SWC Special Essays

For centuries in western society truth about the material world was the product of thought alone -- thus the powerful church decreed the center of God’s universe to be the earth, based on ideas of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. In 1543 Copernicus stated instead that the earth revolved around the sun. When Galileo saw through his telescope that the sun’s spots moved as the earth went around the sun, he concluded that Copernicus was right and the church wrong. Galileo had checked the product of thought by experiment, and thus science was born -- a new approach to truth.

When Galileo taught that the earth orbited the sun, the church held an inquisition in 1633, charging him with a ‘vehement suspicion of heresy’. They forced him to recant, and confined him to house arrest for the last eight years of his life. His ‘heresy’ was only recently forgiven, and with this lesson in mind scientists limited their field to the material world, leaving the metaphysical realm to the church. The church gradually lost credence as it was proven wrong in material matters, and in this century the scientist has replaced the priest in the public mind as the source of truth.

This conflict between science and religion is still alive, as revealed by negative and distrustful attitudes between scientists and those concerned with spiritual life. Scientists tend to equate mysticism with superstition and self-delusion. They ask: how could the mystic know anything of significance without the mathematical precision in logical thinking that characterizes science? This question was a dominant belief of the author in the early years of his career in physics, as well as of his co-workers.

On the other hand, many in the spiritual and humanities field believe that science, the study of materiality, can never inform us in matters of the soul and spirit. They ask: how can the mind possibly reach that which is higher and beyond the mind? Abraham Maslow (p 138) said, `The nonscientists, the poets, the religious, the artists, and ordinary people in general...often feel it (science) to be a threat to everything they hold marvelous and sacred...The girls will often shudder at the thought of marrying a scientist, as if he were some sort of respectable monster.’

The need for a bridge across this chasm between science and religion was recognized by Maslow in The Psychology of Science (1969, p 119), when he wrote,...’that both orthodox science and orthodox religion have been institutionalized and frozen into a dichotomy...ripped apart into a crippled half-science and a crippled half-religion.’

Firm anchors from both sides of this chasm are needed to bridge it. Swami Raganathananda’s Human Beings in Depth (1991) bridged it from the spiritual side. He points out that Vedanta is not a blind belief in a divinity but rather, in common with science, is a movement of thought in a search for the truth of "what is." While science looked outward, Vedanta looked inward to find (p 108) a...‘conception of Nature so as to include the physical, the biological, and the spiritual in the unity of Pure Consciousness, which is the meaning of God in Vedanta’. He continues (p 110) with, ‘The material universe of daily experience, which physical science has set about to study, will reveal its true form as condensations of Pure Consciousness...when physics and all physical science dissociates the matter it studies from the dogma of materialism’. Another bridge is Sunim’s Heart Sutra (1991), which uses the fluctuating void of quantum mechanics to describe the Buddhist term, sunyata, that often is inadequately translated as emptiness.

Willis Harman (1994) examined the metaphysical foundation of science, and detailed why change must come. This change has been signaled for 60 years as Mother Nature has tried to tell us something important via the paradoxes of quantum mechanics, but physicists did not like what they were hearing. The theoretical physicist Amit Goswami of the University of Oregon listened without judgment, however, and published his resulting new views in, ‘Physics Essays’ (1989). He later explained them for the non-scientist in The Self Aware Universe (1993). He introduced a new paradigm, or viewpoint, for the interpretation of quantum mechanics, and developed its consequences. Since the words "quantum mechanics" will occur often they will be abbreviated to "QM" from now on.

The 300-year-old metaphysical basis or paradigm for science is a belief in the primacy of matter over consciousness. Per this paradigm, the material world is the true reality. Goswami reversed this -- proposing a new paradigm that asserts the primacy of consciousness over matter. This change resolves a six-decade conceptual crisis in the philosophical interpretation of QM: a potent justification for its acceptance. Under the new paradigm, physics accepts the dominant role of consciousness in its underlying philosophy and provides thereby a re-enchantment of the material world to fulfill the need expressed by A. Maslow, D. R, Griffin, and S. H. Nasr.

A revolutionary two decades for physics after 1905 culminated with the birth of quantum mechanics. The next major revolution, rather than a revolution in science itself, may be in the interpretation and meaning of QM. Its good news is that consciousness is inextricably involved in the creation of the physical world and its functioning.

Can a reader from the humanities trust a message from science about the psychological and spiritual aspects of man? The first section of this paper is devoted to this question. Following that, the essence of QM is presented as painlessly as possible for the non-scientific reader. Goswami’s new concepts are then summarized, with emphasis on those aspects pertaining to psychology and spirituality. The concept of a ‘quantum brain’ is described, as well as how it is related to basic psychological phenomena. Self-reference or ego is explained as a ‘tangled hierarchy’, and mental conditioning as a process involving quantum mechanical events.

The last two sections are philosophical discussions. Past revolutions in science have expanded its purview and provided changed gestalts of the universe and its operation. As these new concepts filtered down to the public, corresponding changes resulted in their world view. Appleyard (1993) and other writers say that the de-spiritualization of modern man is a consequence of science. The last section presents a more positive prospect for the future effect of science’s philosophy on mankind.

