web analytics

Home » Archives »Free eBooks » Currently Reading:

The Self-Fulfilling Multiverse*

[OR Why (how)  Objects Exist, and the Meaning of ‘God’-ness], by Rajani Kanth

Rajani

Rajani Kanth, author of CODA

Well, actually, They don’t: IF  (still evolving) quantum science is right (now that’s a Big IF)
Objects are waves of potentiality – located at the level of possibility only, in some extraneous ‘non-local’ Extraverse (my term).
Their actualisation ‘requires’ a ‘perceiving’ subject.
So, curiously, objects exist because we – subjects – exist, and are capable of perception (which collapses the ‘wave-function’ into particle form).
That much is the ‘observer effect’.
We call forth ,i.e., manifest, the ‘object’ universe.

In that sense it is consciousness  – a universal consciousness – that produces existence.
Consciousness is, then,  the ground of Being (A.Goswami): it is the Categorical A Priori (my term).
So there are two domains of reality, one manifest, one potential.
The manifest we may call the Universe; the potential, the Extraverse; and together they constitute the Multiverse.

The ‘Big Bang’  ( a ‘Singularity’ where Classical Physics is inapplicable) , if true,  would be conceived in the domain of possibility only : its actualisation would have to wait  for  the ‘delayed choice’ of a more  evolved consciousness  able to fathom it.
The universe, as is widely accepted,  is far  too fine-tuned to deny its obvious ‘anthropic’ bias.
It’s a set-up : for us.
So, it is ‘our’ universe,  existing for us, in  a situated  ‘arising’ from  Co-Dependent  Origins ( Co-dependent Origination is a Jain/Buddhist idea).

But where do  ‘we’ come from?
We too are mere  potentials only , and ‘construct’ each other, as ‘objects’ in, and of,  our consciousness.
When not interacting  (where we objectify  each other) we are waves of potential only, part of the Extraverse.
So, universal consciousness is both subject and  object, a sort of a  ‘Non-Thing-in-Itself’ (vide Kant).
We are spawned, spontaneously, similar to nano-particles,  within that self-same ether.

What about ‘God’?
It is  a  rather poor proxy term for the limitless consciousness which ‘creates’, or constitutes, all objects and subjects: within itself.

Consciousness ‘chooses’ out of  a  Non-Local  domain of possibilities and  objects are materialised, and become part of our experience.
The brain does not ‘produce’ this consciousness – matter cannot produce non-matter – but rather is ‘occupied’ by it (every  such ‘experience’ is a quantum measurement).
Consciousness, therefore, ‘self-splits’ into subject and object – both are within consciousness – creating the ‘duality’ we apprehend  in everyday life.

The ‘me’ we recognise daily  is just the pattern of such   experiences recorded in our memory which  stamps us with a temporal/spatial ‘unity’. The responsiveness of the body – via sensing, thinking, feeling and , intuiting – is controlled by consciousness  in its avatar as ‘mind’, and inseminates the world with ‘meaning’.
Higher meanings evolve from lower ones.

Good and evil, as  universal archetypes, are initially, simply  what allow us (individual, tribe) to live and die: they are not ‘Platonic essences”, but ad hoc survival norms (what helps us live being ‘good’, and what does not, ‘bad’).
(Societal) Morality is  itself conceived, analogously,  within the above.
Beyond that,  come the  near-infinite variety of refinements of these ‘essential’  basics.

Darwinian ideas  – relevant within a limited  domain – are inutile  to explain the  original  formation of Life: the time span needed to ‘evolve’ life , by its protocols, would be far too long ,  using material processes, given the  young age of the planet.
So, it would have to be a spontaneous sui generis act of creation bringing forth the first cell, its  subsequent evolution being governed, again, by remarkable quantum leaps, rather/more than  the slow-acting  processes of  ‘natural selection’ : the universe has existed, par exemple,  for only 10  to the power of 17 seconds (14 billion years) whereas the creation of a even a simple  protein, via random mutation/natural selection, might take, estimatedly, as much as 10 to the power of 51 seconds.
Until that First living cell, the Universe exists as possibility (i.e. as an Extraverse)  only: it is actualised only post-factum (via ‘delayed choice’).

Stated another way, objects are created in consciousness as possibilities, before ‘materialising’ in the observed world.
So the materialist world-view (everything is matter) set off by the genius of Newton, and dominating all sciences (so-called ‘social science’ inclusive) for centuries after (via physics-envy), is radically mistaken.
Everything is , ‘really’, consciousness (‘matter’ is contained within it).
Indeed, there is no other possible solution of the quantum measurement problem (recall, also, matter,  or the ‘brain’ , sui generis,  cannot produce consciousness, i.e.,  ‘non-matter’).

Besides ‘materialism’ is really not even  very significant even if matter were all we knew, since the  matter we know is only 4% of the inscrutable  ‘stuff’ that is out there (dark matter, dark energy, etc.) which defies any  description.
So consciousness is the vast ocean of (transcendent’) ‘reality’.
It is, possibly, what  simple, untrained minds, call ‘god’?

