Philip K Dick spectrum - Physics of the Mysterious
dana at cures-not-wars.org
Sun Nov 30 19:19:41 EST 2003
From: slipstream at hipplanet.com
Physics of the Mysterious
I am going to talk about Time Travel. But, before I get to that most
mysterious of subjects, there is some groundwork that must be dealt
with first. This will be a series of notes that will appear at this
place on the Web, one section at a time. I will add new stuff as
often as I can, so that, little by little, there will be more and
more until we get into the fun part, so please be patient. It is not
a subject that can be rushed. The point is that I have little time. I
have my work, I have my research, and also I am looking for avenues
that will enable me to change from research in "recognized areas" to
the "leading edge new problems" - and this involves seeking out those
who are willing to finance the work necessary to develop completely
new science and technologies. Thus, I simply cannot devote to these
pages as much time as I would otherwise like. Nevertheless I feel it
as a kind of an imperative, or duty, to work on this project - even
if the tempo of new material arriving on the net will be slow and
The purpose of writing these notes and making them available through
the Web is twofold:
1) I want to provide the non-expert Reader with first- hand
information about the present state and possible future development
of theoretical physics - mainly in relation to the material provided
in the Cassiopaean sessions , but also to make comments on
information from other "mysterious" sources - all through the ages.
2) I want to get as much feed-back as possible concerning all kinds
of problems and questions discussed in these notes. I will appreciate
all kinds of information, sharing of ideas or just receiving
questions concerning topics that are not sufficiently (or not at all)
A little about myself: I am a theoretical/mathematical physicist.
For those interested in credentials - my data , curriculum vitae and
list of publications are available through the Internet, at this
website and others.
This being said I owe you, dear Reader, a warning and an
explanation. I am considered to be AN EXPERT, but many of my views
are not shared by other experts. I believe that my mind is more open
than the minds of many of my colleagues. On the other hand, some of
these colleagues believe that my mind is TOO open. So I have to hide
from them many of my beliefs and not speak to them about a lot of
things that I know. In this way I can publish papers in mainstream
journals, speak at conferences, organize conferences and have a
pretty good reputation. But to preserve this reputation I need to be
very careful - just making a hint here and there that what I do
publish is not all that I would like to tell....
I think I really need to tell you these things so that you will NOT
get an erroneous idea that all physicists are of the same opinion.
They are not. University physics is pretty conservative - which is
not a bad attitude at all. We do need to be conservative - this
distinguishes science from poetry and daydreaming. But, being too
conservative has, in the past, been a great barrier and hindrance to
scientific revolutions. If being conservative and "scientific" was
the only correct approach, then we would have solved all the
mysteries of our existence in the past several hundred years of the
"age of science!" The truth is: we are only at the beginning.
But, perhaps I AM too open minded.... Perhaps my colleagues are right
in being skeptical about anything that is not "established science."
I try to keep an open mind about THAT, as well!
What I want do on these pages is be open-minded and yet conservative.
That is, all I write here will be presented in a moderate and
conservative mode. Moreover, as you can see for yourself on my other
web pages, I am of the opinion that physics must be always based on
mathematics - the only reliable tool and a truly universal language.
Without math we can talk about many things - but we are just TALKING.
It is not yet science! And even if I believe that the domain of
physics needs to be essentially extended, that it has to connect with
- or even embrace - biology and psychology - that it has to become
much less "physical" - it does not mean it needs to become less
But still, no amount of math can take the place of the right
inspiration. The study of physics consists in peeling away the layers
of the outside appearances of things to reveal their hidden nature
and meaning, and very often this inner nature is so deep and hidden
that only mathematics can describe it. But, if there is no
inspiration as to what might be the objective of the search, the
peeling away process might end up being rather like an onion - when
the layers are all gone, there is no longer anything there!
The new physics needs to be based on math - to an even greater degree
than the old physics. It will be a new math, sure, but it will a
rigorous math - a math of equations and algorithms and probabilities
- a nonlinear math of complex structures and of transitions between
these structures. The math of today is difficult and abstract, and
the math of tomorrow might be yet more difficult to grasp, even if
our computers will be able to do more and more of the abstract work
for us. On the other hand, the new math may be incredibly simple and
elegant - this could be the reason it has eluded the understanding of
physicists today - that the most abstract of ideas are concealed
behind a veil of utter, simple logic. This is why professional
training is so important: it gives us tools, it teaches us the rigor
of abstract thinking, it teaches us the logic of proving assertions,
and it shows us the limits and uncertainties of mathematics itself.
As we know from Bertrand Russell and Kurt Goedel: math has its
2. Physics today.
Let me, first of all, share with you my views on the state of
physics today. More on this subject can be found in my lecture
Bioelectronics As Seen by a Theoretical Physicist. Even though this
lecture was given at a bioelectronics symposium more than ten years
ago, nothing really has changed since that time, and part of the
predictions given there have already come true, so I am only
repeating here much of what I said then. (I plan to post this entire
lecture as soon as the translation is complete.)
Physics is what physicists do. And physicists do what they are paid
to do. This is one of the reasons why so many of the brightest minds
work on a short-time-scale reward basis, doing what is fashionable at
a given time. This is the main reason why there is no progress at all
in the fundamental areas. The clash between Einstein's relativity
theories - which describe classical gravity at macro-scales, and
Bohr-Dirac-Heisenberg-Schroedinger quantum theories, providing
phenomenology of micro-phenomena, - this clash is today even more
dark and scary than it was seventy years ago.
There is no real progress.
