[Excerpt  Be and Become, ProCreative, Sydney 2000]

To begin the journey into a truer understanding of reality requires that we begin on common ground. We need a starting point which is unquestionably universal to everyone.

As was covered in the first chapter, the one and only mainstay of personal experience, above and beyond all else is our own individual awareness. That awareness is composed of all that is consciously known to us, and all else (whatever “that” is) which is unknown to us.

So, let’s begin by considering what we know1

Our view of the world is a complex assortment of what we have been taught (from both religious and scientific sources) and what we have deduced for ourselves, usually by making our own observations of life. We can categorize our personal experience as being a duality of that which is KNOWN and UNKNOWN. Once again, this is the most fundamental principle which could be expected to be common to all. (Refer Table 3.1)

Now, we can observe that life is a process of converting the unknown into the known. Or that life is the process of expanding the Known by encroaching upon the previously Unknown. Lets encapsulate this as shown in Table 3.2.

 The arrow reflects this continual process of conversion from the unknown into the known. For example we learn to walk, talk and live life. At first much is unknown, and through learning we come to know that which was previously unknown.

Learning is another name for the process of defining that which has not previously been defined. When we define something we make it definite, which is to say, finite. Anything which is known is finite. Dictionaries define the word “definite” as meaning something which is precise and bounded. Something which is bounded is limited—if it wasn’t we would not be able to place bounds around it, define it, or Know it. Before something becomes known it is vague, nonspecific, general and undifferentiated. Accordingly, some of the qualities of the Unknown are that it is “general, vague, non-specific and undifferentiated.”

Refer Table 3.3 below.

Getting to know something is a process of differentiation and definition. In simplistic terms, our experience of life is a process of growing or expanding circles (of knowledge). If we talk in terms of boxes, instead of circles, then learning is the process of “thinking outside the box” (of the known). Inside the box (or circle) is the known. Outside is the unknown.

As will be covered more fully in the next section, what we don’t know, i.e the full extent of our Unknowing, is infinite in scope. So we might say that our personal experiences could be seen as being an island of knowing within an infinite sea of unknowing. Our personal existence then is a combination of the Known and the Infinite-Unknown (Unknowable)2.

We can express this more meaningfully by observing that our personal experience of existence is a duality of the known and the unknowable.

In view of the foregoing, learning is a process of establishing finite, bounded boxes of awareness within an unbounded, infinite “unknowableness.”

Learning is the process of categorizing, defining, labelling and limiting. Learning is, if you will allow the term, the paradoxical process of “finitisation” of an infinite-unknown. Once again, Table 3.3 helps illustrate this basic duality.

Now, a distinction needs to be made at this point between that which is unknown (but can become Known) and that which will forever remain unknown (i.e. the infinite) and is thus Unknowable. We could say that there are three levels to existence: the known, the knowable and the unknowable. In other words, there are two forms of Unknown: The finite-unknown, which is knowable and the infinite-unknown, which is Unknowable. Both the Known and the Knowable are finite. The Knowable is defined as being able to be Known (defined and differentiated). In other words, to be able to decide if something is knowable we first must decide or discern if it is finite. It might be helpful to think in terms of the bucket of sand, mentioned in the definition of Knowable in the glossary. We may not immediately know the quantity of grains of sand in the bucket, but we do know that it is possible to get to know their quantity, given sufficient time and determination. Accordingly, the Known and the Knowable are “lumped” together (at this point) as being finite and defined. They are both quantified or quantifiable, whereas that which is infinite is beyond knowing, measurement and differentiation.

Let’s summarize the last few paragraphs by saying that our entire existence can be seen to be an island of finite knowledge and dimension within an Infinite-Unknown (the Unknowable).

In addition, our perception of the measured and the physical is via time-delyed (speed-of-light) physical senses. Accordingly, all that is known, measured, real and physical is in the past (right-wing of Table 3.4 - see section Fluid futures, specific pasts, below)

Fluid futures, specific pasts

From our own experiences we can accept the correlation of the future with being Unknowable, while the past is Known. As well, while the past is known it is also certain, while the future is uncertain. We can therefore include the correlation of Uncertainty with the Unknowable, while Certainty is Known.

I suggest that the past is Known, because we perceive the past to be over and done and to be fixed in terms of what occurred. In other words, we perceive the past to be well-defined (known). Archeological teams, for example, excavate historical digs to determine what happened millions of years ago. While debate may continue over the precise interpretation of which dinosaur lived when and how, the assumption is invariably made that only one past occurred, in which certain definite, real events transpired.

The past is perceived to be “set in concrete.” The future on the other hand is perceived to be fluid with possibility, pliable, not yet solidified into solid fact and experience. If this were not true (that the future is fluid with possibility) we would have no freedom of choice. In fact, we’d have no awareness of choice. The future would be perfectly predictable and entirely unsurprising.

Now, despite the past appearing fixed (known), and the future fluid (unknowable and unpredictable), it is necessary to keep in mind that the associations of past with known and the future with unknown are correlations—the past is not perfectly Known, nor is the future perfectly unknowable.

At this point, I’ll also include the correlation of unpredictability with the future, and the past while appearing fixed, finite and known is deemed to be predictable, in the sense that it is predictably the same tomorrow as it is today.

Once again, these correlations are not meant to suggest that the future is perfectly unpredictable. I use the term predictable in its raw literal meaning, which is that to Predict is to “pre-say.”4 That is, a prediction means that we totally and precisely know what the future holds.

1. 1. The terms “Known” and “Knowable” have, within this book, a strict definition in that they pertain to only that which can be measured, defined and bounded
2. 2. The term “infinite-unknown” is used synonymously with the term “unknowable.” Both terms are meant to convey the idea that there are aspects to existence which cannot ever be known (defined, named, labelled, measured or proven)
3. 3. The term “spiritual” is, at this point, defined to mean that which is unknowable (immeasurable and beyond definition, i.e. infinite). See also the glossary.
4. 4. The origin of the word “predict” is the Latin word praedicere, fr. prae- pre- + dicere to say.

[Excerpt  Be and Become, ProCreative, Sydney 2000]

In view of the fact that our very lives are dependent upon definitions and limits, it is to be expected that consideration of the extent of these limits invokes fear within many. Such consideration, in light of our reliance upon modern scientific limited perspectives, strikes at the core of our sense of security and survival.

Nevertheless, it behooves us to reflect deeply upon such matters of limitation and constraint.

We take for granted many aspects of everyday life which are both known and unknowable, such as our intimate experience of the past (known) and the future (Unknowable). And yet there was a time in our history when merely speaking of irrational (“Unknowable”) numbers, for example, was sufficient cause for one’s death. As the late Arthur Koestler wrote in his book The Sleepwalkers: A History of Man’s Changing Vision of the Universe:

Koestler cites another source in support of this idea as being Proclos who wrote:

These are examples of how people throughout history have feared aspects of our reality which cannot be defined or limited. Aspects of our existence which are open, limitless and without bounds have been known to frighten many people to the degree where they seek to kill those who openly speak of such matters. One example of this penchant for killing those who speak the unspeakable was the execution of the Italian philosopher Giordano Bruno in the year 1600.

