The Analysis of the New Physics
As renowned cosmologist George Ellis states, the current worldview in modern physics "... does not represent a realistic view of the real universe” (2006, p. 25). Thus, as a full explanation of the nature of reality, phyiscs as it stands is incomplete. The reason is quite simple; as he explains, an extra dimensionality is required. And as he states: "This may be difficult to implement in physical theory, but it is actually the way things work; present theoretical physics understanding simply does not adequately represent it." (2008, p. 6).
Implementing it is in fact equally simple, but utterly surreal. Consciousness has to be included in the explanation. Consciousness, however, is not what we thought it to be. As Professor Chalmers of Australian National University has discovered, consciousness is a property of the universe as a whole. Here I will do my best to explain exactly what all this means.
As is well-known, we live in a
four-dimensional space-time universe. This is one of the central
features of relativity. It is a less well-known consequence of
relativity that the whole of this universe exists 'already'. The
past, and even the future, exist in the same way as the North and the
South; for this reason it is often referred to as a block universe.
As the famous Professor Deutsch states: “Spacetime is sometimes
referred to as the 'block universe', because within it the whole of
physical reality – past present and future – is laid out once and
for all, frozen in a single four-dimensional block.” (1997, 268).
This means that the passage of time is a great mystery, because
nothing can pass from moment to moment; everything is part of one
specific moment, permanently. As Deutsch says: “Nothing can
move from one moment to another. To exist at all at a particular
moment means to exist there for ever.” (1997, 263; emphasis in
original). This is a longstanding paradox, because it is perfectly
obvious that time is passing, but this phenomenon has no physical
reality. As Professor Davies states: “... it appears that the flow
of time is subjective, not objective.” (2002).
There is no question that the physical objects of the universe
cannot pass from moment to moment. And since we are physical objects,
that includes us. As Sir Roger Penrose, … states, in the universe
described by special relativity: “... particles do not even move,
being represented by “static” curves drawn in space–time." (1994, p. 389).
As Dr Smythies continues: "Thus what we perceive as moving 3D objects are really successive cross-sections of immobile 4D objects past which our field of observation is sweeping." (2003).
We are made of particles,
so this applies to us. But inherent in his statement is a resolution
of the whole problem. If one's field of observation is sweeping
through the 4D space-time, the whole thing is explained. But this
does mean that the field of observation cannot be a physical
phenomenon. Within the context of physics as it is currently defined,
this is a profound paradox. In a worldview where the only phenomena
are physical phenomena, this makes no sense at all. But is exactly
this paradox which is resolved by Chalmers' work. There is a
phenomenon at work which is not a physical phenomenon.
Herman Weyl, a close associate of
Einstein's, encapsulated both the problem and the solution in a very
simple statement back in 1949: “The world simply is, it does not
happen. Only to the gaze of my consciousness, crawling up the
life-line of my body, does the world fleetingly come to life.”
(1949, 116). At first brush, this seems to make no sense, because the
natural assumption is that consciousness is a property of the
body-mind. Since the body-mind is a physical object, made of physical
particles, it is stuck in time, along with its consciousness.
However, despite prolonged and intense efforts to explain
consciousness in terms of the physical body-mind, this has been
unsuccessful. No mechanism has been discovered whereby the body-mind
produces the experiencing consciousness. Because of the all-pervasive
and all-embracing assumption that the only real phenomena are
physical phenomena, it has been nonetheless assumed that
consciousness has a physical explanation, just one which we have not
been able to comprehend as yet. As a result, consciousness is
generally assumed to be an emergent property of the body-mind system.
An emergent property is a property of a system that is not present in
any of its component parts or aspects. It is the way in which the
whole of something is greater than the sum of its parts. For
instance, transport is an emergent property of a working vehicle.
Professor Chalmers has carried out a rigorous analysis of the
nature of the experiencing consciousness. He has determined that it
cannot have a physical origin. It is an emergent property, not of the
body-mind, but of the universe itself. As he states: “I suggest
that a theory of consciousness should take experience as fundamental.
... we will take experience itself as a fundamental feature of the
world, alongside mass, charge, and space-time.” (1995, 216).
Several prominent physicists have essentially said the same thing. As
the brilliant David Mermin, Professor of Physics at Cornell
University, states: “Quantum mechanics offers an insufficient basis
for a theory of everything if everything is to include
consciousness.” (1998, 7). Max Planck, the founder of quantum
theory, stated that: “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I
regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind
consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we
regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” (1931). While this
is a new concept to modern thinking, it has been known about in
spiritual traditions for a very long time. This is unitary
consciousness.