Quantum Theory is supposed to be the greatest invention in science
since the beginning of the study of deeper realities. The greatest
success of Quantum Theory is considered to be Quantum Field Theory,
such as the theory of a quantized electromagnetic field (photons) in
interaction with quantized charged matter (electrons). The problem
is, this theory is mathematically inconsistent. It involves wishful
thinking rather than rigorous science! The only quantum field
theories (in four dimensional space-time) that ARE free of
contradictions, are so-called trivial ones; that is theories that
describe particles that do not interact at all. These theories are
mathematical exercises involving particles that are "dead," that will
never form atoms. It seems to be that a universe that is governed by
quantum field theories that are free of contradictions would be a
dead universe, a universe of no interaction.
One can build a non-trivial quantum field theory, which may even
describe something real or interesting, but then it would necessarily
contradict Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity; it would be a
This is the dilemma. If you want to have both Quantum Field Theory
AND Einstein's Theory of Relativity, then you've got a problem.
Thus, nontrivial relativistic quantum field theories in four
space-time dimensions are divergent - they lead to infinities, and
are mathematically inconsistent. Searching for the cure in fancy
formal math (supersymmetry, superstrings, quantum groups) just does
not work. New - fundamentally new - ideas are needed. Quantum theory
is not understood at all - everyone is trying to "cook" by "changing"
the recipes to suit the ingredients they have on hand, and this very
often results in "Rock Soup."
Part of the present-day problem is that Niels Bohr succeeded in
molding the minds of so many theoretical physicists into the "no need
to understand" mode and this has done a great disservice to the
science, the new generations of scientists, and most of all, to
humanity. In this day and time, it could be said, that we more
desperately need to understand the Order of the Universe than ever
Yet there is hope. There are areas, even in the "recognized physics"
where NEW is still possible. And, it is possible because more and
more physicists understand how little they understand about quantum
theory. Physicists are realizing, little by little, that even in such
established areas as macroscopic electrodynamics there are problems
that need major new rethinking: railguns, exploding wire arcs,
sonoluminescence, present us with problems that are not easily
answered within the standard paradigm and need, perhaps, a major
re-thinking of the foundations.
Some of the problems are that we do not really understand the physics
of conductivity and superconductivity. We realize that macroscopic
quantum effects are more common than we ever thought. Sure, it is
evident to everyone who goes to Circuit City that technology is
progressing pretty fast in these areas; but the same cannot be said
about our understanding!
What about gravitational physics?
Many of the important questions are still unanswered. The old Mach
principle is still a subject of serious debate and we do not know
what to do with singularities like black holes. They badly need
quantum physics, but, once again, quantum physics becomes
inconsistent when married with gravity. So we really do not know
where we are.
We do not know if gravity is a fundamental force or, perhaps, it is a
collective and composite phenomenon. Some physicists want to explain
electromagnetism in terms of gravity. Others want to derive gravity
There is a lot of talk about antigravity or gravity shielding at the
most fundamental levels and perhaps "antigravity" or gravity
shielding is a real effect? No one can agree, and little progress is
being made except to disagree. You would be amazed at the battles
that rage in the ivory towers of academia!
We do not even know (at least not from textbooks or physics journals)
if antimatter is attracted or repelled by matter. Perhaps tachyons -
particles travelling faster than light - do exist? Perhaps space-time
can have causal loops and telephoning into the past is possible?
Perhaps quantum tunneling phenomena involves sending information
faster than light? Perhaps magnetic monopoles exist and play an
important role in biological systems? Or, perhaps, the fifth
dimension is more than just a mathematical device of providing a
unified description of gravity and electromagnetism?
All these topics ARE discussed in professional journals, but with no
conclusion, no agreement, no cigar.
Too much research is in "safe" areas - producing nothing but
"papers." The truth is that, Physicists, to make their living, must
produce papers, must be "quoted;" and so they quote each other;
colleagues quote colleagues and produce graduate students who quote
their masters, after which they become masters, quoting each other,
and producing graduate students who quote them, in an endless cycle
of life in the aforementioned ivory towers.
And this is not something unique in physics. Not at all! It is true
in other fields of study, too. But in physics the results are really
bad: there has been no apparent progress in our understanding of
Nature for seventy long years.... And nature REALLY needs to be
understood, because things are getting a little out of hand out there
in the "real" world.
Well, perhaps it is not THAT bad!
We all know that there is a lot of progress in certain areas,
especially in technology based on quantum physics. We also know that
certain areas are so sensitive that any progress therein is so
closely monitored that it hardly finds its way to journal pages. And
also, it is the physicists who have more open minds than others that
move to new, interdisciplinary, areas of research, putting pieces of
the puzzle together, blazing some isolated new trails for others. So,
perhaps, after all, it is not THAT bad?
Well, I think it is bad enough. But, as Bertrand Russell pointed out ,
"Meantime, the world in which we exist has other aims. But it will
pass away, burned up in the fire of its hot passions: and from its
ashes will spring a new and younger world, full of fresh hope, with
the light of morning in its eyes."
3. "We are you in the future"
This is what "they" declare : that "they" - The Cassiopaeans - 6th
density Unified Thought Form Beings of Light - are us in the future.
What a bizarre concept. Or is it?
Is that possible? Can such a statement find a place in accepted
theories? Or it is in an evident contradiction with everything that
we - that is, physicists - know about Nature and its laws?
Putting aside for the moment the issue of whether existence in a pure
state of consciousness is possible, is travelling in time possible,
even if only in theory? Is sending and receiving information from the
future or sending information into the past allowed by our present
theories of relativity and quantum mechanics? If information can be
sent, does this also imply that physical matter can be "sent," via
some sort of TransDimensional Remolecularization? And if so what are
the laws, what are the restrictions? What are the means?
