Note added on February 24, 1998:
When this page was still at my home site, Institute of Theoretical Physics, University of Wroclaw, I received copy of a new regulation, according to which "including
links, even indirect ones, to any page on Internet dealing with
the matters of religion or outlook" will not be tolerated by in
this Institution. Sure, it is impossible to control even indirect links
- that would mean killing the web - which is nothing but a chain of links.
There is also a question what belongs to an "outlook" and what
not. Declaring:
"I am a scientist and freedom of expression is what I value most" - reveals my outlook! Thus I have moved this page, and all other pages, to THIS site.
Quantum Future
Metaphysics
Why
Quantum Future?
Why Quantum Future ? But first: why anything atall?
René Magritte,
whose "Le Château des Pyrenées" I have chosen to
illustrate this project, is quoted
to say:
I am unaware of the real reason why I paint, just as I am unaware of
the reason for living and dying.
Which probably is true for most of us. So, we want to understand these
reasons. Then we will be able to better perform our duties. Because we
will understand why there are any duties at all. Of course we do not know
for sure which of our efforts brings us closer to this goal of understanding.
There are different paths - and all need to be explored. One thing however
needs to be kept in mind: one should always watch carefully as to not be
indoctrinated or obsessed. Religion, culture, but also with science - each
of them separately and all of them together - they CAN indoctrinate us,
close our minds, make us their slaves....
Quantum
Theory and Mind?
The following paragraph was written on April 20, 1995 - when this page
was created for the first time. A year later, my perspective has changed.
It has changed mainly because of feedback that I have received from those
good spirits that have visited my pages and shared with me their personal
views and their personal experiences. I thank all of them: to those that
sent me a word of encouragement as well as to those that criticised this
or that on these pages. My perspective became different from that of a
year ago. But I decided to leave this first version untouched and append
the new perspective to the old one. I feel that it is better this way.
I do not like hiding the fact that I err.
Yet, in October 1996, I was compelled to realize that the original perspective
was perhaps the right one. Knowledge IS the
highest value. All Error originates essentially in a lack of knowledge.
Egotism has the same source. But having knowledge
must be distinguished from knowing facts. There is an important
factor that distinguishes true knowledge from knowledge of material facts.
A true knowledge can not be learned only from books,
can not be learned at universities. It must ALSO be felt, it must
be internally experienced. It comes as a revelation, as a gift - where
from we do not know - to a fearless seeker.
The old perspective:
I am writing the main points now, just not to forget. Later on I will
edit and elaborate on them. I am writing this in a chapter on Metaphysics
- not on Physics! Physics must be based on numbers and on data. Metaphysics
is something different. It is about "reasons" for looking for
those specific numbers and data - and not some other ones. It is about
the reasons for asking particular questions among infinities of other questions
that could be asked as well. These reasons are often personal reasons.
Everybody has their own reasons. What counts in the final instant - are
the results, not the reasons. We know too well of wrong results obtained
from right beliefs, and of excellent results based on wrong beliefs. So
beliefs do not count that much. Perhaps they do not count at all? This
being said - here are mine:
- I do believe that there is such a thing as Universal Mind. or
something of this kind- as a separate reality.
- I do believe that we need a theory that encompasses Matter and
Mind.
- I do believe that Quantum Theory is an important, but temporary, step
toward this goal.
- I do not believe that Quantum Theory implies Mind or
that it needs Mind - here I disagree with H.P.
Stapp. However, I do believe that, at some point, our points of
view will meet. Because at some point I will have to include Mind in my
formalism, and he will have to become more specific about Reality than
he is now.
- I do believe that our Creator - if there is one - allows for randomness
- contrary to Einstein's belief. I mean not that "God
is playing dice" - of course not. But "He" allows Nature
to play dice. And "He" allows Intelligence to choose unless
intelligence is asleep - then dice is being tossed and we live under Murphy's
law.
- In short: I believe that we, through some yet hidden intelligence in
us (but its glimpses are perhaps known to mystics), are allowed to act
against this randomness.
- I believe we have Free Will - in quantities that depend on a person,
on time, perhaps on "positions of stars," perhaps on "shapes
of morphogenetic fields," perhaps ... I do not know. That is one of
the main puzzles that QF aims to solve.
