images

Epilogue 1

Approaching God and Spirituality Through Science:

An Appeal to Young Scientists

I have heard that a young scientist once approached the mystic Jiddu Krishnamurti and asked, “How can I do science and still be spiritual?” To this Krishnamurti replied, “You can be spiritual by doing science to the best of your ability.” But this was another era (the 1970s and early ‘80s), when the integration of science and spirituality was practically unthinkable. Now that such an integration is not only thinkable but also demonstrable, Krishnamurti's answer misses the mark. In this epilogue I will answer this question for young scientists: you have an opportunity to realize God-consciousness and arrive at transformation while doing science, if you approach it in the right way, with right thinking.

But this answer needs elaboration, lots of it. The following is an elaboration in the form of an imaginary dialogue.

Such a dialogue serves another purpose. There is an old saying that old scientists never change their mind on a paradigm shift, but they do die. The paradigm shift that is presented in this book will not convince any die-hard old-timer. But by being a little more technical than the main body of the book, this dialogue may help provide added incentive to young scientists to approach science differently. The young scientists are the key to the paradigm shift and its exploration. (Nonscientists can skim over the in-depth science to get to a more general discussion later.)

Young Scientist: I appreciate what you have presented in this book, but I have so many questions, and I see so much…incompleteness in your arguments.

Author (smiling): And I thought I had been very thorough. Give me an example.

YS: Well, the most glaring oversight is neglecting to mention that there are many other solutions to the quantum measurement problem besides the one you discuss, and no more radical. There is the many worlds theory, a favorite with many physicists. The transactional interpretation—another favorite. You could have at least stated the truth—there are viable alternatives to bringing consciousness into physics.

A: There may be, but I haven't seen any yet. The two alternatives you mention are dualistic. They are assuming that the final apparatus for measurement is nonmaterial, without saying so. They camouflage it well, of course.

YS: I don't understand.

A: Remove your blinders. The many worlds theory looks viable because the authors hold out the attractive promise that discontinuous quantum collapse is not necessary. They theorize that one can be completely faithful to the mathematics of quantum physics and still solve the measurement problem by realizing that a measurement involves a proliferation of parallel universes, each containing the manifestation of one facet of the quantum possibility wave involved. Do you see the camouflage?

YS: Frankly, no.

A: The measurement still involves a measurement apparatus for amplification of the signal, right?

YS: Yes, of course.

A: But all measurement apparatuses, if they are material, become waves, superposition of possibilities, when they interact with a wave of possibility, don't they?

YS: I am not sure.

A: Think about it. This is the crucial point of the camouflage. Comprehend what John von Neumann (1955) was trying to tell us through his celebrated von Neumann theorem.

YS: Remind me.

A: Now I have to be a little technical. All interactions in quantum physics must keep the basic linear structure of quantum physics intact; they must all conserve probabilities. In technical language, all interactions must amount to unitary transformations.

YS: I suppose I have to agree.

A: But in the many worlds theory, the interaction with the measurement apparatus is doing something more than a unitary transformation: it is splitting up the universe into branches. The same is true for the transactional interpretation, where it is assumed that the interaction with the measurement apparatus somehow triggers the emission of a possibility wave going backward in time. In this way, these models are also taking us outside quantum physics. They are proposing measurement apparatuses that are not made of quantum-physics-obeying matter.

YS: How about the variations of the original many worlds theory?

A: The same criticism always applies.

YS: I see.

A: Look, it is the same difficulty that Niels Bohr encountered in his Copenhagen interpretation, except that he did not use any camouflage, so most physicists saw the difficulty right away. Bohr also said that the measurement apparatus is different, that it obeys classical Newtonian deterministic physics and so it does not become a wave of possibility. And this no physicist would agree with, even before von Neumann established his theorem.

In fact, if you read carefully, you will see that all the possible alternatives to the conscious observer interpretation become problematic with the von Neumann theorem. And this includes all efforts to eliminate collapse. I have written about this in some detail (Goswami, 2002, 2003).

