Quantum Physics & Consciousness. By: Mark Bancroft, MA PART ONE: "The Precarious Beginnings of Quantum Theory" To
begin to understand what quantum physics is and where this field of
study is currently headed it is necessary to begin
with an overview of the language used within
this area of study. All too often the simple, yet critical first
step of establishing clear definitions for terms and phrases describing
the subject to be studied is
overlooked resulting in collective myopia of
the participants. In the study of quantum physics this is a
common phenomenon. Apparently there exists a silent agreement
which oftentimes goes unquestioned as to
the meaning of words, such as: matter,
reality, paradox, consciousness, subjectivity, and observation.
Even the literal definitions of "science" and "physics" are oftentimes
very much different from their implied
meanings. Thus, before we undertake
the challenge of understanding how quantum physics came to be, the
challenges it is now facing, and where it is headed; a foundation must
be created from which to explore the
dynamic qualities and mysterious discoveries
this scientific endeavor has to share. To
begin with we must first consider what is meant by the word
"science". It is quite
common to think we know what science means,
and therefore assume that our meaning of the word is identical to other
peoples' interpretation of the word. However, upon examining the
literal definition of the word
and the actual work being done under the
name of "science", two very different pictures are revealed. In The American Heritage Dictionary
the literal definition of the word "science" is:
1. The observation, identification,
description, experimental investigation, and
theoretical explanation of phenomenon. 2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomenon. 3. An activity that appears to require study and method.1
Upon
closer scrutiny the above definition reveals some interesting
discoveries. In the first line we see objectivity being married to
subjective interpretation. Thus
science, according to strict definition,
would mean objective activities (observation & experimental
investigation) which are then subjected to mental thought processes
(theoretical explanation of phenomenon
). Even more interesting is that in
examining the second and third lines we find that science is restricted to a class of natural phenomenon, which appears to require study and method. The
most common definition of science may be found in people's associations
to the word. "Science" typically denotes absolute objectivity,
unbiased assessments of observable events,
and necessary exclusion of a subjective
mind. Yet, according to the word's written definition (which
contains the words: appears, phenomenon, and explanation
) we may conclude that our inner pictures of what science is- is not
the same as what science does.
Philosopher Karl Popper is quoted as saying, "Science may be described
as the art of systematic over-simplification."2
Quantum
physics is a branch of physics which concerns itself with the study
(observation) of the subatomic
realm. Physics is defined as, "The
science of matter and energy and of interactions between the two.
Physical properties, interactions, processes, or laws. The study
of the natural or material world
and phenomenon."3 Being a
scientific endeavor the above definition appears to fit with the
somewhat vague definition of science. Quantum
physics has directly challenged the meaning
of matter for more than fifty years. Being defined as, "Something
that occupies space and can be perceived by one or more senses; a
physical body, a physical substance,
or the universe as a whole."4 Thus, matter may also mean the entire universe; including "'not-real' stuff".
The atom was considered to be the indivisible building block of the
universe up
until the discovery of the electron.
Now, particle physicists postulate that there are sixty-one elementary
particles which make up all matter in the universe. Rather than a
single atom, one must now consider the presence of quarks, neutrinos, gluons, bosons, and higgsons.5 Experiments in quantum physics suggest that the world (the universe) is not made of objects at
all, rather it is created out of probability waves.6
It was discovered that as one probes deeper into the subatomic level
things become more and more complex until causal reality no longer
exists.
Ken Wilber explains,
As
scientists began exploring the world of subatomic physics, they
naturally assumed that all the old Newtonian laws, or something like
them, would apply to the protons, neutrons, and
electrons. But they didn't. Not at all,
not even a little. The shock was comparable to pulling off your glove
one day and finding a lobster claw where you expected your hand.7
According to physicist Leon
Lederman there are three qualities we know about quantum theory.
