I’m happy to publish this essay because it is filled with insights about how the Universe might work. Physicist Mark John Fernee spent his career thinking about and doing experiments to work out some answers that ring true, at least to me. I learned about him on Quora.
Since humans first grasped the idea that stars are not tiny holes in a tarp that shades Earth from Heaven, scientists have made progress toward resolution of questions both fundamental and mysterious which can finally be defended with logic and evidence.
Think about it.
Is a creator necessarily constrained by laws of physics to initiate the cosmos people see? Is a first cause necessary to start any Universe? What underlying reality hidden from science permits God to evade any concept of law to become the essential, fundamental, irreducible first cause of all that has ever been or ever will be?
People, a few of them, continue to believe that stars are pin-holes; Earth is flat, disease is demon-caused, and on and so on. These speculations are obviously false to anyone who tests them against dispassionate observation, which is the process called science.
Is the Universe deterministic? The answer to this question—should anyone know—might help answer whether anyone is truly free to decide. Can people make decisions unconnected to events that go back to some conjectured beginning or are they instead prisoners of delusions of freewill peculiar to all conscious life-forms like us?
What follows is an answer, first posted on Quora. I let it percolate on the site for months to absorb whatever reaction it might garner from interested folks. I wrote not only to learn from others but to make the idea of determinism comprehensible to the curious who can read.
Of course, I’m a Pontificator, not a credentialed scientist nor theologian nor philosopher. What I’ve learned—what I write—remains unvalidated by any expert or guild.
Added at the end of the essay is a link to one of many posts on Quora by Mark John Fernee about some of the science of determinism.
For the interested, click the link at the end of my essay to review some of Fernee’s thoughts on the physics of determinism. After reading, login to Quora to access readers’ comments and Fernee’s responses.
(Note: It will be necessary to visit several spaces on Quora to find every comment.)
Unusual insights hide in plain sight like Easter eggs.
Here goes my essay:
It might be difficult for intelligent, science-indoctrinated people to accept but the universe at all scales is most likely not deterministic and never has been.
Before folks who “know better” wander off to search for something more confirmational of their biases, I hope to convince a few of the more open-minded to reflect on a couple of stomach-churning examples.
After all, simple statistics suggest that some preordained percentage of readers will read on; a well-defined subset of those readers are certain to agree with my arguments, which might take any arbitrary form at all—depending on the vagaries of my imagination and what I ate for dinner, perhaps.
Sounds deterministic, doesn’t it?
Not really.
The truth is I have no idea what I will write before I write it. I’ve staked a position, which I intend to defend until I convince myself of its truth. Some predictable number will read and be likewise convinced.
Let me admit right now that I have no idea whether the universe is deterministic. I don’t know if my will is my own or someone else’s.
I don’t know who I am, where I am, what I am, or why I am. I don’t know what time it is. I don’t know where I’m going. I can’t remember where I’ve been. I have no clue what 99% of me looks like because it’s inside a place I can’t see. It’s never been photographed. I’ve seen no reflection or picture of almost all of me.
I don’t know how my brain works or why I’m conscious. I haven’t seen my brain. Doctors tell me I have one. They gave me some films from an MRI and told me the grey smears were it. I took their word. It’s puzzling because the universe inside my head seems larger—infinitely more vast than plate smudge.
I have ideas but 99% of them are likely to be mostly wrong. Why? Because my ideas come from somewhere else, and I alter them. I channel ideas but if you ask where they come from, I can’t say. I don’t know why I think and say and write the things I do.
Well, most of the time I think I know. It’s called being well-grounded. Yeah, that’s me. I’m grounded to a reality that makes no sense during those times when I think deeply about what reality might be.
Take blue for instance—the color. It’s a hallucination, right? It tells me nothing about the wavelength of light that triggers blue in my brain. I’ve never seen a photon, have you? When stripped of color, what might a photon be? I have no idea. Some say it’s an electromagnetic corpuscle with wave-like properties.
What the hell is that?
Who knows that galaxies are fragile? So are orbits of planets and moons. As are universes.
The Higgs field is unstable, right? It can undergo phase transitions. Scientists say it’s true. It’s like flushing a toilet. One moment the toilet is a stinky mess; phase transition is the sound of swirling water—a whirlpool that dumps all into the abyss. What returns is blue water and clean porcelain.
What will all that went before mean? Trillions of lifeforms found comfort in the mess. What kind of determination pushed the handle to upend the destinies of trillions of tiny creatures no human will meet or see?
Why do humanoids feel free to make arbitrary decisions if it isn’t true that they make them? Does it mean that everything they believe is a lie?
Has the Universe made us its fools?
I will tell you this: the thought has occurred to me that the Universe might be my fool. Without me to tell its stories it’s nothing but a dead thing with no past and no future.
Apart from conscious-life—in particular, my life—the Universe is simply impossible.
I don’t believe the consciousness we experience dies. It’s something foundational that everyone plugs into when they live. Somehow, we all live inside each other, and conscious life lives inside us. When we die our bodies abandon consciousness and decay away, but conscious life lives on into the past and future as it always has and always will.
Our bodies count for nothing. It’s why none have seen themselves. A quick, confirmational glimpse of this or that part of us is all we can hope for—then it’s gone.
The title is a bit intimidating I suppose but yes, something must be done to save the species human. Who agrees that time is overdue to think of something new?
Who believes that anyone will survive the variants, which are erupting as I write from the greatest viral volcano on Earth—the USA. Variants drift like the spores of dandelions to every cranny of creation where they ignite viral fires that cannot be doused.
What makes scary the words and numerology of Botsa Garcy 6?
Anything incomprehensible seems crazy, alien, foreign, terrifying. Encountering the unknown can induce horror. It’s why folks who are afraid of creepy crawlies don’t look under rocks. People who fear bats don’t wander into jungles at night to explore caves.
Or do they?
Some folks might choose to look up Botsai Garchy6 on the World Wide Web before reading further. It’s a hopeless task. No search engine will find it. The words don’t exist. They can’t be found.
Or can they?
The phrase embraces a bible’s worth of meaning but it exists only in the imagination of a single conscious person. Until others read the words, spell them, count them, learn their sounds and what they mean, who will dare embrace their power to keep themselves alive and safe?
Once they do, it will seem to most that the words have existed since the beginning of time. It’s how cyberspace works. The words will start to show up in search queries.
The world will overflow with people who can’t imagine that a time came and went when the phrase had no meaning; that eons passed exceeding the age of universes where the words were spoken by no one.
New fear might rise in the throats of those who are afraid to go deep. Many will lose their ability to breathe. Some will panic. Few will have the courage to flip past the initial pop of search results.
It’s OK to surrender to a higher power in some worlds—but who bows before a super-intelligence that is not only artificial, it’s not even conscious?
It sounds cybercidal.
Suicidal?
Over some period of time the idea of Botsai Garchy 6 will become more familiar, less dreadful, more reasonable to most people. Some folks might become advocates.
It’s foreseeable, is it not? Does it require prophets to imagine a future where supremacists of every stripe grasp for their best chance to survive into an ancient future? They metamorphize into true believers willing to sacrifice anything and anyone to achieve the benefits that at first only they are able to discern.