Bruno believed that the universe is infinite, that God is the universal world-soul, and that all particular material things are manifestations of the one infinite principle3

Bruno was imprisoned in 1592 on charges of heresy. He faced eight years of questioning, but in refusing to recant his heretical beliefs was burnt alive at the stake in Campo dei Fiori on February 17, 1600.

The persecution of those who speak of ideas concerning the infinite is a recurring theme throughout history, and one that is still evident in the world today. Or put another way, societies generally persecute those who speak the Unspeakable (ideas concerning the Infinite, the Unknowable).

The idea that we have historically deeply feared the infinite (the spiritual) is evident when we observe the history of the introduction and use of “zero” (the equally unknowable and immeasurable conjugate of infinity). India, an Eastern culture orientated towards the spiritual and the void (see next section), embraced the use of zero over 500 years before Western societies.

The Western fear of the infinite and the unknowable is evidenced by the fact that many religious people openly describe themselves as being “God-fearing.” When we correlate God with the infinite (the nameless and the unknowable), we can understand, in certain terms, the origin of such fear. To be “God-fearing” means, in part, to be in fear of that which is infinite, unbounded and unknowable4

For each succeeding generation, there will always be ideas presented by societal “black sheep” who push the envelope in terms of what is possible (Knowable). Those who gently push the envelope in socially acceptable ways (e.g. in sports or business performance) will be showered with accolades and generous financial rewards. But those who do so in substantial ways which unsettle the general populace will receive a commensurate degree of condemnation or persecution. The ideas they present push people outside their personal “comfort zones.” Schopenhauer observed that grand new ideas were generally subjected to a three-step process of ridicule, opposition and eventual acceptance. Generally speaking then, the introduction of bold new ideas which lay welloutside the societal comfort zone can be expected to be faced with the following three step process:

1. The idea is ignored or ridiculed, and evidence supporting the idea is ignored or denied validity.
2. With increasing evidence in support of the idea comes a corresponding increase in the vehemence against the idea: the idea can be violently, sometimes lethally opposed.
3. It is accepted as self-evident.

• 1. Arthur Koestler, The Sleepwalkers: A History of man’s changing vision of the Universe, ARKANA Penguin Books, London 1989, p 40.
• 2. Koestler, The Sleepwalkers, p 41.
• 3. Excerpt of text on “Bruno, Giordano,” The Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia (Electronic Edition), Funk & Wagnalls Corporation, 1994.
• 4. Such fear has its origin in ignorance (born of immaturity), as is more fully covered in The Evolution of the Human Psyche.

[Excerpt  Be and Become, ProCreative, Sydney 2000]

As suggested earlier in this chapter, the distinction of reality being physical (Finite, Knowable and measurable) and "spiritual" (Infinite, Non-physical, Unknowable and Immeasurable) may not at first appear significant, but as will be more fully explained throughout this book, a bias towards either the physical (Knowable) or the Unknowable explains basically all of human behavior.

For example, Eastern societies have traditionally leaned towards accentuating and experiencing the Unknowable to the extent that they regard the spiritual (Unknowable) as being the “primary reality” while our everyday world of people, cars and trees is considered an off-shoot, or secondary reality. As David Bohm, the late physicist and protege of Einstein observed ...

In other words, while our Western culture is orientated towards believing that the physical universe is a primary component of existence, Eastern (Oriental) cultures are orientated towards believing that the spiritual (Unknowable) is primary. Aspects of our reality which are spiritual (Unknowable) lay in the realm of the mysterious. As a result, we can readily observe that Eastern cultures celebrate mystery, while we (in the West) celebrate facts. Hence our educational institutions being "fact-factories."

In view of the foregoing, we can add “Eastern culture,” and “Western culture” as the heading to TOA9 for the Unknowable and Known columns (resp.). With the inclusion of these two perspectives, it needs to be remembered at this point that Western cultures are not entirely “KNOWN,” limited or lacking in mystery. Western cultures lean towards exemplifying KNOWN qualities, such as being definitive, “factual” cultures which lack tolerance of mysterious (inexplicable) events.

Eastern cultures do not embody all things Unknowable and are not unlimited, but instead lean towards exemplifying the qualities of the unknowable and the mysterious in their cultures. As David Bohm once observed:

In being biased towards proof, fact and technology, Western cultures discount or downplay the role of intuition, mystery and imagination.

We are so very much more comfortable with facts and reason (the Finite-Known) than we are with mystery, emotion and the spiritual (the Infinite and the Unknowable). As the late physicist David Bohm wrote

1. 1. David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, Routledge, London 1995, page 22
2. 2. Bohm, page 23
3. 3. Bohm, page 206.

[Excerpt  Be and Become, ProCreative, Sydney 2000]

The observation of anomalies is an excellent fillip for suspecting that our current view of reality is incomplete.

The high degree to which we have biased our perceptions in terms of our local physical senses (sight, hearing, touch, smell and taste) has blinded our consideration of some glaring anomalies in our thinking—anomalies (theoretical paradoxes) which have persisted for nearly two and a half thousand years.

Broken Arrows

Around 450 B.C. Greek philosopher Zeno of Elea introduced a number of paradoxes that revealed how motion (of any kind) was theoretically impossible. What he managed through straight-forward reasoning was to show that our theoretical perception of reality didn’t match our experience of it. And that mis-match between theory and practical experience has persisted ever since. In fact, it has become all the more entrenched in the last few hundreds years since the on-set of the industrial revolution.

The first paradox established that the commencement of movement is theoretically impossible.

Consider a runner, ready to run the 100 metres at the Olympics. She’s a top athlete, but, according to Zeno’s paradox, she can not only never run the race, she can’t ever start it. For the athlete to run the 100 metres, she must first get to the halfway (50 metre) mark. But before she gets there, she must get to the quarter-way (25 metre) mark. And before that, she has to get to the “one-eighth way” (12.5 metre) mark and so on, ad infinitum. And this is were the paradox arises, for in taking time (albeit ever smaller portions of it) to traverse an infinite number of increasingly smaller and smaller initial points in the race, the runner can never (as in ever) get started. Each halfway point is a finite number, requiring finite time to traverse and since there are infinite such traversals required to run a race, the runner requires infinite time to run the race.

Basically, the paradox is that before we move anywhere, we have to first get through or beyond infinity.

The second paradox involved Achilles’s attempt to overtake the tortoise in the classic hare and the tortoise race. Even though Achilles is much more fleet of foot than the tortoise, he can never catch up to and overtake the head start initially given to the tortoise. Essentially, the same problem as the Olympic runner is involved—taking infinite smaller and smaller bits of time to traverse infinite smaller bits of space. It would take anyone forever to traverse infinite small bits of time (no matter how small). The head start cannot ever be beaten now matter how fast Achilles runs or how slow the tortoise crawls (so long as the tortoise does not stop completely).