What does this ‘allow’?
It frees us from  assuming reified  rigid material constraints on our societal realm of possibilities, so allows a certain quantum of ‘freedom’ – better parsed as fresh thinking –  in that area.
It allows us to question Darwinian biology (which fails in many important regards:  in the obvious area of the fossil-gap, in its non-explanation of the origin of life, et. al.)  and ‘correct’ that corpus of science (btw the noble Darwin was never as dogmatic about his discoveries as his epigones).

It also explains a lot of ideas that have been, hitherto, banished to the boondocks: telepathy, ESP,  homeopathy, acupuncture,  ayurveda –  and all manner of alternative healings, even so-called ‘reincarnation’.
Why?
Because, Non-Local  (instantaneous, unconfined by the speed of light limitation) communication is not only possible but  have been established in the laboratory,  suggesting the operation of a transcendent domain.
These vital energies are real, indeed can even be photographed and measured.
And because there are ‘vital energies’ – Chakras , in the Vedic scheme ,  that exist within us  but  are not ‘captured’ in Western , materialist science.

The New Science makes the Old archaic: but it will  take time for the old(er)  ideas to  be given up.
After all, even the great Einstein took his time adjusting to quantum ideas: how can we fault his successors?

The Universe is ‘Self-Aware’ (Amit Goswami): perhaps through us?
But,to go further, I suspect it is also Self-Fulfilling:  a Program that we  ourselves Co-write, as Co-Authors?
How else are we to interpret  the obvious Co-Dependency?
That does open the world up to   a new, improved,  notion of creativity in the arena of human affairs.

Ancient  (if neglected) systems that base their practices/epistemes on  the idea of  posited vital  energies, such as in India and China are, thereby,  amply validated.
However, Notional Materialism (‘everything is matter’)  is anything but  of zero relevance – there is an obvious  particle component to the world, and to us – but rather, highly  incomplete and inadequate.
If hit by a car,  ‘material’ medicine is irreplaceable: but it is far  less  effectual in  context of deeper malaises like cancer, or diabetes.

Now for some much needed Corrective Anthropology ( I used to call it ‘reverse anthropology’ ).
Owing to its  to EuroModernist  (EM)skews most of official theoretical  anthropology – where it is not ‘straight’ ethnography -is bunk.
The Human Universe is, ineluctably,  an Essentialist one.
We are, male or female, dominated by instinctual drives that may be acted against but never entirely erased.
I will not go into why EM discourse shuns that obvious fact, save by saying it had nothing to do with any scientifically valid norms, let alone any  empirical facts.
In essence, the Story of Humans  – in their collective aspect – is male violence pitted against female pacifism (both considered as ‘ideal types’ , if inescapably, and altogether,  real).
As such,  it is not a pretty story.
Indeed, how could it be?

Does all this solve the mystery of the Extraverse?
No, but it  does give us a few clues as to its real nature, obscured thus far by various modalities of conjectural imputations.
The traditional ‘God’ theory of the Multiverse is no more than  logically equivalent to the Simulation Idea  – which stems  from  an antipodal  corner.
However,  the latter conjecture has more indirect ‘proof’ than the former, besides requiring  simple logic rather than ‘faith’.

One imp.  caveat: the rejection of classical scientific materialism, perforce ,owing to the inescapable ontology of quantum science is not to, ipso facto, succumb to its polar opposite: i.e., theological idealism  – which has even less of  a leg to stand on.
Indeed, it’s time that the old materialism/idealism binary were  to be finally retired from serious analysis as  quite ill-conceived.
It is not, whatever it might be,   a ‘politically correct’ Multiverse.
And, it is not, sadly, ‘meaningful’  either –  save the meaning that we choose to impute to it.
But I wonder now: is that good or bad?

* IMP:  Caveat(s):
The (Quantum) Physics content  in this Note  (such as it is) is owed to the works of  two important  Latter-day Physicists: (the late) David Bohm, and Amit Goswami : the rest (of a socio-anthropological nature), comprises my own set of ideas.

I am not convinced of the entirety of the received Physics I refer to : but my critique of it is still in formation,and I would rather not hazard any guesses, at this stage. Suffice it to say, the Multiverse is still, in some very significant senses, a mystery, despite the ideas proffered in this Note.

REFERENCES
Kanth, R   –  Farewell to Modernism: On Human Devolution in the Twenty-First Century, Peter Lang, NY 2017.
Kanth, R   –  The Post-Human Society, De Gruyter, Munich 2016
[© R.Kanth 2017]

__________

Rajani Kanth is the author of Coda, a chronicle of the life, and afterlife, of the last human, in both flashback and future shock, after the apocalypse of the millennium, where timeless, misanthropic aggression, and blindness predictably destroy all life on Earth. Coda is a compelling philosophical, and quasi-theosophical, post-modernist narrative, that (re)solves eventually the Riddle of the Universe, from the unique vantage point of the last sentient being left alive to ponder the question of existence. It is the quest of a latter-day Siddhartha, albeit in the context of an apocalyptic  world  sundered by global  catastrophe.

Share Button

Comment on this Article:







Sign up for our newsletter!

Ad