Well, frankly speaking, we do not know, but we may have a clue. Kurt
Goedel, after he became famous for his work on foundations of
mathematics, went on to study the Einstein general theory of
relativity and made an important contribution to physics: he
discovered a class of otherwise reasonable cosmological solutions of
Einstein equations - except for one point: they contained causal
At first these Causal Loops were dismissed by relativists as being
"too crazy". The arguments against these model universes even became
rather personal, commenting upon the state of mind of the inventor!
(A not terribly unusual phenomenon in the heated debates within
so-called "ivory towers" of academia.)
A "Causal Loop" means the same thing as "Time Loop." It can be
described as going into the future and ending up where you started at
the original time and place. It is called "Causal" because, in
Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Time is a relative concept and
different observers can experience Time differently, so the term
"causal" is used to avoid using the term "time."
But, little by little, it was realized that causal - or Time - loops
CAN appear in other solutions of Einstein equations as well - usually
they correspond to some kind of "rotation" of the universe.
Causal loops make time travel not only possible, but probable. But
then, causal loops lead to unacceptable logical paradoxes, and
physics does not like such paradoxes at all - they are a serious
But, the subject of communicating with the past or receiving
information from the future IS being discussed in physics even in
terms of the flat, not-curved-at-all space-time of Lorentz and
Minkowski. Hypothetical faster-than-light particles - tachyons - can
serve as the communication means. They make an "anti-telephone" - a
telephone into the past - possible.
But do tachyons exist? Or CAN they exist?
Well, that is still a question that has not been answered
definitively for some.
And, the truth is that paradoxes must never be ignored. They always
indicate that some important lesson is to be learned; that some
essential improvement or change is necessary. The same holds true for
the paradoxes involved in the idea of receiving information from the
future. We cannot simply go back into Saturday and tell ourselves the
winning lottery numbers of Sunday. If this were possible, then it
should also be possible for some future, future, self to tell a
future self NOT to tell! Thus we have a paradox: we, in the future,
have intervened into the past making our communication from the
A paradox: if we communicated, we have not communicated, and if we do
not communicate, then we have communicated! Impossible in a linear,
Is there a possible escape from the paradox, an escape that leaves a
door open, even if only a little - for our anti-telephone?
Indeed, there is, and not just one, but several ways out.
First of all - the evident paradox disappears if we admit the
possibility that the communication channels are inherently noisy;
that is a normal situation when we deal with quantum phenomena. So,
if the communication into the past is a quantum effect - we are saved
from evident paradoxes. Quantum Theory can be useful!
Sending a signal into the past, we are never 100% sure if the message
will be delivered without distortion. And conversely, receiving info
from the future we are never 100% sure if this comes from an
authentic broadcast or is a spontaneous and random creation of the
receiving end. If this is the case, and if certain quantitative,
information - that is, theoretic relations between receiving and
transmitting ends are secured to hold - then there are no more
paradoxes even with reasonably efficient information channels.
In other words: there CAN be broadcasts from the future to the past,
but there will be few "receivers," and of those few, even fewer that
are properly tuned. And even those that are properly tuned may be
subject to "static." Even if there is no static, those receivers that
can receive pure information will experience the static of
"non-belief" and distortion after the fact.
There is also another aspect of such an information transfer which is
that the probabilities involved are connected with a CHOICE EVENT;
with the choosing of one among many possible futures.
It may happen that branching of the universe corresponds to each such
event. Branching of the universe into an infinite tree of decisions
has been discussed within quantum measurement theory - it even has
the name of "Many Worlds interpretation of quantum theory."
Two of the well-known physicists who consider the many worlds
interpretation more than just an exercise in theorizing are John
Archibald Wheeler and David Deutsch and you may wish to obtain their
books for a deeper understanding.
The Many Worlds Interpretation has one serious weakness: it has no
built in algorithm for providing the timing of the branchings. Thus
it is a certain framework rather than a complete theory.
There is, however, a theory that fills in this gap in the Many Worlds
Interpretation - and this theory I know quite well, and in fact I
know it better than most others for the simple reason that I
developed it in collaboration with Philippe Blanchard (University of
Bielefeld ) in the last six or so years as an integral part of the
Quantum Future Project. It is called Event Enhanced Quantum Theory
(EEQT for short notation). (A complete list of references and much
more info on this subject can be found on my "Quantum Future "
The fact that our generally accepted theories of the present do not
prevent us from thinking that time travel is, perhaps, possible, does
not necessarily imply that we do know how to build the time machine!
On the other hand, it is perhaps possible that the time machine
already exists and is in use, even if we do not understand the
principle of its work, because it goes much too far beyond our
present theoretical and conceptual framework. It is also possible
that some of the machines we think are serving a totally different
purpose do, in fact, act as time machines. Many things are possible...
Now, back to superluminal communication, or "channelling" in general
and the Cassiopaeans in particular: the fact that sending information
into the past is possible does not necessarily imply that any
information that pretends to be sent from the future is such indeed!
But, if we generally accept that extraterrestrial life is possible,
and we use all of our knowledge and resources to search for life
beyond our Earth, then we also need to include the understanding that
receiving information from the future is equally possible. With this
perspective, science should search for any traces of such information.
But, what kind of information channels are to be monitored in search
of such broadcasts? What kind of antenna arrays do we need? How must
we direct them into a particular "future time"? Say, into the year
3000? Or 30,000? Or 300,001?
My answer is: nothing like that is necessary. All that we need we
already have, namely OUR MINDS.
And indeed, assuming that the knowledge and technology of the future
is (or CAN BE) much more advanced than ours, then it is only natural
that any broadcast from the future will be addressed directly into
Even today there are techniques of acting directly on our minds. They
are not always used for our benefit; nevertheless they do exist. But
if communications from the future are possible, why don't we receive
these broadcasts on a daily basis? If our minds can serve as
receivers, then why aren't we all aware of the transmissions?