The third paradox is more helpful in understanding how the paradoxes can be resolved, in that it introduces ideas which are crucial to resolving all three paradoxes. The third paradox involves the motion of an arrow through the air. At any point in time, an arrow (or indeed any object) flying through space must be at rest in that space. The arrow, in real terms, must be completely at rest in some specified section of space at some specified time, for otherwise the arrow could not be said to be anywhere specifically in space. The arrow would not be real—it would instead be some ghost-like apparition, not real-enough or solid enough to pierce armor or its intended target. We can better visualize this by imagining that we have a very fast movie camera taking consecutive snapshots of the arrow in flight. In each frame, the arrow will appear stationary, i.e. it will appear entirely real, simply because it is real (it has a fixed positioned in space). As physicist Fred Alan Wolf explained,

To get around this paradox, philosophers and scientists have imagined that reality could be broken down into infinite minutely-small time-frames, each with its own slightly different “snapshot” of reality. This is another way of treating time as being infinitely divisible. When all these frames are run consecutively, just like a movie-film through a projector, we get the sense and experience of motion. When we have infinite such frames, they end up blending together into the perfectly continuous flowing reality that we normally take for granted. However, this line of thinking does not resolve the paradox, it merely introduces another set of paradoxesi.

Wolf explains:

The theorists believed that “in principle” we could span the infinite, even though in practice it would be impossible. The reason for the acceptance of such theories was that as the time-frame becomes infinitely short or small, we could “in principle” span or traverse them in finite time. As the frame became infinitely small, we could thus reasonably ignore specific consideration of it. In a sense, the mathematicians performed theoretical leaps of reason and logic by jumping over the intervening infinitely small spaces and times. In other words, it became convenient to ignore the spiritual (infinite, immeasurable and unknowable). And this is the crux of the dilemma that has persisted for the last 2.3 millennia.

Mathematicians invented the generic term “infinitesimals” to conveniently label quantities which were infinitely small, but which were still some value greater than zero. They were paradoxically real, in that they were numbers of some size greater than zero, but also, they were unreal, in the sense that no-one could measure or define them. They weren’t able to be defined as being some specific size.

These “infinitesimal” quantities, with their realness having evaporated in the unknowable mist of infinity, were nonetheless paradoxically still considered real, or at least real enough to be used to effectively explain reality. Consequently the scientists’ standard tool for mapping reality became the accepted confluence of real and unreal measures. These unreal measures were soon expanded to include imaginary quantities (based on the square root of -1) which were even less real, in that they were even less able to be meaningfully related to the real world.

1. 1. Fred Alan Wolf, Taking the Quantum Leap, Harper & Row New York 1989, page17
2. 2. Wolf, page 21

[Excerpt  Be and Become, ProCreative, Sydney 2000]

Historically, the mathematicians’ use of unreal, immeasurable numbers to explain real phenomena was initially developed by Aristotle to resolve Zeno’s troubling paradoxes.

Scientists, in the intervening 2,300 years, have further refied the use of such unknowable numbers. Of particular note were Newton and Leibniz who developed (independently of each other) differential calculus in the latter half of the 17thcentury. Differential calculus greatly refined the use of these unknowable infinitesimals to such an extent that it became the mathematical foundation of the industrial revolution.

As physicist and science writer Richard Morris noted:

As a result, calculus is not only used to resounding effect by the physical sciences, but also by the biological and social sciences.

Differential and integral calculusii has become an indispensable tool in our modern technological society. In fact, physicist Richard Morris claimed that

The tremendous success of calculus (and the use of infinitesimals

in general) exacerbated the contrast between the practical real world and the theoretical use of unreal measures. So it is not surprising that with the advent of calculus came those who were at odds with the idea of using unreal measures in order to explain real phenomena.

Richard Morris, in his book “Achilles in the Quantum Universe,” cites one such example.
In 1734, British philosopher Bishop George Berkeley published a book in which he argued that

1. 1. Richard Morris, Achilles in the quantum universe: the definitive history of infinity, Souvenir Press, London 1998, page 63
2. 2. “Calculus,” The Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia, (Electronic Edition), Funk & Wagnalls Corporation, 1994.
3. 3. Morris, page 63.
4. 4. Morris, page 65 (citing Bishop George Berkeley, The Analyst Or a Discourse Addressed to an Infidel Mathematician....)

[Excerpt  Be and Become, ProCreative, Sydney 2000]

In our normal, everyday world we take for granted the ease with which we can observe the strict correspondence between cause and effect. For example, when we shoot a projectile, such as Zeno’s arrow mentioned earlier, we know that it will basically travel in a straight line, save for the curve of trajectory due to gravity or cross wind.

Overall, when we experience the world of macro-sized things—i.e. the normal physical world, things behave as Newton predicted. As covered in the previous chapter in the section “Prisoners of Light” up to the speed of light, things remain pretty much ordinary.

There appears an upper limit to physical reality in terms of how fast things can go. But what about a lower limit? What happens as we examine smaller and smaller segments of both space and time? What do we find as we come closer and closer to the evasive now-moment? Might we start to see the discontinuity of the space-time continuum, as might be expected from consideration of Zeno’s paradox? The study of things microscopic is where quantum research is largely focused. And it is the observation of things at the microscopic level which has shaken, perplexed and indeed shocked scientists the world over for nearly 80 years.

As can be expected from consideration of the flight of Zeno’s arrow, when particles of microscopic size are fired at a target and we attempt to observe their flight, the particles don’t appear to travel a continuous, predictable trajectory. What initially startled the physicists was that the moment-by-moment detailed trajectory of a particle is in fundamental and unavoidable terms, discontinuous and unpredictable.

To appreciate what happens, let’s first consider what happens in our normal everyday world when we shoot an arrow, or throw a ball. As the ball leaves our hand, or the arrow leaves the bow, we can easily observe the trajectory of the ball or arrow. We do so by focussing our eyes, for example, on the light which is reflected off the travelling ball or arrow. The absence of the reflected light makes observations rather difficult, as you will no doubt appreciate if you’ve ever wondered around in the pitch dark without the aid of a flashlight. But in the world of electrons and atoms, when we attempt to “see” the trajectory of the particle, by bouncing light off the particle, we observe bizarre behavior indeed. Behavior which is so bizarre in fact, that one of the pioneers of quantum physics research, Niels Bohr, as mentioned earlier, once made the rather frank admission that he considered the observed behavior and the implications of that behavior as “shocking.”

It seems that we are generally insulated from observing such shocking behavior because we are, in relative terms, big slow dullards, cocooned within the limited perceptions of our local senses (tuned as they are to the macro-sized world of bears, balls and battle-ships). You might say that the world appears as it does due to our unblinking faith in it. If perhaps we were to blink our eyes fast enough, we might be shocked by what we saw (or didn’t see).

What then specifically are these so-called “shocking” behaviors?

[Excerpt  Be and Become, ProCreative, Sydney 2000]

As mentioned in the previous section, when physicists attempt to follow or observe the detailed trajectory of say an electron, things are not so deterministic or certain as in our normal everyday world of balls or arrows. When we throw a ball, for example we can predict quite precisely with mathematics (calculus) the trajectory of the ball. We can do so because the macro-sized world we inhabit appears to be continuous and predictable.

Newton’s laws of physics, for example, are continuously and predictably applicable to the real world of things (putting aside Zeno and his troublesome paradoxes). However, in the world of the quantum, things are not so continuous, predictable or certain.

Perhaps the most significant observation that first began to upset Newton’s mechanistic and predictable model of the world was the observation, around the turn of this century, of the photo-electric effect. The photo-electric effect could not be explained by any of science’s existing schools of factualisms—factualisms which all required continuity and predictability as a necessary condition. In essence, the photo-electric effect occurs when electrons are ejected from a metallic surface when it is irradiated with light (or any electromagnetic energy, such as x-rays and radio waves). The odd thing about the photoelectric effect is that different colored light ejects electrons with different velocity (energy). Brighter light simply ejects more electrons, not faster electrons. This is counter-intuitive to what we might expect—a brighter, more intense light might be expected to burn off an electron more vigorously, perhaps in a similar manner in which normal sunlight focused through a magnifying glass can vigorously burn wood and paper.

