Category: Mind-Matter

Posted on

Materialism and its disastrous consequences

Why materialism is the cause of the catastrophic state of the world and humanity, and what to do about it

At the start of my course in Quantum Physics and Consciousness for students of the Academy of Spiritual Sciences in Utrecht, I made the above statement. At the end of the course, the last lesson, an explanation of that statement was asked – rightly so. This led to a heated discussion that ended not entirely satisfactory because of time constraints, after which I decided to explain my position in much more detail in this blog.

That materialism is leading us to the abyss is my personal conviction. In these times there are many outspoken supporters of hard materialism influencing public opinion on the issue. By hard materialism, also called physicalism, I mean the deep conviction that the world can be fully explained with just matter and all interactions between matter. To avoid misunderstanding, this does not mean that I think that those with such a matter-only view are people with bad intentions. Most materialists are certainly not people harboring malicious intent, but mostly – in my opinion – misinformed. They may very well be very nice, empathetic, responsible and honest people. However, their belief is leading the world in a catastrophic direction.

I will explain below in a number of logical steps where materialism is leading us and why I consider it disastrous.

The materialistic postulate and its conclusions about the world

Pure materialism is based on the postulate that the world can be fully explained with matter and all interaction between matter. This is a postulate that leads us step by step to the following logical conclusions:

  1. Consciousness can only be a product of matter because there exist only matter. Consciousness is therefore an emergent property of a complex brain.
  2. From this follows that a complex material brain is needed for our experience of having a consciousness. Everything that does not have a complex brain, therefore, has little or no consciousness. The less complex the brain, the less consciousness. Man has obviously the most complex brain (on earth) and therefore also the most complex consciousness and is therefore superior to all other forms of life.
  3. Consciousness, being a product of a complex brain, ends with the death of the physical body and its brain.
  4. All interactions of matter are mechanical and without purpose. Each outcome is basically unintentional and therefore purely coincidental.
  5. Life, including consciousness, can only have arisen through purely coincidental combinations and interactions of matter. Life and consciousness are therefore ultimately accidental phenomena in an indifferent universe.
  6. Life is therefore, in principle, a purely mechanically explicable phenomenon.
  7. Heredity, a characteristic of life, is a mechanically explainable phenomenon. Changes in the hereditary properties are only the result of accidental mutations.
  8. Evolution, the gradual emergence of increasingly complex organisms, occurs through mechanical random effects. The best adapted organism has the best chance of passing on its, sometimes altered by chance mutation, hereditary characteristics to the next generation. The hereditary mutations that are less fit for survival do not survive and won’t be passed on to the next generation.
  9. Although very complex organisms can arise in this way, possibly with consciousness, this must ultimately be based on blind chance. There is no other explanation and we don’t need another.
  10. Blind chance, along with the basic properties of matter, are therefore the only real elements in the universe.
  11. Free will is an illusion because each action is the result of mechanically explainable interactions of matter.
  12. There is therefore no purpose in the universe. It’s pointless.
  13. There is also no good and evil in the universe since good and evil are not properties of matter and cannot be derived from it. Ethics, ideas of good and evil, have no material basis.

I hope that you understand that the above statements are contrary to my beliefs. They are logical derivations from the materialistic postulate. The same beliefs can be found in the publications of Richard Dawkins (The Selfish Gene) and Daniël Dennet (Darwin’s Dangerous Idea). You will also find them in the beliefs of many neuroscientists like Dick Schwaab (We Are Our Brains) and Sebastian Seung (Connectome).

Everything is allowed – in the materialistic perspective

From the last three statements – 11, 12 and 13 – which are fully endorsed by the said adherents of the materialistic view of the world – I then deduce:

  • Each individual organism is therefore completely free to determine and achieve its own goal. However, if other organisms get in the way, bad luck for them.
  • In other words: everything is allowed. If other organisms suffer as a result, it is only important for the organism that causes their suffering when itself suffers a disadvantage as a result of the suffering of its victims.
  • Love, empathy are nice but not necessary, they are just a luxury.
  • Rampant sociopathy, lust for power, greed, depletion of natural resources, wars, oppression, exploitation, exclusion of the other and even the torture or the killing of the other organisms are all justifiable from the above explained purely materialistic perspective. Matter is indifferent to suffering.

These conclusions may well disappoint you. Good thing, too. But are they not illogical from the materialistic viewpoint? They do, in my opinion, support the rampant greed that is increasing and causing social inequality and the concentration of capital in the world and that is becoming increasingly alarming.