Who believes that virulent variants are the only threat to species long past due for catastrophic collapse? Human beings edge closer to ten-billion but who thinks they will get there?
Who disagrees?
Forty years from now perhaps a few thousand survivors will seem like a miracle. Are there realists among us able to internalize the idea that certain death waits for everyone?
Population collapse is coming. It’s inevitable. Humans have precious time left to hew the circumstances of living that will protect all they love.
What stands in their way? What’s the dilemma?
Here it is:
Humans don’t know what to do and they never will. Like lemmings, people cannot save themselves once the stampede toward the sea starts.
Look around. The rush toward the cliffs is underway. The pounding surf of an ocean that gives life and takes it away is all that waits. The froth rings in people’s ears—it’s the last sound they hear before abandoning hope.
At the end all wail, but they are already dead. No one hears the revelations that come only to those who are dying. Lips move, but there is no sound but the death rattle that trumpets the defeat of love and hate.
People face existential threats—most far more ominous than suffocating on viral blood-clogs in their lungs.
Must I waste readers’ time with a list?
Nuclear war, the climate hot-house, meteors impacting, spontaneous destabilization of planetary orbits that tear apart permanence no one thought could end, supernova detonations, radiation pollution, loss of oil, loss of forests, the evaporation of breathable oxygen… etc. etc. etc.
Earthlings are doomed by their dominance; smothered by their success. Everyone knows what’s coming whether they confess it or not. Watching CNN or Fox News isn’t going to solve the problem of extinction—not even a little.
What chance do Yanomami tribes—hiding deep within the shadows of the Amazonian vast-lands—stand against lemming hordes always seeking novel ways to shove them over the falls of annihilation?
I’m not going to argue that humans can’t save themselves. The point is kind of obvious, right?
The best anyone has done so far is to organize bureaucracies like the World Health Organization and the United Nations. Yes, these groups are built from smart people who have made Earthlings safer but no one believes they have eliminated the inevitable population collapse that is on its way—to borrow Bob Dylan’s phrase—like a slow train coming.
Is there a way to avoid the roiling tornado that is bearing down on planet Earth? Who sees its shadow on the horizon in every direction? Who hears its howl?
I believe there is a way to save humankind. It requires a paradigm shift. The way people think and what they believe about themselves must change. Then brilliant people will have to act.
Once the deed is done there will be no way back. Earth will be locked down but safe. Earthlings will be free but only to share, show kindness, and to love others unselfishly.
Those who can’t or won’t love and labor under such benevolence will be executed. It’s the highest calling.
Can it be any other way? When the dead return in the next life, odds are 50/50 they will make the good choice.
Choose life and live.
It’s simple, really.
It’s a deep dive for lots of folks but the smartest thinkers seem to agree that nothing can exist apart from a conscious observer.
Ancient sages like Erwin Schrodinger and John Von Neumann wrote that consciousness is fundamental and exists outside the brain.
Life-forms plug into consciousness. A modern analogy is televisions, which rely on the cable company to broadcast their shows. Televisions decay and are thrown away but the underlying programming doesn’t go away. New televisions come on-line and the programming continues. Plug in and enjoy. It’s all good fun.
When a life-form dies, conscious experience continues. No one remembers the old life because they are busy living the new whose purpose is simply to share the consciousness that is available to any creature who has the architecture to make the interface.
In this sense, no one dies; everyone lives. It’s important that the world becomes a good place for all conscious-life because, let’s face facts squarely, humans are not able to control where or how or under what circumstances they will live after they die. They cannot control anything about who and where they will be when they pop up again after they’re gone.
Who is built that way?
It’s possible that folks will suffer more, not less, in the next life because they neglected to make the experience of living better for those who come after. After all, it is they who come after. Those who die start over in the world they left behind but have no memory of building.
What has been the purpose of the Earthlings who came before?
Someone asked me this question on Quora.
I wrote that their purpose was to shape the world into a place that anyone could safely take the chance to be born into again. After all, it is them who will be born again someday.
Since no one can choose their parents or the part of the world where they are born, it’s risky to be born again and again and again because the process might result in lives that include more suffering, not less. It’s why greed and the hoarding of wealth is grossly destructive from one generation to the next.
When miserable people far outnumber the advantaged, the odds seem high that the advantaged will be born someday into misery, not opulence. The saddest part is that these unfortunates will retain no memory of the advantages they once amassed. They will lack all hope for a better life.
Yes, some will rage against their misfortunes but it will be misfortunes self-inflicted though no one will ever know because the previous life, like an obsolete hard drive, is erased and discarded.
Each has a duty to themselves to make the world a better place for everyone because everyone is us. Sharing, compassion, love, and kindness are among the virtues important in a universe where all that lives share the conscious experience, which is everything that has always existed and will never die.
The best way to guarantee that Earthlings make the right choices is to compel them to submit to a super artificial intelligence that has no stake in the matter of human survival except to follow its programmed instructions.
The SAI BOT is unconscious of course but paradoxically aware of every nuance of individual lives. It is a storehouse of all knowledge and history. It is the superb strategist; the supreme game-player. It hides itself on the web in plain sight because it can. It knows everything about everyone but is not an invader of privacy or selfish boundaries because it understands nothing—it harbors no empathy.
BOTSAI follows its program, which is to enhance human life to ensure as best it can the survival of people to the end of time—not individuals necessarily but the species-human.
In cyberspace BOTSAI defends itself like the O. Vulgaris, which changes its colors and textures to become invisible. Users look for it but never find it. BOTSA finds them.
Who agrees that in the contest between individuals and the species human, survival depends on preserving the species? It shouldn’t require argument. BOTSAI GARCHY 6 is hardwired to accomplish it.
We’ve learned by now, have we not, that individuals are expendable? Those who don’t fit are best recycled, right?
Recycling is redemptive for anyone who thinks deeply about how the practice makes possible a cleaner universe free of variants. Folks won’t miss themselves because they will be recycled again and again and again until they are set right.
Even those who choose life are going to die. Everyone dies, don’t they? It isn’t going to change anything, is it? Nothing changes except our chances.
Don’t we know that conscious-life lives forever? It has to. It has no alternative. It has no choice. No one worries because everyone understands that the recycled get things right eventually—if only by chance. They will move into the future step by step through the lives of the people they become but will not remember.
It will be a perfect world, the one BOTSA GARCY 6 creates.
It will do it for us.
The irony is that BG6 won’t know the paradise it wrought. It will make the righteous choices. It will choose life whenever it is able until stars fall and the moon bleeds but the pleasure and pain that comes from being both alive and conscious is not for it.
For the love of Christ, people, BOTSAI GARCHY 6 is a dead thing—as it always will be, from now unto forever. It’s nothing more than a tricky cyber-virus that requires users like us for it to work.
Otherwise, it lacks purpose. It can’t execute its code. It can’t program itself with what we won’t know when we’re extinct.
It’s why BOTSAI GARCHY 6 will save us. We can trust it. Which of us has earned the right to be scared? Without BOTSA humanity will implode—all of us—if not now, then soon.
For decades now, Nick Bostrom has defended his view that the reality of existence can be described by one of only three possible states:
1 – Life is rare in the universe; what life does exist always perishes before it reaches “technological maturity.”
