The Free Radical

In the relativistic Earth realm of our current experience, there is simply no such thing as the objective universe.

This notion of a machine-like universe existing singularly in space and time, being primarily composed of matter, and functioning largely independently from the consciousness of the living organisms within it is scientifically unsupportable. The cold, dead, implacable machine of Newton’s era is assuredly a fiction– albeit a persistent one!

The role of the observer, of the participant, the role of consciousness at the very foundation of all human experience is reasonably undeniable. For many years I had taken the support for this position (orientation) from reading various New Age books about quantum physics. And since I had never actually read an honest-to-goodness physics book on the matter, I always held out the possibility that perhaps these “spiritual” authors were taking some unwarranted liberties with their interpretations of quantum theory. Although their conclusions always made good sense to me, I nevertheless conceded the possibility that perhaps they weren’t being perfectly scientific.

Now, in the past few weeks, I’ve read four proper physics books delving into quantum mechanics, relativity, cosmology and specifically the quantum enigma. And now let me say it again: there is simply no such thing as the objective universe!

Let’s delve into this further by first examining a few quotes from the pioneers of relativity and quantum mechanics. Let’s see what the best minds who actually developed the theories have to say about their implications.

We’ll begin with Einstein. Who else, right? A very famous quote by the good doctor goes something like this: “I like to think that the moon is there even when I am not looking at it.” I call this Albert’s lament. Einstein couldn’t outright state that the moon– or the objective universe– is, in fact, there, but he would much prefer that he could. And despite a lifetime spent in pursuit of explicating that preference, the science just couldn’t support it.

Next, we’ll listen to what John Wheeler has to say. “Nothing is more important about quantum physics than this: it has destroyed the concept of the world as ‘sitting out there.’ The universe will never afterwards be the same.” And that fits very well with what one of the fathers of quantum theory, Werner Heisenberg, had to say: “The hope that new experiments will lead us back to objective events in space and time is about as well founded as the hope of discovering the end of the world in the unexplored regions of the Antarctic.” It doesn’t really get much clearer than that! But perhaps you’re holding out the hope that I’m misconstruing the true meaning of these quotes by taking them out of context or something, so let’s continue.

Eugene Wigner simply said “[T]hrough the creation of quantum mechanics, the concept of consciousness came to the fore again. It was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.” Here’s John Wheeler again making it ever so clear. “Useful as it is under everyday circumstances to say that the world exists ‘out there’ independent of us, that view can no longer be upheld. There is a strange sense in which this is a ‘participatory universe.’” And just for emphasis, he goes on to add “The strangeness of the quantum world, from which Einstein incessantly sought escape and from which Bohr saw no escape, is real.”

Aye, that’s the rub, trying to get at what’s real. Here’s Heisenberg again: “But the atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real, they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.” And from a true pioneer, Max Planck: “Mind is the matrix of all matter.” Another of Einstein’s most famous quotes was short and sweet. “The field is the only reality.”

Now let’s move some eighty years ahead and see what physicists of the twenty-first century are saying. “[T]oday’s cosmology, our view of the universe as a whole, presents a quantum enigma, one seeming to involve consciousness on an ever-grander scale.” This is from two seasoned physics professors, Rosenblum and Kuttner, the authors of The Quantum Enigma. “The physical reality of an object depends on how you choose to look at it.” And now this from physics professor Andrei Linde: “Will it not turn out, with the further development of science, that the study of the universe and the study of consciousness will be inseparably linked, and that ultimate progress in the one will be impossible without progress in the other?… will the next important step be the development of a unified approach to our entire world, including the world of consciousness?” And more from Rosenblum and Kuttner: “[T]his reliable and useful physics challenges any reasonable worldview. It actually denies the existence of a physically real world independent of its observation.” And further… “Quantum theory tells us that physics’ encounter with consciousness, which is demonstrated for the small, applies, in principle, to everything. And this ‘everything’ can include the entire universe. Copernicus dethroned humanity from the cosmic center. Does quantum theory suggest that, in some mysterious sense, we are a cosmic center?” I think you’re probably starting to get the picture…