The Matter with Things – Materialism is no good

This eloquent, almost poetic quote from ‘The Matter with Things‘ by Iain McGilchrist therefore seems to me very appropriate here:

The business of life then becomes like a dance watched by a deaf person: puzzling, pointless and somewhat absurd. Death becomes just the meaningless end of a life itself without meaning. Goodness becomes mere utility, and suffering just frustration of utility. Eros becomes just lust; longing just want; sleep and dreams an inefficiency that we should do away with if we could; art a toy; the natural world a heap of resource; and wonder merely a measure of our failure, rather than, as I believe it to be, a measure of our insight.

Therefore: Materialism is no good.

Above that: It has not been demonstrated experimentally. It’s a dogma. An unproven belief.

It is not only a belief, but it is also severely shortsighted. Materialism offers no credible explanation for quantum phenomena such as the observer effect at the double slit, entanglement demonstrated in all Bell experiments and the influence of the mind on quantum random generators (QRNG) by the observer’s intention. Anyone who reflects on hypotheses such as decoherence, multiversa, superselection and spontaneous collapse with an open mind, and is willing to let go of the materialistic view of the world, will be able to see that none of these are very credible attempts to save the materialistic view. Incidentally, the materialistic view has also no real explanation for the evolution of life, which is becoming increasingly painful in view of the recent discoveries in heredity research where organisms, unicellular and multicellular, appear to adapt actively and intelligently their own hereditary properties, their own DNA, in response to the challenges of their environment.

Again, that doesn’t mean that materialists are bad. Most people are good, even when they cherish materialistic views. But this does say something about what this image of the world invites to. Is it any wonder, then, that we are on the brink of catastrophe today, despite all the good intentions of most people?

But isn’t primary consciousness also just a hypothesis?

Indeed. The assumption of primary consciousness is also a hypothesis and because it cannot be proved experimentally it is as much a postulate as the postulate of materialism. However, consider that the postulate of primary consciousness offers excellent explanations for quantum physical effects that are incomprehensible by the materialist view. That’s why it’s my preference. A hypothesis that offers no understandable explanations for experimentally observed effects is, in my view, a poor hypothesis.

Quantum physics has repeatedly confirmed that the information that an experiment can provide determines where the object under investigation will appear, how it behaves and how it has behaved. Reality does not act materially in its fundaments but much more like a dynamic and interactive field of potential. Information including its meaning is typically something that resides in consciousness. That effect, the observer manifests the observed by his observation, can only be properly explained if consciousness is much more than an emergent phenomenon of matter.

When we assume that consciousness is primary and that matter is very probably an expression of that consciousness, a very different picture emerges. Materialism loses its current persuasive power and hopefully we can start to create a world that is not – as it is doing at the moment – crashes into the abyss.

Posted on

Consciousness taken to court

It is the neurologists who still largely believe in classical physics, through which they want to explain consciousness as an emergent phenomenon of the brain. European neurologists are busy working on the Human Brain Project. This is one of the largest research projects in the world. In its final phase (April 2020 – March 2023) the HBP’s focus is to advance three core scientific areas – brain networks, their role in consciousness, and artificial neural nets – while further expanding EBRAINS. They expect – and hope – that their digital copy of the neural netwerk that we harbor in our skulls will become aware. For the sake of this emerging digital awareness, I hope not. In the main media I regularly come across articles that subscribe, rather uncritically, to this emergence idea. Fortunately, I also come across critical reviews, such as here in The Telegraph.

The neurologist’s message: your consciousness is a hallucination. It’s a recursive pattern within a pattern within a pattern of neuronal activity.

If you repeat a message often enough, a significant portion of the recipients will simply believe it. Just look at Donald Trump, about 43% of the male residents of the US currently believe that large-scale vote fraud has been committed in the presidential elections of 2020. The other male 57% are just looking uncomprehending at such a belief, since it can only survive if you completely ignore the facts. Apparently this is also the case with this neurological ‘We are our Brains’ brainwashing. It’s a belief. Verified facts are completely ignored. Entire tribes believe it. Of course you are free to believe what you want, but this is a belief with major consequences for science, humanity and its future.

A lawsuit

Suppose the question of the origin of consciousness were the subject of case law. In such a fictitious case, consciousness is accused of masquerading as an objectively existent thing when, according to the indictment, it is just a hallucination of our neurons. Therefore, its right to exist as an original phenomenon is dubious and unfounded. A verdict would have major consequences for our society. Fortunately, there are facts to consider, both for and against consciousness as a product of our neurons. So let’s put consciousness in the dock, and ask the judge to make a legal decision based on scientifically established facts.

The prosecution:

Your Honor, if I get a blow on the head, I lose consciousness. If I drink a lot of alcohol, my consciousness will behave less well. When I get demented and my brain is affected I forget who I am and who my husband is. With a dose of LSD or DMT I experience the most fantastic hallucinations. These are all examples where the cohesion and/or the chemistry in my neurons is affected. I am my brain. My consciousness pretends to be real, but it is only an illusion.

The defense:

Your Honor, what has been put forth is by no means conclusive evidence that consciousness is produced by the brain. The correlation of the electrical behavior of neurons with thoughts and sensations has been demonstrated, but a correlation is not a causal relationship. The fact that many firefighters are usually present at a fire does not mean that their joint presence causes fires. There is no question that the brain plays a role in our consciousness, but it is arguable that the brain is only an instrument of consciousness, to be able to interact with the world, a receiver of awareness with a very advanced filtering capacity.

When I crash my iPhone, it stops functioning, but the content that was ready to be shown or to be played is still there. When I buy and install a new iPhone, this content can be revived again. Much to the amazement and unbelief of someone of the 19th century. Furthermore, fMRI research has shown that when people use drugs such as LSD and DMT, their neuronal activity decreases while the intensity of the hallucination increases. This contradicts the idea that the brain produces their intense experiences and directly supports the filter hypothesis. Finally, you can also ask yourself what it is that experiences that illusion. Those neurons?

The prosecution:

Your Honor, consciousness here apparently masquerades as something that exists outside the physical body and communicates with it in ways unknown to us. This is not possible given generally accepted scientific knowledge. As far as we know there is only matter and energy, and energy exchange can only take place between matter and other matter. No disembodied consciousness has ever been demonstrated in the laboratory. The Cartesian duality, a disembodied spirit in a physical body, is a misrepresentation born of outdated religious beliefs. I think the me, who thinks so, is itself an illusion.

The Judge:

Pardon me, this is an illusion addressing me? Well well, I surely want to hear more of the defence now.

The defence:

Your Honor, if the prosecutor thinks his thinking self is an illusion, I wonder why we should listen to an illusion. And that a disembodied consciousness has not been demonstrated in a laboratory is not proof of the non-existence of a such a phenomenon. The measuring instrument that would be needed is, as far as is known, not yet available. The only known way to perceive consciousness is consciousness. Current scientific knowledge is necessarily incomplete and based on materialistic models, the correctness of which in the past had to be repeatedly adjusted or even rejected. That energy exchange can only take place between matter is not a fact but an unproven dogma. Quantum physics, the most successful physical theory currently, seems to indicate strongly – by delayed choice experiments, among other things – that the observer creates the observed. Matter thus seems to become the illusion, not the perceiving consciousness. But it is not matter that is in the dock here to be defended.

There are excellently documented cases of individuals where no brain activity at all could be detected – flat EEG and ECG – while this person was observing the environment from a point of view different from the usual, that is, observing the world from somewhere outside the body. In support of this defense I offer here an excellent verified file of cases where brain and normal sensory perception could not function, but where the person concerned clearly consciously perceived and remembered details that were verified on correctness in a way that cannot be explained with a strict material model of reality. Something that means that strictly material theories are limited in their explanatory models and that full awareness at the time of the Near-Death experience cannot be a product of complex neuronal activity. A clear awareness going together with a cerebral cortex that is demonstrably no longer functioning cannot be reconciled with the idea of an emergent consciousness.

I want to present here also the case of the 44-year old man with a tiny brain. His case was published in The Lancet in 2007. The man seemed to function normally with a healthy IQ, but, as a result of hydroencephalitis, he walked around with a skull mainly filled with cerebrospinal fluid. See the x-ray for yourself.

The large black space is the fluid that built up in his brain. Feuillet et al./The Lancet.

Consciousness in this case can hardly be the result of an extremely complicated network of neurons that produce together a pattern within a pattern within a pattern.

Your Honor, finally I would like to add that if I were to say to my GP, “I think the me, who thinks this, is an illusion,” she would be concerned, write a referral to the psychiatrist and think probably, “Oh my, the poor wretch’. But when a neuroscientist says the same their audience apparently listens breathlessly. I beg you to remain critical.

The prosecution:

Your Honor, I hope you will exercise some patience in this matter and will wait until there is conclusive scientific evidence to show that consciousness is a product of the brain and thus is a hallucination. We are confident it will be produced within a few years fom now. That person with so few neurons still had quite a few, as you can see from the x-ray, so apparently not so many are needed for intelligent consciousness as we thought. That proof, that consciousness is a product of the neurons, will come, I assure you. That won’t be long. We are working on it with all our might. I implore you to have confidence in the promise of science and its devoted practitioners. In anticipation of the outcome we are already so sure of, I propose that consciousness should already be given the status of hallucination at this stage. This will, according to our belief, explain completely the emergence of consciousness from matter and, very important, in that way we only need matter to explain the world. Please, let’s not complicate matters more than necessary.

The defence:

Your Honor, it should be well known that at this time any active interest of scientists in consciousness as an independent primary cause that does not originate in matter, could be detrimental to their careers, even if they already had a Nobel Prize. Nevertheless, there is a steadily growing number of scientists who dare to defy this career risk. I therefore I ask you urgently not to base your verdict upon some vague promises, but only on documented and verified facts, even if they do not come from laboratories, and to assign consciousness rightly its status as an actual, independent and original entity. Thank you very much.

Posted on

Do we manifest the world?

What is the role of consciousness?

There is still a considerable group of scientists who prefer to keep consciousness and quantum physics as separate as possible. But their message is losing its persuasive quality as far as I can judge. The following video is a good example of these attempts to keep consciousness outside physics. The creators present first all those arguments that I also present in my book ‘Quantum Physics is NOT Weird‘ for the role of consciousness in quantum physics phenomena, such as the observer effect. These arguments pass the screen in quick succession. Convincingly presented. Very informative; I recommend seeing it anyhow for those who are reading my book. At the end comes Wigner’s paradox and the message is; current insights are that Wigner’s interpretation is no longer necessary according to the latest insights, but that those insights are in fact only reserved for people with a very deep understanding of quantum physics. This will be explained in more detail in the upcoming sequel episode. I guess that the sequel will be about the multiverse hypothesis that has indeed a growing group of adherents between quantum physicists.

Consilience confirms convincingly primary consciousness

That’s indeed the case when I observe what their message is in the sequel. Well, if it were only quantum physics providing arguments for consciousness as the primary creator of reality, I would probably also belong to the group that would consider that idea unlikely or even woo physics. I suppose that I would also gravitate towards the multiverse hypothesis despite its unprovability and its unimaginable proliferation of universes and its occupants. However, when I think of all those phenomena confirmed by experimental or extensive forensic research, such as the ability to influence quantum generators by the mind, psychokinesis, memories of past lives, near-death experiences, telepathy, instrumental communication with deceased persons and with Alzheimer’s patients, I am beginning to understand that all these phenomena strongly confirm each other mutually in supporting consciousness as a primary force. This bringing together of each other mutually supporting scientific confirmed results from different domains is called consilience. A good practice in view of the current scientific compartmentalisation.

A real skeptic does it’s own thinking and research, keeping an open mind

There are many fascinating ways you can do your own research on this topic. It will take time, but I can assure you, the view becomes breathtaking when you keep your mind open. I advise that you start reading a book written by an already three decennia practising neuroscientist, Marjorie Hines Woollacott: ‘Infinite Awareness. The awakening of a scientific Mind’.

Posted on

A particularly persistent misunderstanding

This kind of quotes do keep popping up in reports about quantum phenomena: “Depending on the way in which it is measured, the quantum object manifests itself as a particle or as a wave.” No, no, and again no, that is not the true image of quantum reality in my opinion. In fact it is severely misleading en confusing.

Such statements create the impression of an object that deliberately adapts to the measurement methods used and then decides whether it shows itself as a wave or as a particle. No wonder many people decide that the quantum world is utterly weird and incomprehensible and stop thinking about it.

This false image, this misunderstanding, has its origins in the image of the world that we received from our earliest memories on. An image of a world existing independently of us and in which we fulfill merely the role of spectator, an accidental bystander who might as well not have been there. We are used to imagining something, every physical thing, as something that simply IS and has always been there. We tend to stick to that way of looking at reality even when, depending on the way we look at it, its properties suddenly appear completely different and extremely ambiguous, like the quantum object mentioned above.

Do we actively create our world?

It is rather unusual to think that things are there BECAUSE we perceive them, that they did not exist before our observation and are no longer there after our observation. If we would opt for that way of thought, things would attain properties that we usually attribute to dreams and thoughts and not to ‘real’ things. This way of thinking about reality is not in keeping with the common perception of the permanence of our world. Yet the quantum world teaches us that our idea of an objective permanent world is most likely false.

Looking at the double slit experiment

The double slit experiment is a crucial experiment in quantum physics able to provide a lot of insight. So let’s take a look at it

Electrons fired at a double slit form an interference pattern.

When we fire a large number of particles, photons, electrons or even large molecules, through a double slit, an interference pattern will be created on the screen after the slits. We see a pattern of light and dark bands. That pattern also arises when we fire particle by particle. Even after a long period of firing single particles, certain areas on the screen appear to be hardly hit, which are the light bands in the picture above.