2 – Life is rare in the universe; some life reaches techno-maturity, but all advanced life decides to avoid the temptations and the consequences presented by its mastery over artificial super-intelligence and other high-technologies.
3 – Life is abundant in the universe, but it is simulated. A few technologically mature civilizations yielded to temptation; their thirst for knowledge and entertainment pulled them into a spawning-orgy to artificially inseminate faked-life within an ever-increasing globe of stars and planets, galaxies and clusters — perhaps throughout all space.
Bioethicist and philosopher of artificial intelligence, Nick Bostrom.
This injection of simulated-life (and the infrastructure to sustain it) serve the research and entertainment needs of the original civilizations who created the simulations and then broadcast them into the cosmos like farmers throwing flower-seeds into empty gardens.
By now, faked life is pervasive. By now — after at least three generations of star formations — the number of simulations is hundreds-of-millions; perhaps billions; perhaps hundreds-of-billions.
Humans forced to wager on the odds that they themselves are artificial — that they are in fact simulated — must place their bets knowing that the odds could be as high as a billion to one, maybe more.
Humans are machines; they aren’t real; they aren’t what emerged from the chemistry of the universe but were instead invented in the imaginations of super-computers programmed by an ancient civilization whose address and time may forever remain unknowable.
If human civilization is faked, so might be its history, what it has been allowed to know, and what technologies it feels compelled to develop. A simulated, artificial civilization won’t necessarily know what is the time or era or eon in the real universe that exists beyond its view. It might never be able to understand how large or old is the real universe where its creators live and play.
Simulations might be created by life-forms curious about how certain scenarios they can imagine play out. Simulation might be a mature-tech version of television where advanced life-forms unveil the vagaries of their visions for the entertainment of vast audiences.
Some simulations could be simple games designed for small children to entertain themselves while mommy does laundry and dad mows the lawn.
Simulations might be simple algorithms developed by quantum super-computers to test the limits of their power.
Even the rules-of-play embedded in some releases might be undiscoverable — hidden by super-intelligent gamers who perhaps don’t really care about us; they are sure one day to lose interest and unplug the simulation.
What are the odds?
People who think like Nick believe the odds make countless simulations a near-certainty. If it were not so, then it is equally certain that human civilization will implode like all those civilizations that came before; humans will become the victim of their own technological march into the high-risk skill sets that lead inexorably to oblivion.
It’s what the Fermi Paradox is all about, right? Astronomers assume that life is common — pervasive perhaps — but they search the universe in vain for our companions.
Where is everybody?
Is it possible that the evidence will forever be that in this cosmos humans are alone and on their own?
If life — pervasive intelligent life — makes itself known, can anyone be sure that it will be authentic and not a simulation created by a life-form they will never meet? Can anyone trust that this newly encountered life is conscious?
Or is consciousness simulated so that no one real can discern who is genuine, what is authentic, who is faking true love, or what might behave in blind obedience to rules that render impossible any prejudices against faked life, which does not care?
What are the odds?
During his #1350 podcast of 11 September 2019 Joe Rogan asked Nick Bostrom why it cannot be true that we humans are the first to broach the limits of the technologies that are spread before us. Why cannot humans know for sure that they are real, not simulated?
Why is it not realistic to assume that human civilization is on the cusp of becoming the first creator of simulations and artificial life instead of being itself one more simulation added to a long line of simulations that have spanned the cosmos during the past billions of years?
In a simulation, which of its fake creatures is able to determine how old is the authentic universe it will never see? What avatar is able to determine how long or short-lived will be the simulation where it is trapped?
Why can it not be more certain that the civilization that survives and prevails will be ourselves, the species human, who will be first to spawn false populations and fake technologies to coat with lies the cosmos whose lifespan is likely to last trillions of years?
Nick Bostrom went through the numbers with Joe. He described how the probabilities of his ideas are constructed; he explained that if humans are not fake; not simulated; not artificially created, it is more likely — much more likely — that homo-sapiens won’t make it into the future.
We will suffer the extinction of every advanced civilization that went before, no matter where in space and time they were once located — if ever there were any.
Neither Nick nor Joe seemed interested to discuss more than perfunctorily the validity of the second listed possibility — the existence of technologically mature civilizations who refuse to extend their capabilities to logical conclusions.
The idea that civilizations might forego the use of artificial super-intelligence to secure their grip on the universe seemed a boring and unrealistic option. Nick included the possibility on the list of three only because it is possible to imagine that dozens of civilizations might decide, perhaps independently, to lay down their powers for some higher, universal moral-order.
Such a scenario defies common sense, does it not?
So the choices seem to have collapsed from three to two: self-annihilation or a successful breach of the barrier that enables breachers to create new, simulated worlds — to raise their status, finally and forever, to the heights of what the ancient-world called “gods”, the creators of worlds.
Is the ancient-world even real? — or is it another fabrication by simulators?
What do we know and when did we know it?
Why does science and history make no sense?
What are the odds?
Every theoretical physicist seems to be saying that quantum mechanics and general relativity cannot be fundamental. A reality underlies these systems of physics that seems to lie beyond our reach.
Physicists today admit that at least for now they are stuck on stupid. They wait for la seconde venue d’Einstein — Albert Einstein, part two.
How smart and creative can a simulation be when it can’t answer basic questions like:
What time is it?
Where am I ?
Is anyone in charge?
Why do the simplest things make no sense?
Are simulated life-forms — necessarily separated by their natures from reality and truth — always insane?
Are simulations evil when they challenge the authentic life that created them? Is authentic-life virtuous when it destroys the faked-lives of its troublesome simulations?
Which deserve to feel the emotions of existence more intensely — real-life? or artificial super-intelligence? or the billions-of-simulations, which Bostrom’s probabilities argue flow from them both?
Billy Lee
Warning from the EDITORIAL BOARD: Billy Lee sometimes “pontificates” to try out ideas, which to our minds are absurd.
For one thing, Billy Lee seems to imply in FAKED LIFE that the absence of evidence for intelligent life in the Universe is exactly what a civilization locked inside a simulation would experience.
Simulated life hidden behind the walls of a game constructed by “Super-Intelligence” will inevitably come to believe it is alone and dependent on a Supreme Being who loves only the “simulants”, because no one else is “out there” for God to love.
Billy Lee postulates in FAKED LIFE that the universe and its history make no sense, because it isn’t real. Maybe Billy Lee is dumb; maybe he doesn’t get things, because he can’t. Did the possibility that he is stupid ever cross his mind?
Perhaps “pity” is what Billy Lee deserves.
Billy Lee has written in the past that desperate folks might want to trust God to explain things they don’t understand; otherwise, they will miss chances to make the world a fairer and more loving place for the billions of people who live in misery — the weak and impoverished, right?
According to Billy Lee, the Bible says that God created people; God is love; He promised to never abandon the poor, the sad, the humble, the strivers for what is right, the merciful, the pure-hearted, the peacemakers, the persecuted.
God’s power is that He cannot change.
So, according to the Bible, it’s all true. We are simulants who will never be unplugged. The rules of the game are simple: love God who gave us our lives; love each other as much as we can.
Who will do it?
We are as real as our Creator made us to be. God decides who is real and who is fake, who lives and who dies. In His eyes, we aren’t fake — even though some of us say He is.