- I do not believe that chaos, non-computability or complexity can replace
randomness in this respect. Computationally - yes. But to a limited degree.
I believe there is a true random element in the Universe. Of course
if asked what do I mean by this: "true random" - I will have
a very hard time answering. I know: all these theories of complexity and
randomness and such. Kolomogorov, Chaitin, Chaos, Universality and whatever
else. But quantum theory is above these abstract speculations. Because
quantum theory is not that abstract. It is about Nature and it is becoming
also about Us.
- I believe that the theory that encompasses Matter and Mind must start
with Quantum Theory - the best theory of matter that we have. Even if in
other places I criticise it strongly. Even if I say that `it
is not even a theory'. Why? Why do I value Quantum Theory so much while
at the same time criticising it so strongly? Because it is supported by
some powerful mathematics, and because it is able to produce numbers. EEQT
- its `event enhanced' version - goes even further: not only does it produce
numbers that concern averages but also it simulates real events for individual
histories. But EEQT is only the first step. It is too phenomenological.
Even if I like to call it a "Columbus
solution to the quantum measurement problem", even then it is
just the beginning. Not even a first step...
- I do not believe that biological systems must be studied by other means
- other than physics, other than mathematics - as suggested by B.
Josephson .
- But in a sense I agree with Josephson: physics can and should be made
less dogmatic - and its field should be extended; including at least a
refined information theory.
We can not make any real progress without mathematics - the most logical
theory that we have - even if its logic has its own flaws (Goedel). Without
mathematics we will be drawn into pure metaphysics - and this will be the
end of our civilisation.
Changes in the perspective as of April 16, 1996:
- I think that Universal Mind is an oversimplification. I think it is
also a misleading concept. Why? Because using it may suggest I am an atheist.
And I am not. (But I am also not adherent to any particular religion...)
What does that means? Stressing Universal Mind suggests Knowledge
has the highest value. But it is not the case. What counts first are the
moral values. Logical values come later.
- Do we need a theory that encompasses Matter and Mind?
Yes, I still believe that we do. But ... Yes, there is a "but."
Again it has to do with moral values. We know from history that the results
of science can be used for good and for evil purposes. We know even more:
that they are always used also for evil purposes - whatever the
precautions taken! This holds for ordinary science. Now, if the dream of
creating a theory relating Mind to Matter will come true - then the scope
of science will extend tremendously. By acting directly on minds, one person
will be able to influence instantly lives of millions. Unless we grow morally
this could be a disaster for our planet. So what to do? No simple answer
exists. But whenever we see somebody (like me before) who tends to make
knowledge the highest value - then one has to be on guard. Knowledge can,
and often does, lead to evil ... (but lack of Knowledge can lead to even
more evil....)
![[Dali - Time]](dali-per.gif)
Concerning Quantum Theory - at present I value it less
than before. I believe it is a temporary way of dealing with the infinite
depth of the Unknown. We need new concepts that will allow us to
ask new questions. We need to understand the nature of Time - this
is one of the most crucial problems. - Concerning randomness and Einstein's dissatisfaction with the picture
of "God playing dice" : if we think of the Universe as infinitely
complex - then using probability theory may be the only way to describe
the Infinite in finite terms. This may be the true reason for randomness
in Nature. We can use our Free Will to control random events (to some degree).
In fact, we must exercise our Free Will. Otherwise the merciless
Law-of-Universal-Decay-of-Everything will lead the World back into Chaos.
Randomness was necessary to create the Universe - that it is open into
the Future - but Randomness is pushing this Universe back into the original
Pleroma state. Unless Intelligence intervenes, unless the Good wins over
the Evil, unless the Free Will acts to help the Creation, unless WE consider
it our highest duty - unless all that happens - the Window into the Future
may close forever.
- A year ago I disagreed with Josephson. Today I am not that sure that
physics and mathematics will suffice to understand biological systems.
Taking into account the two already mentioned factors: the necessity of
strong moral principles when dealing with living beings and the infinite
complexity of Creation, we must conclude that sterile science is either
doomed to fail or doomed to lead us to disaster.
For the actual perspective see my Physics
of the Mysterious
Return to:
contact: ajad@iris.
ift.uni.wroc.pl
Updated: March 1, 1998