The photo-electric effect could in the end only be explained by accepting that light waves were quantized, i.e. discontinuous. Einstein received the Nobel Prize in Physics for ultimately solving the dilemma of the photo-electric effect by proposing that light behaved, in such situations, as discrete particles. Up until that time, light was commonly accepted to be a continuous wave. Such wave-like behavior was well established around the turn of the century.

This new development by Einstein was quite revolutionary—light somehow was both wave and/or particle, depending upon how and when it was observed. Unlike previously when light was thought to be wavelike, with Einstein’s development came the uncertainty of how to conceptualize energy (light). What did it really mean for light to behave as either a wave or a particle?

As if that wasn’t enough to upset the deterministic scientists, in 1923 Louis de Broglie submitted his Ph.D. thesis to his physics professors suggesting that electrons (matter) in an atomic orbit were associated with a wave. Not only did light seem to behave as both wave and particle, but here was a young physicist proposing that matter behaved as both wave and particle. His idea was that the observed behavior of an electron in an atomic orbit could be explained by the use of a wave equation.

"Roughly speaking, the electrons in the atom must fit around the nucleus as some sort of standing wave analogous to the waves on a plucked violin or guitar string. As the fit determines the wavelength of the quantum wave, it necessarily determines its energy state. Consequently, atomic systems are restricted to certain discrete, or quantized, energies."11

As physicist Fred Alan Wolf noted

Scientists subsequently realized that

For his bold thesis, de Broglie was to eventually receive the Nobel Prize in Physics. It is very important to realize that the electron does not wiggle around the nucleus in a wave-like manner, but that its range of possible characteristics (such as position and velocity) prior to it actually being observed (or measured by some device) as a discrete particle, will be given by a wave function.

As Norman Friedman explained:

Now, the wave function is one of the cornerstones of quantum physics, so it behoves us to better appreciate its nature. Let’s begin by considering the analogy of the “Mexican wave.” Perhaps you have seen a “Mexican wave” at a football match, whereby various members of the crowd raise their arms in a timely manner to produce a ripple, or wave of hands which “travels” around the stadium. The people don’t travel, only the “wave” travels around the stadium. Assume for the purposes of this analogy that you are quite distant from (or above) the stadium such that you cannot see individual people, only the seamless crowd and the “Mexican wave” rippling around the stadium. Assume further that in being so distant we need to use some mechanical or electronic apparatus (such as a fixed aperture telescope) in order to see individual spectators.

This analogy for it demonstrates the important characteristics of the quantum physical wave. And that is that the wave is comprised of individual “particles”i e.g. electrons) joining together to form the appearance of a wave. The Mexican wave also suggests that each particle (or “spectator-participant”) which forms the wave is aware of the behavior of each other particle (“spectator-participant”) and that the wave is a cooperative process amongst individual particles (“spectator-participants”).

In other words, the “Mexican wave” shows how the wave is comprised of discontinuous, separate parts (particles, “spectators”, anti-particles) joining together with other parts to produce the wave. This analogy is, I believe, of crucial importance in understanding key aspects of quantum physics.

Let’s get back to the historical developments in quantum physics. Additional experimental evidence was soon to show all matter and energy exhibited this strange duality of behaving as either a wave or as a particle, depending again on when and how it was observed. In quantum physics, this phenomena is called the Wave-Particle Duality. There are no exceptions to this Wave-Particle Duality of matter and energy.

In recent years, experimental evidence has shown that matter and energy behave as both waves and particles at the same time. The significance of this Wave-Particle Duality is perhaps at first difficult to appreciate.

Much of science is still based on deterministic mechanisms in which atoms, electrons and photons are believed to act as discrete separate things, much like colliding billiard balls. As a wave, the particle is not anywhere specifically, but is instead spread out or “smeared” across space. This was one of the first “shocking” developments of quantum physics—namely, that when we are not actually watching (measuring) something, it is “everywhere at once.” That is to say, it is everywhere it can be at the same time (i.e. it is “smeared” out in space). However the particle is not diminished, flattened or in any way thinned out, while it is “smeared” around space. It always remains a complete particle in experiments where the wave-particle nature is being investigated—for example, no one has observed half an electron.

As for being “everywhere at once”, Richard Morris explains:

It is helpful here to consider the foregoing in terms of the “Mexican wave” analogy mentioned previously. When we focus our sight or field of view on only one spectator via the telescope, we will be unaware of the wave which travels around the stadium. All that you will observe through the telescope is the spectator raising his or her arms momentarily. Since we are quite distant from the stadium it is only when we look through our fixed aperture telescope that we see individual people. When we turn away from the telescope and look at the stadium with our naked eyes we see a seamless circle of humanity with (in the event of a Mexican wave) a strange ripple proceeding around the stadium.

When we are looking through the telescope at only one spectator, we could say, in a sense, that the other spectators aren’t real—you only get to confirm their reality (or presence) by focussing on each of them in turn.

The idea that we create our reality and that we are each part of some infinite “undivided whole” can seem so utterly divorced from our normal experiences of everyday life.

For many people the idea can seem entirely unreal, even absurd. For those who realize the consistency and validity of the ideas presented thus far, it is likely it all remains rather academic and hypothetical. There can seem such a large gap between our intellectual understanding that we “create our own reality” and actually moving mountains, so to speak. Hence my disclosures in Chapter Two, concerning how even though I may understand how I create my reality, experiencing effective manipulation, movement or creation of it is another matter altogether.

Our bodies for example seem to have their own agendas, which often seem to be unrelated or independent of our desires. According to a number of recent studies a majority of women in both Australia and the United States believe themselves to be overweight. Their overweight condition would seem to be attributable to factors beyond their conscious control, for if it were simply a matter of conscious control then women would not be choosing to be overweight.

As we age we seem to inevitably show signs of wear and tear by growing grey hair and wrinkles; we get slower and more restrained in our physical movements and so forth.

In a broader context, often during our modern busy work schedules and the increasingly hectic and complex world we live in, we can often feel so utterly separate and disconnected from things “out there.” Many, many times in recent years, as I would walk down a busy street, I would reflect on the applicability of the wave-particle model to everyday life. I would look upon the buildings, roads, pavement, motor vehicles and all manner of manufactured objects and think “how can the atoms and molecules in all this be somehow “pulsing On” to form the concrete, steel and plastics of our man-made world?” I pick up a cup and I feel its texture, its realness and reflect upon the simple objective nature of its existence—it seems to be simply a “thing,” an inanimate object devoid of any living qualities ... but according to quantum theory it’s “choosing” to be a cup.

At least the natural world of plants and animals has a readily identifiable “aliveness” which at least allows us to stretch our imaginations to recognize some form of lower order intelligence in operation. But it can be difficult to sense some form of elemental mind in rocks and other naturally “inanimate material” (as do native peoples).

