How Does Reality Work?

HOW DOES REALITY WORK?
Category: Movies, TV, Celebrities

Chapter 2 of my book: "Beyond the Bleep"
by Alexandra Bruce

The success of such a film as "What The Bleep Do We Know?!" points to a growing number of people looking for a deeper understanding of reality and of their own lives through models inspired by quantum mechanics. The existential implications of quantum physics have hit the streets, with a promise to bridge the gap between science and faith, between knowledge and mystery.

Although its initial equations have been around for over a hundred years and despite its practical applications in thousands of everyday products, from computers to cell phones, quantum mechanics has somehow managed to evade popular recognition.

True, the advanced math and mystifying jargon associated with physical theory have done little to help spread quantum physics awareness. The title of the syndicated television series Quantum Leap a show which had little to do with quantum anything did not help, either. The proliferation in the 1980s and 1990s of the word Quantum as a futuristic-sounding brand name for incongruent products, ranging from vitamins to fishing tackle, has also unwittingly upheld the inherent imponderableness of this subject.

This chapter endeavors to explain, in the simplest terms, the quantum theories invoked by the scientists interviewed in "What The Bleep Do We Know?!" and to address some of the problems encountered in the films presentation of these ideas. We will also challenge some of the scathing reviews the film has received on the alleged grounds of junk science and/or New Age fatuousness.

WARNING!

First, the reader needs to be warned that the deeper one delves into the subject of quantum physics, the more intimidating it becomes but do NOT be intimidated! If you do not understand something on the first reading, do NOT shut down! It may take several readings of some passages in order for the ideas to sink in but they WILL sink in and the insights into reality that they convey will titillate you!

Most people reach a point with quantum physics where they have gone as far down the rabbit hole as they need to go. I sure have! Those who never stop are the quantum physicists. To these people, the endeavor and the knowledge are everything. They are an interesting and fabulous breed! It has been an incredible experience to digest the works of the amazing people in this film and I encourage anyone reading this to do the same.

Because these ideas are extremely specialized, arcane and the subjects of contentious argument and controversy and I am not a physicist myself, I enlisted the help of a prominent European quantum physicist to analyze several of this books passages. Since the theoretical physics community is very small and competitive, my advisor preferred to remain anonymous. He responded to my questions by email as well as by posting them on his two blogs, which I invite readers to check out: http://www.opensys.blogspot and http://www.opensys.blogsome

WHAT IS QUANTUM PHYSICS?

Quantum physics is a set of theories that are described by mathematical equations, which explain and predict events that occur at atomic and subatomic levels. The subatomic proofs of quantum mechanics do not reconcile with observations on the familiar macroscopic level of the human scale of reality, in which the bulk (quite literally) of our activity is perceived to take place. Conversely, classical physics, like Einsteins Theory of Relativity, describes the behavior of matter on a macroscopic scale, such as the trajectories of crash test dummies and space probes but it does not explain subatomic events. For decades, physicists have searched for a Unified Field Theory or a Theory of Everything that would resolve these two incongruent sets of physical laws.

This incompatibility between the laws governing the macroscopic and subatomic worlds has understandably caused many scientists to question whether human perception accurately represents external reality. If the most basic particles of reality follow the strange laws of quantum mechanics, of being in multiple possible places; of being entangled or connected over long distances and of behaving like particles and waves, then is our experience of physical reality accurate? This is the main question being asked in What The Bleep Do We Know?!

INFINITE POSSIBILITY

A basic feature of quantum physics that is strongly emphasized in the film can be summed up in the statement made by Amit Goswami, Ph.D. during the first few minutes: Quantum physics, very succinctly speaking, is the physics of possibilities.

What do physicists mean when they speak of infinite possibility? A primitive description is as follows. As one may recall from High School chemistry class, the hydrogen atom consists of one proton with one electron orbiting around it. This electron is so small and moving so fast that its location cannot be absolutely pinned down, moreover any attempt to locate it will alter its location. Moreover, experiments show that this electron can behave like a wave as well as like a particle; it is therefore described as having a wavefunction which has the probability of being located anywhere, at any time within the orbital shell surrounding the proton and it may show up outside of this orbital shell or even outside of this universe, as well. So, from a philosophical standpoint, the state of this electron could be interpreted to be one of infinite possibility.

The idea of infinite possibility occurring at the most fundamental level of physical reality can be seen to be a very liberating concept. This is certainly the view of the filmmakers of What The Bleep Do We Know?! The upshot of the concept of infinite possibility and arguably a subtext of the film is the wide-open invitation to ask the question What if?, or as John Lennon once sang, Imagine.