YS: How about David Bohm's (Bohm, 1980) interpretation? Is that not a viable alternative?

A: Unfortunately, no, it is not. Bohm's is a modified quantum physics, an approximation of quantum physics. There is no reason to sacrifice the elegance of quantum physics for an approximation that works in a rather clumsy way, just to keep consciousness outside its parameters. Actually, I have done better. The physicist Mark Cummings and I were able to show that the Bohmian approximation surreptitiously assumes collapse anyway. It is too technical to delve into here, but I have discussed it elsewhere (Goswami, 2002).

YS: All right, you've convinced me. There is no other interpretation of quantum measurement that does the job properly except the one you discuss. Shall we move on?

A: What? You're not giving me an opportunity to pitch my main idea, that quantum measurement problem gives you an enormous opportunity to rediscover God, realize God, within science?

YS: Now you have made me properly curious.

A: OK. In the Upanishads of the Hindus, they discuss discursive methods with the same objective of God-realization. One such method consists of discussing and meditating on the problem of the nature of happiness and suffering.

YS: It would be interesting to get a glimpse of that.

A: Maybe on another occasion. For you, the quantum measurement problem is more appropriate, if you approach it with the question: what is the nature of consciousness that can collapse a quantum possibility wave without introducing any paradox?

YS: (a little excitedly): Yes, yes. I see what you are saying. I liked your approach to the paradox of Wigner's friend. It was quite enlightening to realize that consciousness has to be nonlocal. I wouldn't say I took a quantum leap, but it was very satisfying. But tell me this. Why didn't the satisfaction last longer, and why did skepticism come back?

A: Satisfaction is a transient phenomenon. It doesn't last. Skepticism is good; it is the indicator that you did not take a quantum leap. But now you say you understand that consciousness has to be nonlocal. This is a very good starting point for spiritual work. It is called faith.

YS: I see.

A: It is an intuitive glimpse at reality. Now you have an opportunity to dig deeper. Can I experience nonlocality of consciousness in my being? How do I do that? Do I meditate? Do I delve into psychic experiences?

YS: Those questions never arose in me.

A (smiling): Nonlocality is not your thing; it doesn't turn you on.

Now take the question of circularity of the observer effect. Here you have another opportunity to go deeper.

YS: Tell me more.

A: You understand that circularity is tangled hierarchy and is self-reference?

YS: I suppose.

A: Go deep. Why is self-reference, the separateness of subject and object, arising? It is because we are stuck at the same level as the object. In a quantum measurement, we identify with the brain, a physical object in space and time. Notice how space is created by the semipermanence of all macroscopic physical objects, semipermanence due to the sluggishness of their possibility waves. Notice how time is created by all those memories of past collapses in the brain. So you look at yourself as a physical object in this world of space and time. The perception is too real to give up.

YS: But I intellectually like the idea that there is an inviolate level, an underlying whole—quantum consciousness, God—that is the cause of the collapse, the origin of downward causation. The example of the liar's sentence is a good one to elucidate the importance of the inviolate level.

A: I am glad that your intellect is tickled. But here is an opportunity to go deeper.

YS: Deeper? How?

A: Consider for a moment a different model of ourselves. Not of quantum measurement, but of how our autonomy may arise. I have mentioned holism in the book. Self-reference via quantum measurement is one model of the self of let's say, a single living cell. But holists have another model. The thesis is that the self arises as an emergent property of self-organization as a “whole” that is greater than the parts and cannot be reduced to the parts. So far so good?

YS: Yes, very good. And the holists would say that this emergent self has autonomy, has free will in the sense that the experience of free will cannot be reduced to the components. Couldn't our free will be like that?

Well, I know what you will say. This emergent free will is ultimately determined, determined from the lowest material level, because there is no causation other than upward causation in the model. But in your model also, our free will is ultimately determined by God's will. What's the difference?

