Skip to content

Physics and Consciousness – A New Alignment

Imagine the argument between classical physics and quantum physics as an argument between two groups of cave dwellers trying to decide what rain is. One group suggests that “cloud” condenses into a quantity of “water” which then falls, forming droplets in the air. The other group suggest that a small quantity of “water” is condensed from “cloud” by the actions of a host of little demons, who then each throw their droplet at the ground. Unfortunately, each theory fits some of the observable facts, therefore it becomes necessary to formulate a way in which the observations within each theory can be contextualized. This of course produces an endless array of demon mathematics to account for observed continuous phenomena, and the projection of this process into all subsequent theories about the nature of “watery” things.
The problem is that if anyone were to ask either group what “clouds” and “water” actually were, all they would get would be the old “deer in the headlights” stare.
You see, if neither group actually know the fundamental nature of what they are observing, then none of their theorizing and mathematical fiddling actually has any basis in reality, it only has a basis in a strictly limited “cave dweller reality”.
Modern physics is essentially the same as geocentric, flat earth astronomy. It all seems to work as long as you don’t ask any of the harder questions. As long as you are prepared to accept that your observation of the earth being flat and in the centre of the universe is absolute and correct, then even with all its complexity and paradox, you “know” that your astronomical theory is “true”. “I mean, “ says the astronomer, “it all works, so how could it not be?”
As we now know, the geocentric, flatlanders were completely wrong; that what they thought they were observing was an illusion created by the limitations of their ability to observe – or, and just as importantly for science, their inability to entertain possibilities they (a) could not otherwise prove, and/or (b) refused to accept as possible.
And this, of course, is exactly where we stand at the moment in regard to physical science, with its deliberate blindness to any data or possibility that might bring its otherwise vast, unwieldy, paradox ridden monument of theory crashing down.
A lot of people think it’s time something was done about this situation. I have been one of these people ever since I realized that from the turn of the 20th century, our way of understanding not only the universe around us, but our place within it, was becoming seriously out of alignment with many of both the empirical facts of science itself, and those of human experience.
One of the most dogmatically held notions in physical science is that “matter” is all there is. Clearly this is not so, unless you have invented a theory, or set of theories, in which the problem of action at a distance is rationalized within this matter is everything viewpoint. Put simply, if matter is all there is, then a “field” has to be a “material” function. To make a field a material function you have to invent things, you have to insert little mathematical “matter” demons into the picture so that you can correlate the known geometric facts about “fields” with your “matter is all there is” theory. The question then becomes, are invisible matter demons real, or are they just an invention which has become necessary because your ideas about “matter” and “fields” are in fact seriously flawed to begin with?
Another notion, which has become a dogmatic of physical science is “indeterminism” along with is corollary of “probability”. Put simply once again, indeterminism results from the inability of an observer to determine both the position and the momentum of a subatomic particle. Particles only become particles to the observer once they are observed, and then only their momentum or their position can be known, but not both. Particles exist only as fields of energetic probability until they are observed, the probability of their position and motion defined by their “wave function”, which tells us the limits within the observed constants of nature that it might exist. Now, the question is, is indeterminacy truly a function of “particles” or is it a function of how we see “particles” in the first place? Funnily enough, physical science now recognizes that the observational process, i.e. the consciousness of the observer, is necessary to “collapse the wave function”, yet it still cannot see that perhaps the whole indeterminacy/probability paradox is not a function of “matter”; that it might in fact be a function of consciousness itself.
Another problem is the light speed paradox, Put simply once again, we can measure the speed of a beam of light from a stationary source passing two points in space and we get a fixed value “C”. But we find that even if we are moving these points rapidly away from or towards the source, we still get the same value. How is this possible? Well, logically it isn’t. Light (or electromagnetic radiation) is the only thing in the universe capable of this logic defying feat. But does light really defy logic in this manner, or is the real problem that our logic only seems to fail here because we are not apprehending the reality behind the observation; not conceptualizing what the observation is actually telling us?

These three basic problems, i.e. the nature of fields, or “action at a distance”, the problem of indeterminacy and the light speed paradox have only and ever been resolved by creating “demon theories” to accommodate them to the “matter is all” dogmatic of modern physics. Perhaps by removing the demon theory and trying to see the real logic behind any one of these phenomena might reveal the reality behind all.

The next three papers will address this issue and hopefully lead us into a new way of seeing, not only how the observed universe is seen to be what it is, but how life and consciousness, far from being merely the accidental products of a “matter is everything” universe, are in fact the fundamental core of its existence.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.