That which is experienced is personal
and mundane. That which is doing the experiencing is universal. In
modern language, it is a system property. It is to reality, and the
individual in it, the way a computer system is to a number on which a
computation is being performed. They are utterly different in
'logical type'. (This distinction is explained in detail in Logical
Types in Quantum Mechanics.) The experiencing is a universal,
generic property. It is an emergent property of the totality of
existence. Given this, Weyl's statement is very obviously correct.
Given that the whole universe is static, this is the only way in
which the field of observation can possibly sweep through space-time,
as Penrose describes. What we have discovered, but not recognised, is
that the field of observation is the field of observation of unitary
consciousness.
Quantum Theory
Although this solution is clearly elegant, it is so unexpected,
and so at odds with common sense, that one could well be forgiven for
thinking that the problem must surely have a more straightforward
solution than this far-fetched notion. And it is certainly true that
the peculiar paradox of the passage of time has not received a great
deal of attention in the world of physics. However, there is another
problem which is to this day seen as both central and
incomprehensible, and this too is resolved naturally and elegantly by
the same concept. This is the problem of the 'collapse dynamics' in
quantum mechanics. Quantum theory shows very clearly that physical
reality potentially contains all possibilities, and all possible
worlds. Taking our discoveries literally, it seems as if all possible
versions of reality must be going on, all at the same time. But of
course, we only ever experience one specific version of reality. As
has been reluctantly admitted, physics can find no proper explanation
of this fact.
Quantum mechanics defines two very different dynamics. In
principle, the primary dynamics, the 'linear' dynamics, gives rise to
all possibilities. This is not in question. However, since one only
ever encounters one specific version of reality, it is clear that the
vast plethora of possibilities somehow collapses to a single
actuality. This is the second dynamics, the 'collapse' dynamics. No
one can explain how it works. Jeffrey Barrett, Professor of Logic and
Philosophy of Science at the University of California, Irvine, has
specialised in this subject. As he concludes in his book The Quantum
Mechanics of Minds and Worlds (), although generations of physicists
have had their say, no generally agreed consensus has been reached;
all of the interpretations, explanations of what quantum theory
really means about the nature of reality, are flawed in some way.
This is the great paradox at the centre of quantum theory. As far as
we know, physical reality itself is the superimposed sum of all
possibilities. (It is a popular myth that 'decoherence' solves this
problem, but without question it does not.)
The
problem is in fact a missing dimension. A book called Flatland
described a world of only two dimensions, which we will use to
illustrate the problem. The inhabitants are of course
two-dimensional. And they are ignorant of the fact that there is a
third dimension, until they are visited by a three dimensional being
who suddenly appears in the middle of their world, by moving in the
third dimension. It has recently become increasingly evident that for
all the success and sophistication of our modern science, we are in a
somewhat similar situation.
We know the universe is a 4D block universe. But it is in the
context of this universe that all the problems arise. As Ellis states: “... the unchanging block universe
view of spacetime is best replaced by an evolving block universe
which extends as time evolves, with the potential of the future
continually becoming the certainty of the past; spacetime itself
evolves, as do the entities within it.” (2006, 1). However, as he
explains in a later paper, it lies outside the current conceptual
framework, the 4D block universe, but is in fact the way reality
operates: “This may be difficult to implement in physical theory,
but it is actually the way things work; present theoretical physics
understanding simply does not adequately represent it.” (2008, 6).
In other words, this concept is required to make sense of the new
physics. This is how reality operates: there is a sequence of
definitions of a block universe. This is what happens as the quantum
mechanical definition of the 4D physical universe collapses. There is
a new definition of the 4D block universe. This is literally what it
means for the collapse dynamics to operate. As Ellis points out, our
current worldview does not adequately represent this phenomenon.
Indeed, it does not really address it at all.
What is really being stated here is that there is a dimensionality
missing from our current worldview. There is some kind of extra
dimension in which there is the change of the definition of the 4D
block universe. It is the lack of this dimensionality which gives
rise to the great paradox at the centre of quantum theory. Ellis
states that the present theoretical physics understanding simply does
not adequately represent the changing of the 4D world. This is
correct, if one takes only the objective point of view. But in fact,
Hugh Everett's famous many-worlds theory does provide exactly such an
evolving block universe. But the problem is that his concept only
addresses the subjective viewpoint. He explains exactly how there
comes to be an evolving block universe, but only in experience. There
is only the appearance of an evolving block universe. There is only
the appearance of collapse. Which is exactly what he says: “It will
thus appear to the observer, as described by a typical element of the
superposition, that each initial observation on a system caused the
system to "jump" into an eigenstate in a random fashion”
(1957, p. 459). Each jump is the transition from one 4D block
universe to the next. And this can only be the transition of the
field of observation.