This is a legitimate question and we will address it somewhat later
as there is a more urgent topic to be addressed first: what PHYSICS
has to say about MIND?
If You, the Reader, have your own point of view that supports or
contradicts the view presented below - please let me know it. I do
welcome any comment or suggestion.... So, feel free and e-mail me at:
ark at cassiopaea.org .
4. Mind and Physics
Isn't "mind" a domain of philosophy, psychology and cognitive sciences?
Or, is mind just a function of a brain; and isn't the brain just a
There is no easy answer. There are a lot of interesting theories; a
lot of controversy; a lot of "true believers" in this or that idea.
There are "new age" physics books, Penrose bestsellers, Sarfatti's
site on the internet, mail-lists and newsgroups discussing the
subjects of MIND and CONSCIOUSNESS and so on.
I want to give here my own small perspective, based on my own
research, my own experiences, my own conclusions.
First of all: why does it seem to me that I am qualified to discuss
The answer is pretty simple. The fact is, all my work on EEQT was
directed toward one end: to make Quantum Theory as OBJECTIVE as
possible; to eliminate any trace of "observer" from its (that is:
Quantum Theory) dictionary; to formulate - reformulate - Quantum
Theory in such a way that "observers" and "observables" and even
"measurement" would be replaced by precise and totally objective
concepts. I wanted to eliminate "Mind" entirely from the equation.
By doing this I was really pursuing John Bell's programme - a
programme that he did not have enough time to carry out to a
conclusion due to his untimely death - a crusade to discover an exact
mathematical formulation describing both micro and macro phenomena so
as to produce either a real synthesis of quantum and relativity
theories, or to be able to construct a viable alternative to one or
both of them. You might want to have a look at his published book
Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Theory, and also his papers
Against Measurement and Towards exact quantum mechanics.
Our theory, EEQT, was presented at the conference "Quantum Theory
Without Observers", held in Bielefeld, Germany, in July 1995. (Those
of you who wish to go deeper can read a review of this subject from
the point of view of Bohmian Mechanics: the recent paper by Sheldon
Goldstein at Rutgers.) Our presentation was accompanied by a computer
simulation of a run of a "measuring device" coupled to an individual
quantum system. Our Event Generating Algorithm produced a sequence of
"clicks" that were accompanying "quantum jumps" - without any
intervention of an "observer". Moreover, the standard "quantum
measurement postulates" can be derived from EEQT's "objective
algorithm." In our papers - see the bibliography - we have stressed
repeatedly that "mind" and "consciousness" and "observer" are not
needed by quantum theory. Quantum physics can do without these
So, you see, I AM qualified to discuss the problems of mind and
consciousness and their importance to physics - because I spent years
trying to get rid of them!
Did I succeed?
Yes and no. My views started to shift after having an extensive
discussion with H.P. Stapp. (You can easily find links to some of his
papers available through the internet via the Sarfatti link , but you
can also try to read his other papers, especially his most recent
paper - for the X-th Max Born Symposium "Quantum Future" that we
(Philippe and myself) organized, in Wroclaw September, 1997 - the
paper is available from his site at LBNL. Stapp has published a book
Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics - a collection of his papers on
In a long series of e-mails, I tried to convince him that quantum
theory does not need "mind" or "observer" - at least not any more
than any other branch of physics. He insisted that it is MIND that is
responsible for all that HAPPENS. It is MIND that is responsible for
each and every final act of reduction of the "wave packet," for each
and every "event," for each and every "quantum jump." And he pointed
out the weakest place in our new quantum measurement theory (EEQT),
namely: our theory worked well at the "phenomenological level" but
could not aspire to become a "fundamental theory." Indeed, our theory
assumed that a part of the world is "non-quantum," a part of the
world had to remain "classical;" and it was this part that was surely
related to the measuring device, to "perception," to "mind."
We could not find anything else in all of physics that would have to
remain classical, unquantized.
So, willy-nilly, I started to study Stapp's papers again - but now
with a more positive attitude; namely, with the idea of applying the
powerful mathematical machinery of EEQT to the Mind-Matter interface.
But this is another story; it is part of the current Quantum Future
Speaking of the "Mind," we - physicists - do not know where or how to
put it into our equations. Some of us deny that such a necessity
exists. Klaus Hepp at ETH Zurich, for instance - one of the best
mathematical physicists some twenty years ago - became totally
engaged in brain research. He believes neurophysiology has a
beautiful and promising future and, after we learn more and more
about the functioning of the nervous system, the necessity of using
the term "mind" will become less and less requisite - the
understanding of the workings of the physical structure will obviate
the necessity for looking outside physiology for an abstract,
On the other hand, Nobel Laureate John Eccles believed that there is
more than just one "physical world". In Self and its Brain,
co-authored by Karl Popper, we find an extensive discussion of three
different WORLDS; only one of them being the physical world that is
studied by physics. The idea of the three different worlds, World I,
II and III - belongs to Popper rather than Eccles, but Eccles is
sympathetic to the idea, and the title of his other little book, "
How the Self Controls its Brain " is suggestive by itself. The book
reproduces his paper, co-authored with a German physicist, F. Beck,
Quantum Aspects of Brain Activity and the Role of Consciousness .
Well, in my own opinion the paper is rather speculative and
inconclusive, but its very existence gives us some idea about the
debates in which physicists and neurologists (but also the artificial
intelligence community) are engaged about "mind," and whether it is a
physical artifact or a pre-existent state of consciousness.