1. It is counterintuitive, 2. It works, 3. It has problems.
Lederman goes on to write, "In spite of
the great practical and intellectual success
of quantum theory, we cannot be sure we know what the theory means."8
It is this ambiguity within the "hard" science of physics that has
helped initiate a
crisis unlike science has ever
encountered. Once concerned with the motion and trajectory of
particles, physics is now considering questions which would have been
labeled as blasphemy throughout academic circles a
hundred years ago. Now, numerous
physicists are speculating about the nature of reality, the existence of
consciousness, even the existence of God. Professor
of Mathematical
Physics, Frank Tipler, confidently proclaims
that physics can and will lead to the immortality of humankind.
He shares on page three of his book, The Physics of Immortality , Either
theology is pure nonsense, a subject with no
content, or else theology must ultimately become a branch of
physics…The Goal of physics is understanding the ultimate nature of
reality. If God is real, physicists
will eventually find Him/Her.9 As the objects of observation became smaller physicists have had to rely more upon axioms (statements true by definition)
than ever
before. Given the probabilistic nature
of the quantum level the Newtonian model of "cause and effect" lost its
predictive powers. In quantum-land there apparently are no
causes. Because of this,
classical language cannot be used to
accurately describe quantum events.10 The
reason classical language is insufficient to convey quantum discoveries
is that a
probabilistic universe is one in which
definite boundaries (outer & inner, objective & subjective)
collapse. In this sense the physicist and mystic confront a
challenge; both are forced to use boundary
laden language to describe a realm where
there apparently are no boundaries.
A
language possesses utility only so far as it can construct conventional
boundaries. A language of no boundaries is no language at all, and thus
the mystic who tries to speak logically
and formally of unity consciousness is
doomed to sound very paradoxical or contradictory. The problem is that
the structure of any language cannot grasp the nature of unity
consciousness, any more than a fork could
grasp the ocean.11
Because of this, the mystic
trying to describe unity consciousness often sounds like the quantum
physicist trying to explain a probabilistic world immersed in an
"and/both" paradox rather than the familiar
"either/or" orientation. The
inadequacy of language is just as real for the physicist as it is for
the mystic; even though they are not attempting to describe the same world.
"The
world of physics and mysticism are similar" is a wild
over-generalization and is based, as one physicist recently put it, "on
the use of accidental similarities of language as if
these were somehow evidence of deeply
rooted connections.12
Quantum
physics dates back to the late nineteenth century and is associated
with the work of German physicist Max Planck. In the 1890's Planck
set out to explain the phenomenon
of blackbody radiation; the observation that
the color of light emitted from an object did not change in a linear
fashion to its temperature. Planck provided an explanation for the
phenomenon in 1900 by
postulating that light is emitted or
absorbed in packets of definite size, which he called a quanta.13 Thus light, once considered a wave, was now being described as a particle (photon) in order to
solve the riddle of blackbody radiation. During
the 1920's it became clear that electrons also exhibit wave-like
characteristics. This meant that particles, not just light
(which has no mass), can be considered to
function as particles and
waves. The wave/particle duality was
directly observed in 1987 through the double slit experiment.
Demonstrated in the double-slit experiment are photons and electrons
displaying both particle and wave behavior.
In
the two-slit experiment, if the physicist looks for a particle (uses a
particle detector), he will find a particle; if he looks for a wave
(uses a screen), he will see a wave pattern
before him.14
This implies that reality
can be a wave or a particle depending upon the observer. It also
suggests that: either particles can
travel beyond the speed of light (a
theoretical impossiblity), or that everything is connected, joined
together. Richard Feynman, considered to be one of the
greatest physicists of his generation, begins his
Lectures on Physics with, "The central mystery of quantum theory is encapsulated in the experiment with two holes."15
This means that if one can fully understand the double-slit experiment,
then
one will understand quantum physics.
The strangeness of the double-slit experiment makes it apparent that at
the subatomic level discrete objects do not exist; our perception of
reality may be an illusionary
phenomenon. Other
quirky experiments throughout the twentieth century have
antagonistically confirmed that the quantum realm is inhabited not by
logic and common sense; rather, by mystery,
contradiction, and paradox. Einstein
did not like the subjectivity inherent in quantum theory. He could
not believe that the physical world was founded upon probability waves
that were affected by an
observer and could not be fully known.