Seeing the situation in terms of Flatland, the resolution is
straightforward. Moving in the third dimension, the three-dimensional
visitor passes from one two-dimensional plane to another. One of
these planes is the Flatland of the story. In a similar sort of way,
though not moving in any kind of space-time dimension, the field of
observation can move from one block universe to another, and another,
in endless sequence. This is the appearance of the evolving block
universe, the appearance of the collapse dynamics in action.
Just as the entire world of Flatland is seen by the visitor for
what it is, a single plane in his three-dimensional world, so too to
unitary consciousness, the 4D world of relativity is just one
momentary version of the definition of the real physical world. Just
as the visitor can pass from one plane to another, unitary
consciousness passes from one version of the physical universe to
another. It is already part of the concept of quantum theory that all
possible versions of the universe exist. Given unitary consciousness,
the appearance of collapse is simply explained.
What we have discovered, but failed to recognise, is the
operational nature of the universe as a whole. This is strange
enough, but it is the consciousness one experiences in operation all
day every day which is at the centre of this intellectual revolution.
And the impact is highly personal, and very useful indeed. One is
immortal, because this kind of experiencing is unending. Although
this sounds bizarre, it is simply a realistic form of 'quantum
immortality, a concept that has been known about and acknowledged for
some time. This is not the only major change. As described in detail
elsewhere (Multisolipsism)
this set of ideas directly implies that we live in
personal, physical, parallel realities. Again, this is not just an
intellectually fascinating new viewpoint. It is of key central
importance to the life of every individual, and the race of human
beings as a whole, because one is constantly interacting with the
destiny of ones personal reality. It makes quite a difference to know
about it.
As Professor Tegmark of MIT mentions: “It is often said that
important scientific discoveries go though three phases: first they
are completely ignored, then they are violently attacked, and finally
they are brushed aside as well known.” (2007). The lack of a key
dimensionality in the current worldview is currently at the first
stage. No one is taking a great deal of notice. Meanwhile, Chalmers'
discovery solves the problem, but no one is taking very much notice
of that either. It solves a problem which has not been acknowledged
as a real problem. A huge upheaval is in the wings. Usually, such
scientific revolutions unwind over years and decades. As Professor
Greene of of Columbia University states: “Such changes are not made
lightly. They are closely examined by the community of scientists,
and they are often sharply resisted; only when the evidence reaches a
critical abundance is the new view embraced. Which is just as it
should be. There is no need to rush to judgement. Reality will wait.”
(2011, 308). Reality will indeed wait, but the burgeoning human
crises will not. We are facing the constraints of limits to growth.
We are, like the bacteria on the Petri dish, about to run out of
vital resources in the very near future. The new ideas I have
presented here are not just fancy ideas, they have vital, practical
and immediate implications.
In this kind of reality, one one does, and even what one intends,
has a direct and immediate impact on the version of reality one is
likely to experience with respect to every aspect of reality,
globally. Yes, this sounds nuts, but it goes with the territory.
It follows directly from the logical form of the discoveries we have
made. It means that a great deal of our effort is headed in the wrong
direction, and likely to bring about the opposite of what we are
aiming for. This is described in detail in my book Human
Being 2.0 and will also be explained at Avant Garde Science
shortly.
The resolution to our global crises are inherent in the new
worldview, but we need to act now. We need to reassess our worldview,
and this is an urgent matter. If any of this resonates with you, I
invite you to investigate further, by reading up on the science and
the implications.
References
Chalmers, D.: 1995, “Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness”,
Journal of Consciousness Studies 2(3):200-19
Davies, P.: 2002, “That Mysterious Flow”, Scientific
American Magazine, September, available online at
http://urgrue.org/lib/mysterious-flow.html
Deutsch, D.: 1997, The Fabric of Reality, Allen Lane The
Penguin Press, London
Ellis, G.: 2006, “Physics in the Real Universe: Time and
Spacetime”, available online at
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0605049v5
Ellis, G.: 2008, “On the Flow of Time”, available online at
http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.0240v1
Greene, B.: 2011, The Hidden Reality, Allen Lane, The
Penguin Press, London
Smythies, J.: 2003, “Space, Time and Consciousness”, Journal of Consciousness Studies, 10, No. 3 (2003) pp. 47–56
Tegmark, M.: 2007, “Many Lives in Many Worlds”, Nature,
448, 23, July 2007, available online at
http://arXiv.org/abs/0707.2593v1
Weyl, H.: 1949, Philosophy of Mathematics and Natural Science,
Princeton University Press, Princeton