Much of this discussion can also be found on the internet - you may
like to visit quantum-d archives . This list, VERY active at one
time, has become quiet lately. But it has seen lot of hot discussions
- especially concerning the Penrose-Hameroff ideas about making
gravity and microtubules responsible for all the fantastic deeds of
A lot can be said about this Penrose-Hameroff theory. It has been
criticized by many, and some of this critique is expected to appear
in the proceedings of the "Quantum Future" symposium mentioned above
. It is not my intention to discuss this topic here as it would
become too ponderous and lengthy.
Let me just say this: I do believe that gravity is the most
fundamental of all interactions; I do believe that it is related to
consciousness and quantum phenomena, but I do not think that the
Penrose-Hameroff theory is a step forward. Even so, I enjoy reading
the books by Roger Penrose. I enjoy them and - at the same time -
they induce sad feelings in my heart... How is it possible that
having such bright minds, such nice ideas - we understand so little,
the progress of our understanding is so slow - if there is any
progress at all!
Summing up: even if we are not yet 100% sure that mind and
consciousness must be included into a consistent scheme of quantum
theory, my own work toward elimination of these concepts has shown
me, at least, the limitations of "pure physical" theories.
Thus, at present, I am searching for ways to integrate mind and
consciousness into physics - be it on the basis of an extended EEQT
algorithm, or some other, more radical approach.
We need now to return to our question: if communications from the
future are possible, why don't we receive these broadcasts on a daily
If our minds can serve as receivers, then why aren't we all aware of
I think that the answer has to do with multiple realities and
branching universes, and perhaps any civilization which would receive
messages from the future on a daily basis has ceased to exist because
communication through time is a very dangerous game. You produce
paradoxes and these paradoxes remove the paradoxical universes from
the repository of possible universes; if you create a universe with
paradoxes, it destroys itself either completely or partially. Perhaps
just intelligence is removed from this universe because it is
intelligence that creates paradox. Perhaps we are very fortunate that
even if we can receive some of these messages from the future, we
still continue to exist.
Suppose our civilization were to advance to the point where everyone
can communicate with themselves in the past; they have a computer
with a special program and peripheral device that does this. It
becomes the latest fad: everyone is communicating with themselves in
the past to warn of dangers or upcoming calamities or bad choices, or
to give lottery numbers or winning horses. But, what is seen as a
"bad choice" or "calamity" for one, could be seen to be a "good
event" or "benefit" to someone else!
So, the next step would be that "hackers" would begin to break into
the systems and send false communications into the past to
deliberately create bad choices and calamities for some in order to
produce benefits for themselves or others.
Then, the first individual would see that false information has been
sent and would go into their system and go back even earlier to warn
themselves that false information was going to be sent back by an
"imposter" and how to tell that it was false.
Then the hacker would see this, and go back in time to an even
earlier moment and give false information that someone was going to
send false information (that was really true) that false information
(that was really false) was going to be sent, thereby confusing the
This process could go on endlessly with constant and repeated
communications into the past, one contradicting the other, one signal
cancelling out the other, with the result that it would be exactly
the same as if there were NO communication into the past!
There is, also, the very interesting possiblity that the above
scenario IS exactly what is taking place in our world.
It is also possible that, whenever a civilization comes to the point
that it can manipulate the past and thereby change the present, it
would most probably destroy itself, and probably its "branch" of the
universe, unless there comes a cataclysmic event before this happens
which would act as a kind of "control system" or way of reducing the
technological possibilities to zero again, thus obviating the
potentials of universal chaos. In this way, cataclysmic events could
be a sort of preventive or pre-emptive strike against such
manipulations, and may, in fact, be the result of engineered actions
of benevolent selves in the future who see the dangers of
communicating with ourselves in the past!
So, the probability is this: if there IS communication from the
future, it MAY, in fact, be constantly received by each and every one
of us as an ongoing barrage of lies mixed with truth. Thus, the
problem becomes more than just "tuning" to a narrow band signal,
because clearly the hackers can imitate the signal and have become
VERY clever in delivering their lies disguised as "warm and fuzzy"
truths; the problem becomes an altogether different proposition of
believing nothing and ACTING as though EVERYTHING is misleading,
gathering data from all quarters, and then making the most INFORMED
choice possible with full realization that it may be in error!
What is important here is this: we can't prevent hackers from
hacking. But, what we can do is make every effort to prevent them
from hacking into OUR systems by erecting barriers of knowledge and
awareness. Hackers are always looking for an "easy hack," (except for
those few who really LIKE a challenge), and will back away as you
make your system more and more secure.
How do you make your computer (or yourself) immune to hackers?
It is never 100% secure, but if all preventative measures are taken,
and we constantly observe for the signs of hackers - system
disruption, loss of "memory," or energy, damaged files, things that
don't "fit," that are "out of context," - we can reduce the
possiblity of hacking. But, we can only do this if we are AWARE of
hackers; if we KNOW that they will attempt to break into our system
in the guise of a "normal" file, or even an operating system or
program that promises to "organize" our data for greater efficiency
and ease of function or "user friendliness," while at the same time,
acting as a massive drain on our energy and resources - RAM and hard
As a humorous sidenote: we could think of Windows Operating system as
the "ultimate hacker from the future" who, disguised as a sheep, is a
wolf devouring our hard disk and RAM, and sending our files to God
only knows where every time we connect via the internet!
And of course, there are viruses. Whenever we insert a floppy disk or
CD into our computer, we risk infection by virii which can, slowly or
rapidly, distort or destroy ALL the information on our computer,
prevent ANY peripheral functions, and even "wipe" the hard disk of
all files to replace them with endless replications of the viral
The human analogy to this is the many religions and "belief" systems
that have been "programmed" into our cultures, and our very lives,
via endless "Prophet/God" programs, replacing, bit by bit, our own
thinking with the "dogma and doctrines of the faith."