Einstein, along with Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen, published what is
known as the EPR thought experiment in 1935, designed to show that the
world actually does
exists at the quantum level. Einstein
proposed that the cause of the subatomic strangeness was simply due to
unknown 'hidden variables'; one's ignorance of such variables does not
mean the world does not
exist. The EPR experiment was based on
the idea that by exploding an electron it would be possible to measure
both the position and momentum of a subatomic particle. Studying
photon 'A' could provide the
position, while its counterpart, photon 'B',
would remain to provide the momentum of a subatomic particle due to the
photons' polarized nature (coupled opposites). Although
the EPR
experiment was theoretically plausible the
hidden-variables theory was not taken seriously until 1966, by John
Stuart Bell. John Bell discovered a mathematical mistake made by
mathematician John von Neumann in
1932 (known as von Neumann's silly mistake)
which falsely conceded that hidden variables could not be
possible. Upon discovering the mistake, Bell finally proved that
hidden variables could describe quantum events
if non-locality was included.16
Intrigued with impossibility proofs, Bell managed to devise one that
rejects all models of reality based on locality. The proof (Bell's
theorem) states that the
assumption of locality must satisfy a
mathematical inequality, known today as Bell's inequality. In
general, "Bell's theorem says that reality must be non-local."17
For Henry Stapp quantum
non-locality means that, "the fundamental
process of Nature lies outside space-time but generates events that can
be located in space-time."18 In
1981 the EPR thought
experiment was finally conducted by Alain
Aspect and his colleagues. "They demonstrated beyond reasonable
doubt that common sense (and Einstein) were wrong, and that non-locality
really does rule in the quantum
world."19 Put another way,
If
you want to believe there is a real world out there, you cannot do
without non-locality; if you want to believe that no form of
communication takes place faster than the speed of light, you
cannot have a real world, independent of
the observer.20
The double-slit experiment,
Bell's theorem, blackbody phenomenon (The UV Catastrophe), and the EPR
experiment which was carried out in the early 1980's, comprise the
mysteriousness of quantum reality which
refuses to be ignored. To explain the
results and findings of quantum investigation physicists have had to
compose elaborate theories which often appear to be no more than
fictitious stories. But, no matter
how strange the stories appear, keep in mind
that each one is the result of the scientific method being used to
investigate the subatomic universe. The Copenhagen Interpretation:
Created by
Neils Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, and Max Born
in 1930, the Copenhagen Interpretation is the standard interpretation of
the quantum world. The theory maintains that reality exists in
the form of probability
waves. Physical objects only "appear"
due to the collapse of their probability waves by a conscious
observer. In its simplest form it means that any quantum
experiment must include everything about the
experiment's setup, including the experimenter.21 The Uncertainty Principle: Developed
by Werner Heisenberg the principle states that it is impossible to know
both the position and
momentum of a quantum object. When one
measures the position of an electron it will destroy information about
the electrons momentum; your observation disturbs it.22 Many Worlds Theory:
As an alternative to the Copenhagen
Interpretation the many-worlds theory, created by Hugh Everett, Wheeler,
and Graham, posits that whenever the universe faces a quantum choice,
the entire universe splits into as many
copies of itself as necessary to carry out
every possible alternative- we experience only one world, while, in
fact, for every possible quantum choice another world exists so that all
probabilities are manifest.23
We get to experience only one
of the many existing worlds. An associated quote regarding the
theory by Francois Mauriac reads, "What this professor says is far more
incredible than what we poor
Christians believe."24 Transactional Analysis/ Interpretation: Presented
in 1986 by John Cramer, transactional analysis offers an explanation of
'advanced waves' (waves traveling backward in
time) and 'retarded waves' (waves moving
forward in time) converging to create an experience of reality that has already happened. All outcomes are predestined because the future, which has already
happened, is communicating quantumly with the present through the advanced waves.25 Morphogenic Fields: Introduced
by Cambridge biologist Rupert Shelldrake, a person's unique
genetic
structure acts as an 'antenna' through which
we 'tune into' a universal broadcasts known as morphogenic fields
(soul?).26 Strong Anthrophic Principle: Put
forward by John Wheeler, this theory
tells us that our consciousness loops back
into the past and creates reality, including the Big Bang. By
consciously asking where do we come from, we create it all.