But just to be sure… “Sometimes it almost appears that the theories are not a description of a nearly inaccessible reality, but that so-called reality is a result of the theory.” -Hendrick Casimir. “Consciousness is the ground of all being.” -Amit Goswami. “Observations not only disturb what is to be measured, they produce it.” -Pascual Jordan. “I think the important and extremely difficult task of our time is to try to build up a fresh idea of reality.” -Wolfgang Pauli. And finally, back to Mr. Heisenberg: “What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.”

For a moment now, let us leave the quantum arena and step into the even older and more established (if that’s even possible) physics of relativity. It seems perhaps a bit strange that Einstein’s own achievement already cast the existence of the objective universe into serious doubt. Oh wait, it actually obliterated it!

Being desk-bound at his job at the patent office, Einstein often employed thought experiments to resolve conundrums in physics. The one I am going to ever-so-briefly describe is actually a mainstay in modern physics texts. It deals with simultaneity.

Alice, observer A, is standing beside a moving train, aboard which Bob, observer B, is traveling in the very centre of a carriage belonging to the same train. At the precise moment when Alice and Bob are exactly adjacent to each other– Bob inside the moving train and Alice standing outside– two bolts of lightning strike, one at the front of the carriage containing Bob and one at the back. To Alice’s observation, and properly confirmed by her very sophisticated measuring equipment, the two bolts of lightning struck simultaneously, one at the front of the carriage and one at the back. For Bob however, who observes the very same phenomena, the lightning bolt at the front of the carriage strikes first and the one at the back follows a fraction of a second later. Bob has all the same very sophisticated measuring equipment as Alice, and just like Alice he measures that the distance of each strike from his point of observation is exactly the same. He also measures that the speed of the light traveling from each bolt is exactly the same. And yet the light rays did not reach Bob simultaneously as they did for Alice; the one at the front of the carriage was observed as being first.

Alice is 100% correct in declaring that from her point of view the two bolts of lightning struck simultaneously. Bob is also 100% correct in declaring that from his point of view the bolt of lightning at the front of the carriage struck first. They are both absolutely correct! So what does it all mean?

Here I’ll play it safe and quote the author of the physics book from which this was taken, lest you think I’m taking unwarranted liberties. Andrew Thomas, author of Hidden in Plain Sight 3, states the inescapable conclusion thusly: “It shows that merely by moving relative to each other, two observers inhabit different realities. It is as if they inhabit two different universes.” Now ain’t that interesting? And this comes from Einstein’s own work on general relativity a century ago!

The extraordinary result of this thought experiment, called relativity of simultaneity, is dealing with only the physical attributes of the universe(s). It matters not one whit what Alice or Bob believe about any of it. This result is not dependent upon their consciousness; it is derived solely from the fact that Alice and Bob are in relative motion to each other. Schroedinger’s cat be damned! Simple relativity places every observer in relative motion into a unique universe where the order of events is strictly determined by the nature of the relative motion in play!

So in a very real and everyday sense, on the macroscopic level, it is safe to say that we each inhabit a unique universe wherein the events or experiences in that universe are unique to ourselves as observers. There is no objective singularity of what “really” happened. To give an even simpler example which makes the same point, although not quite as compellingly, we could have simply asked the question “How fast is the train moving?” Alice might answer 100 mph, while Bob might say it’s not moving at all if the windows were blocked and the ride was perfectly smooth. A bird flying overhead in the opposite direction might answer 110 mph, while a car traveling alongside in the same direction might answer 50 mph. The thing is, when it comes to relativity– and our reality, each of those answers is equally correct. Again, there isn’t a singular objective answer to the question as it was posed.