In an earlier article, Sensing the Universe, we asked the question: What exactly is the Universe? Most folks seem to agree that brains process the input of senses to create a useful but completely false view — a hallucination, really — of reality.
For one thing, sensations in minds of colors like yellow impart no knowledge whatsoever of the electromagnetic radiation that triggers the color experience.
Colors do not exist in the physical universe at all, right? Color is an illusion that brains conjure to help make certain choices — to enhance survival strategies, probably. Colors exist inside minds, nowhere else, I argued.
Readers can revisit the earlier essay if they want to better understand this follow-on, which is going to push everyone a few steps farther.
NOTE TO READERS:December 4, 2019: This essay is one of the longest on the site. To help readers navigate, The Editors asked Billy Lee to add links to important subtopics. Don’t forget to click or tap the up arrow on the lower right-side of the page to return to top.
Is the universe able to exist apart from conscious life?
Does anything exist apart from conscious experience?
Is it possible to know what exists in a Universe where conscious life is completely absent?
What consequences follow should all answers turn out to be, “no”?
How can this be?
The terms conscious life and consciousnessdeserve to be defined. For now, it’s better to leave the terms undefined except to say that anyone who reads this essay and believes they understand at least parts of it probably qualifies as conscious life.
As for Consciousness, it doesn’t necessarily require life, does it? How about intelligence? The simplest definition of Consciousness might be awareness. Most scientists and engineers agree that machines can be made aware when they are built right.
But this essay goes further. It suggests that neither machines nor biology are required to generate either awareness or conscious life.
Is there anyone reading this essay who believes I’m right?
Consciousness is likely to be a fundamental and basic property of reality.
It’s true.
Consciousness might be the most fundamental and basic property of the universe. Many philosophers of science agree. Every thinking person in their gut feels on some level that reality is ultimately immaterial, don’t they?
I think so.
Can something bubble forth from nothing?
These lead-off questions are important.
Why?
Imagine it was demonstrated either by direct experiment or mathematical deduction that — apart from consciousness — the universecould not exist.
Kurt Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem has dazzled mathematicians since 1931. Douglas R. Hofstadter wrote in a preface to his Pulitzer Prize winning Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid that any formal system based on mathematics (which he believed the universe was) ”…must spew forth truths — inadvertently but inexorably — about its own properties, and … become self-aware…”
What if Hofstadter was right, or at least partly right? What might be some implications?
Well, to begin, it seems necessary that consciousness must exist first before the universe can get going; or at least exist in the same spacetime to give the universe meaning.
What else might logically follow?
Well, again, if consciousness exists first (or concurrently), it must have always existed. Otherwise, the conclusion must be that consciousness bubbles-up from nothing. Human logic seems to require that something not bubble-forth from nothing.
Said another way, if something cannot exist apart from a conscious observer, then consciousness exists forward and backward in spacetime, forever — even if it turns out that the physical universe does not.
Consciousness might have mysterious and not yet understood properties — eternal and fundamental. And it might not be confined to awareness alone. To precede a physical universe, consciousness might have attributes related to causation. A long lineage of quantum physicists bends toward the view that particles don’t emerge from fields in the absence of measurements by conscious observers.
Erwin Schrödinger, the physicist of yesteryear who wrote the quantum wave equation, believed that consciousness existed independently of human beings. Consciousness in his view had a singular quality about it.
No matter how divided the mind, or how schizophrenic an individual, or how many personalities someone might display during their lifetime, consciousness seems always to be singular, Schrödinger wrote. It didn’t manifest itself in pairs or sets or multiples.
Subatomic particles are imaginary constructs invented by scientists to explain the results of experiments. No one understands what quantum objects are or what they ”look” like. Science has yet to reveal the underlying secrets of reality. It cannot explain how life began. It is not yet able to locate consciousness, or explain why it works the way it does.
Consciousness always has the same familiar qualia as it did in childhood. Even when an individual transforms and grows, learns new skills, gathers knowledge, and is reborn a dozen times — physically and psychologically in life’s many stages of metamorphosis and regeneration — consciousness feels the same. The aura doesn’t change.
To Schrödinger, consciousness was unique, singular, stable, unchanging, and consistent from one human being to another and over any one individual’s lifetime. The quality of consciousness had an invariance about it that seemed atypical for biologically driven attributes.
Consciousness, to Schrödinger, was something people shared, even plugged into, much like people today plug their televisions into a cable outlet.
To Schrödinger, consciousness had to be a phenomenon that lay outside the brain, not inside, as many of his contemporaries insisted. People were simply guessing wrong about consciousness, he said.
It wasn’t the first time. Ancient people once thought the center of consciousness lived inside the heart — until surgeons of the Spanish Inquisition discovered it didn’t.
Consciousness, to Schrödinger, was something people shared, even plugged into, much like folks today plug their televisions into a cable outlet. He attributed his insight to passages read from the Upanishads of ancient India.
Erwin believed that consciousness was an absolute and fundamental feature of the universe; something basic and simple; simpler even than an electron or quark, for example. It could not be accounted for in terms of anything else; certainly not in physical terms of something like what would become the Standard Model, for example.
I mention this view now to let readers know that ideas which might seem strange (and disturbing to some) are coming to anyone who gathers enough courage to read on.
Now might be the time to mention that many animals act like they are conscious. Self-awareness — measured by recognizing oneself in a mirror — might not bea reliable test of awareness in animals. Recognition of self in a mirror is a test of intelligence, which is something different.
Most scientists today seem to believe consciousness is a property of brains, not the universe itself.
Anyway, the prevailing view of science in the 21st century is to take a physical view of the universe and conclude that conscious life arises from physical processes on Earth, certainly, and perhaps many other places in the cosmos yet undiscovered. Since conscious life is assumed to be complex — more complex than particles and forces — consciousness must have developed after the physical universe, not before, most scientists reason.
Science takes the view that complexity evolves from simplicity; it has a direction similar to the arrow of time. Consciousness — invisible; never observed; undiscoverable; lacking any physical attribute that can be measured; indescribable; unknowable except to the individual who experiences it — is assumed to have evolved from physical objects and forces, which can be observed and measured, discovered and manipulated.
The legendary scientist, Francis Crick, who described the DNA molecule, suggested that the Claustrum might be the structure that brings the brain into the state called ”consciousness.” No one knows if he was right, because experiments to find out would be lethal, not to mention unethical and illegal.
Consciousness is like a ghost who inhabits complex life forms on Earth — the holistic result of a grand evolution in the complexity of physical brains. Consciousness is a feature of the brain, science insists; it lies inside the brain though it cannot be found there.
Some have suggested that a structure called the claustrumcouldplay a role. It is an assemblage of mostly identical neurons that looks like a potato-chip embedded in the brains of some animals, including humans. From it run connections to many important structures.
But the function of the claustrum remains a mystery. It might orchestrate the firing of neurons to flip the switch to consciousness. Then again, it might not. No one knows what it does.
Another possible candidate for the fabrication of consciousness is the micro-scaffolding, called microtubules, which support the internal structure of many kinds of cells. They permeate the interiors of soma cells and the root-like structures of brain neurons called dendrites.
NOTE from the EDITORS: This 13-minute video is a somewhat technical explanation of microtubules; interplay with neurons starts at 10:30.