And yet, the quantum theories in the previous chapter (together with the resolution to Zeno’s Paradoxes), present a viable foundation for understanding that we do indeed create our circumstances and that we are profoundly intertwined with everything that exists. The ideas do form a highly consistent basis by which to explain reality. And from my own limited experience, some of which was mentioned in Chapter Two, such ideas when applied to our intimate relationship with the animate and inanimate world around us do indeed yield results consistent with the ideas.

How then can we reconcile our obvious and profound sense of separation from the world around us, with the idea that we are in fact part of an “undivided whole?” How can we begin to accept that the atoms and molecules which compose the everyday objects in our reality, such as televisions, tables, chairs, books, computers, motor vehicles are all colluding to form the objects we so readily enjoy using or abusing?

How can we begin to delve into the unspeakable and unknowable profundity of the idea that the entire universe is somehow “self-aware,” somehow “alive”? That as I sit at my computer writing this book the computer is choosing to be a computer? That the chair upon which I sit is, thankfully, continuing to “choose” to be a chair? How can I stop from feeling overwhelmed by the enormity of this realization—how can I begin to accept its relevance in my life?

[Excerpt  Be and Become, © ProCreative, Sydney 2000]

One of the difficulties in relating to the ideas presented in this book is that they need to be felt, rather than simply thought. In Western societies we are more “objectively” orientated than native or traditional Eastern cultures. As explained in Chapter Three, we therefore bias our perceptions in terms of objective facts, while we discount the validity of mystery, magic and feelings. As a result much of this book may not be believable or acceptable from an objective, scientific perspective, even though the ideas presented are, I believe, consistent and rational.

Unless we feel them we will not believe in them, irrespective of the efficacy, rationality or validity of the ideas. In view of the fact that our emotions (feelings) largely follow our beliefs, it becomes particularly important to gain a truer understanding of our reality.

The realization that we feel in response to how we think is vitally important if we seek to come to terms with the idea that the universe and everything within it is a self-organising system.

In view of the foregoing, it is not surprising that many people prefer to build a credible understanding of how things work before they will allow themselves the courage to explore the spiritual (unknowable). In Western societies it is generally necessary for our rational-thinking ego awareness to develop before we can expect our physical and emotional senses to tune into new spheres of experience. Our emotions (via urges, inklings, leanings, gut feelings, yearnings) may motivate us to explore new experiences, but if our conscious reasoning mind is not able to make some sense of the ensuring experiences then we invariably witness stress and dis-ease within the individual. For example, without a philosophical framework which teaches us that living is inherently safe, we will not be spontaneous and free to be ourselves.

Without a congruent philosophical framework, we can expect to observe (as we do) people attempting to squeeze their intuitive emotional experiences into illogical, unreasonable outmoded cultural frameworks. In particular, I refer here to the subject of superstition. Superstition develops when the conscious-reasoning mind cannot translate intuitive feelings into a viable rational understanding. The rise of fundamentalist religious cults throughout the world is due in part to people’s burgeoning intuitive awareness not being able to be squeezed into outmoded cultural and scientific frameworksi. With quantum physics having shown reality to be fundamentally nonlocal, the cat has been well and truly, and irreversibly, let out of the box, so to speak:

Only by recognizing that reality is innately nonlocal (infinitely interconnected) can we begin to make sense of feelings such as intuition and precognition.

As covered in the previous chapter, many sense there is “something in the air” and that something is the realization that reality is nonlocal (infinitely interconnected). We must recognize that through intuitive, precognitive, nonlocal senses everyone is already (subconsciously) aware of these developments in physics and of what will be made of them in the future. Great change is coming and deep down, people intuitively feel it.

To better prepare and engage this change, it behoves us to come to a fuller understanding of how reality actually functions. Otherwise, superstitious irrational fundamentalist cultures will grow in relevance and influence with subsequent adverse effects upon all of us.

From my observations of the present state of the world, I believe the need for a more congruent rational understanding of how reality works to be a profoundly important one. We still observe large numbers of people who routinely behave poorly towards others. We observe that they invariably use religion or some other cultural framework to justify their actions. Even in extreme cases of genocide the perpetrators invariably find justification for their actions. The leader of the Khmer Rouge, Pol Pot under whose command up to 2 million Cambodians were tortured and murdered said after his arrest that “My conscience is clear.”1

Throughout history, as indeed within present cultures, we observe that morality and ethics have been largely driven by the prevailing cultural beliefs. For example, slavery, which is generally considered in modern times to be unjust, immoral and a denial of basic human rights was widely practised throughout nearly all cultures for much of recorded history. What we find objectionable and immoral today was often considered normal and just in previous generations.

Conversely what we (generally) find acceptable in modern society, such as homosexuality was often illegal and considered immoral by our forebears.

In many of the group discussions I have attended I invariably find that the course of discussion is driven by deeply held beliefs and feelings. Feelings which are, once again, from my experience, based on flawed beliefs. It is my experience that a great deal of energy is wasted by people who subscribe to beliefs which are incongruent with the deeper aspects of our shared reality. The shifting sands of morality and ethics will continue to shift and change in accord with the changes in cultural awareness and technological development. I believe that any concerted, productive discussion on morals and ethics needs to be preceded by an in-depth understanding of how reality actually works. Otherwise we will continue to observe people such as Pol Pot finding justification for any number of violations against the integrity and well-being of others.

Another reason that one might have difficulty relating to the ideas in this book is that the words I have used are normally associated with human behavior. For example, I suggested that chairs are somehow “choosing” to be chairs, but the word “choice” has many connotations associated with human intelligence. Perhaps if I used words such as “field,” or “energy” we might then get a better feel for the ideas. For example, we might prefer to say that chairs have a certain energy about them, or they are surrounded by a certain field. But by using such words we can skirt the central issue which is that atoms and molecules and other bits of inanimate matter do in fact have some form of limited volition (as indicated by quantum theory).

• 1. “Sayings of the Year,” Sydney Morning Herald, December 27, 1997, page 14 News Review.

[Excerpt  Be and Become, © ProCreative, Sydney 2000]

Despite the reasonable expectation mentioned earlier that the universe is somehow self-aware, the idea can remain so utterly foreign to many of us1 simply because we have never learned to expect that it might indeed be “self-aware.” It follows that if the universe is as suggested by the physicists, then our lack of awareness of such is because we have not yet developed our awareness and understanding sufficiently to recognize it.

The degree to which we remain separate from the world, is the degree to which we lean towards or consciously identify with being “particle orientated.” The particle nature is the quality of being “separate from” other things, people, events and feelings. The particle-physical nature, as shown in the TOA in the next chapter, is about definition, exclusiveness, objectivity, separateness, boundaries, measurement etc. Its about quantifying objects, things, particles and events—in short, it’s all about the discrete, measurable bits and pieces of space and time (events).

The wave nature, on the other hand is about the emotional gaps between things—the subjective, indefinable emotional relationships between objects, people and events. The wave nature is about how we connect with others and the world around us. The wave nature is an inclusive, open, unlimited interrelatedness. The wave nature is not able to be quantified or measured. Try for example putting a “measure” on friendships and observe how long those friendships remain intact. Such things as friendships and relationships are matters of the heart and cannot be quantified. Quantification, definition and measurement are aspects of “separateness.” In the table of One and All, I have correlated “separateness” with science, objectivity and definition. As already mentioned in Chapter Three, science is the objective discipline of measurement and is not in any way able to meaningfully deal with subjective feelings and emotions. It is simply not possible to define that which is indefinable. As soon as the indefinable is defined, it is no longer indefinable. This is why sciences such as psychiatry and psychology are largely ineffective for they are sciences applied to a subjective realm, which by definition is beyond the reach of objective science. Whenever you attempt to limit or define that which is subjective and unlimited, you end up with something which is objective, quantified and limited.