MANY WORLDS VS. WAVEFUNCTION COLLAPSE

Infinit e possibility might sound nice but it can also blow the barn doors off your head. The Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics proposed by Hugh Everett III in 1957 posits an infinite potentiality similar to that possessed by our wayward electron but on a universal scale; the MWI proposes infinitely replicating universes, where everything is not merely possible; it is actually happening in a parallel universe. Though it sounds totally schizoid, this idea is widely accepted in contemporary theoretical physics:

a poll of 72 leading physicists conducted by the American researcher David Raub in 1995 and published in the French periodical Sciences et Avenir in January 1998 recorded the following results:

Yes, I think MWI is true 58%

No, I dont accept MWI 18%

Maybe its true but Im not yet convinced 13%

I have no opinion one way or the other 11%

According to Raub, supporters of MWI include Stephen Hawking and Murray Gell-MannAmong the skeptics are Roger Penrose. Richard Feynman is also said to have accepted MWI (although obviously not in this poll, since he died in 1988).[1]

The Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (MWI) discards the more conventional, previously formulated interpretation of wavefunction collapse, a concept which attempts to describe why reality tends to appear to us as one universe, instead of as an infinite fuzzball of quantum potentials. In the MWI, every possible event is actually occurring, whether in our universe or in some instantaneously created parallel universe but for whatever reason, our awareness only sees the one universe it happens to be in. Physicists who do not like the wackiness of the Many Worlds Interpretation cling to the rock of wavefunction collapse.

In traditional Quantum Theory, the reduction to one universe from an infinity of possible universes is a product of wavefunction collapse. Now, if they just got rid of dorky terms like wavefunction collapse (a.k.a. collapse of the state vector!), then we could all be armchair physicists and feel really smart! In popular expression, wavefunction collapse could translate into how the ball bounces or how the cookie crumbles. A quantum system is said to be in a superposition of possible states until it is observed; the observation causes the system to reduce (or collapse) to a specific state. Another scientist interviewed in the film, Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., described it thus:

A particle, which we think of as a solid thing, really exists in a so-called superposition; a spread out wave of possibilities and its all of those at once. The instant you track on it, it snaps into just one of those possible positions.[2]

Based on statements in his published works and in the film, Fred Alan Wolf, Ph.D. subscribes to a version of the MWI. However, another scientist interviewed in What The Bleep Do We Know?!, Stuart Hameroff, M.D., does not agree with either the Many Worlds Interpretation or the traditional theory of universal reduction described above.

In the early 1990s, Hameroff teamed up with Oxford emeritus professor, Sir Roger Penrose, who is a living deity of modern physics on par with Stephen Hawking, to develop a theory of consciousness called Orchestrated Objective Reduction, in a bold attempt to unify quantum mechanics with classical physics and neuroscience! Known as OR, the theory proposes that consciousness and its associated quantum gravity is the wavefunction collapse between the quantum world of infinite probability and the classical world of solidity and it describes how multiple universes are thus prevented from forming. This process occurs around 40 times per second. (Their theory, which is not widely accepted in the physics community, will be discussed in more detail in a separate chapter).

Dr. David Albert maintains that superposition is even stranger than all of the above postulations can even hint at; that all these theories are coming from our current mind-set in an attempt to make sense out of something that cannot be made sensible. Its rather that the particle is in situation in which questions about its position cant even be raised, says Albert, in which questions about its position dont even make sense, in which asking about the particles position has the same logical status as asking about the political affiliations of a tuna sandwich like I said, or the marital status of the number five.[3]

There are many scientists interviewed in the film, with as many differing views. As Fred Alan Wolf says on his website:

"So far there are many, perhaps four main, interpretations of quantum physics currently in use. They are the Bohr collapse postulate, the Cramer transactional postulate, the Everett parallel worlds postulate, and the Bohm hidden variable postulate. They all differ in what they say the world is made of, but they all are based on the quantum physics mathematical laws describing a quantum wavefunction."[4]

Competing quantum theories currently being developed are the source of raging debate in the academic community. Because theories are not facts, these debates can quickly degenerate into a battle of belief systems and ideological predispositions. Too often, scientific debates are about what is accepted rather than being about science. If more people subscribe to Theory A than Theory B, then Theory A is accepted.

CONTROVERSY AND CRITICISM:
MATERIALISM VS. IDEALISM

Most scientists today are materialists, a legacy of the role of science in beating back Medieval superstitions and ignorance. Materialism is the accepted ideology in the world of science. However, there is a growing rift between orthodox materialists, who cozy up to this mechanistic worldview, where life is a function of the DNA molecule and where consciousness is the product of brain chemicals, and alternative thinkers, who are unsatisfied by such explanations and look towards an understanding of spirituality through modern science. "What The Bleep Do We Know?!" is about this alternative movement and most of the scientists interviewed in fall into the alternative category.