Two influential books published in the last six years from the chasm side of sociology and psychology convey a destructive misconception of science. They say that religious philosophy must not depend on science because science changes. Understanding the Present by Brian Appleyard is partially based on this error. He says (p 62), ‘Say for example we state that Newton had interpreted the mind of God. ...What can we say when Einstein appears to have exposed the incompleteness of Newton? The nature of God cannot change with every new theory’. Ken Wilber in Quantum Questions (1988) points out that our creative physicists sound like mystics in their writings, but concludes that science can never inform us of a higher realm in his Great Chain of Being. In Grace and Grit (1993) he says (p 20), ‘What...if we say...that today’s physics is in perfect agreement with Buddha’s enlightenment? What happens when tomorrow’s physics supplants or replaces today’s physics (which it most definitely will)? Does poor Buddha lose his enlightenment?’

Physics has indeed changed and will continue to change. The scientific revolutions of Copernicus (world-view), Lavoisier (combustion via oxygen), Maxwell (electricity, magnetism, and light), Einstein (relativity), and others are described by the historian Thomas Kuhn in his 1962 classic, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The last of these great changes, QM, is a revolutionary change indeed -- with a predictable clockwork world replaced by uncertainty.

The revolutionary aspects of a new theory are newsworthy, and the differences of the new from the old are emphasized in explanatory writings. Thus the layman to science understandably believes that the new invalidates the old. The crucial fact is that new theories must give the same answers to questions about the world as the old (Kuhn, p 99). This has always been true, as it must be. But this fact is never emphasized as it is not newsworthy. If a new theory does not agree with the old it is thrown out. That is how science operates; the theoretical physicist is thereby kept honest and out of never-never land. Here is what really happens, via two examples.

Newton’s physics gives wrong answers when matter travels close to the speed of light. Einstein’s Relativity Theory must then be used. But Einstein’s theory merges into identity with Newton’s for objects having ordinary speeds. So Einstein’s relativity did not invalidate Newton. Instead it seamlessly extended the domain of physics to include objects moving near the speed of light. Einstein expanded our understanding of the world to a larger domain -- to very high speeds.

Newton’s physics also gives wrong answers for sub-atomic phenomena -- at the dimensional scale of electrons, protons, etc.. QM must be used then. But QM approaches identity to Newton’s theory for objects composed of many atomic particles, objects we can readily see. So quantum mechanics did not invalidate Newton’s mechanics, either. Instead, it seamlessly extended the domain of physics to include atomic phenomena -- to the very tiny.

Let’s take a large object like the moon to show how this seamless stitching comes about. An analogous story would explain how Einstein’s physics merges into Newton’s for ordinary object speeds. We would be upset if the moon were not along its normal path on two consecutive looks. But according to QM atomic particles do not exist until we look, and between looks they could be anywhere (with various probabilities). Now since the moon is made of innumerable atomic particles does that mean that each particle of the moon could be anywhere when we look the second time? The answer is a resounding no! What happens is that the "quantum waves" representing each of its particles superimpose and interact, similar to the way water waves cancel and reinforce each other. In this case, they combine so that the high-probability envelope for the moon’s future location becomes identical to the moon’s orbit foretold by Newton. It differs by much less than an atomic dimension. The larger an object, the more closely does it move as Newton says it does. So there is no detectable difference in the predictions of the new and old physics when applied to objects made of many atoms, those that the naked eye can readily see.

In summary, major new experimentally-verified theories never invalidate the old. Instead, they extend and broaden the purview of physics, extending our knowledge to a larger domain of the Universe. The same is true for other physical sciences, but could be less true for a more descriptive science, such as zoology. Does this mean that projecting into the future science will ultimately ‘know the mind of God’, as poetically inferred by some writers? Of course not. The God of the mystics has no attributes to explain or understand. Study of the material world has, however, revealed an intimate relationship with consciousness that confirms the mystical views of reality -- as will be related after we first understand a bit about QM.

In its simplest essence, QM is a mathematical equation first enunciated in 1927 by Erwin Schrodinger. Since his equation resembles others that represent mechanical wave motion, QM has also been called ‘wave mechanics’. Another name is quantum physics.

The reader should know that during its 65-year life QM has given correct answers to all questions asked of it when its predictions about the physical world are compared with experimental data. It works for astrophysical questions about how the universe evolved after the "big bang" and where the sun gets its energy. It also works for designing the transistors that have made our information age possible. Physicists stand in awe of its precision in relating phenomena in our universe, as well as of its scope of application. Though QM is not the desired, ultimate, ‘theory of everything’ that includes gravitation, it even works in the heart of the atomic nucleus. Since it works so well, it must therefore speak truth -- neither the final nor the complete truth -- but a truth all the same that must be taken into account in any philosophy.

Before delving into the intellectual and abstract world of QM, we take a short side trip to note the poetry, elegance, and power of science. Schroedinger’s equation is only one inch long in print. It is deceptively simple and mysterious in appearance, a collection of eight strange and meaningless symbols to those without the mental training required to appreciate its abstract intellectual elegance and beauty. Likewise, literary poetry is also meaningless to those lacking the sensitivity and training to experience the emotional power and beauty of its symbolism. Science’s mathematics has in common with poetry that it encapsulates a wealth of meaning. It differs in that the meaning expressed in mathematics is primarily intellectual, whereas in poetry it is primarily emotional. The music of Bach differs similarly from that of the Beatles.