In the film “Dead Poets Society” we saw a powerful portrayal of this realization when Mr Keats (played by Robin Williams) ordered his students to rip out sections of a text book which taught we can measure and quantify a poem. He then knelt down and with his students in a hushed huddle around him, urged them to feel the juiciness and mystery of life, not its metric, measurable qualities. Poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge said that “the best art internalizes the external, and externalizes the internal.” Science also needs to marry the External-Known (Intellect) and the Internal-Unknowable (Emotions) if it is to gain a deeper relevancy.

When we overly identify with the particle nature, we downplay our wave nature. For example, usually the more logical and intellectual one is (refer the table of One and All, lines 14 and 60 resp.), the less intuitive and emotional the person. The more you use, or are able to abuse an object, person or event, generally the less you relate to it.

A strong identification with the particle nature often leads to an almost complete disregard for the well-being of others and is the reason behind the countless atrocities inflicted upon man by man throughout the ages.

People, in such circumstances are seen as things, objects to be mistreated, abused or disposed of at will. As indicated earlier, almost universally throughout the animal kingdom and human society, males have been the aggressors. As author Francis Fukuyama noted:

The angst in modern society is largely due to the over-identification with the particle (objective-factual-known) nature of existence while discounting the spiritual (infinite, mysterious, unknowable). As covered earlier, the spiritual (Mysterious-Uncertain-Unknowable) is a vital component to be welcomed and “mastered” if one is to find happiness.

1. 1. I need to include a footnote here that the “us” I refer to is meant as a general reference to those who were raised within modern “Western” technological cultures. It should be recognized that it generally excludes those who have been raised within native cultures, most of who maintain a sense of “oneness” with the world around them. In Australian aboriginal culture, trees and rocks, for example, are treated like people with abilities to communicate with, and relate to, their environment.
2. 2. The Weekend Australian, News Ltd, Sydney, September 19, 1998 page 23, Focus Section. {Edited excerpt of an essay by Francis Fukuyama in the September Issue of Foreign Affairs journal}.

This section 'Limited ego, unlimited unconscious' analyses and tables the polarities of individuality and the deeper 'spiritual' connectedness, and potentials of the human psyche.

[Excerpt  Be and Become, © ProCreative, Sydney 2000]

Throughout the last few thousand years, overall people have been (particularly in Western cultures) predominantly particle orientated—concerned mostly with increasing their physical manipulation and use of the exterior physical world. Technology is a particularly beneficial and effective result of that particle focus.

Within such a strong cultural bias towards the particle-technological nature, our wave nature or more correctly, our awareness of it has been ignored—were it not it would give many of us an awareness of being deeply interconnected with nature and the world at large. Recall from the previous chapter’s analogy of the wave-at-a-beach, that when you become the wave your awareness connects with all the wave encounters as it approaches the beach.

In regards to our true nonlocal wave nature we are connected with everything and everyone, across space and time. This of course leads us to recognize that just as the universe is infinite, so too are our psyches: infinite in depth and scope. In practical day-to-day terms we identify with only a small portion of our potential awareness: an identification which we call the ego. It is often said that we use only 10% of our brains, which implies the brain (and by this line of thinking, our mind) is limited by the other 90%.

Very few scientists have yet suggested that we use only a finite (limited) portion of our unlimited unknowable minds. Attempting to quantify our abilities simply limits our unlimited potential. Refer Table 5.1.

The identification with the ego is to a certain extent a necessary function of physical survival. But as I will show later in this book it is time to move beyond the limited identification with the Western local version of the ego which sees the world “out-there” as being entirely separate from oneself.

In this respect, and in reference to the holographic model, overall the human race is still largely in the stage of child-adolescent, not yet having sufficiently established its own identity, uniqueness and sense of self. The race as a whole is still in the stage of exploring its separateness.

If we reflect upon the normal development of a human child into adolescence and then into
adulthood, we recognize that the child needs to develop its own identity separate from its parents. Where that separation from is inhibited by immature and insecure parents, then we generally observe rebelliousness in the child. Intuitively, a child knows that it is supposed to develop its own unique, independent sense of self.

As a race we have been developing our sense of self and separation from our parent source (Father-spirit and Mother-Earth) for the last few millennia. As mentioned above, we have done so by being technologically focused, a focus which profoundly separates us from our spiritual, non-material sources. Once again, in terms of the “spiritual” (infinite, Unknowable, Wave) vs. the physical (Finite, Known, Particle) model, technology is a result of being particle orientated.

The foregoing has important implications in the present competitive business world.

[Excerpt  Be and Become, © ProCreative, Sydney 2000]

Personnel departments and consultancies almost invariably attempt to categorize and define people according to certain personality traits which are then matched to the required traits of a particular position. To some extent, definition of skills, competencies and character is important for effective placement of people. But present attempts to write more effective computer programs or questionnaires to help determine character are misguided.

People can and do adapt and change to meet desired objectives. An employee's ability to creatively find new, different and more efficient ways of producing results is not able to be predicted. In fundamental terms, any attempt to predict either individual or collective behavior is simply not possible. Attempting to perfectly categorize people via various psychological tests limits them and goes towards dis-empowering them. It disallows our mysterious creative side that is the origin of all our modern technology.

Even defining illnesses largely locks people into the expected symptoms. In any event, attempting to predict people’s or prospective employee’s behavior would be an attempt to completely know the unknowable. And it would contravene the Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Physics. Our focus on the physical (the local and the limited) has engendered a mindset steeped in the scientific method of measurement, continuity, predictability and strict mechanism.

In particular, our strong particle orientation over the last few centuries has almost completely inhibited the sense of wonder and mystery inherent in existence. We have inhibited our sense of magic and oneness with the world (primitive cultures excepted).

A masculine-particle orientation also biases us towards being focused in the past. Being past orientated has meant observance of tradition, culture and hierarchy. As we emerge from being so acutely particle orientated, we will see greater emphasis upon the future and less emphasis upon tradition and hierarchical structures, such as organized religions. We will observe increasing change (e.g. old traditions being discarded) and more emphasis upon creativity and new ideas. And as the world “shrinks” into a smaller and smaller global village through more pervasive telecommunications, we can expect that people will become more considerate and compassionate towards others and the world around us. We can expect to hear in business circles more about the importance of “vision” and “purpose” for both of these aspects are concerned with where we are headed, not where we have been (as per tradition or one’s qualifications). Interestingly, we can expect that contrary to the recent emphasis upon business people gaining higher and higher qualifications (past orientated), there will be more emphasis upon executives taking risks and delivering results (future orientated). In fact, in one recent report, in recognition that society is becoming more and more complex and fast paced, leading executive placement firms decided that

Many CEO’s are beginning to recognize the importance of shifting their reliance upon past
structure, tradition and performance, towards new ideas, creativity and potential. As Robert Shapiro noted:

“There is no script” is testimony to the idea that we are continually recreating our present circumstances and that we can no longer solely rely upon tradition, certainty and “facts.” We are entering an era in which many more people will appreciate George Bernard Shaw’s remarks “You see things; and you say, ‘Why?’ But I dream things that never were; and I say, ‘Why not?’”

