and instead started posting further discussions extending this treatise in my Being and Creation Blog. These postings are, so far: