You can not understand consciousness by looking at life or how species evolved. Consciousness is not part of the Darwinian paradigm because it can not be explained by natural selection. Many believe consciousness brought the universe into existence. This may seem totally absurd but please read the following quote from God Gametes (or any number of books on quantum physics) and judge for yourself.
From Chapter 1 of God Gametes which can be downloaded free from
www.e-publishingaustralia.com
The following is a brief introduction to important issues relating to the sub-atomic world. For readers unfamiliar with properties of quantum particles, there is always something of a bridge that needs to be crossed. There is understandably a reluctance to accept ideas that appear to be irrational or to recognise concepts that shake the foundations on which we try to make sense of the world. Quantum physics presents us with many such issues.
The one we look at here is the fact that it is not possible to attribute a quantum particle with both position and momentum.
It is possible for example, to observe a particle at point A and observe the same particle some time later to find it has moved to point B. It is not possible however to observe how. What is totally incomprehensible is that the act of observing a particle’s momentum disrupts it in an indeterminate way and will destroy previously held information about position.8
There is a well-recognised property of quantum physics that forbids the observer from knowing both the position and momentum of particles. It is worth stressing here that it is not the physical properties of quantum particles that are the issue. No one knows whether they have both position and momentum but this is not the point. The point is that they are stopping us from finding out. If you find this difficult to accept then be comforted by the fact that so did Albert Einstein.
Einstein spent many years trying to explain the paradoxical nature of quantum particles. In 1935 he, along with colleagues Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen devised an experiment proposed to bypass what by that time was referred to as ‘quantum uncertainty’. The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiment attempted to measure both the position and momentum of one particle by the use of an accomplice particle. What they suggested is best visualised by imagining two billiard balls. When ball one strikes ball two the momentum of ball two is determined by force exerted on it by ball one.
Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen then suggested experiments should be conducted applying this procedure to quantum particles. If particle one strikes particle two, it should be possible to calculate the momentum of particle ‘two’ from energy exerted on it by ‘one’. By measuring the position of particle two it was known that its momentum would be interrupted. This however would not matter because the momentum of particle two could be calculated by measurements taken from ‘one’. In this way it was hoped that both the position and momentum of ‘two’ would be known and the veil of quantum uncertainty, lifted.
There was much at stake for Einstein in this experiment. Firstly he believed in ‘objective reality’; that a particle must have both position and momentum even if far away and cannot be observed directly. His second problem was that particle ‘two’, in theory, could be light-years from particle ‘one’. If a measurement taken on particle ‘one’ would disrupt ‘two’, this would demonstrate faster-than-light signalling. Einstein’s theory of relativity claimed that nothing could travel faster-than-light and the issue could not be resolved in 1935 because the technology required for making such precise measurements had at that time, not been developed.
In the 1960s John Bell of the Centre for European Nuclear Research (CERN) found experiments could be carried out that discriminated between Einstein’s position and the opposing argument put by Niels Bohr. Bell found there were certain experimental predictions that could not be met if the Bohr arguments, supportive of quantum uncertainty, were correct.
The different theories were then encoded in a mathematical statement known as Bell’s Inequality. An experiment was now needed to prove or disprove the claim that separated quantum particles could communicate in an unconventional way. It would need to ensure there was not enough time for signals to pass between particles at the speed of light or less. The technology to do this was not yet available in the 1960s but in 1982 Alain Aspect conducted a series of experiments proving for the first time that quantum uncertainty cannot be bypassed.
In other words, Einstein was wrong and Niels Bohr was right.
These experiments are most famous for establishing beyond doubt that quantum particles do not have properties that can be defined by commonsense physics. More importantly for our model though, they have shown it is possible for two quantum particles to communicate with each other instantly, when theoretically, they could be light-years apart.
The scientific community now accepts the collapse of naïve reality and the experimental proof of instant and universal communication. It is unfortunate however that the significance of faster-than-light signalling is sometimes focused on the properties of quantum particles. This is at best misleading and at worst a completely incorrect interpretation of what happens. We need to remember that the interaction between particles one and two was only made possible by human observation. More importantly, the relationship between the quantum particles and the observation is one in which human consciousness is ‘dominant’ and the quantum particle ‘reactive’. The particles are reacting to human observation.
Bohr is reported to have said that anyone not astonished by quantum theory has not understood it. He argued that particles, in the absence of human observation, do not exist. Bohr claimed that the ‘experiment and observer’ are equally subject to quantum laws. His views and those of his followers came to be known as the ‘Copenhagen interpretation’.
While it is difficult to come to terms with these ideas some have gone even further. John Wheeler believes that an observer is needed to ‘bring the world into being’. This is called the ‘participatory’ view. A universe would only be ‘real’ if it had observers.
Note 8. Davies, Paul. Superforce, The Search for a Grand Unifying Theory of Nature. Penguin Books Ltd., 27 Wrights Lane, London W8 5TZ, England. 1995 p. 43.