Mathematics is a written language created to define symbols precisely and to describe their relationship. It is a sign language analogous to that used by the deaf. Thus an unversed person who does not "speak mathematics" is merely deaf -- not dumb. The physicist uses mathematical symbols to represent mental concepts and to enable him to perform the conceptual operations of connecting, combining, and manipulating them to obtain a meaningful result. Such operations religiously follow the rules of logic in accordance with the mental process we call reason. Mathematics is a powerful tool of the physicist when applied to the task of understanding what is behind the world perceived by the senses. It is similar to a religion in that it is a way to explain our perceptions of the universe and our relationship to it. It differs in that its symbols are precise and unambiguous -- its meaning does not depend on the reader’s interpretation.

WARNING! This paragraph contains a simple mathematical equation. The timid could skip it without losing the thread of this story, but you might miss something significant. The following simple equation contains the parameters, "d", "1/2", "g", and "t":

The parameter "d" is the mental concept of the distance a body falls during the time "t", which is another concept. The equal sign is the concept of equality of the left and right sides of the equation. The fraction 1/2 is the concept of a particular fraction. The factor "g" is a number (also a mental concept) -- a measure of the gravitational force (another mental concept). The superscript "2" means the concept of multiplying the value of time "t" by itself. These three factors are to be multiplied together (another concept). When this is done, the equation gives the distance a body will fall. So this equation is a shorthand statement concerning abstract mental concepts about falling bodies.

A mind could perform the indicated calculations described by this simple equation without using pencil and paper. The mathematics of the theoretical physicist is often quite complex however, and a complex equation could not be held within the mind of even a mental genius. So mathematics is a powerful extender of conceptual thinking. It also is the language of precise, compact, and unambiguous communication between physicists since they ‘read’ and ‘speak’ mathematics.

There are two ways of learning about the world. This first is by direct perception -- ‘Newton saw an apple fall’. Newton’s laws of motion and a bit of mathematics will produce another representation of the apple’s fall, such as our equation above. This equation is knowledge of a higher order than the mere observance of one falling object as it works for any object of any size and weight, as well as on the moon. Mental training is required to comprehend it since this perception is mental. Similarly, training of another sort facilitates the appreciation of the arts.

The physicist Eugene Wigner (1960) wrote of ‘the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences.’ Paul Davies also discusses the secret of this phenomenon. He tells of a 1990 book by Ronald Minkins ‘devoted to this topic containing essays by nineteen scientists that failed to uncover this secret, or even to arrive at any consensus.’ No one knows the why of this widely recognized phenomenon; it just is.

The astronomer John Barrow also discusses why the laws of Nature are mathematical. He also refers (page 239) to C. P. Snow’s, ‘Two Cultures’ view of modern societies, wherein Snow wrote of the perilous gap of understanding between scientists and non-scientists. Barrow says, ‘whereas the average mathematician or scientist usually reads novels, watches films and plays, or listens to music, the professional writer, linguist, actor or musician has in general...little interest in science.’ He could also have included in his listing humanists, as well as those in the arts. Barrow continues with, ‘the principal reason is often the barrier created by the special language -- mathematics -- in which the "poetry" of science and mathematics is expressed.’

To use Schroedinger’s equation, the physicist inserts into it the mathematical description of a physical situation of interest. A simple example is that of an electron injected in some manner into a vacuum space. All the information from his mind about the experimental apparatus is now in the equation; the equation encapsulates or knows this. The equation also contains the parameter of time, and the physicist wants to know where the electron will be when he measures its location.

From the starting time let time proceed. The ‘wave’ represented by the quantum equation then changes and expands, as dictated by the equation -- something like the wave started by dropping a rock into water. What is this ‘wave’? This quantum wave represents the tendency for the electron to be at any chosen location. For example, it might say there is a 12% chance that it is ‘here’, a 34% chance that it is ‘there’, a 2% chance that it is at a third location, etc..

After the measurement, however, the experimenter knows exactly where it is. Before the measurement our knowledge was only of the strength of its ‘tendency’ to be here or there, or anywhere and everywhere in our space-time universe. That seems quite strange, as In our sensory world objects have definite locations. Definite locations were fundamental to classical physics, per Isaac Newton

According to Newton, if the location and momentum of an assemblage of objects is known at one time, the location and momentum of the objects are precisely predictable for all future times. The assemblage could be of billiard balls on a table, the planets in their orbits, or whatever. The universe, as Newton knew it, started off in the beginning with knowledge of where every particle was, where it was going, and how fast. The universe then ran predictably, like clockwork.

We now know, however, that in the quantum world there is a limit to the certainty of our knowledge, though these QM uncertainties are only evident at the scale of atomic particles -- beyond the range of our sense perceptions. Then who cares if these strange phenomena do not appear in everyday living? The ordinary person does not care, but beyond the view of the common man there is a unseen confluence of physics, religion, psychology, and parapsychology. This confluence will emerge after the reader learns some more about quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanical weirdness is best illustrated by its paradoxes.

An anecdote from Goswami (1993, p16) illustrates a significant philosophical point. Napoleon summoned the French mathematician Laplace to the palace regarding his notable book on celestial mechanics. ‘Monsieur Laplace’, said Napoleon, ‘you have not mentioned God in your book even once. Why is that?’ Laplace replied, ‘Your majesty, I have not needed that particular hypothesis.’ It was thus that science abolished God from day-to-day relevance in the affairs of the world.

Paradoxes have bedeviled QM for its 65-year life. Although valiant efforts have been made to create and justify interpretations to resolve them, none of these efforts has obtained a consensus among scientists. Let’s understand a bit about this conceptual crisis.

The most familiar paradox is that of the dual, wave-particle nature of light (as well as of atomic and nuclear particles). This is explained by saying that they have the properties of both a wave and a particle. We never see the waves, however; we only see their effects after waves may add or cancel each other. The resultant wave is described by the mathematics of QM, and predicts the ‘tendency’ of the particle to be in various locations. The conversion of these ‘tendencies’ to an actual location is called the "collapse" of the waveform. This collapse is a definitive mathematical operation, but the understanding of this ‘measurement problem’ is somewhat fuzzy as we shall see.

Next is the paradox of Schroedinger’s cat. A box contains a cat and a radioactive substance that has a 50:50 chance of emitting an atomic particle within one hour. The box also contains apparatus that will detect that particle -- if it is emitted-- and then immediately kill the cat. One hour passes, the experimenter opens the box, and the cat is either dead or alive -- with a 50% chance either way. So far, so good, everything as expected.

We now ask the diabolical question, is the cat dead or is it alive the instant before the box is opened? We naturally think this is the same as when we flip a coin and cover it with the hand. The coin is either heads or tails, and removing the hand will let us see which. Not so for the poor cat. QM says that it exists only as a quantum wave which says that if we look, there is a 50% chance we will see an alive cat. Isn’t that a bit strange? We normally expect a definite answer. Again we ask, does the experimenter’s consciousness make the dead or alive decision?

Schroedinger proposed his cat situation to point up the strangeness of quantum physics, per our usual way of thinking. This paradox could stimulate several questions from the reader after some thought about it, but to anticipate all such questions would take us into more words and subtle concepts. Goswami (1993) goes into these conceptual aspects in depth if the reader wishes to pursue his questions further.

The Nobel laureate, Richard Feynman, gave this advice to his students, ‘I think it is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics. Do not keep saying to yourself if you can possibly avoid it, but how can it be like that, because you will go down the drain into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that.’

Returning to the question of how to resolve these QM dilemmas, physicists instinctively recoil at the idea of including consciousness in their mathematical world. To include it, consciousness would have to be precisely defined -- but it can not be defined. In fact, it is not an "it", not a "thing". The psychologists can’t define consciousness either. They study the contents of consciousness, as did Dennett (1991) who took the materialistic paradigm as far as it would go for this purpose.

The generally accepted way of handling this dilemma is called the Copenhagen Interpretation proposed by the physicist Neils Bohr. It says we can never know about the electron or the cat prior to the measurement -- only the observed result is important. This is rather like the recent political solution to the problem of what to do about homosexuals in the U S Military, where the compromise solution was: ‘don’t ask’. But Bohr’s solution allowed physicists sufficient peace of mind to use QM to get answers to their practical questions for over sixty years. This was no doubt longer than the Military's homosexual policy will hold.

The three presently considered solutions to this metaphysical dilemma are called the ‘many-worlds’, ‘statistical’, and ‘quantum potential’ interpretations. Goswami (1993) describes them as well as the problems of each that have prevented a consensus. Davies and Brown (1986) relate BBC television interviews of eight eminent physicists who creatively studied the interpretation problem. They disagreed -- there was no consensus. In contrast, since QM was discovered physicists have expanded it into the nucleus of the atom with theories that have been universally accepted. So why is the philosophical interpretation of QM still contentious? Goswami has the answer.

Goswami’s Self Aware Universe (1993) shows that we have not been looking at the questions from an appropriate viewpoint. It is like the artist’s picture that portrays both a beautiful young woman and an old hag in the same drawing. Initially you see either the young, or the old woman. Later the gestalt suddenly shifts and you see the other woman -- the interpretation undergoes a complete transformation in meaning. Similarly, the change in paradigm Goswami proposes transforms the meaning in physics. It also eliminates the paradoxes.

The present, older paradigm is called material realism, the natural belief system that we all adopted in growing up: the world out there is real, and is totally separate and independent of us -- the observers. Material realism also holds that consciousness is the result of neural activity in brain tissue, though no evidence for this has been found. This belief makes it possible in the field of artificial intelligence to construct a conscious computer out of silicon chips -- a new form of life!

Goswami’s new paradigm is called, ‘monistic idealism,’ after Plato and his cave in The Republic. In this paradigm consciousness is the light that casts shadows in Plato’s cave, and the shadows on the wall are our world of sensory appearances. Thus consciousness is the primary reality, and the material world is an epiphenomenon of consciousness -- just the reverse of material realism.

