A Wonderful Conversation
OpenClipart-Vectors/Pixabay
I’ve been carrying on the most wonderful conversation with a reader, whom I’ll call Steve. I think it really helps to clarify some of what I presented in Hoodwinked; I hope it will be useful to you as well.
In particular, I spoke about the description quantum physics offers us of the world we observe: “The equations of quantum theory describe mathematically a distribution of probable results of any experiment that is yet to be performed on a system of fundamental, exceedingly small particles. Those equations then describe how that distribution of experimental results will vary over time. This process is known as the propagation of probability waves.”
Steve: On page 83, you state "This process is known as the propagation of probability waves." While I have said more than once that you can explain quantum physics better than anyone I have read or heard, I think the above concept and the pages that explain it may cause you to lose your audience (hopefully only temporarily). You end the chapter on P 89: "When we shift from one of those possible worlds to another by virtue of a shift in our emotional state, the change is seamless for everybody else's reality." Larry, I need help here, since I don't understand the preceding sentence.
Larry: My first premise here is that what we think of as the external world is an interpretation of sensory information, a picture created in the brain out of electrical impulses and conditioned by one’s biases, education, acculturation, and so on. We all assume that the picture so created is an accurate depiction of that external world, but I believe it to be the result of a great deal of necessary filtering.
My second premise is that the world itself is, in [Carlos Castaneda’s classic sorcerer] Juan Matus’s words, “mysterious and unfathomable,” and all we can do is make a picture of it so we have something to work with. In this view, the world embraces all of the possibilities that quantum theory predicts (i.e. the location of all the particles that make up the physical world and so on), and the filtering process is what isolates one set of those possibilities and makes it “real” (i.e. observable).
The third premise is that the specific filter each human being employs in this process is a function of his or her emotional state. In that way, the world we experience behaves as if it is a mirror, reflecting back to us our expectations and beliefs about ourselves, each other, and the world.
Steve: With regards to your most recent response, I wasn't saying the chapter wasn't clear. I understood your three premises way back when I was reading The Seer's Explanation, so I didn't find the chapter confusing. I just didn't understand the sentence which ends the chapter on P 89, specifically the words I have now underlined: "When we shift from one of those possible worlds to another by virtue of a shift in our emotional state, the change is seamless for everybody else's reality." I understand that the change will be seamless for each individual, but the sentence seems to imply that each individual's change causes a change in everyone else's reality and I don't think that's what you meant.
You continue: "That's because the Universe, All-That-Is, non-physical conscious energy, arranges each and every human being's experience as a perfect, effortless composite of those emotional states." Am I correct in assuming that since you have chosen to put this statement (which I consider faith-based) at the end of a chapter which discusses quantum physics, you believe that quantum physics supports your statement? I'm interested in your answer to this question because, while I believe your quantum physics explanations do support many of your statements, I don't think they prove the statement in question should be true for everyone (even though it is obviously true for you).
Larry: In terms of the words you underlined, I was responding to what I imagined would be a challenge from perhaps a science fiction fan. I imagined someone pointing out that if I shifted the world I'm in, everyone else would see me disappear! Castaneda did describe such an experience, but that’s a somewhat different case!
Yes, I do believe that quantum physics supports all of the premises I’ve woven into the book. If you want (one wants) to make sense of quantum physics, you have to explain how a multiplicity of possible states of a system (from one electron to the visible universe) becomes just one reality when you look at it. I concluded that one’s emotional state determines which of those possible states one experiences. But then you have to explain how we can agree on the reality we experience enough to talk about it and to interact with it. I concluded, again, that it is the conscious Universe that arranges everything so that we can so agree.
Steve: Thanks for the further explanation. I think I understand the meaning of the underlined phrase better now. I can make my question more specific: Do you believe that quantum physics supports the notion of a "conscious Universe"? I know there is no mention of God (or god) in Hoodwinked, but am I wrong in interpreting your use of capitalized words like Being, All-that-is, and the Universe as your personal vocabulary for referring to what most people refer to as God?