Such an interference pattern is the result of wave behavior. It occurs because waves reinforce or extinguish each other in certain places depending on their synchronous concurrent or opposite motion, respectively. Watch this YouTube video for a very enlightening demonstration of double slit interference.

There is a mathematical relationship between the spacing of the bands of the interference pattern, the spacing between the slits, the distance from the slits to the screen, and the wavelength, but we don’t need to go into that to understand the meaning of this experiment.

Such an interference pattern of dark and light bands only arises when the originating waves have the same frequency and wavelength. It happens when two wave sources vibrate synchronously. The two slits here function as wave sources vibrating in phase. The rather amazing conclusion drawn from this interference pattern is: “Every particle exhibited wave behavior and must therefore also have been a wave.” This also applies to electrons and even to large molecules of more than 800 atoms.

Catching the particle in the slit

When we adjust the experiment in a way so we can determine for each particle which slit it has gone through, the interference pattern disappears and we get a pattern that you can interpret as two single slit patterns that are projected over each other and therefore are actually indistinguishable from a single slit pattern. Each of the two slits now produces a single slit pattern, which is a single light spot with the highest intensity in the center, in much the same location on the screen.

The correct conclusion is that the waves passing through the slits no longer interfere with each other. The relationship between these two waves running from the slits, which let them extinguish or strengthen each other in fixed predictable places, has disappeared. The often drawn conclusion is that we now see particle behavior instead of wave behavior, which actually makes no sense. A single slit pattern is still for 100% the result of wave behavior, only we no longer observe interference such as occurs with two synchronous wave sources. It seems more like as if every wave, connected to each particle, is now originating from only one of the slits and no longer from both. And that’s exactly what’s going on here.

How we see the world as a collection of things

“.. we can determine for each particle which slit it went through …“. Notice how this sentence is formulated. The implicit assumption here is that there is a particle that travels along a path and that shoots through one of the slits. That is an image that stems from the way we got to know the world around us from childhood. And apparently we find it extremely difficult to let that premise go. Ask yourself: Did the fired bullet travel every part of the path to the target? Or didn’t it?

The simple hypothesis: observation manifests the particle

Now, if only for a moment, try to let go of that premise, set it aside. Imagine now that, there is no particle traveling a path, there only is a wave. A wave that appears to be particularly intimately connected to our perception of the particle. (I will postpone here the effort of trying to understand how this connection works.) A wave that will end when we make an observation. An observation thus means that we seem to manifest the particle at that time and in that location. Immediately after our observation has been made, the particle is no longer there, but the wave is there again starting from where we last observed the particle. Now look again, assuming this hypothesis is right, at the version of that double slit experiment where we could determine which slit the particle passed through. Are we now perhaps able to understand this enigmatic disappearing act of the interference bands somewhat better?

Therefore, try to follow the following five logical steps:

  1. According to this hypothesis, it is the observation, in this case through which slit the particle passed, that made the particle to appear in one of the slits.
  2. Its appearance in the slit implicitly means the end of the wave.
  3. Only at the moment the observation information tells you, the particle manifested and existed in the slit.
  4. Immediately afterwards there is no particle and a new wave leaves the slit eventually ending up on the screen behind the slit.
  5. Since the particle did not appear in both slits – at least let’s assume that there is no magical particle multiplying – we now have only one single wave source.
  6. So there is indeed a wave – between the double slit and the screen – but now there is no more interference, because you need two synchronous vibrating wave sources for it to observe.

This hypothesis – observation manifests the particle – gives thus a complete and logical explanation of the disappearance of the interference when we observe the particle at the slit.

Two time-consecutive manifestations of the particle in a single experiment

Where the wave hits the screen, we do observe a bright little spot. In principle, that is also an observation. So when we set up the measurement in such a way that we can observe in which slit the particle appeared, we create a measurement setup with two consecutive locations for observations – and thus, manifestations. One in the slit and the other on the screen behind the slits. That dual observation is the crucial aspect in an experiment where we do observe the particle at the slit.

So it is confusing to say that the observed object behaves like a wave or a particle depending on the way of observing. In both setups, it is consistently true that there is a wave that results in the manifestation of a particle through an observation. In the setup where we look in which slit the particle appeared, we simply make two consecutive observations, whereby a wave manifests itself twice as a particle. The measurement directly influences the measured object and doing two consecutive measurements at two locations within the setup therefore logically should arrive at a result different from a single measurement done only at the screen. As if you gave during billiards the already rolling ball an extra kick and then got surprised that it influenced the outcome. We really don’t have to assume an intelligent ball for that.

Someone has to hit the balls.

