|
What does it all Mean?
Firstly, we have reviewed the experimental confirmation for the reality of "non-locality" as an established scientific phenomenon existing independently of universe space-time and free from its restrictions such as the limiting velocity imposed by the properties of light.
Whereas the strange new properties of non-locality appeared to be confined to the sub-atomic realm, clever technology has now taken quantum strangeness, at the very least, to the molecular level and has fortified the belief of most quantum physicists that it extends to all things including that even ourselves have both "particulate" and wave-like behavior.
Secondly, we have learned that, to be functional, non-locality must often be required to both contain and to make available a wealth of information relevant to the situation under observation. For example, for the delayed choice type of experiment (p. 5), its originator, Nobelist John Wheeler, suggests the experiment could be done using light from a quasar (an exceptionally bright star-like object) that is focused into two beams around a galaxy acting as a gravitational lens (several exist). If done it would be with photons emitted billions of years ago but nevertheless able to exhibit particle or wave behavior at the observer's behest. (Note: this experiment has since been done using quasar 0956+A,B.)
This remarkable potential for a photon to appear to possess information about all of the possibilities presently available or able to become available is also illustrated by the experiments of Chiao et al. presented on p.10.
Imagine you were a photon having to behave in this way. How many pages of instruction would you need to have to be able to fulfill any task liable to be set?
Thirdly, the very complexity of these possible outcomes is such that it appears that the individual photon has insight into the observer's mind and knowledge of observer intentions--enabling it to either fulfill or frustrate them.
Could a mere photon have such information and ability? Surely most of us would draw a negative conclusion. So what is our explanation?
Following the Occam's Razor principle of selecting the simplest hypothesis, we could do far worse than to go along with the idealist assumption that the whole universe is made from consciousness, and is existent only in consciousness. Or the parallel Urantian revelation that the universe of universes is mind made, mind planned, and mind administered.
Philosophically and scientifically, the Urantia revelation accords well with what many consider to be the most advanced human thought of the 21st century (i.e. monistic idealism). Which, after all, is what most readers should expect.
References
1. R.Y. Chiao, P.G. Kwiat, & A.M. Steinberg (1993) Scientific American 269, (2), 52.
2. J.Horgan (1992) Quantum Philosophy, Scientific American 267 (1) 72
3. Goswami, A., R.E. Reed, & M. Goswami 1993. The Self-Aware Universe (Simon & Schuster.)
4. Hellmuth, T.,Zajonc, A. G., and H. Walther.In New Techniques and Ideas in Quantum Measurement Theory. Editor. Greenberger. (New York Academy of Science)
5. Grinberg-Zylberbaum et al. The EPR paradox in the human brain. Physics Essays 7 (4) 1994.
|
|