• 1. Les Coleman, The Weekend Australian, News Ltd, Sydney, December 27-28, 1998, page 22.
• 2. Henry Ehrlich, The Wiley Book of Business Quotations, John Wiley and Sons, New York 1998, page 189 {Robert B. Shapiro, CEO of the chemical firm Monsanto, interviewed in Harvard Business Review, Jan-Feb 1997}.

This section 'From the beginning' begins to tie together the seemingly unrelated aspect of quantum mechanics, intuition, responsibility, mind and the deeper nature of consciousness.

[Excerpt  Be and Become, © ProCreative, Sydney 2000]

Up to this point in the book, I have focused on how we each might be 100% responsible for our circumstances. Notwithstanding the undeniable universality of the known-unknowable duality, I have introduced quantum physical facts and theories which I believe go a long way towards explaining the broad framework of how we do indeed create, or attract all our circumstances.

The phenomenon of nonlocality is part of a framework of understanding which can be used to explain how reality works from any perspective. I believe the mathematical and experimental verification of nonlocality will inevitably emerge as being one of the most significant scientific developments of any era. Some physicists certainly believe it is. It provides a scientific basis to accept such phenomena as intuition, precognition and remote viewing (clairvoyance). More significantly however, is that it forms the basis for understanding how all things (including animate and inanimate matter) are able to form their experiences.

Having said that, it is appropriate at this point to consider how nonlocality in conjunction with the wave-particle duality model can begin to be meaningfully used to explain the broad field of existence.

In Chapter Four, I suggested that we are continually cycling in phase in conjunction with the reality that we experience. I also suggested that we would need to be somehow “aware” of all the possibilities for us to be able to consistently and meaningfully “choose” any one particular reality. Also, everything else that forms our physical reality—the rocks, plants, trees, houses and fax machines would also need to somehow be meaningfully “choosing” to coexist with us.

Otherwise, reality would be a random chaotic mess—nothing would exist in stable form. Also suggested in previous chapters was the idea that the reality we experience is a result of our own emotional and intellectual makeup.

The questions to consider at this point then are how it is that the world happens to be so stable and well-coordinated. If reality functions as I’ve explained then it is a profoundly cooperative one. But how does everything “know” what to do and how to do it?

Perhaps we can begin by remembering that all aspects of physical reality are the aftereffects of consciousness1..As American scientist Dr. Elisabet Sahtouris recently admitted:

Science as mentioned in Chapter Three is generally concerned with effective manipulations of these after-effects. Science if you like generally limits its study to how to more effectively “control” physical Effects to produce other physical Effects. Scientists for example manipulate the physical Effect called “light” to create another physical Effect called “lasers.” Scientists would say the cause for lasers (the effect) was coherent light. But coherent light is an effect of some deeper Cause. I would not suggest that scientists don’t ever find physical causes for the physical effects in our everyday world—rather that they cannot know the absolute fundamental Cause for anything.

The Cause for the physical reality (Effect) we experience is largely in the Unknowable realm(s). So it is prudent to feel beyond physical reality to gain some sense of how we do indeed create our reality. I say feel, because as suggested in the previous chapter it is our emotions which tie us in with our wave nature, which as you will recall, “interconnects” us with all else and thus guides us to meaningfully and consistently “harmonise” with existing reality.

In light of my earlier statements that business executives will be required to focus more on where they are headed, rather than on where they have been, we can expect to see a greater emphasis upon “gut feelings” rather than an emphasis upon more and more complex analyses of the existing business world circumstances. In other words,

The foregoing idea that we need to feel deeper is in recognition of the fact that the future can only be felt, it cannot be predicted or intellectually analyzed. Once again it is our emotions (gut feelings) which tie us in with the wide (infinite) range of future possibilities. We can better appreciate the differences between rational reasoning abilities to those of intuitive abilities by recognizing that:

 It should be readily appreciated that intuition is far superior to the serial step-by-step intellectual consideration of future possibilities. In fact, in view of the infinite range of possibilities ahead of us at each point, one can never succeed by attempting to intellectually analyze the future. This is an exceptionally important point to realize for it provides the seeds for understanding how business leaders, and indeed everyone, can more confidently deal with the future. In order to better negotiate the increasingly fast-paced and complex world, we have no alternative but to learn how to “feel” ahead in time. By better using our intuition, we can “feel” the possibilities ahead and choose those which will lead to the successful solidification of our desires and goals.

It needs to be said that it is our conscious reasoning abilities and physical action which solidifies possibility into actuality. Successful reality creation requires a complementary utilization of both intuition and reason. In view of the foregoing, it should come as no surprise to learn that

As was pointed out in Chapter Two, the use of intuition is of primary importance in making new discoveries and in developing new theories and ideas. Business managers and leaders simply cannot afford to avoid trusting their gut feelings—as Peter Senge observed:

A very meaningful consideration at this point becomes that of how consciousness in itsvarious forms, combines to create the reality we experience. What is the “divide” or interplay between the unconscious, subconscious and conscious minds? Once again, recall that physical reality is the after-effect of mind. Refer Table 5.2.

Physical matter, including our bodies is congealed consciousness (thoughts and feelings). It is therefore beneficial to consider how the various “portions” of our mind interact to form reality, rather than considering which physical Effects are producing other physical Effects. In other words, looking for a particular gene (physical Effect) which might explain alcoholism, for example, is to me a secondary or ancillary investigation of how reality functions.

Alcoholics might have a gene (physical Effect) which predisposes them to drink, but the Cause for them having that gene in the first place must reside in their consciousness, for otherwise they would not be 100% responsible for their existence. Therefore any meaningful search would concern their consciousness—what is it about their beliefs which causes them to be dependent upon a drug (alcohol)? What is the Cause of the emotional void in their lives which motivates them to attempt to fill it with a physical Effect (alcohol). Once again, I have correlated Cause with Consciousness, and Effect with physical reality. It needs to be remembered that the “toality” of the Known and the Unknowable requires that the Cause (Consciousness) will be both Known (egoconscious awareness) and Unknowable (unconscious, collective unconscious, spirit, soul, higher self etc.).

• 1. The term “Consciousness” is used throughout this book to mean a mental/emotional energy, which includes our thoughts and feelings. Consciousness is an indivisible combination of conscious, subconscious and deeply unconscious processes (including what we might call our soul, the collective unconscious and God. Hence the affirmation by Jesus that “The Kingdom of God is within you”)
• 2. Excerpt of an interview with Dr. Elizabet Sahtouris, conducted during the Earthbeat program on Australian Broadcasting Commission’s (ABC’s) Radio National station. Saturday, 13 March 1999.
• 3. Robert Cooper and Ayman Sawaf, Executive EQ, Orion Business Books, London 1997, page 2.
• 4. Peter M. Senge, The Fifth Discipline, Random House Australia, Sydney 1992, page 168.

This section 'Downward Causation' analyses the role of upwards and downwards causation - that of the role and influence of individuality (upwards causation) within a group, and 'downwards causation' - the role and influence of the group (peer-group pressure) upon individuality, and choice.