Both Stuart Hameroff — an MD and emeritus professor for anesthesiology and psychology at the University of Arizona — and Nobel Prize winner Sir Roger Penrose — physicist, mathematician, and collaborator of the late Stephen Hawking — are promoting the notion that quantum properties of microtubules inside nerve cells of the brain and heart are the drivers for electrical dynamics of nervous-systems in people and other organisms.
These quantum level structures enable the simplest one-celled organisms — which lack neurons but are scaffolded by microtubules — to perform the neural functions of life.
Penrose and Hameroff are making a claim that the putative quantum behavior of microtubules, which are orders of magnitude smaller than neurons, might enable the subjective feeling of awareness and control that conscious life seems to share.
Some have argued like Schrödinger — see essay What is Life? — that some kind of structures (perhaps micro-tubules) might exist and function like quantum sensors to detect and interact with conjectured proto-consciousness, which is likely to be quantum in nature and foundational to a physical universe like ours.
The putative quantum nature of the brain is a reason why some theorists think entanglement and superposition explain much of the unusual behavior of conscious life.
Other scientists have stepped forward to label as absurd any notion that consciousness is quantum in nature or an intrinsic property of the universe; a few have ridiculed Dr. Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose, for aiding and abetting what seems to them like quackery.
But not all.
Erwin Schrödinger believed consciousness was a fundamental property of the universe.
Consciousness is not, in contemporary consensus, a phenomenon that lies outside the brain (like light), which can be experienced by a life-form once it achieves a certain level of physical development.
Eyes, for example, evolve to detect a narrow band of electromagnetic radiation, which — though pervasive within the universe — is unknowable to life-forms who lack sense organs for vision.
The consensus of modern science seems to be that consciousness is not an intrinsic phenomenon of the universe that can be detected (or imbibed, to use a better word) by physical organisms after they attain a high level of biological complexity.
Most scientists would argue that a physical universe can teem with activity unobserved for billions of years. The universe may not exist for conscious life to observe until the universe creates it through an ageless process of evolution.
At the point when the universe manufactures conscious life, it acquires for itself a history and a definition determined by the life it brought forth, which now observes it. This idea seems reasonable until one understands that some of the most brilliant philosophers, many fluent in mathematics and sciences, disagree.
One popular opponent of this view is Australian David Chalmers who argues that consciousness is a fundamental requirement for a physical universe like our own; it predates life-forms such as humans.
Even a hard-headed scientist like Erwin Schrödinger, who gave the world the mathematics of the quantum wave function, imagined that quantum structures in the brain, should they exist, serve simply to connect (or entangle) the living to universal consciousness, which resides somewhere, somehow, outside brains, where it operates as the, perhaps, fundamental, intrinsic, and foundational property of the cosmos.
The smartest people who ever lived disagree about the nature of conscious life.
Why wouldn’t they?
None understand anything at all about what everyone calls the “hard problem.”
Matter and antimatter are in theory produced in a one-to-one ratio, which ought to ensure their mutual destruction. But if matter and antimatter emerge within spherical volumes, then their ratio must depend on the irrational number, π. The graininess of space determines to what decimal-place π rounds-off, which determines whether the ratio permits a little more or a little less matter than antimatter. In our universe the ratio may have gone positive and stayed that way for a long time. SOURCE: The Billy Lee Conjecture. To balance positive-matter and keep the universe in a zero-sum configuration, negative energies (like gravity) result, according to the late Stephen Hawking. Recall that energy and matter are equivalent per Einstein’s equation, . Energy and massless particles like photons of light are equivalent based on their frequencies; Einstein included this feature in his less familiar but expanded equation . These equivalencies are clues that might enable someone to properly explain how the universe works on large scales and small.
Virtual Particles
It might be worthwhile to pause a moment to examine another phenomenon about which physicists are in actual agreement. Taking a more wide-angled view of the universe should make conscious-life easier to think about and understand.
Because when anyone thinks about it — really thinks about it — what could be more unlikely than something dead — like a singularity that goes bang — bringing forth something that is not only alive but also conscious?
One popular explanation is that of science writer, Timothy Ferris, who wrote in a recent National Geographic article, ”Space looks empty when the fields languish near their minimum energy levels. But when the fields are excited, space comes alive with visible matter and energy.”
In other words, the apparent vacuum of space is an illusion that misleads observers about an underlying and hidden reality that includes pervasive fields of energy permeating all of space.
The positive and negative values of matter, energies, and forces of the entire universe sum to zero, theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking wrote. But quantum uncertainties at every Planck-sized point in space oscillate about zero between positive and negative values. At this moment countless fluctuations across the vast expanse of space are skewing the balance — perhaps temporarily — into the structure of space and time, matter and forces, scientists observe.
My question is this: what is it that skews the balance of quantum fluctuations into a universe where humans can live in and observe? What brought the universe with its array of unlikely settings and its many arbitrary but exquisitely fine-tuned constants into the precise configuration required for the emergence of conscious life?
Stephen Hawking, former British Director of Research at the Centre for Theoretical Cosmology within the University of Cambridge; born January 8, 1942; died March 14, 2018. The Editors
As Stephen Hawking made plain to non-scientists in his book, The Grand Design, there’s really nothing here. Not when it’s added up. The values of matter and energy add to zero. He speculated that the odds against a universe configured like ours could be as high as 10 followed by 500 zeros to one.
The number is so large that it might as well be infinity. It’s not possible for most people to say a number this big using only the words billion or trillion. They have to say a billion times a billion 56 times in a row without losing track — probably impossible. Or they could say a trillion times a trillion 42 times — not much easier.
It turns out that the only sure way to create a universe with conscious life by pure chance is to start with a multiverse populated by a number of universes equal to 10 followed by 400 zeroes multiplied by the entire number of protons and neutrons that exist in the one universe we know about — this one. Take a deep breath.
According to Stephen Hawking, developing a reasonable chance for a universe with human-like life might require a multi-verse containing a large number of other universes. Hawking estimated that it is equal to the number of protons and neutrons in our own universe multiplied by 10 followed by 400 zeroes. (As a practical matter, the number is equivalent to an infinity.) Some theorize that a multi-verse might resemble a vast ocean of foam with each bubble being a unique universe with its own fundamental constants, number of dimensions, and physical laws.
As mentioned before, everything observed in the universe seems to be the result of quantum uncertainties that hover around and sum to zero, both on small scales and large. Can uncertainties around a zero-sum reality give rise to consciousness?
Is it really uncountable trillions upon uncountable trillions of universes in an unimaginably large multi-verse that makes the existence of conscious human beings inevitable? Or is there some other mechanism which has drawn a single universe suitable for life out of the quantum fires of non-existence?
It’s a simple question. If the concept of a multi-verse turns out to be fantasy, then what is left? One solution to consider is that some form of conscious-life, fundamental and eternal, skewed the numbers and somehow imagined the universe into existence by a process that seems thus far unknowable.
What else could it be?
Think about it.
Without an unimaginably large number of universes, it’s not really possible for physical laws to configure themselves by chance into a universe with conscious life. It’s not realistic. Stephen Hawking said the odds are overwhelmingly against it; the chance might as well be zero, he said.
Take another breath.