I say the holists' model is better because it satisfies my principle of parsimony. Why introduce God when we don't really need that concept?

A: Don't we? Let's see. By the way, do you know that some holists have delved deep into Buddhism?

YS: What has that got do with anything?

A: In Buddhism, our free will is an appearance. When we look deep, we discover we really are empty of any so-called “self.” This fits very well with the holists' theory of the self.

YS: Then what's your point?

A: The point, my friend, is that Buddhism is not nihilism. Emptiness does mean nothingness, but it is no-thing-ness. Emptiness is infinite potentia. It is potential fullness, as Hindus would put it.

YS: I still don't understand. So Hindus and Buddhists disagree about the nature of ultimate reality. What else is new?

A: But they don't disagree, don't you see? Emptiness is no-thing, it is full of quantum possibilities, and it is fullness in potentia. When consciousness is empty of the known, the playground of our conditioned ego-self, room is made for the unconditioned to come through. Buddhism does not talk much about the unconditioned, but it is implicit. They leave it for you to find out as a surprise. The unconditioned is another name (perhaps a very accurate name) for God with downward causation, the same as in all spiritual traditions.

YS: So why can't the unconditioned be the elementary particles at the base level, their upward causation, only now we are experiencing them directly without the interference of past conditioning?

A: If that were so, if the spiritual work of deconditioning ourselves just led to an unconditioned “will” arising from the unfiltered movement of the elementary particles, there would be no transformation. Our behavior would show a haphazard mixture of order and chaos. Isn't that so?

YS: I suppose. So transformation is your proof of downward causation?

A: Transformation is the most obvious proof, as emphasized in one of my earlier books (Goswami, 2000). But don't forget the quantum measurement problem. Holism does not solve the quantum measurement problem either. And if you think about it, it does not really have enough explanatory power for explaining biological evolution. Nor can it resolve the neurophysiological dilemma of the subject-object split in perception.

YS: You mean nobody has been able to demonstrate those things yet!

A (smiling): Well, creative evolution via downward causation and biological creativity is a manifest theory. It is not promissory. For biological creativity, we also need the morphogenetic field and the mind and the supramental. For resolving the subject-object split in perception, we need to apply quantum measurement to the situation. Holists are never going to demonstrate that feeling, meaning, and physical laws or even ethics are due to the holistic emergence from complex interactions of elementary particles going through many levels. There is a category difference. But we are moving away from our subject.

Transformation is important and it is impossible to incorporate into any materialist theory, holism included. If that is the convincing you need, start with that.

YS: OK. What's the next step?

A: The next step is to recognize what you are transforming.

YS (startled): Huh? What am I transforming?

A: The internal chaos that exists in all of us, that causes our suffering and our separateness. It is a chaos of meaning and feeling and, occasionally, a chaos of value, is it not?

YS: I would agree with that.

A: Transformation is a transformation of the context we use to process meaning, feeling, and value, right? So looking at what we are transforming, we immediately discover these nonphysical bodies of our consciousness. We now have all the ingredients of a new scientific paradigm: downward causation and the subtle bodies.

YS: And your point is…?

A: In days past, religions also had the concept of downward causation. They used it as a magic wand, as the cause of all unexplained phenomena, mostly material phenomena. Now the neo-Darwinists have such a magic wand: natural selection looked upon as adaptation. But the downward causation of the quantum God-consciousness is not a magic wand. It is an empowerment, giving us real free will, freedom of choice. When we discover it, we are empowered to change our internal environment first, bring order there. And eventually, even make our external environment better.

YS: So as scientists we should be encouraged to study downward causation involving the subtle bodies, not only because it gives us a new set of phenomena and problems, but also because when we study it, we cannot but empower ourselves to transform. The scientist is no longer separate from the subjects of his or her study.

A: You got it. In this way, the scientist joins the evolutionary movement of consciousness toward the soul level of being.

YS: Thank you. I would like to be a scientist in search of the soul. Thank you indeed.