Enough of the computer analogies. I think that the reader can imagine
any number of variations on the theme and come to an understanding of
how vulnerable we are to "disinformation" in the guise of truth from
either the future, the past, or the present.
Before entering into the next subject - the Anthropic Principle and
its ramification - let me first make some comments concerning some
peculiar recent developments on my personal plane. I want to talk
about these things, because they bear a direct relation to these
In 1998 I removed all my web pages, mostly dealing with the Quantum
Future project, from the web server at my home institution .
Because a colleague and director of the institute there decided that
I must not link my Quantum Future pages to this particular subject
that you are reading now.
For what reason?
Let me quote him: "You may have your personal views on quantum
mechanics, but your personal views concerning the question of who or
what are the Cassiopaeans should not be found on the Institute's
page, similar to your personal views concerning Snow White."
He even forbade placing any - even indirect - link to related subjects!
I wrote him back that "my personal view on quantum theory is such
that one must not ignore the question that, if transmissions from the
future are possible, can the Cassiopaean transmissions be
investigated from this point of view?"
Apparently the very thought about time loops and their possible
consequences scares SOME "serious scientists" to death; their brains
start to shake like jelly; they simply refuse to even discuss the
problem; they ban it without any discussion.
Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov, a Russian physicist who spent many years
in the Siberian Gulag wrote: "Intellectual freedom is essential to
human society... Freedom of thought is the only guarantee against an
infection of people by mass myths, which, in the hands of treacherous
hypocrites and demagogues, can be transformed into bloody
dictatorships." (Progress, Coexistence, and Intellectual Freedom;
secretly circulated in Moscow, 1968, tr. N.Y. Times, July 22, 1968)
Fortunately SOME physicists are open-minded. John Bell, David
Deutsch, Henry Stapp, John Archibald Wheeler, Brian Josephson, Roger
Penrose, all of them have put forward, at some point in time, their
brilliant ideas and have blazed the trail for others.
5. Anthropic Principle
A Physics News service to which I subscribe brought the following:
The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News
Number 360 February 25, 1998 by Phillip F. Schewe and Ben Stein
ANTHROPIC COSMOLOGY. An anthropic argument is one which suggests that
certain physical conditions, such as the oxygen content of the
atmosphere or the Earth's distance from the Sun, are not
inadvertently beneficial to intelligent life, but might actually be
especially fine-tuned for life. This viewpoint has been slow to gain
acceptance among scientists because anthropic logic seems to defy the
arrow of time: was not the universe here long before man evolved?
Yes, but there may be more than one universe (as some theories
predict), or the universe we are in may have many domains, each with
different physical parameters. And we would, according to these
arguments, find ourselves in that domain that had just the right
physics ingredients, just as cold-blooded reptiles thrive only in
warm climates. Physicists at the Bartol Research Institute at the
University of Delaware (contact Stephen Barr, 302-831-6883) and the
University of Massachusetts (John Donoghue, 413-545- 1940) consider
what the anthropic principle has to say not about atmospheric oxygen
and Earth orbit, but about parameters of even more fundamental
importance: the mass of the Higgs boson (the hypothetical particle
that endows all other particles with mass), the cosmological constant
(essentially the energy density of the universal vacuum), and the
Planck mass (the energy scale---thought to prevail in the very early
universe---associated with gravity, and the energy at which all known
physical forces would have been equivalent). (V. Agrawal et al.,
Physical Review Letters, 2 March 1998.)
So, you see, physicists are discussing seriously what is called the
"anthropic principle"... At least some physicists. Some others, (like
my colleague JL, mentioned above), try to use whatever power they
still have to ban such discussions. History repeats itself ... nihil
novi under the sun.
But back to physics: we are on the Internet now, and we are free to
discuss ALL implications of ALL things, (Well... up to a point, of
course because, being responsible, we bear in mind that although
"Knowledge Protects, Ignorance Endangers, " knowledge can also be
used for evil purposes.)
I am not quite sure who invented the "anthropic principle" or who
coined the term. I suspect it all started with Wheeler and Dyson. If
you are interested in the subject, there is a book by Barrow and
Tippler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle . There is also a book
by a well known relativist and cosmologist George Ellis, Before the
Beginning . George Ellis is a well known relativist and cosmologist,
past president of the International Society for General Relativity
and Gravitation, a well known co-author (with Stephen Hawking) of
"The Large Scale Structure of Space Time, " and Fellow of the
University of Cape Town. You can also visit his home page at the
Mathematics Department of UCT.
In Before the Beginning , Ellis discusses the "fine tuning" of the
physical parameters of "our" universe, analyzes the apparent
"coincidences" (if one of the several important parameters had a
value even slightly different from the actual one, then life in such
a universe would be impossible), and comes to the conclusion that
there are five possible explanations for these parameters to be
conducive to life: (for more about anthropic principle in general,
and about George Ellis in particular see the files ellis.html ,
anthcoi.html , anthro8.html at Al Schroeder site.)
1: Pure chance.
2: Greater probability: despite the seeming unliklihood of such
coincidences, for reasons unexplained, we would tend towards that
3. Logical necessity. Only one set of laws is consistent in nature.
4. An ensemble theory...which would have many universes, either in
time, space, or different space-time continuums, most of them
lifeless, and we are just the luck of the draw.
5. Or an intelligent Creator.
He feels he cannot a priori neglect that last as a possible explanation.
This material on the subject of the anthropic principle has been
discussed at such length so that you will know that there IS a very
deep issue in the study of physics which has not been solved no
matter how many ways have been tried in approaching it. Now, once we
know there IS some problem, once we know some physicists do feel
somewhat uneasy without admitting it, let us see if we can add
something new to all this discussion. Let us see how the problem
relates to OUR problem, namely to the possible existence of - quoting
from Cassiopaeans - "us in the future;" to the problems of time
loops, time travel, branching universes and complexity of creation...