Consciousness looks back on itself
and in so doing creates all the conditions
needed for the evolution of the universe, and the conscious observer.27 The Matter-Mind Connection & Monistic Idealism: The
matter-mind connection
takes many different forms. The theory
is the counterpart to superveinence which maintains that brain states
give rise to mind states. The general view is presented by Wigner,
Safatti, Walker, and
Muses. Sarfatti explains, "In my
opinion the quantum principle involves mind in an essential way…mind creates matter."28
The top-down approach of monistic idealism goes a bit further by
making a distinction between mind and
consciousness. "According to monistic idealism, the consciousness
of the subject in a subject-object experience is the same consciousness
that is the ground of all
being. Therefore, consciousness is
unitive. There is one subject-consciousness, and we are that
consciousness."29 The Implicate Order: David Bohm's implicate order is
the
most accepted explanation for coming to
terms with quantum strangeness. His theories of an implicate order
and the existence of a "pilot wave" mean that there is no need for
hidden variables to exist; particles do
not travel faster than the speed of
light. The universe is seen as a giant web. Upon the web are
individual particles which receive and transmit information through a
pilot wave. Because the
information is present in the wave it is
immediately available to every single particle throughout the
universe. Therefore, the wave "tells" all the particles what every
other particle is doing- all the
information is stored creating an implicate
order.30 If we recall the working definition of science which reads, such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomenon
, and contrast it to the actual work
being done in quantum physics, it becomes apparent that science is
extending its reach into blatantly subjective areas. Quantum
physics has created a probabilistic world
and is using this world to explain what we
perceive to be reality. However, quantum physics tells us nothing
about the world in which we live. At the quantum level the cause
of everything is no-cause; yet,
our experience of the world is one
predominately ruled by "cause and effect".31 Because
of the inherent subjectivity of quantum physics speculation has emerged
over
whether science is reaching an end.
Nobel prize winner Sheldon Glashow, head of Harvard Universities physics
department lectured at a 1989 symposium entitled, The End of Science?
His view is that
science is "certainly slowing down" and that
any new breakthroughs in physics apparently will be so far detached
from any practical value that the field will become unimportant.
An essay written by Glashow and a
fellow colleague proclaims that, "for the
first time since the Dark Ages, we can see how our noble search may end,
with faith replacing science once again."32
In 1969 UC Berkeley biologist Gunther Stent wrote,
If
there are any limits to science, any barriers to further progress, then
science may well be moving at unprecedented speed just before it
crashes into them. When science seems most
muscular, triumphant, potent, that may
be when it is nearest death.33
Fred Alan Wolf concludes
that, "something is going to emerge from this," and sees the fabric
science falling apart like tissue paper.34 PART TWO:
"The Problem and Challenges Facing Quantum Physics" Ultimately,
the current crisis of quantum physics has to do with the discovery that
at the subatomic level there are no boundaries.
This was in strict opposition to the
fourteen decades of success enjoyed by science which was based on a
deterministic, boundary-centered approach.