Goswami points out that the same essential ideas occur repeatedly in the idealistic literature of many cultures and writes of the Vedanta scriptures, Buddhist philosophy, the Jewish Kaballah, Taoism, and Christianity. He then concludes, ‘In all these descriptions, note that one consciousness is said to come to us through complementary manifestations: ideas and forms, nama and rupa, sambhogakaya and nirmanakaya, yang and yin, and heaven and earth’. Thus, consciousness is both beyond, and immanent in, our space-time universe.

According to idealistic science, via the new paradigm, consciousness is the agent that chooses which facet of the quantum wave to actualize and bring into the material world. The electron in our first example is not in this world before the observation -- it didn’t exist anywhere, or anywhen. Our knowledge of its probable location was only that provided by a mathematical equation -- a set of concepts or ideas that reveal its "tendencies to be". But where are concepts or ideas? Surely not in this world. But after a measurement the uncertainties inherent in the quantum wave collapse, and our knowledge becomes definite. The electron has then been manifested into our space-time world from a transcendental realm.

The theoretical physicist Casey Blood (1993) in studying the interpretation problem of QM concluded, ‘There is no independently existing matter. Its apparent existence comes from the interaction of mathematics and mind’. In this quotation he used the word ‘mind’ as we use the word ‘consciousness’.

Returning to Schroedinger’s cat, before the box was opened the cat’s state of being was in a transcendental realm of ideas, albeit mathematical, and indeterminate in our world. There were two possibility facets -- 50% each way, and the act of observation by a conscious observer choose the fate of the cat.

There is an important subtlety involved in the act of observation, as the following dilemma reveals. Suppose two people open the box and simultaneously look at the cat. If one consciousness chooses death and the other life, what then? We think that consciousness is ‘something we own’, and that our ‘it’ is different from that possessed by another. The above dilemma disappears, however, if there is only one consciousness that does the choosing. The mystics have always told us there is only one consciousness and that thinking otherwise is illusion. The illusion that we are separate individuals arises from the ego structure formulated in the mind from memories and thought.

The above two-observer line of argument yields the inevitable, logical conclusion that there is only one consciousness. From now on we will refer to this universal with a capital ‘C’-- thus, ‘Consciousness’. Our Consciousness has been spoken of by other names, such as the Void, Nature, Mind, Yaweah, Brahman, or Godhead.

The new paradigm leads to another significant conclusion about Consciousness concerning the physics term, locality. Einstein’s relativity theory states that nothing travels faster than light -- over seven times around the world in a second. It takes an exchange of energy to transmit information, and light is energy, so it is the fastest message carrier. Thus, per Einstein, all physical effects must be local -- separated by distances reachable by light in the time available.

In 1982 Alain Aspect conducted a laboratory experiment involving two photons of light that were simultaneously emitted in an atomic event and traveled in separate directions. A light characteristic called polarization was measurable -- you are familiar with this effect, as exploited in Polaroid sunglasses. The salient fact here is that the two photons always have the same directions of polarization. Aspect measured the unknown polarization direction of one photon, which could have been at any point of the compass. Knowing that, the polarization directions of the other had to be the same. Subsequent measurements showed that it was -- as expected.

He next measured the polarization of the second photon so quickly, that it could not possibly have known the value measured for the first photon; there was inadequate time to receive a message via light from the first photon. In other words, Aspect knew the second photon polarization had to be the same as the first, but how did the photon ‘know’ what it had to be? Einstein believed the second photon could not instantaneously know what the polarization state of the first photon was. The inescapable conclusion from Aspect’s laboratory results was, however, that the second photon did instantaneously know what the measured polarization angle of the first photon was. The description of Aspect’s experiment by Abner Shimony (1988) has this summarizing quotation, ‘Einstein held that quantum-mechanical descriptions of physical systems are incomplete. Laboratory experiments show that he was probably wrong; The bizarre nature of the quantum world must be accepted.’

We concluded earlier that Consciousness chooses the result from the available possibilities inherent in the quantum waves representing a physical situation. That conclusion was then extended by the physicist’s logic to: there is only one Consciousness. Another conclusion can now be added from laboratory data: that Consciousness is non-local, or all-pervading in our space-time universe, as well as beyond it.

This role for consciousness in QM is not new. The eminent mathematician John von Neumann (1955) first proposed consciousness as the agent that chooses from the QM possibilities. His proposal was followed further by Eugene Wigner (1962). These earlier works were however based on a dualistic concept of consciousness and matter as separate realities, and bogged down in paradoxes that prevented general acceptance by the physics community.

The above is an editorial and explanatory condensation of Goswami (1993). His book is readable by the non-scientist, has humorous explanatory stories, and contains the complete story. There are several other books on QM, but only Goswami and Herbert (1993) cover QM from the idealistic perspective.