Larry: As a basis for answering your question, I would say first that we have two ways to think about quantum theory. First, we have the equations that were developed to explain experimental results, and that successfully predict ensuing experimental results without fail. Then, we have interpretations of those equations that attempt to explain what’s going on, i.e. how they correspond to “reality” (no small feat). The orthodox interpretation, called the Copenhagen interpretation, is entirely mechanistic and doesn’t involve consciousness at all, and in my mind it doesn’t really explain how you get from the probabilistic nature of the equations to a single consensual reality. Nor does it explain how you get consciousness at all!
I find interpretations that involve an observer as the determining factor much more satisfying. Most notably, these include many-worlds and QBism. But saying that the observer is essential implies that to create a fixed reality one needs consciousness. My thesis is that consciousness turns out to be all there is, and so saying that the Universe is conscious is a truism.
As for God or god, I think those words carry the subtle implication that God or god is an object, albeit an all-powerful one, as distinct from that which is not god. To me, that’s a fallacy, a result of our conditioned thinking that we humans are objects and identified with our bodies. So no, I don’t identify Being and All-that-Is with what most people refer to as God, because Being, the Universe, isn’t an object or entity distinct from that which it’s not. And yes, I deliberately avoided using the word god for that very reason.
Steve: Your responses definitely add clarity, but also stimulate more questions! I believe I understand your explanation of how quantum theory relates to a conscious Universe. Could I think of the entire Universe as existing within the Consciousness (now you got me capitalizing things) or being a projection of it, rather than the consciousness pervading the Universe (sort of chicken vs egg--which came first)? As with most ideas about the origin of the universe and/or the origin of life, if one accepts the idea of a conscious Universe, then the question arises as to the origin of the Consciousness (which seems to be another example of the uncreated Creator).
Since there is much anthropomorphizing when people discuss God, maybe a more traditional way of describing your concepts of Being, All-that-is, and a conscious Universe would be to think of "everything" (including us) existing only in the mind of God, with nothing having a separate existence or "reality" outside it. I'm just trying to use words most people are already familiar with versus coining new usages. Do you think the foregoing has any validity?
Larry: I think of the entire Universe – to the degree that a human being can conceptualize it – as conscious Being-ness, without end either spatially or temporally. Consciousness, then, has no origin… it just is. For a human mind, that’s impossible to imagine, because our minds are organized around a limited, though potentially vast, series of multi-sensory images. Our minds are trained to deal with objects, which is why we objectify everything, including ourselves, each other, and god/universe.
I see the physical world that we experience as a projection (of completely abstract ideas) into time and space so that we can deal with our experience in a tangible way. I do think you could say that the world exists within the mind of god, if god refers to the unlimited Being and not to somebody’s mental construct of what god might be (male, white, and so on).
Steve: Most creation myths start with “In the beginning there was….” Usually the sentence ends with “nothingness” or “the Void”, but it could just as well be “consciousness” or even “Being”. In my opinion, no matter what word ends the sentence, ending the sentence requires belief, and one belief is as good as another. In my life experience, as long as the belief gives comfort to the believer and promotes the common humanity of all human beings, then I’m all for it. For me, it is when a particular belief is perceived by its adherents as the “only true belief” that it can do harm.
Your “Seer’s Explanation” is logically presented and basically comprehensible. You have written two books about it and seem anxious to share it with anyone who shows interest. For you, what would be the best result of someone reading or hearing your explanation?
Larry: Yes, most creation myths talk about a beginning. The only one I subscribe to is the one that starts with “13.8 billion years ago or so…” However, for me it refers to the physical universe and not life or human beings, and yes it requires belief! I’m with you… as long as belief gives comfort to the believer and promotes common humanity, I’m all for it too.
What I like most about someone reading or hearing my ideas is that someone engaging in a conversation with me. Sometimes my ideas seem to bring people considerable comfort:
“What a fascinating read. This book may have made more of an impact on me more than anything else I have ever read. Thank you, Larry Gottlieb for such an incredible book. J.H. and A.K.R., you may find this interesting. Thought provoking for sure.”
Sometimes it seems to make people mad:
“If the lid is on the sugar bowl, and there’s sugar in it, but I don’t see it, it’s still there. It’s an arrogant view on our behalf to say if we don’t see it, it’s not there. It’s there. You just can’t f**king see it. Do you think molecules just came into being when they were first seen?”
It's all good!