However, most scientists in the materialist camp HATE "What The Bleep Do We Know?!" Richard Dawkins, British author of "The Selfish Gene" and perhaps the worlds most famous exponent of fundamentalist materialism, had this to say about the film a few days before the film was released in the UK:

"This film is even more pretentious than it is boring. And it is stupefyingly boring unless, of course, you are fooled by its New Age fakery, in which case it might indeed be as many innocent dupes have stated life-changingWhat drives me to despair is not the dishonesty of the charlatans who peddle such tosh, but the dopey gullibility of the thousands of nice, well meaning people who flock to the cinema and believe it.[5]

Many British reviews are so scathing, theyre quite funny:

"Verdict: A ridiculous blend of science (fiction) and spiritualism, this facile attempt to explain the meaning of life proves to be little more than an advert for a bunch of New Age mystics. Dire."[6]

And:

"Overall, if you manage to stay awake, youll be exposed to such ludicrous extrapolations from microphysics that you may emerge expecting electrons to have vaginas."[7]

At a preview of the film at Imperial College in London, Fred Alan Wolf noted,

Whats interestingis how vehement people who respond in that way seem to be. I dont think Ive had a book published without being attacked with axesThese guys are almost religious in scientific dogma. But the real big brains like Stephen Hawking and Sir Roger Penrose. They dont have any problem with this kind of thing, so why should pipsqueaks?[ 8]

The filmmakers aim was to inspire the audience with a presentation of the ideas about infinite possibility and the interrelationship between consciousness and matter. Both concepts are staples of old school quantum theory and are hardly off the map. Personally, I found myself uplifted by such thoughts; that things do not have to be the way they are; that we can choose to live and to see things differently. Given the success of the film, I am apparently not alone. However, this is what a US bastion of materialism, Popular Science had to say about it:

"Beware: A ridiculous new science movie is coming to a theater near you. What the ..$*! Do We Know?...If the movie even has a central message, it could best be summarized as, We dont know ..$*!the real shame with this film is that it plays on peoples fascination with science while distorting and misrepresenting that scienceInstead of stoking the curiosity of those moviegoers, What the ..$*! numbed them with mindless quantum drivel."[9]

Fundamentalist materialists seem uniformly to have hair-trigger tempers and to take extreme delight in ridicule. What is this guy so angry about and where is his outrage every time the Discovery Channel broadcasts Walking With the Dinosaurs? Piped into peoples homes every week into the young minds of children this digitally animated television series of fanciful depictions based on speculations of what dinosaur life was like bears the imprimatur of science, without having to constantly fall over backwards to explain to the audience that it is entirely hypothetical.

The information in "What The Bleep Do We Know?!" could hardly be said to be destructive or mind numbing; quite arguably the opposite. Plus, none of the theoretical physics statements made by the scientists were beyond the bounds of legitimate, contemporary discussion.

What is offensive to the minds of materialists is an unflinching subscription by some of the interviewees shown in the film to a worldview that takes quantum physics to an ultimate conclusion, where objective reality does not exist, as is reflected in the statements of Jeffrey Satinover, M.D.:

"Theres a physical reality thats absolutely rock solid and yet...it only comes into existence when it bumps up against some other piece of physical reality. That other piece may be us and of course were partial to those moments but it doesnt have to be, eitherit can be some incidental rock comes flying along and interacts with this fuzzy mass of stuff and sure enough, it provokes it into a particular state of existence."[10]

Perhaps the most radical physicist interviewed is Amit Goswami, Ph.D. when he says:

"Instead of thinking of things as things we all have the habit of thinking that everything around us is already a thing, existing without my input, without my choice. You have to banish that kind of thinking. Instead, you really have to recognize that even the material world around us; the chairs the tables, the carpet camera included all of these are nothing but possible movements of consciousness. And I am choosing, moment-to moment, out of those movements, to bring my actual experience into manifestation. This is the only radical thinking you need to do. But it is so radical; it is so difficult because our tendency is that the world is already out there, independent of my experience. It is not. Quantum physics has been so clear about it. Heisenberg [1901-1976], himself, core discoverer of quantum physics, said atoms are not things, theyre only tendencies, so instead of things, you have to think of possibilities. Theyre all possibilities of consciousness."[11]

To which Scientific Americans Michael Shermer says, Okay, Amit, I challenge you to leap out of a 20-story building and consciously choose the experience of passing safely through the grounds tendencies.[12] To which Stuart Hameroff, M.D. replies, What The Bleep is entertainment. Lighten up! while at the same time skillfully defending, point-by-point, Shermers attempts to debunk Hameroffs own Objective Reduction theory, which he formulated with Roger Penrose. Hameroff concludes, Skeptics like Shermer should apply their craft to conventional dogma as well as to upstart hypotheses.[13]

Actually, Goswamis quote above appears to be one of several instances where the unscripted scientist interviews in "What The Bleep Do We Know?!" were edited such that the fullness of their views were not reflected, whether for reasons of timing or to fit the context of what the filmmakers were expressing at any given moment. This was partially an outgrowth of the free form, documentary style in which the scientist interviews were shot. The off-the-cuff interviews with the scientists created a dynamic climate quite different from what would have been produced in a controlled, scripted environment.