Goswami’s work lead to the logical conclusion from scientific reasoning and laboratory experiment that Consciousness is the primary reality, rather than the material universe. This statement strongly contradicts our normal experience. My body and the chair I sit on certainly seem real. We know the mystics say that the material world is not the unchanging primary reality, but acceptance of this concept is another matter. Acceptance requires treading a path to spiritual understanding, as summarized by the following Zen metaphor:

‘Later’, with the more understanding, objects are still seen as separate from the observer, but as illusory objects in consciousness and therefore unreal, -- as in a dream. We know on awakening that our dream experiences were unreal concoctions of the mind, but they seemed quite real at the time. Similarly, after waking, the mind continually generates the impression of a world out there that agrees adequately well with reality for everyday living. The psychologist Charles Tart puts it that we each carry around in our heads a ‘world simulator’, referring to computer simulation equipment such as is used to train airline pilots. The ‘virtual reality’ of such simulations is a compelling illusion of reality -- our normal sensory perceptions augmented by the mind are even more so.

‘At the end’ means after the phenomenon called awakening, transformation, or enlightenment. Then the world is known to be Consciousness objectivised as mountains and rivers. There is only seeing-with-no-seer, hearing-with-no-hearer, and the mountains and rivers are then known to be real manifestations of Consciousness.

What additional psychological phenomena are explainable via the new idealistic paradigm? Since this section is quite condensed, reference to Goswami (1993) may be necessary for a complete understanding. To start we recall that any physical system can be represented by Schroedinger’s equation and by the quantum waves it describes. These waves change with time and represent the probabilities or tendencies for particular events to manifest into our space-time world. The brain is a physical system, so all we have said about quantum waves applies to it also. It is a quantum system -- as is everything. The net wave for a large system such as the brain would be quite complex, but the principle is the same as for our earlier simple examples.

As noted earlier, these quantum ‘waves’ are concepts, or ideas, encapsulated into mathematical form. They cannot reasonably be said to be in this world. They therefore must be in Plato’s realm of archetypes or ideas. This is why science by the new paradigm is called idealistic science. In our earlier examples, an observer was required to actualize material into this physical world. We turn now to what there is about the observer that enables this to occur.

Goswami (1989, 1990, 1993) proposed that the brain be considered functionally as having two interacting portions: a ‘classical’ brain, and a ‘quantum brain’. The quantum brain makes it possible for Consciousness to choose which facet of the quantum waves will be actualized into neural activity. The classical brain then processes this initial quantum activity through neuronal action to generate an event in the personal consciousness. This classical portion functions like a computer, having memory and the ability to perform logical operations.

There is a subtle aspect here. If an omnipresent Consciousness chooses among the QM facets, then why is a sentient being needed at all? The answer is that conscious awareness is also required. Since this conclusion is based on measurement theory in physics and a bit involved, Goswami’s logic for reaching it is omitted; see Goswami (1990, 1993). However, cognitive experiments by Marcel support this conclusion. Marcel studied conscious and unconscious perception by using ambivalent, three-word phrases such as ‘tree-palm-wrist’. The word ‘palm’ has two meanings, and his subjects could choose to relate it to either of the other words. The details of these experiments are omitted here but they showed that choice is a concomitant of conscious (aware) experience, but not of unconsciousness perception.

Let’s now consider mental conditioning from the QM point of view. The memories of past responses to particular stimuli are the mental conditioning that predisposes an organism to respond as it did in the past. From the QM point of view these conditioned brain-mind states have quantum waves associated with them. These waves merge with other waves in the transcendental realm that represent new and creative response possibilities. When an old stimulus is again presented, Consciousness chooses a response among these multi-faceted QM possibilities. The stronger the conditioning the stronger are its corresponding QM waves, thereby increasing the chance that the old will be chosen over the new.

The experiments of the neurosurgeon Benjamin Libet (1985) showed that a ‘readiness potential’ (RP) appears in scalp brain-waves shortly before a person becomes aware of a conscious volition to act, e.g., to lift a finger. This unconsciously produced RP would be the result of a quantum-selection process, and be outside of awareness. The awareness of the intent arrives nearly 0.5 second later. This time delay, per this theory, must be the processing time for the ‘classical’ brain to generate a conscious event.

Libet also found that the selection result can be negated during this delay time, before it proceeds to motor action. Thus if an individual becomes aware of his or her conditioned response patterns, the mind could be deconditioned over-time by repeated negation of the conditioned responses. After enough of this, an individual might receive the grace of transformation, which presumably would remove the above time delay.

The classical, computer-like portion of the brain generates the personal ego from memories and thought. Its self-referential nature is explained as a tangled hierarchy, such as in the statement, ‘I am a liar’. This sentence’s object reacts back on its subject, which reacts on the object, etc., etc., and we are trapped in an infinite delusion. Such a closed system is separate from all else. It captures us, preventing our seeing through it causally and logically, and thus poses an illusory veil that is only apparent from outside the system. So the self of such self-reference and the original Consciousness together, make what we call self-consciousness.

We note here that the quantum-choosing by Consciousness is an unconscious and impersonal process. Thus the ‘free will’ the ego values so highly, is an illusion. The actions of a body-mind mechanism are not under control of the ego, as they seem to be. This fact can be glimpsed during transcendent experiences -- Abraham Maslow’s peak experiences, -- the ‘free samples’ of transformation.