Free will and fate is analysed from a holistic, systems perspective.

[Excerpt  Be and Become, © ProCreative, Sydney 2000]

As mentioned earlier, for reality to be so stable and ordered requires everything in it to cycle into physicality, coherently. But what determines when and how everything and everyone so effectively and consistently harmonises? How can the ordered, organized universe be explained?

What is the mechanism that drives the extraordinary display of order that we see around us? If the universe started with the big bang as most scientists believe, then how do they explain the immense order that now exists within the universe. As physicist Paul Davies rightly observed

As suggested previously, Consciousness, or some higher-order, non-physical process must be the source of all matter and energy. Once again, the solution to Zeno’s Paradoxes requires us to acknowledge that reality must be continuously cycling into physicality at a very high rate.

Consequently we can reasonably conclude concede that:

The source or Cause for our physical reality (including everything and everyone within it) cannot be within the physical system. We could say that consciousness “solidifies” into physical reality as matter and energy. Consciousness (or some very similar higher-order process) precedes matter, and indeed is the cause of matter. We can understand then that the chain of structure of existence follows the track of Consciousness (or some higher-order process) => Energy => Matter.

Scientists readily understand that matter is simply congealed energy. Perhaps we can hope that the majority of scientists will one day in the foreseeable future follow the lead of the few such as Freeman Dysan, who have, it would seem, come to the realization that energy (in all its forms including heat and light) is congealed consciousness. Once again, I am careful here with the use of the word “consciousness” for it is easy to fall into the habit of thinking that atoms “think” much like we do. It is helpful to assign an elemental Unknowable form of consciousness to matter. But here again, if we apply the holographic model we must conclude that all matter and energy has some elemental form of “emotional choice.” The “toality” of the Known and the Unknowable includes the duality of Intellect (Known) and Emotion (Unknowable), which together could be considered “emotional choice.” It is meaningless to say we can have choice and intellect without emotion. Once again, this would be analogous to a circle not having a diameter, or a future without any past.

With regards to the idea that matter and energy forms from invisible unseeable consciousness, it is helpful to note that some scientists readily accept that

As physicist Paul Davies noted:

and that

Self-organizing systems clearly require a mechanism to enable self-organization, for otherwise things would remain chaotic and dis-ordered. As mentioned in the previous chapter, atoms and molecules and “inanimate” things in general must somehow “know” when to actualise in order to create or be a part of an ordered reality. This is all the more extraordinary when we remember that total unpredictability rules at the root level of existence. In other words, there really is no bottom to the proverbial abyss.

[[edited excerpt ]]

Quantum physics has shown us that it is impossible to derive the laws of quantum physics
without reference to consciousness. Jane Roberts in her Seth series of books explained the
foregoing subject of how consciousness within matter cooperates as follows:

This individual-mass consciousness interconnection occurs across and within all gestalts. Depending on the level of congregate matter (or energy) there are mutually agreed upon frameworks in which matter and energy operate. The simpler the congregate, the simpler the laws by which they are bounded. For example, an electron has, relatively speaking, a simpler description of its probable movement in space-time than a complex organic molecule. There are self-abiding systems of behavior for all forms of matter and energy. That is why our world and indeed the entire universe can seem so predictable—because it chooses to be within the freedoms given to it by “higher order” systems.

Clearly, the range of choice of an electron, while still being infinite, is different to our range of choices. Electrons for example make choices within the context of their existence within “electronhood.” As we progress up the ladder of order or consciousness, we find increasing diversity of choice. Or more correctly, we find increasing ability to affect the environment in which that consciousness exists. In fundamental terms:

A dog for example has more control over its environment then say a plant or tree. A dog may dig up a plant and destroy it. A plant or tree will control raw materials (composed of atoms and electrons) for its own ends. A man may control both plants and dogs for his/her own ends, but even man is limited in his physical abilities. Everything that exists has infinite choice, but those choices are bounded by the parameters of its existence. Once again we find the applicability of the model of an inseparable duality of the constrained-known within an infinite, unknowable realm of choice.

This top-level influence of higher entities upon lower level entities is universal throughout existence. According to Davies, the term “downward causation” was first coined by psychologist Donald Campbell who noted that:

As previously suggested, in the instance of my mind and the hand, my mind is the higher entity which directs and constrains the lower entity “the hand” and the hand, in yet another cause and effect loop, could be considered the higher entity from the perspective of the individual cells within the hand and so on. Everything is interconnected, so once again it is meaningless to consider the hand without reference to some greater whole.

We can surmise that the constraints imposed upon us come from higher order systems of which we are unaware.

1. 1. Paul Davies, The Cosmic Blueprint: Order and Complexity at the Edge of Chaos, Penguin Books, London, 1989, page 190.
2. 2. Davies, page I (preface).
3. 3. Davies, page 20.
4. 4. Davies, page I (preface).
5. 5. Jane Roberts, The Seth Material, Prentice Hall Press, New York, 1987, page 113.
6. 6. Davies, page 149.

This section 'Our push-pull reality' further analyses and Tables (Tables 5.8 and 5.9) the nature of imagination, freedom, ego, choice, boundaries, past and future and how they all inter-relate and affect each other.

[Excerpt Be and Become, © ProCreative, Sydney 2000]

If we reflect upon the role of “vision” in our lives, we can more fully appreciate the means by which reality functions. As mentioned earlier, the whole (gestalt) sets the overall constraints within which the parts then cooperate to bring about the desired results or goals. When we inject the element of time into these considerations, we begin to gain a firm awareness of the intimate operation of reality.

We can understand that the future (being as it is correlated with the Unknowable-Whole) is the downward causation upon our present reality. In other words, where we are going helps determine how we behave in the present. Refer Table 5.8

This idea that the end product reality (emerges from an unpredictable ground) -- that what we experience cannot be predicted from the outset is of fundamental importance in understanding how reality works. Physicist Davies parallels these considerations in his book The Cosmic Blueprint, in part by quoting science writer Louise Young:

In a similar manner, the Scottish Himalayan Expedition embellished Goethe’s work to offer
their perspective:

This is not unexpected in view of the Uncertainty Principle introduced in the previous chapter. The future must remain fundamentally unpredictable, so attempting to perfectly define or predict it is indeed misguided and futile. In terms of downward causation, the future is guiding the present. In other words, the “toality” (inseparable duality) of existence is that the future helps drive or guide the present. The present also determines which future we will ultimately attract, allow or create.

The interplay between the past, present and future (i.e the now-moment) is where and how surprise and magic solidifies into practical experience. Up to this point however, I haven’t made mention of the role of the past in our reality creation. The past serves to mould our unimaginative expectations. Refer Table 5.9.

If we review the Table of One and All we can appreciate why right-wing materialistic politicians are usually conservative and a bit dull—they (being past orientated) seek to conserve that which has been (the past). On the other hand, left-wing politicians are often visionary, being as they are orientated towards the future. We can further appreciate that conservative politicians are better at running the nation’s economy because they are more focused on structure and order. Left-wing politicians (and artists) have often been inept when it comes to matters financial.

• 1. Paul Davies, The Cosmic Blueprint: Order and Complexity at the Edge of Chaos, Penguin Books, London, 1989, page 149.
• 2. Susan Hayward, A Guide for the Advanced Soul, In-Tune Books, Sydney, 1990.