Because
the subatomic particles possessed no boundaries, there could be no
meta-boundaries, no measurements; and hence also no precise
meta-meta-boundaries, no "laws." To this day there
is no law, no meta-meta-map, governing
the movements of a single electron, because a single electron doesn't
have a boundary in the first place. You can't have a meta-boundary or a
meta-meta-boundary if there isn't
even a boundary to begin with. Nuclear
physicists must now work with probabilities and statistics.35
With the absence of boundaries, which
were the crux of the scientific era, quantum physics is now experiencing
an unmerciful identity crisis. Because no definite laws
(meta-boundaries) applied to the quantum
realm the "hard" science of subatomic
physics crashed head on with subjectivity. Now we see physics
futilely trying to explain consciousness, free-will, the existence of
God, mind, and mystical Oneness. Not
only did physics lose the deterministic
tools composing the scientific method, its inherent boundary which
decided what gets studied was also vanquished.
The
new physics has simply discovered the one-dimensional interpenetration
of its own level (nonsentient mass/ energy). While this is an important
discovery, it cannot be equated with
the extraordinary phenomenon of
multidimensional interpenetration described by mystics. To put it
crudely, the study of physics is on the first floor, describing the
interactions of its elements; the mystics are on
the sixth floor describing the
interaction of all six floors. Physics and mysticism are not two different approaches to the same reality.36
To maintain that physics is capable of
explaining consciousness and spirit is similar to trying understand all
that takes place in the World Trade Center by analyzing the concrete
foundation upon which the building
stands. Is it reasonable to assume
that by knowing the physical foundation one can then accurately describe
all past and present events affected by the existence of the World
Trade Center, as well as their causes
and future implications? Probably not.
Although tempting, trying to rely upon quantum
physics to validate the existence of God; explain consciousness
and mystical experiences; and give meaning to
our human experience, is an ill-advised
approach. To begin with, the maps and tools used
within physics are not adequate, not engineered, for subjective
consideration- the pillar of science were never
designed to accommodate subjective
exploration. Though many physicists inwardly know that
subjectivity is a factor in quantum exploration the approach has not
sufficiently evolved to integrate scientific
objectivity and mental subjectivity.
John Gribbin points out,
We
construct a model, or an image; but then all too often, we forget what
we have done, and we confuse the image with reality. So when one
particular model turns out not to apply in all
circumstances, even a respectable
physicist like Nick Herbert can fall into the trap of calling it a
'lie'.37
The scientific method has proven extremely successful for describing the macroscopic world of matter; and the method does not
need to be abandoned. It must be
recognized where and when to apply the method, and not rely upon its
past achievements to explain subjective experience. The
very structure of science, as well, is
presently not constructed to provide a
capable vehicle which can be used for qualitative, subjective
exploration. Based upon the creation of boundaries and systematic
analysis the scientific method was never
intended to provide synthesis and meaning to
explain consciousness. By its nature, science is a competitive
and individualistic endeavor creating a culture of vested interests,
divisional conflicts, and inner
political disputes. Should we assume
that such a fractured institution can be employed to answer the unitive
mysteries of our being?
Alwyn Scott tells us in his 1995 book, Stairway to the Mind, that:
Individual
scientists are often not well informed about the large-scale,
hierarchical nature of science because they are too close to it…In order
to be successful it is necessary to
specialize in a branch of science, so in a sense there is no such thing as a "scientist."38
Alan Wallace, a Buddhist physicist, informs us that because physics makes observations, one must know the observer.39 If physicists studying objective reality are unwilling to
know themselves
(the observer); (seriously consider their
subjective nature) how can we willingly delegate exploration of the
subjective universe to such explorers? In an era of diminishing
returns and subjective riddles physics has lost its stable foundation
and structural coherence. Clarity has evaporated resulting in
confusion about what physics is, what it is capable of achieving, and
which direction it should go. The atlas is gone, the boundary has
shattered, the scientific faith is face to face with a ghastly quandary.