First of all I do not think that the "fine tuning" of physical
parameters has anything to do with "an intelligent Creator." I do
know that there are some - even many - people trying to use the facts
of physics to "prove the existence of God." I do not think it is a
good thing to do. It does no good - neither to Physics nor to God -
the main reason being that, while Physics deals with, or at least
tries to deal with, what is outside of us, the question of God is our
internal question - to which the answer should be sought inside us.
(If you are interested in my opinion on this subject, you can read
the exchange that I had, on this subject, with Tom Elliot from
Let us discuss the first four possibilities listed above.
"Pure chance" we can discard as being no explanation at all: the lazy
way out. The "probabilities" in question are so small that we can
safely discard the "pure chance" hypothesis.
The next in order: "greater probability despite the seeming unliklihood..."
Yes, indeed, there is such a possibility. Assigning probabilities is
a tricky business. Thus it MAY happen that an event which, at
present, seems to us be very unlikely, after the discovery of one new
fact or relation that we were not aware of before, becomes not only
likely, but also unavoidable.
Can it be the case with "fine tuning" of physical constants and
parameters of our universe? In principle, YES, it can be so.... For
instance if, and ONLY if, explanation 5 is the correct one! Thus, it
is a circular argument.
Thus, let us move to the next possibility: "logical necessity."
Again, this is no explanation all. Indeed, why there should be any
"logic" in the universe? The very fact that there ARE any laws of
nature, the very fact that there IS logic itself, is already a puzzle.
And so, what remains is the "ensemble theory" - there are many universes.
We are just in one of them. Some of them are lifeless, some others
are short-lived ones; no one will ever wonder about them, because
they will never create any form of intelligence. And there are also
some endowed with life forms - all kinds of life, the possibilities
This does look like a good start for an "explanation". Or better, as
a good start for a path full of adventures and leading
And this is the path we have to travel. This path will force us to
think in new categories; it will force us to open our minds to new
ways of thinking - about ourselves, in particular, and about life in
Just to give a moderate example of where such a concept can lead, let
me quote from " Life in the universe " by Peter Dunsby:
"[In a paper by Ellis and Brundrit (1979) they have developed] some
of the consequences of spatially homogeneous universes with infinite
spatial sections (as in the usual low density and critical density
universe models). In any such universe, in a large enough volume not
only is the probability of life unity, but the probability of
existence of an identical being to each of us is also unity (because
the genetic code is a finite code). But there are an infinity of such
volumes in an infinite universe, so we should then each have an
infinite set of identical twins - leading to the further implication
that in this infinite set there should be some of our twins with
arbitrarily close histories to ours .... and so on. The point here is
that we often glibly talk about spatially infinite universe models,
without really taking in the implications of that situation. This
example makes clear how strange they can be."
And this excerpt makes clear how strange the science of physics can be!
6. Extraterrestrial Life
So, is there extraterrestrial life in the Universe? Let us first
quote from the "official sources."
(Note: as of August 11, 1999 this page is not accessible any longer,
even if there is still a link.) "What is the U.S. government doing to
investigate UFOs "; from NASA FAQ's page
"No branch of the United States Government is currently involved with
responsibility for investigations into the possibility of alien life
on other planets or for investigating Unidentified Flying Objects
(UFO's). The U.S. Air Force (USAF) and NASA have had intermittent,
independent investigations of the possibility of alien life on other
planets; however, none of these has produced factual evidence that
life exists on other planets, nor that UFO's are related to aliens.
"Under Project Blue Book (1947 to 1969), the Air Force investigated
UFO's; then in 1977, NASA was asked to examine the possibility of
resuming UFO investigations. After studying all of the facts
available, it was determined that nothing would be gained by further
investigation, since there was an absence of tangible evidence.
"In October 1992, NASA was directed by Congress to begin a detailed
search for artificial radio signals from other civilizations under
the NASA Towards Other Planetary Systems (TOPS)/High Resolution
Microwave Survey (HRMS) program (also known as the Search for
Extraterrestrial Intelligence project). Congress directed NASA to end
this project in October 1993, citing pressures on the US Federal
budget. The HRMS did not detect any confirmed signal before it was
stopped. However, similar work will continue in a more limited manner
through efforts of private groups and through academic institutions.
The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence Institute (SETI
Institute) in Mountain View, CA, effectively replaced the Government
project, borrowing the signal processing system from NASA. The SETI
Institute is a nonprofit corporation conducting research in a number
of fields including all science and technology aspects of astronomy
and planetary sciences, chemical evolution, the origin of life,
biological evolution, and cultural evolution."
"Over the last half-century, scientists have developed a theory of
cosmic evolution that predicts that life is a natural phenomenon
likely to develop on planets with suitable environmental conditions.
Scientific evidence shows that life arose on Earth relatively
quickly, suggesting that life will occur on similar planets orbiting
sun-like stars. With the recent discoveries of extra-solar planetary
systems, and the suggestive evidence that life may once have existed
on Mars, this scenario appears even more likely.
"Additionally, one should keep in mind that we are only one planet
around a very ordinary star. There are roughly 400 billion other
stars in our Galaxy, and nearly 100 billion other galaxies. It would
be extraordinary if we were the only thinking beings in all these
"The Drake Equation , originally developed as an agenda for a 1961
scientific meeting, provides a way of estimating the number of
intelligent civilizations existing in our galaxy that might be
broadcasting signals. Among the factors considered are the number of
sun-like stars in our galaxy, the fraction of habitable planets
supporting communicating civilizations, etc. When these various
factors are multiplied together, one can compute N, the number of
transmitting civilizations. Unfortunately, many of the factors are
only poorly known, so estimates of N range from one (we are alone in
the Galaxy) to thousands or even millions."