PHYSICS AND CONSCIOUSNESS

Is Amit Goswami some kind of snake oil salesman of junk science, as suggested by Scientific Americans Michael Shermer? Hardly. Goswami received a Ph.D. in Physics over 40 years ago and taught physics at the University of Oregon for almost as long. Now retired from teaching, he is a Senior Scholar in Residence at the Institute of Noetic Sciences and is the author of several books. In the Foreword to Goswamis book, "The Self-Aware Universe: How Consciousness Creates the Material World", Fred Alan Wolf writes:

"There is too much quantum weirdness around, too many experiments showing that the objective worldis an illusion of our thinking[Amit Goswami] posits a hypothesis that is so strange to our Western minds as to be automatically dismissed as the ravings of an Eastern mystic. It says that all of the above paradoxes are explainable, are understandable if we are to give up that precious assumption that there is an objective reality out there independent of consciousness."[14]

In "The Self-Aware Universe", Goswami compares the prevailing materialistic worldview of science versus his own opposing view, where consciousness is the ground of all being. However, this opposing view does not deny that matter has causal potency. In other words, Goswami does not deny that there would have to be some heavy-duty negotiation of some sort, between himself and the sidewalk, in order for him to emerge unscathed from a 20-story fall.

Goswami is a proponent of what he calls monistic idealism, where mind and matter are integrally part of one reality a reality that is NOT based on matter: instead of positing that everything (including consciousness) is made of matter, this philosophy posits that everything (including matter) exists in and is manipulated from consciousness.

"The philosophy that has dominated science for centuries (physical, or material, realism) assumes that only matter consisting of atoms and elementary particles is real; all else are secondary phenomena of matter, just a dance of constituent atoms. This worldview is called realism because objects are assumed to be real and independent of subjects, us, or of how we observe them.

"The notion, however, that all things are made of atoms is an unproven assumption; it is not based on any direct evidence for all things. When the new physics confronts us with a situation that seems paradoxical from the perspective of material realism, we do tend to overlook the possibility that the paradoxes may be arising because of the falsity of our unproven assumption

"This book shows that the philosophy of monistic idealism provides a paradox-free interpretation of quantum physics that is logical, coherent, and satisfying. Moreover, mental phenomena such as self-consciousness, free will, creativity, even extrasensory perception find simple, satisfying explanations when the mind-body problem is reformulated in an overall context of monistic idealism and quantum theory. This reformulated picture of the brain-mind enables us to understand our whole self entirely in harmony with what the great spiritual traditions have maintained for millennia."[15]

In the following chapters, we will take a deeper look at the work of the physicists interviewed in What The Bleep Do We Know?!

=================================

[1] Goswami, A. Ph.D., quoted from the film, "What The Bleep Do We Know?!" This mini-solar system concept is now out of date but it still helps to illustrate the atom in the simplest way. As Jeff Satinover says, Electrons dont really have discrete orbits (i.e., trajectories). They act like delocalized wavesthat occupy orbitals fuzzy configurations of probability amplitudes Satinover, J. 2001. The Quantum Brain. (Wiley & Sons, New York) p. 180

[2] Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

[3] Satinover, J. M.D., quoted from the film, What The Bleep Do We Know?! What The Bleep Newsletter: May 13, 2005.

[4] The Bleeping Herald Vol. 1, No. 1
http://www.whatthebleep.com/herald/issue1-quandaries.shtml

[4] Fred Alan Wolf website: http://www.fredalanwolf.com/page5.htm

[5] Dawkins, R. May 16, 2005 The Minds Boggle, The Guardian British Channel 4 website: http://www.channel4.com/film/reviews/film.jsp?id=144354

[6] Migueijo, J. May 16, 2005 The Minds Boggle, The Guardian

[7] Margolis, J. May 18, 2005 The Independent Online Edition.
http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/film/news/story.jsp?story=639340

[8] Mone, G. Cult Science, Popular Science, October 2004 http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/article/0,20967,699379,00.html

[9] Satinover, J. quoted from the film, What The Bleep Do We Know?!

[10] Goswami, A. quoted from the film, What The Bleep Do We Know?!

[11] Shermer, M. January 2005. Quantum Quackery, Scientific American.

[12] Stuart Hameroffs website: http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/hackery.htm

[13] Goswami, A. Undated. Interview by Craig Hamilton for What is Enlightenment Magazine
http://www.wie.org/j20/goswami.asp?page=2

[14] Amit Goswami, Ph.D. 1993. The Self-Aware Universe, (Penguin Putnam Inc.) p. 10

[15] Ibid.