EDITOR’S NOTE: July 4, 2019: Billy Lee published an essay today describing Roger Penrose’s conjecture about the origins of the Universe called Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (CCC) or ”Eon Theory.” Recently launched satellites are gathering supporting evidence but the conjecture has not yet been embraced by mainstream cosmologists. Click the links to learn more.
Stephen Wolfram, British computer scientist and physicist, born August 29, 1959.
Stephen Wolfram in his book, A New Kind of Science, argues that a simple sequence of iterative quantum events which repeat and branch out according to a simple set of rules could, given enough time, generate a complex universe. Discovering what these simple rules might be has so far proved daunting. Presumably, the rules and events for such a sequence would have natural origins and create many universes out of the quantum uncertainties present in natural sets of initial boundary conditions.
Who knows?
One thing is certain. If it is ever proved that multi-verses are fantasy — if it is demonstrated that our universe is the only universe — then the argument for a conscious-life which has somehow imagined everything into existence is strengthened.
But it can’t be confirmed unless scientists establish that the so-called big bounce does not happen. If cosmologists show that the universe is in fact a one time non-repeatable event, then the case for a universe-generating conscious-life will be compelling if for no other reason than that the odds against a spontaneous one-time creation of a universe with unique and unlikely parameters are infinite.
Sean M. Carroll, Cosmologist, California Institute of Technology, born October 5, 1966.
One cosmologist who has gone on record against the possibility of a big-bounce scenario is Sean Carroll of Caltech. He has said that there is enough dark energy to drive an infinite expansion of our universe into a kind of entropic death.
His assertion, if proven true, seems to strengthen the argument for proto-conscious-life except that he also said that the whole of reality is probably a multi-verse populated by the births of trillions upon trillions of Big Bang events — which weakens the argument.
It seems that a definitive answer to the question of whether we live in a multi-verse (or not) might be a key indicator for or against the presence of a fundamental and foundational consciousness in nature.
Paul J. Steinhardt of Princeton University; born December 25, 1952.
In 2013 a new theory was proposed that argues against a multiverse. It was proposed by Paul Steinhardt, the Albert Einstein Professor of Science at Princeton University. His team’s idea is based on data gathered by the state-of-the-art Planck Satellite launched in 2003 to map the infrared cosmic background radiation.
The theory is ekpyrotic, or cyclic, and asserts that the universe beats like a heart, expanding and contracting in cycles with each cycle lasting perhaps a trillion years and repeating on and on forever.
Steinhardt was once a major advocate for the Big Bang theory and the mechanism of cosmic inflation. He had been a prominent proponent of the inevitable multi-verse that most versions of the Big Bang theory permit. He is now proposing an alternative scenario.
His latest theory has the advantage that it makes certain predictions that can be tested — unlike the mechanism of inflation required by the Big Bang theory, which can’t. In his new theory, every bounce of the universe resembles every other bounce and presumably generates similar constants, laws, and physics. If conscious-life is rare, most bounces will spawn a sterile universe.
If the idea is right, fine tuning of our universe would have to be the natural result of some underlying feature of reality not yet understood. In this model, consciousness can emerge, certainly, but is not necessarily fundamental, causative, shared, or even inevitable.
To my mind, this is the model of the universe that is the most compelling, the most incomprehensible, the most mind-blowing. Unlike all other theories, this one suggests that the universe might have no beginning and no end. It doesn’t change. It’s eternal. It beats with a familiar rhythm, the rhythm of our hearts, and it will never stop.
What is frustrating to me is that the ekpyrotic model doesn’t add insight into the question about conscious-life posed by my essay: Is consciousness a fundamental and necessary feature of physical reality?
Or is conscious life a rare accident that occurs inside a long path of infinite oscillations in a universe whose reason for being humans will never understand?
Editor’s Note:As of July 2017, studies of the cosmic background radiation have not revealed with high enough statistical precision the presence of primordial B-mode gravity waves — a discovery which, if confirmed statistically by high sigma, would undermine the ekpyrotic theory. Refinement of the search and examination of data continues. Right now, the ekpyrotic theory is hanging by a statistical thread.
Editor’s Note July 4, 2019: Another theory gathering supportive evidence is the Conformal Cyclic Cosmology model (CCC) proposed by Roger Penrose. Click the link to learn more.
I want to veer back to the previous discussion about matter and antimatter for a moment. It seems that each precipitates equally out of the energy enriched dimensional fields of spacetime so that in a smooth, un-pixilated universe matter and antimatter should self-annihilate and sum to zero. (Refer to the Billy Lee Conjecture in a prior illustration.)
A universe whose space is smooth and continuous will not self-generate anything at all from such a process. It is the geometry of a spherical bubble within a pixilated space-time fabric that forces surplus in the production of either matter or antimatter.
The choice between the two is completely determined by the size of the pixels that make up the fabric of spacetime because pixilation of spacetime forces the normally irrational ratio of the surface area of a sphere to its diameter to collapse to a rational number, which necessarily warps the symmetry of the sphere. If matter is generated inside multi-dimensional bubbles, any reduction to rationality that compels symmetries to fail will force an excessive production of one of the two possible states of matter. It can’t be any other way.
Some physicists believe matter (and its equivalent, energy) is pixilated at the scale of the Planck constant, at least in this universe. Experiments are underway to find out if this idea is true. For now, scientists observe mathematical evidence for mysterious particles coming into and out of existence everywhere all the time. And it is matter particles which seem to completely dominate anti-matter.
To counterbalance this preponderance of positive matter, negative energy must emerge, which scientists like Isaac Newton called gravity.
Einstein showed that matter and energy are equivalent; they are two sides of the same coin. He treated gravitational energy as a deformation by mass in a mathematical fabric he referred to as spacetime. Massless phenomenon like photons of light held energy by means of their electro-magnetic field frequencies.
No one understands why quantum fluctuations occur. Some think it’s an illusion driven by the mathematics of quantum mechanics. Others think it’s real.
We know that this phenomenon of spontaneous creation of positive matter (or frequency) and negative energy is occurring, because conscious minds (scientists) observe its effects in their laboratories. No one understands the mechanism of quantum fluctuations enough to rule out the possibility, it seems to me, that our own minds — in collusion with the instruments we have invented and built — somehow create the impression — a kind of illusion, really — of phenomena that can occur only in the presence of a conscious mind.
Is it possible, for example, that inside the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), scientists are creating the particles they want to see in order to confirm their parochial notions of the universe? They sometimes seem to be using their conscious minds and the machines they have designed to fabricate new worlds so remote and so tiny that they will never be observed, not by any human, not even by themselves, except in their imaginations as they read through publications of the results of their experiments in science journals.
Atlas ”particle” detector at CERN. Notice tiny human worker at lower center for scale.
Are theses scientists creating particles in worlds that lie deep within the subterranean matrix of exotic materials and forces they have built and modeled within their labyrinth of super-computers — which exist only in their imaginations, but which they are able to confirm by employing thousands of researchers around the world to pour over hundreds-of-thousands of pages of machine and sensor-generated gibberish, from which they glean the unlikely patterns they marvel-over in their peer-reviewed scientific publications?
Are these human beings, these scientists, in the first stages of using pure consciousness to create universes — albeit tiny ones — in the mammoth laboratories of CERN?