Not a particle and wave at the same time, it’s a probability wave

If we look at it that way, then there is no longer a particle that adapts magically in terms of properties to our way of measuring. The whole process is clear and extremely predictable. As long as we don’t measure the object we want to measure it is a wave. As soon as we measure where and when the object was , we will find the object to have been there. The measurement and manifestation of the object thus become identical! This is a very important and deep conclusion.

Now the question of what that wave is and what it consists of becomes an important one. The answer to that question was first proposed by the physicist Max Born in the early 20th century. In his proposal, the quantum wave is a wave that, when interpreted correctly, gives you the probability per location and time, where and when, to find the object during a measurement. Thus, the quantum wave gives us a prediction of reality but not an exact one. It is a statistical prediction, just like when rolling a dice, the probability of exactly getting a six coming up is 1/6 and that the average outcome of a roll is 3.5. Incidentally, Max Born still assumed that the particle was somehow ‘guided’ by the wave which means that the particle traveled a path, albeit unpredictable. That interpretation was later abandoned by most physicists.

Quantum mechanics is statistics

Statistics is the way in which quantum mechanics accurately predicts the results of experiments. With the enormous numbers of particles that play a role in objects larger than a few micrometres, the outcome of a physical event can be predicted with great precision. Just as the average outcome of a hundred billion throws with an ideal die will be exactly 3.5 with a deviation that we will find only after the 8th decimal place. Many quantum physicists do accept the idea that the particle only manifests itself during measurement, but they disagree about how the measurement achieves this, given the large number of different interpretations. Most interpretations attempt to save the objective permanence of the world but until now these fail to do so convincingly. That there is not a winner since more than 100 years could be an indication of wrong underlying and deeply hidden assumptions. In technical applications, quantum physicists simply use the statistical calculation methods – shut up and calculate – and leave the interpretation to the disputing theorists.

The simplest explanation is usually the best

As I wrote at the beginning, assuming that the ‘thing’ aspect of reality only appears because we are looking and that it does not exist physically when we are not observing, means that the reality we perceive has the same quality as thoughts and dreams. If that is the assumption that provides us with the simplest unambiguous explanation of the double slit experiment, the idea that observing manifests reality might now have become not as strange as it probably sounded to you at first. Applying this hypothesis we are able to visualize every part in the double slit experiment without having to try to imagine something that is simultaneously a particle and a wave, which is impossible. This could mean that our belief that the world is permanently out there, regardless of our presence in it, is a very persistent misunderstanding. That is anyhow my deeply felt opinion. The world is there because we create it when observing it. This also applies to something dramatically destructive like the Covid-19 virus in the end. Such a message should raise of course a number of rather hard questions. For some answers on these have a look at another page on this website.

Posted on

Experimenter effect in parapsychological experiments?

Dean Radin, chief scientist of the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS) has a remarkable succes rate in his experiments. Is this perhaps due to an experimenter effect? Let’s have a look into his double-slit experiments that showed that persons could influence the outcome of a double-slit experiment with their minds.

© The Truth about Forensic Science – The McShane Firm

The experimenter effect is that the experimenter’s expectation influences the outcome of the experiment in such a way that the outcome confirms his expectations. This effect seems to have played a role in Radin’s experiments. Not the best message for parapsychological research you would perhaps think at first glance. But at second glance, Radin’s experiment proves an excellent confirmation of my view that consciousness creates the experienced reality and its history.

Double-slit influenced by the mind

In Dean Radin’s experiment, subjects, sitting in an electromagnetically shielded room, are asked to concentrate on a double slit arrangement and to imagine then that the photons pass through a certain slit. It has gradually been confirmed experimentally and is now considered a fact accepted by most physicists, that gathering information about which slit the photon passes on its way to the screen causes the interference pattern to disappear. An often suggested explanation for this is that this information collapses the state wave already within the passed slit, which means that the photon manifests itself in the slit. Immediately afterwards, a new state wave starts from that manifested photon, that will arrive finally on the screen collapsing there into an observed point of light. Since there is no longer a twin synchronous state wave issuing from the other slit, no interference can take place. The light spot can now also appear in a location that otherwise would be dark if there was interference. The spot can now be observed outside the bright interference ‘bands’. There is no interference, because you need at least two waves for it to happen.

Double-slit experiment showing interference fringes on a screen.

Six series of experiments were conducted between 2011 and 2014, each with the same set-up. Subjects were asked to use their minds to try to influence the photon to pass through a specific slit. If they succeeded, then, according to accepted quantum physics theory, the interference would become less sharp because, as explained above, information about which slit the photon passes through makes the interference disappear.

Experimental set-up in experiments 1 to 4 as described in Radin’s publication. The test subject sits in the chair, T3 is the double-slit device including laser, double-slit and CCD for registration of the interference pattern. The PC is used for showing the fringe effect.