PART THREE: "The Solution" Two
primary schools of thought have emerged which claim to offer a solution
to (a way out
of) the present crisis. The
fundamentalist camp maintains the position that there is nothing
especially significant about the phenomenon of consciousness. The
inner experience of "I" that the mind encounters
is the result of definite processes
occurring within the brain. Consciousness is considered to be
nothing more than "a passenger along for the ride." Opposing
the strict
fundamentalists is the school of thought
referred to as monistic idealism. As discussed earlier monistic
idealists believe that consciousness gives rise to the mind, as well as
every existent and non-existent
element throughout the universe. Not
only is consciousness responsible for the physical universe and its
elements it is
the universe. This school of thought
refuses to accept boundaries, maintaining that all boundaries are
illusionary.; whereas the fundamentalists assert that boundaries do
exist and must be accepted. Each school suffers from the inability
to integrate its opponents arguments into an mutually agreeable
theory. Being mutually exclusive each falls into the same trap-
the compulsion to collapse the universe into a flatland model incapable
of holding the paradoxical and hierarchical nature of the phenomenal
universe.
Between the two extremes
of idealism and fundamentalism is found a school of thought which
concludes consciousness to be an emergent phenomenon resulting from
quantum mechanical, neurological occurrences
taking place within the brain. Rather
than deny consciousness or state that the universe is consciousness, the
emergent theory seeks to bring the two together. Alwyn Scott
concedes that,
Nonetheless
I can state without qualification that I do not believe consciousness
can be analyzed in the same way that a hydrogen atom can be understood.
Indeed, as I hope the earlier
chapters of this book have demonstrated,
consciousness is an awesomely complex phenomenon. It is so complex that
it cannot be reduced to some fundamental theory or to one simple
biological or chemical transaction.
Instead it must be approached from every
level of the hierarchy.40
Although the emergent theory
holds promise, at the present time it is too narrow to reconcile the
phenomenal world with subatomic reality. In the preface Scott
mentions that the goal of an emergent
theory is to explain the nature of the mind;
not the nature of life or human existence. However, can we
honestly separate the three? The limited focus appears to have
confined the author to consider physics,
biochemistry, electrophysiology, neurology,
cultural sociology, and psychology as the key ingredients responsible
for our human experience. We must not forget to question who gets to decide what
is to be studied in defining our existence. The clarifying question in regards to all of the above is not, How can physics solve the challenges it now faces?
But; rather, Is physics a capable means for interpreting consciousness?
Is physics our best choice for understanding our subjective mind,
religion, behavior, culture- our human experience? A more
suitable alternative would be to establish
an area of study which is emergent from various human interests,
including, but not limited to: history, religion, physics, sociology,
psychology, business, life sciences,
cultural studies, spirituality, philosophy,
education, cosmology, art, ecology, creativity, mythology, mysticism,
and music- culminating into the field of study which is presently termed
Consciousness Studies.
Such an "institution" would ideally be an
integrative approach which draws from the areas of human interest both
past and present. Certain areas would not be excluded, nor
favored, due to financial motivations or
special interests. Because such a
field of inquiry would be based upon synthesis, it would potentially not
threaten the existence of established institutions, such as
physics. Physics gives rise to the need
for such an institution but does not rely
upon it for its existence. The study of consciousness, being a
transcendent creation from established fields, would objectively learn
what tools each constituent field has
to offer, and how to use and apply the tools
in useful and purposeful ways. The challenge facing physics is
whether or not science will let go of the inflated superiority it has
enjoyed during the past four
hundred years- and the challenge is well
underway. In a world which has suppressed subjectivity and meaning
for four centuries, repressed material will eventually surface- it is
surfacing.
Believing that physics is capable of
explaining consciousness and all the subjective feelings relating to the
human experience is like business accounting, upon discovering the
corporate balance sheet, thinking it can
not just work with and understand numbers;
but, also: understand organizational culture; accurately predict
customers' future behaviors; grasp global economics; understand foreign
governments, relations, and national
politics; know the upcoming weather
patterns which will affect the world crops; and, ultimately create the
perfect economy, with the perfect citizens, within the perfect
environment…all with the use of the perfect
balance sheet! The
study of consciousness would be similar to the late arrival of business
management. Finance, accounting, and marketing became overly
complex and required a new department which
would integrate the parts together.