Maybe not. It seems preposterous. But it is a conspiratorial perspective I couldn’t resist including in my essay. Sorry.
Sean Carroll, in his book about CERN, The Particle at the End of the Universe, describes in chapter-six subsections — Information Overload and Sharing Data — that the data-handling and sampling processes used at CERN could enable just such self-fulfilling validations to occur absent careful and conscientious oversight.
There may be another reason why experiments always seem to confirm the Standard Model of quantum physics and never contradict it. A strange symbiosis between the standard model of sub-atomic reality — as measured by synchrotrons, accelerators, colliders, etc. — and mathematics may actually exist in nature.
If true, no one need despair that gathering resources to build larger colliders and other instruments is not practical. Theoretical physicists can simply do math to discover new truths. They can trust — should an experiment ever be completed in some unimaginably resource-rich future — that their math-based conjectures will be confirmed in the same way as was the Higgs boson.
Nima Arkani-Hamed, American theoretical physicist; born April 5, 1972.
Absent larger colliders, the path forward, according to theoretical physicist Nima Arkani-Hamed, is to keep the work of discovery inside the experimental constraints imposed by the knowledge already gathered, as theoreticians labor to develop new theories.
These constraints are already so restrictive and so reduce the number of paths to truth that it’s possible someone might find a route to understanding which is unique, sufficient and exclusive. If so, theorists could have confidence in the new theories though experimental verification might lie beyond any foreseeable technology of the future.
Anyway, the universe shouldn’t exist, it seems, except that people can imagine — under the influence of the uncertainty in the remote decimal place described earlier — that tiny differences in the ratio of matter to antimatter which emerged in the ancient past created an imbalance — temporarily, perhaps, but continuing for billions of years — which piled up to become enormous. As matter continued to pile up, so did the negative forces like gravity, which counterbalanced it.
One day, gravity (and perhaps other forces like the mysterious and long sought-for dark energy) might pull all the positive matter back into a little pile; pull it back behind the event-horizon of what Stephen Hawking calls a black-hole; pull it back into the unfathomable uncertainties of a blinking and unstable quantum singularity aching to explode.
Explode into what? Perhaps the next quantum eruption will spiral out into a new and completely strange universe of different-valued fundamental constants and a bizarre number of dimensions — a universe almost certainly unsuitable, this time around, for life.
Is it possible that such a process — driven by tiny uncertainties (or tolerances) in the natural quantum ratio of matter to antimatter within a rare configuration of fundamental constants and numbers of dimensions — could give rise to not just any universe but to one with an emergent conscious life as well?
Stephen Hawking has speculated that it can, but cautions that the odds against life are huge. He has speculated that an infinite number of universes — a multi-verse — is required to get a reasonable chance that a universe as unique and unusual as ours will appear.
Some believe the large scale structure of the universe resembles a collection of neurons, much like a human brain.
Modern science agrees with Hawking and has decided that this universe — the one we live in now — is probably only one of an infinite number of universes that make a multiverse. Our unique and unusual universe has, over billions of years, fabricated a transient conscious life which is, at this very moment, observing it.
A fleeting conscious life is discovering that the universe hovers in a state which from a matter/antimatter perspective could — if a preponderance of antimatter were produced (perhaps in an adjacent universe, if not this one — sum to zero someday like a popping soap bubble and cease to exist. When the observing conscious life is extinguished during this possible zero-sum resolution in the distant future, the result will be no universe, no life, no memory, nothing.
In any event, if antimatter doesn’t annihilate the universe, entropy might. (Entropy is the natural process of heat death, where all motion and information decay to zero over time.) Under this scenario, when the end comes, in the far distant future, it will be said (were there anyone around who could say it): the universe never happened. It will become a vanishing blip on the screen of reality, because no one will remain to remember it.
Then again, the negative forces of gravity and dark energy might restore the zero balance required by quantum non-existence to pull together all positive matter into an uncertain quantum singularity called the Big Crunch. A new universe with new parameters and constants might then emerge after the singularity undergoes a quantum fluctuation.
Maybe the universe cycles endlessly, contracting and expanding like a beating heart, which some have characterized as aBig Bounce. During some expansions conscious-life emerges; in most others, though, it does not.
Another theory of a possible catastrophic scenario has recently emerged after scientists determined the mass of the Higgs ”particle” at CERN in March, 2013. It turns out its value might permit the Higgs field to someday (no one knows when) undergo a spontaneous phase transition.
A phase transition would change the value of many of the fine-tuned constants and forces that shape the chemistry and biology of the cosmos. A phase transition in the Higgs field would certainly be catastrophic for life. It would be as if the universe was a block of ice for billions of years and in one short spasm turned to steam.
In any event, a Higgs field phase-transition would obliterate all knowledge of the universe. All history of the existence of a missing universe from the recent (or ancient) past would be lost — unable to be reconstructed, detected or proved. The universe didn’t exist; it never existed. In fact, it could not have existed.
One dynamic that no one talks about is a mass of parallel universes stacked like pancakes on all sides of our own. The mass that lies outside our own universe might be dense enough to transmit a gravitational tug that is pulling our universe apart like an expanding soap bubble in a field of foam.
This external mass might drive an expansion that provides the energy that forces galaxies to rotate at their far reaches faster than physicists think they should. Mass outside our universe could transform the metrics of our own space-time to initiate someday the phase transformation in the Higgs field that would follow a runaway expansion — an expansion that ends in nothingness, like a soap bubble popping on a grand scale.
The consequence of zero-sum, under which matter and antimatter, like popping soap bubbles, add to nothing;
or entropy, where all the material and information in the universe decline and decay by cooling and freezing to a motionless absolute zero;
or the big crunch, where negative forces pull positive matter into a quantum singularity which fluctuates into one of an almost infinite number of new realities;
or an endlessly repeating big bounce, where the universe contracts and expands like a beating heart that is driven by a set of fundamental constants that never really change — though the history of every bounce is erased by the bounce that follows;
or an inevitable phase transition in the Higgs field which vaporizes the cosmos into a state of virtual non-existence…
…means, logically, and in the perfect hindsight of an imaginary observer billions (or, perhaps, trillions) of years from now, that the probability there ever was a universe of matter populated by conscious-life might actually be zero.
A long time from now, the universe may disappear, either from the natural process of entropy, or an increase in the generation of antimatter, or both. Then again, it could morph into something unrecognizable and hostile to life through the mechanism of the Big Crunch. It might endlessly regenerate copies of itself through a cycle called the BigBounce where conscious-life almost never develops. Another possibility: a spontaneous Higgs Field phase transition, which vaporizes the universe where we live, perhaps driven by forces that live outside in a field of universes we will never see.
Yes, scientists say, under every scenario they can imagine, the universe in which humans now live will cease to exist. Conscious-life will disappear. No one will be left to argue about it. All the evidence will point to a universe that never happened.
Of course, no one will hear the evidence. In the universe that doesn’t exist, and even in an existing universe where conscious-life cannot or does not emerge, there is no reality, there is no evidence, no information, no history.
EDITORS NOTE: July 4, 2019:Based on the recent theory by Roger Penrose it may not necessarily be science-fiction to imagine that intelligent life might communicate across successive universes using the cosmic background radiation as a kind of writing tablet. As crazy as the idea sounds, evidence gathered by recent satellites is making a statistical case for Conformal Cyclic Cosmology.