The decrease in interference was recorded by measuring the brightness difference between a maximum and a minimum fringe, the fringe index. The actual procedure was somewhat more complicated, but the experiment comes basically down to measuring the fringe index and comparing it with the subject’s instructed activity. The experiments were conducted in seven series, the seventh one online in 2013 and 2014, i.e. with subjects participating via an internet connection at a physical distance from the experiment. The total number of sessions in the first six series of experiments (not online) was 250 with 153 participants, in the online experiment there were 5738 sessions with 1479 participants.

The overall outcome was that there was indeed a significant effect with a probability of less than 1:166,000 for chance. The subjects were explained what the experiment entailed in advance. To help them focus their attention on the double slit, they were given feedback by showing the change in the fringe index on a screen in the form of a line moving up (deteriorating) or moving down (improving). So they could immediately observe the results of their mind activity and that feature turns out to be an important aspect of the experiment.

A programming error and the end of an interesting hypothesis

The computer program that showed the changes in the fringe index to the subjects was found to contain a programming error in the improved 2014 version. The sign of the fringe index was consistently reversed. A deterioration, because of that programming error, was shown as an improvement and vice versa. What was interpreted by the subject in those 2014 sessions as a deterioration of the fringe index turned out to be an improvement, in other words the opposite of the expectation of the experimenters. The actual outcome of the 2014 study was therefore that a significant improvement in the fringe index was observed. Suddenly the experiment showed results contrary to the expectations of the experimenters.

A more logical interpretation of the experiment

So how do we interpretate this reverse result? What can’t be denied is that the subjects managed to influence the interference fringes significantly with their minds. Not by thinking of photons passing through slits, but simply by trying to ‘think’ a line moving up. Compare this with Helmut Schmidt’s test subjects who were instructed to try to get more green than red flashes. The fact that those light flashes were controlled by a QRNG that produced random zeros and ones that controlled the lights is a technicity, but the test subjects were not given the task to influence the QRNG in producing more zero’s than ones. On top of that, realise that those zeros and ones are mere interpretations of electrical voltages.

In any case, people appear to be able to influence the material reality they observe. But their minds have to be helped apparently by a providing an immediate observable feedback, such as a light or a line of dots on a screen. In my view that is even more remarkable than affecting photons directly. It involves influencing the underlying mechanisms of the observed reality without consciously thinking about these. Processes ‘running under the hood’ of reality are thus influenced in such a way that what we perceive ‘moves’ with what our mind expects. It’s like driving your car by entering a different destination on your route planner without touching the steering wheel.

In order for the line on the screen to move upwards, in the 2014 computer program version, the interference had to sharpen instead of to blur. Interference is the outcome of a wavelike immaterial quantum physics probability distribution. The subjects’ intention to move the line up on their screen thus influenced that probability distribution in such a way that the perceived reality, the manifestation of those probabilities, came to meet their expectations more closely.

In any case, it seems unlikely to me that the subjects were able to directly influence the line on the screen with their minds and that the line movement in turn had a retrocausal effect on the interference. That is reverse causality. The interference fringe change happened in time before, if only a microsecond, than the image movement on the screen. After all, there were computer and internet communication processes that took time between the interference fringe changes and the image of the line moving on the screen before the subjects.

We create the observed reality.

Indeed, we create the observed reality, and backwards in time. But we do that obviously with a part of our mind not directly under our conscious control.

Posted on

Beyond Weird & The Quantum Handshake

To keep up to date with the subjects on my website I have to read quite a bit. And a lot of highly interesting material on quantum physics is being written and published. But occasionally I come across something that impresses me particularly and seems worth of special attention. Especially when it considerably broadens or clarifies my view on quantum physics and its interpretations. Therefore highly recommended stuff for visitors of my website. So, I’ll discuss two books here. The first one I want to discuss is: “Beyond Weird – Why Everything You Thought About Quantum Physics is .. different” by Philip Ball.