The field of parapsychology could gain respectability through understanding the above quantum aspects of brain function. Many reject the validity of para-psychological phenomena due to the ‘I’ll see it when I believe it’ syndrome. They don’t believe it because there is no known explanation within the old paradigm of materialistic realism. Consider for example, mental telepathy, clairvoyance, or precognition. The conventional physicist says that information transfer requires energy exchange from sender to receiver. The only way he known for that to happen remotely is via electromagnetic radiation. But this possibility was rigidly excluded from operation in all parapsychology experimental work. In contrast however, there now is a comprehensible explanation for non-energetic, mind-to-mind information transfer via quantum waves in a transcendental realm. These phenomena would thus be unlimited by either distance, or time, in accordance with data from parapsychology experiments. They also would only happen when the receiver’s mind is quiet, without the interference of conditioned thought.

This understanding can also make the ideas of Rupert Sheldrake (1981, 1988) acceptable. He proposed that biological growth is guided by what he called morphic resonance from the past. Since his morphic resonance comes from outside space-time, influence from the past is no longer a conceptual problem. Goswami’s (1994) application of his new paradigm of idealistic science to the biological field surely makes this conceivable.

Ken Wilber (1988) quotes the writings of the creative scientists of this century, namely Schroedinger, Einstein, De Broglie, Jeans, Plank, Pauli, and Eddington, and notes (p 5) that ‘they were mystics of one sort or another’. He then points out that physics only deals with Plato’s shadows on the wall, not the light that produces the shadows from outside the cave. He quotes Eddington (p 10) on this point as follows, ‘Briefly the position is this. We have learned that the exploration of the external world by the methods of physical science leads not to a concrete reality but to a shadow world of symbols, beneath which those methods are unadapted for penetrating. Feeling that there must be more behind, we return to our starting point in human consciousness -- the one center where more might be known ... Physics must strongly insist that its methods do not penetrate beyond the symbolism. Surely then that mental and spiritual nature of ourselves, known in our own minds, supplies just that ... which science is unable to give’.

Wilber concludes with, ‘To put it in a nutshell: according to this view, physics deals with shadows; to go beyond shadows is to go beyond physics; to go beyond physics is to head toward the meta-physical or mystical -- and that is why so many of our pioneering physicists were mystics. The new physics contributed nothing to this mystical venture, except a spectacular failure, from whose smoking ruins the spirit of mysticism gently arose’.

It is of course true, by definition, that going beyond shadows and physics toward the meta-physical realm can have nothing to say of that realm if physics is that based on the old paradigm of material realism. This was the prevalent paradigm for the scientists Wilber quoted.

Is it still true, however, if physics is no longer bound by that dogma,? The new paradigm for an idealistic science grants Consciousness a primary role in the workings of the universe, as Eddington wished for. And further, its application in interpreting QM phenomena unequivocally informs us that the Consciousness that is operative is both unitive and non-local. These conclusions came directly from adoption of the new paradigm to interpret factual results of laboratory experiments.

Wilber’s Great Chain of Being posits a hierarchical order; a simplified sequence is matter, life, mind, soul, and spirit. The higher transcends and affects, but is not defined by the lower, e.g., though the study of matter informs us about living beings, it cannot define life. Similarly, physics can not define Spirit. Downward causation between levels is recognized in the human body, however, in the placebo effect, which has only recently been accepted as a subject for scientific study. Correspondingly, Goswami (1993) started from laboratory data about the material world and has revealed information about Consciousness and how it operates from the transcendent realm to manifest the material world via the awareness of sentient beings.

The sacralization of science so eloquently and passionately desired by Maslow, Griffin, and Nasr requires a personal spiritual evolution of the scientists themselves. What better route for this to develop than via science itself through its normal path of searching for universal truth? The old path was a dead end; the new path is the practice of idealistic science under the new paradigm. In Goswami (1994a) he shows that science can proceed under the new paradigm as well as the old, and gives therein a broad view of what can be seen thereby on the possibility horizon. He is developing these possibilities himself by contributing via the new paradigm outside his career field. In Goswami (1990) he reached into the field of psychology. For example, Goswami (1994b) has applied the new paradigm to generate a new theory of cellular life and evolution, and in part II (1994c) with the biologist Dennis Todd, to a new view of epigenetic evolution.

A revolution in thinking and attitudes that is capable of significantly changing the western world is waiting bashfully at the door for an invitation to enter. New ideas in science have the potency to be recognized even fuzzily by the public as they filter down to them. If this happens, the public could participate to some degree in the spiritual uplifting of those scientists who become able to accept the new paradigm.

The catch is that the acceptance of the fact that Consciousness is the primary reality, rather than materiality, is the spiritual ‘road less traveled’. I believe this is why 65 years have passed without the physics community flocking to this conclusion. The powerful personal ego zealously guards the gate to acceptance of the idealistic paradigm -- it senses and resists its being led toward the guillotine. This is the promised explanation for clinging to the idea that the material world is the only true reality, and denying the possibility of anything higher. Otherwise, our own physical bodies are not really real -- a highly threatening idea!