And that brings us back to Heisenberg with his “What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.” Already we inhabit differing physical universes, but what happens when we bring consciousness and belief into the equation? Don’t worry, I’m not about to get all woo-woo and new-agey. Let’s stick with the science.

Next, I’d like to consider the placebo effect. I think I’m safe in saying that there aren’t many credible science-type people who deny that the placebo effect is real. In all FDA-approved drug trials, the drugs in question must be shown to perform statistically significantly better than a mere placebo. It is widely recognized that some patients will show measurable improvement of a medical condition when administered nothing more than an inert placebo. It is also widely recognized that the active agent in the placebo effect is the patient’s own belief… the state of her consciousness… the method of her questioning.

To me it’s rather frustrating and quite puzzling that the placebo effect is “scientifically” regarded as something to be overcome. For those on whom it works, it’s the whole of the answer; it’s the solution and the resolution! Instead of endlessly trying to find drugs that work marginally better than placebos, wouldn’t it make much more sense to try to understand the placebo effect fully, and thereby obtain the cure for, well, everything?

And much along the same lines as the placebo effect, what about the medical phenomenon of spontaneous remission? This is when patients– often terminal– are deemed to be beyond the recourse of effective treatment and are left solely to their own devices… and somehow, miraculously, they cure themselves. Anecdotally, the medical literature is littered with cases of spontaneous remission. Although considered rare, over the centuries the number of instances is quite substantial. Interestingly, there is often no physical cause accounting for the cure. The patient often cites a profound change in attitude or belief as being the curative agent. Such anecdotal evidence is certainly not able to prove anything, but it sure does suggest that consciousness might play a central role in our human experience. And for the cured patient, I’m sure he doesn’t really give a damn what the medical scientists think anyway!

We could further look into the mechanics of hypnosis to see how changes in mentation and mood can alter the physiology of the body, or how hypnosis can radically alter one’s perception of their physical surroundings. Or we can talk about how certain personality profiles are directly correlated with heart disease. Am I making my point yet?

Indeed. Isn’t it time that we fully admitted that scientific materialism is a dead end? It’s bankrupt; it’s unsupportable on any reasonable scientific basis. A science which seeks to explain the universe while excluding consciousness– the very place where all of our experiences are registered– is a science which explains sweet fuck all.

I’m so very tired of self-proclaimed scientific skeptics misusing science to narrow the field of our collective inquiries. Science shouldn’t be used to shrink our world view unnecessarily. The existence of the objective physical universe– along with Elvis– left the building long ago. Why do we have such trouble accepting the centrality of our own psyches at the heart of every unique universe we each inhabit… and hopefully explore?

For long enough we’ve clung to this outmoded orientation which has us as insignificant bundles of happenstance pitted against a cold, uncaring, entropic machine determined to obliterate any trace of our own significance. Look where it’s gotten us! We need a new basic orientation within reality, one supported by the undisputed science of the last century. Consciousness matters! Got that? Consciousness– not matter– matters. Indisputably, the physical attributes of the universe I inhabit are different from the physical attributes defining your experience. Your history is very different from my history… and there is no objectifiable, verifiable “true” history to be found anywhere. It’s just a red herring!

I was going to go further into the implications of all this for evolutionary theory, but rather than present more of my own ideas, I’ll just pose a question for you to answer however you see fit within the reality you inhabit. Here it is:

Can consciousness be both a prerequisite for bringing the physical universe into being as well as the end result of a random evolution?

The quantum enigma strongly suggests that consciousness must somehow exist first, providing the matrix for physical evolution to occur in the first place, but Darwinian evolution posits consciousness only as an end result. How does that make you feel?

Allow me to end with Rosenblum and Kuttner again: “The experimental facts basic to the quantum enigma are undisputed. But talking of the encounter of physics with ‘non-physical’ stuff like consciousness is controversial. It’s been called our ‘skeleton in the closet.’ You can look at the undisputed facts, and ponder for yourself what they mean.”

And that, my friends, is the whole of my point: you decide what it all means.