Beyond Weird

I am grateful to the student who put this book in my hands. Philip Ball is a science journalist who has been writing about this topic in Nature for many years. You don’t need to be able to solve exotic Schrödinger equations to follow his fascinating and utterly clear explanation of the quantum world and the riddles it presents. Also, he clears some misunderstandings up about this subject. Such as the word quantum, which is actually not the fundamental thing in quantum physics but rather an emerging phenomenon. The state wave is not quantized but fundamentally very continuous. He desctibes how quantum physics in its character and history deviates from all previous physical theories. It is a theory that is not built by extrapolation on the older theories. You can’t imagine what happens in the quantum world as you can do with, for example, gravity, electric currents, gas molecules, etc. The mathematical basis of quantum physics, quantum mechanics was not created by starting from fundamental principles but was the result of particularly happy intuitions that worked well but whose creators could not fundamentally explain what they were based on. Examples are: The matrix mechanics of Heisenberg, the Schrödinger equation, the idea of ​​Born that the state function gives you the probability of finding the particle at a certain place when measured. It was all inspired intuitive guesswork that laid the foundation for an incredibly successful theory we still don’t really understand how and why it works. Ball makes presents a good case for the idea that quantum mechanics seems to be about information. It is a pity, in my opinion, that he ultimately appears to adhere to the decoherence hypothesis. That is the point in his book where the critical reader will notice that what was until then comparably good to follow step by step suddenly loses its strict consistency and that from there one has to do with imperfect metaphors. His account remains interesting but isn’t that convincing anymore. Despite that, the book is highly recommended for anyone who wants to understand more about the quantum world and especially about quantum computers.

The Quantum Handshake

A completely different type of book is “The Quantum Handshake – Entanglement, Nonlocality and Transactions” by John Cramer. His interpretation of quantum physics seems, in my opinion incorrectly, not to be placed on the long list of serious quantum interpretations. Not a big group of supporters. In any case, I had never heard of his interpretation until it was brought forward by someone at a presentation about consilience I attended a short time ago. The subject made me curious because the state wave seems to stretch out backward and forward in time as I see it. Cramers’ hypothesis is that the state wave can also travel back in time, creating a kind of ‘handshake’ between the primary departing state wave and the secondary backwards in time reflected state wave. The reflected state wave traveling back in time arrives at the source thus exactly at the time of departure of the primary wave. This handshake between both waves effects the transfer of energy without the need for the so-called quantum collapse. The measurement problem where the continuous state wave instantaneously changes into an energy-matter transfer would then be explained as the result of a energy transfer by the handshaking state waves. However, in order to finally be able to complete that energy-matter transfer from source to measurement device, Cramer has to assume that the state wave is “somewhat” material-physical. This ephemeral quality of the state wave is considered as a severe weakness in his interpretation. Nevertheless the book provides worthwhile reading for those who want to delve into the various interpretations of quantum physics, also and especially because of Cramer’s discussion of a large number of experiments with amazing implications such as, for example, quantum erasers and delayed choice experiments where retro causality appears to occur. His idea of ​​a state wave that is traveling back in time – which is not forbidden in the formulations of quantum mechanics – remains a fascinating possibility.

Posted on

Can Humans Directly Observe the Quantum World?

In the world of physics, we can see a beginning inclination to research the connection between the consciousness of the observer and the observed. Research has already shown that the human senses work and perceive at the quantum level. Not only the eye which after adaptation appears to be able to observe a single photon, but all our senses seem to function at quantum level and even beyond. Our ears are energywise extremely sensitive organs. Read the article by William C. Bushell Ph.D. and Maureen Seaberg at https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/ (SAND).

Can Humans Directly Observe the Quantum World? Part I

Blindsight

The question is whether that perception of the quantum world happens with our physical senses. Children can learn to read with a blindfold, describe drawings, and toss each other a ball. So they don’t use their physical eyes for that.

Children with real superpowers at ICU

Posted on

SSE Conference 2019 on consilience – Broomfield, Colorado

“In science and history, consilience refers to the principle that evidence from independent, unrelated sources can “converge” on strong conclusions. That is, when multiple sources of evidence are in agreement, the conclusion can be very strong even when none of the individual sources of evidence is significantly so on its own”. Wikipedia

Dean Radin presenting

The 38th Society for Scientific Exploration (SSE) conference was held from June 5-8 in Broomfield Colorado. The theme was “consilience” whereby evidence from diverse and independent sources can be used as valid support for scientific theories. For example, on the one hand in quantum physics a conscious observer seems to be needed to trigger the so-called quantum collapse, on the other hand in current medical science applying advanced life-saving interventions the growing numbers of validated near-death experiences can no longer be ignored. So, in both very different domains, the idea of non-matter-dependent consciousness is confirmed.

Within three days 34 presentations of approx. 20 minutes were held, whether or not supported with PowerPoint slides, offering also the opportunity for three to five questioners after every presentation, and 17 poster presentations set up in the hall in front of the conference hall, for which one and a half hours had been set aside on day 2. Personally, I thought that part was the most accessible because you could come quickly in direct contact with the poster’s creator.

To be honest, in my opinion there were some poster presentations actually deserving a full presentation and vice versa there were presentations that could have been better scheduled as poster presentations.

To download a more extensive report click here.