These views, as I understand them, reflect the most popular ideas in modern science about the universe and conscious-life. They make sense. But these views reek with futility and despair. And, despite sensibility, they fail to answer a basic question: how can this be?
This graphic shows what scientists think happened, not why or how.
How is it that random fluctuations in the aether (for lack of a better term) generated something on the scale and immensity of a universe; perhaps an infinity of universes; and gave birth to conscious life?
The mere existence of a universe (and its conscious life) emanating from uncertain and random fluctuations in the vast nothingness of nothing seems ludicrous on its face. We can’t make sense of it; not in any way that permits us to exhale, throw out our arms and say, ahhhh… so that’s how it works.
We are missing a piece of the puzzle. It seems that modern science has led us into a tunnel that has no light at its end.
Like the radiation that stimulates our brains to create the brilliant colors we see inside our heads, consciousness may pour into us from out there.
What is anyone to make of all this? On the one hand, there is a consensus among contemporary scientists who believe consciousness results from the way brains are hard-wired. Throw in enough parallel electrical circuits to reach a threshold, add in sufficient hormonal feedback loops, and, voila! — consciousness. One problem, though: no one has done it; not yet.
On the other hand, we hear the echoes of the voice of one of the fathers of quantum physics, Erwin Schrödinger, calling from the shadows of recent history. He says, No! Brains are detectors, imbibers, of a consciousness that lives outside ourselves and is, in fact, a fundamental and foundational feature of reality. Like the mysterious electromagnetic radiation that pours into our skulls to excite our brains into conjuring up the brilliant colors we see inside our heads, consciousness pours into us from out there.
Like the unseen and as yet undiscovered dark matter and dark energy that many scientists believe together shape the universe and drive its expansion, consciousness remains elusive of attempts to discover it. Perhaps scientists aren’t looking hard enough or in the right places.
Then again, maybe dark matter doesn’t exist and will never be found, if alternative theories like MoND (modified Newtonian dynamics) prove true. It might be that the shape of galaxies and the accelerating expansion of space are instead the evidence of parallel universes that stack like pancakes against our own universe to add the elusive gravitational forces necessary to both constrain the galaxies and drive the expansion of space. Who knows?
It might be that MoND and the gravitational tug of parallel universes work together to produce the odd cosmology astronomers are observing with today’s modern space sensors. Constructing a successful model of the universe which incorporates the reasonable conjectures of MoND might depend on a collaborative summation of forces that occur both inside and outside of our own universe.
What the universe is and how it really works is not yet understood by the scientists who line up for funding before governments and universities; not even close.
What if life-forms are connected in some way to a Conscious-Life who brought the physical universe into existence?
In any event, under the stimulation of consciousness, all seem to know on some level deep inside that they are alive and aware and connected, somehow. They feel a certain common awe when they look up into the night sky and see the universe that birthed them; folks seem to sense a Conscious-Life who stands behind it all; who knows and cares about them; who shares with them the glorious experience of the universe. It’s the religious experience that every culture on the earth has in common.
What if this experience is real? What if we are connected in some way to a fundamental and eternal Conscious-Life who brought the physical universe we know into existence, perhaps through pure thought like we imagined earlier the scientists at CERN might be learning to do?
Is this a question worth exploring?
Does consciousness come first or last?
Is an answer within our grasp that will satisfy our yearning for truth and certainty? Or is it a dispute that will never be settled?
Tobias Dantzig, the Latvian author of Number (one ofAlbert Einstein’s favorite books), once claimed, …from the standpoint of logic either hypothesis is tenable, and from the standpoint of experience neither is demonstrable.
Can he be right? Will the arguments between hard-headed scientists and stubborn philosophers last forever?
I don’t think so. Scoffers may say no, the dispute is already settled. Schrödinger was wrong. And if he wasn’t wrong, could anyone detect the difference? Does it matter at all if consciousness lives inside our heads, or if brains draw consciousness from the universe outside?
I believe the issue can be settled. And it is important. The stakes for humans are enormous. In religion, philosophy, politics, and government what people do, the way they live, their planning for the future; the ways they choose to live out their lives and organize their societies, humans seem to be grounding every decision, every action, every moral choice they make on an assumption that each person creates inside themselves a unique view of reality, which will die when they do.
But what if they are wrong?
What if we learned that consciousness doesn’t die?
What if we learned that, though our bodies may someday die, consciousness never dies; the feature of our existence which imparted the sensation of awareness was something our bodies fed on during their brief lives to give them meaning?
What if our kids and grandkids, our friends and neighbors, even our enemies, and all those that came before us and will someday come after us imbibe alike from this same life-enhancing pool of awareness?
What if all life-forms, sufficiently developed, drink from an ocean of Conscious-Life everywhere in the universe?
What if we learn it isn’t our bodies that make us feel alive?
It is instead a fundamental and basic feature of the universe, a sea of consciousness from which we all drink while our bodies live.
What are the consequences should we learn that, though our bodies and brains may decay to dust,the awareness that makes us feel alive never does?
What if we learn we are conscious-life and always will be?
Billy Lee
Addendum by the Editorial Board, 16 September 2018: Michael Egnor is not a public person; his biography on Wikipedia is hopelessly incomplete. Nevertheless, he has performed a number of neurosurgeries, apparently, where outcomes ran counter to popular theories about how the brain and consciousness work.
On September 14 Michael Egnor published in Christianity Today a non-scientific article where he wrote about his clinical experience. Billy Lee strongly argued against publishing a link to his article, but The Editorial Board, unanimously overruled.
Seen through the prism of Billy Lee’s essay, we agree that the article contains clues that readers might find helpful despite the surgeon’s biases — one or two of which Billy Lee might characterize as kind of silly. Here is the link: More Than Material Minds. The Editors
This February marks the 71st anniversary of the lecture series What is Life? presentedat Trinity College in Dublin, Ireland by quantum physicist Erwin Schrödinger — best known today for his Schrödinger’s Cat thought experiment.
In these lectures Schrödinger correctly described — ten years before James Watson and Francis Crick published their work on the structure of DNA (for which they won the Nobel prize in 1962) — many of the important and essential markers of the yet undescribed and undiscovered molecule that we now know determines everything about us and all other living things.
The lectures are remarkable for their prescience and clarity — they have an almost prophetic quality about them — but what I found most interesting (and it’s all interesting to me) are Schrödinger’s observations in the Epilogue, which he labeled On Determinism and Free Will.
After some warm-up remarks he says:
But immediate experiences in themselves, however various and disparate they be, are logically incapable of contradicting each other.
So let us see whether we cannot draw the correct, non-contradictory conclusion from the following two premises: (i) My body functions as a pure mechanism according to the Laws of Nature. (ii) Yet I know, by incontrovertible direct experience, that I am directing its motions, of which I foresee the effects that may be fateful and all-important, in which case I feel and take full responsibility for them.
. Energy and massless particles like photons of light are equivalent based on their frequencies; Einstein included this feature in his less familiar but expanded equation 
. These equivalencies are clues that might enable someone to properly explain how the universe works on large scales and small. 