Never-the-less, the QM paradoxes must eventually be dealt with directly. Physicist’s past conceptual attempts have tried to explain them away, but a supremely rational and superior conceptual approach is to abolish them with Goswami’s new paradigm. Reason alone, however, has never been a coercive convincer. The response too often is, ‘I’ll see it when I believe it." The transpersonal psychology community will understand the import of the new interpretation of QM outlined above, and perhaps can ease the scientist’s path toward this acceptance. When scientists become converted their prestige can then be enlisted in a re-education of the public. Perhaps then one may reasonably anticipate an eventual spiritual uplifting of our materialistic society.

The modern sage, Ramesh Balsekar was pleased to learn on reading Goswami (1993) that science agrees with his summarizing statement that, ‘Consciousness is all there is’. His teaching is particularly suited to being helpful. Until 1977 he was the general manager of the Bank of India in Bombay. He was trained at the London School of Economics, so has an excellent command of the English language, as well an understanding of the western world. His guru was Nisargardatta Maharaj -- the Bombay tobacconist sage whose teaching is given in I Am That by Frydman (1983). After his awakening with Maharaj, Balsekar conducted talks in this country, Germany, and India. In consideration of his 77 years he now only sees people in his home in Bombay.

Balsekar’s Jnani teaching is pure Advaita Vedanta philosophy, untainted by the religious trappings, idolatry, and antiquated phraseology that tend to accompany traditional spiritual texts and make acceptance difficult for intellectuals. He thus attracts the minds of scientists and other intellectuals. His principal point, that ‘Consciousness is all there is’, is identical to that derived from QM by Goswami. Here is a longer, summary statement of Balsekar’s:

Balsekar is not well known, nor does he seek to be. Though the numbers who seriously absorb his teachings may be less than 200, awakening has happened in more than one of them. His The Final Truth (1989) is a concise statement of his teaching. Its 3-page preface contains all of the teaching; the other 238 pages are necessary repetition and restatement. Redundancy aids understanding -- otherwise the above italicized quotation could prepare all of its readers for the grace of enlightenment. His latest, Consciousness Speaks (1992), is based on seminars conducted in this country and consists of responses to questions from participants. It thus may be the easiest to absorb.

Balsekar states that the first step is an intellectual acceptance of the truth. Over time this truth can ‘settle down’ to total acceptance in a body-mind mechanism such as those we inhabit, and that mechanism may, or may not, eventually receive the grace of transformation. This cannot happen however as long as the current materialistic philosophy prevails. The truth of the mystics, as confirmed by Goswami’s scientific rationality, must replace it.

To summarize: the first conclusion from quantum physics and laboratory experience was the mental concept that Consciousness is the primary reality. It followed from this that there is only one Consciousness, although this concept seems so wrong. Finally, Consciousness is both beyond and immanent in our space-time world, thereby providing a connectedness of all things.

Goswami’s new idealistic paradigm of the primary role of consciousness, if and when accepted by the scientific community and others, has the potential to engender significant change in the world. The personal ego will powerfully resist that acceptance, however, as described earlier. Kuhn (1962) related that in the history of science many older science practitioners died while still resisting a new paradigm shift. Witness QM with the great Einstein, who said, ‘God does not play dice’. Since young new students of science will be more amenable to the new paradigm, there is reason for hope over the next generations when some of their teachers see the light. The author knows three physics professors on this road. Perhaps there are more.

The study of science is a valid spiritual path in preparation for those transcendence paths the mystics have pointed to. In Vedanta it is the path called Jnani Marga or the path of understanding. Also, the physicist is not the super-rational being disconnected from humanity that some humanists have believed him to be. Nor is the mystic the deluded being most scientists have believed him to be.

References

Appleyard, Brian (1993),Understanding the Present, or Science and the Soul of Modern Man. (Anchor Books).

Balsekar, Ramesh (1989), The Final Truth, (Advaita Press, Redondo Beach CA).

Barrow, John (1988), The World Within the World, (Oxford University Press), Paperback, page 23.

Davies, P. C. & J. R. Brown (1986), The Ghost in the Atom, (Press Syndicate, University of Cambridge, Cambridge U. K.). 1991 reprint.

Frydman, Maurice (1983), I Am That, (reprinted by The Acorn Press, Duke Station, Durham. N. C.).

Goswami, Amit (1989), ‘The Idealistic Interpretation of Quantum Physics’, Physics Essays , volume 2. number 4, 1989.

Harman, Willis. (1994). New Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science, (Institute of Noetic Sciences,). (Editor and contributor).

Kuhn, Thomas (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, (2^nd edition, Univ. of Chicago Press).

Maslow, Abraham (1969), The Psychology of Science, (Gateway Edition, Henry Regnery Co.).

Ranganathananda, Swami (1991), Human Beings in Depth; A Scientific Approach to Religion, State University of New York Press, Albany NY.

Sheldrake, Rupert, (1981), A New Science of Life, (J.P. Tarcher, Los Angeles).

Snow, C. P., (1962), The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution. Cambridge University Press, N. Y.: The Rede Lecture, 1959.

Wigner, Eugene (1960), ‘The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences’, Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics 13, 1. Citation by Barrow.

(1962), in, The Scientist Speculates, (Edited by I. J. Good). Kindswood, Surrey, UK,.The Windmill Press. Cited by Goswami, (1993).