Management was an emergent phenomenon brought about by its established
counterparts. Today, management is mandatory for the operation of
medium and large sized
corporations; without management the
corporate would be much less efficient, innovative, and creative. The
establishment of Consciousness Studies as a field of study is a viable
alternative to the
current scientific paradigm. Upon
reviewing the present day theories (stories) from physics; establishing
an integrative study of consciousness may not be as preposterous as it
first sounds- it may very well prove
to be the only solution that can embrace the
increasing complexity of our
existence.
NOTES 1
The American Heritage Dictionary of English Language, Third Edition copyright 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from InfoSoft International, Inc.
2 The Columbia Dictionary of Quotations is licensed from Columbia University Press. Copyright 1993 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved. 3
Op.Cit., The American Heritage Dictionary 4 Ibid. 5 Class handout, The Quantum Universe. P.197. 6 Barry E. Martin, Ph.D.
The Matter Myth: Quandaries of Modern Physics, lecture notes. JFK University, (July, 9, 1996). 7 Wilber, Ken. No Boundary: Eastern and Western Approaches to Personal
Growth. Shambhala Publications, Inc. Boston, MA. (1979) p.36. 8 Lederman, Leon. The God Particle. Class handout, p.185. 9
Tipler, Frank J. The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead. Doubleday, New York. (1994) p.3. 10 Op.Cit., Barry E. Martin, Ph.D.
11 Op.Cit., Ken Wilber, No Boundary, p.55. 12 Bernstein, J. The Emergent Paradigm in Science. In ReVision, (1978) pp.1-2.
13 Op.Cit., Barry E. Martin, Ph.D. 14 Zohar, Danah and Marshall, Ian. The Quantum Society: Mind, Physics, and a New Social Vision. William Morrow and Company,
Inc. New York. (1994) p.45. 15 Gribbin, John. Schrodinger's Kittens and the Search for Reality. Little, Brown and Company, New York. (1995) p.1.
16 Ibid., p.158. 17 Herbert, Nick. Quantum Reality, Bell's Interconnectedness Theorem. Class handout, p. 212. 18
Stapp, H.P. "Are superluminal connections necessary?" Nuovo Cimento (1977) p.191. 19 Op.Cit., John Gribbin, p. 23. 20 Ibid., p.159. 21 Ibid., pp.14-16. 22 Ibid., p.16. 23 Ibid., p.161. 24 The Holographic Paradigm and Other Paradoxes: Exploring the
Leading Edge of Science, Ken Wilber, editor. Shambhala Publications, Inc. Boston, MA. (1995) p.175. 25 Op.Cit., Barry E. Martin, Ph.D. August 7, 1996.
26 Ibid., August 28, 1996. 27 Ibid., August 8, 1996. 28 Safatti, J. "Implications of Meta-physics for Psychoenergetic Systems."
Psychoenergetic Systems, 1, 1974. 29 Amit Goswami, Ph.D. The Self Aware Universe: How Consciousness Creates the Material World
. G.P. Putnam's Sons, New York. (1995) p.51. 30 Op.Cit., Barry E. Martin, Ph.D. September 4, 1996. 31 Ibid. 32
"Desperately Seeking Superstrings," Sheldon Glashow and Paul Ginsparg, Physics Today, 1986, p.7. 33 Stent, Gunther. The Coming of the Golden Age: A View of the End of Progress.
Natural History Press, New York. (1969) p.94. 34 Film, interview with Fred Alan Wolf. 35 Op.Cit., Wilber, No Boundary, p.37. 36 Op.Cit., Wilber, The Holographic Paradigm, pp.165-166. 37 Op.Cit., Gribbin, Schrodinger's Kittens and the Search for Reality, p.186. 38
Scott, Alwyn. Stairway to the Mind: The Controversial New Science of
Consciousness. Copernicus, New York. (1996) p.vii. 39
Op.Cit., Barry E. Martin, Ph.D., July 3, 1996. 40 Op.Cit., Alwyn Scott, Stairway to the Mind, p.159. |