At the same time NASA lists " Some Intriguing Emerging Physics ":
"Science and technology are continuing to evolve. In just the last
few years, there have been new, intriguing developments in the
scientific literature. Although it is still too soon to know whether
any of these developments can lead to the desired propulsion
breakthroughs, they do provide new clues that did not exist just a
few short years ago. A snapshot of just some of the possibilities is
1988; Morris and Thorne: Theory and assessments for using wormholes
for faster-than-light space travel.
1988; Herbert: Book outlining the loopholes in physics that suggest
that faster-than-light travel may be possible.
1989; Puthoff: Theory extending Sakharov's 1968 work to suggest that
gravity is a consequential effect of the vacuum electromagnetic zero
1992; Podkletnov and Nieminen: Report of superconductor experiments
with anomalous results -- evidence of a possible gravity shielding
1994; Haisch, Rueda, and Puthoff: Theory suggesting that inertia is a
consequential effect of the vacuum electromagnetic zero point
1994; Alcubierre: Theory for a faster-than-light "warp drive"
consistent with general relativity.
1996; Eberlein: Theory suggesting that the laboratory observed effect
of sonoluminescence is extraction of virtual photons from the
electromagnetic zero point fluctuations."
So, what we learn from these official sources is not much.
Perhaps extraterrestrial life exists, but it is not the business of NASA.
Perhaps time loops do exist, and NASA is even looking into the
theories that deal with creating special space-time configurations
(warp-drive, wormholes, tachyonic and negative matter generated
gravity effects), but NASA is interested in these theories only from
the point of view of building new efficient propulsion systems.
Is there anybody interested in other possible consequences of the new physics?
Perhaps. Perhaps these are privately funded organizations (like
SETI). Perhaps, (and almost certainly), other government agencies
that can finance more risky programs, with other goals in mind than
just space travel.
And here we come to the point where I have to share with you my own
position - position of an open-minded theoretical physicist. I
consider myself open-minded enough to listen to everybody, but
independent enough to make my own final judgements. After surfing
through the net I have found that some of my views have already been
spelled out by a somewhat kindred soul: the "theatrical physicist"
(as he used to call himself), Jack Sarfatti. I share with him many of
the same interests; we have some common friends and heroes whom we
like to quote (David Bohm, David Deutsch, David Finkelstein, Henry
Stapp), but apparently he is much more active in the business of
public relations while I spend all my time on working and on active
So, what is my point of view?
First of all it seems to me, and in fact I am even pretty sure, that
what we know, our present "science," is not even the tip of the
iceberg of what might be known or maybe even what IS known in certain
circles. We know very little and we understand even less. We are so
much constrained in our perception, our thinking abilities, that we
can see and process only one side of a multi-faceted reality; and
even so, with a lot of distortion. Some of our concepts are pretty
good and objective, some others are of poor quality and subjective.
But even those that are sound and objective (like atoms, light,
energy), even these are grasped by us only partially, with much more
veiled from us due, it seems, to our own genetic restriction.
So, I think that Reality is multi-faceted and multi-leveled and we
are consciously experiencing only one (or a few) of the existing
levels and/or facets. The multi-leveled and multi-faceted Realit
includes: many worlds, many realms, parallel and perpendicular
universes, higher dimensions, higher levels of intelligence and of
perception, and very likely a consciousness of which we cannot even
Some of these concepts have already been integrated into theoretical
physics (many worlds, parallel universes, higher dimensions), and can
be studied - at least theoretically - with mathematical rigor; while
those dealing with mind, consciousness, intelligence, are yet to be
integrated. Once that is done, once we admit and realize that that
material existence is not all that can be thought of and dealt with
using mathematical rigor - new vistas, new hopes and new goals will
appear on the horizon. And by doing this, WE will take charge of the
evolutionary development of life. BY doing this we will choose to
obey our own call from the future. By doing this we will make real
what is now only virtual.
I believe that the Universe has Purpose, that it is much like a
computer program of great complexity, and that "we" - the IGUS-es -
have a role in its evolution. For a while our role can be described
simply as "debugging units." In short, my present answer to the
question "why are we here?" reads: DEBUGGING THE UNIVERSE.
Universes without life, without feedback from the "observers" have
only virtual existence, their future is closed; while "our" future,
as well as the future of "our universe," is in my opinion, to large
The question of existence of other forms of life is, in particular,
one of these tricky questions whose answers are "open". YOU, the
Reader, can choose to live in a universe with a "no" answer, but you
can also choose to live in a "yes" universe.
I am not saying the choice is going to be easy, or possible at all.
Every choice needs an effort. The more important the choice, the more
effort it needs. Without making this effort we are simply machines,
and then the choices are being made for us - either by pure chance or
So, what I am saying here relates, to some extent, to some of the
ideas expanded in Jung's " Flying Saucers. A Modern Myth of Things
Seen in the Skies ." Let me quote from an article by John Fraim :
' Jung concluded that "news affirming the existence of UFOs is
welcome, but that skepticism seems to be undesirable. . .to believe
that UFOs are real suits the opinion, whereas disbelief is to be
discouraged.... There is a tendency all over the world to believe in
saucers and to want them to be real, unconsciously helped along by a
press that otherwise has no sympathy with the phenomenon." Jung then
asked a most incisive question: "Why should it be more desirable for
saucers to exist than not?"
'For Jung, the "desirability" of UFO existence relates to a psychic
need and is connected with signaling the end of one era and the
beginning of another. It was not a new phenomenon but, rather, one
that manifested the change of archetypes that constellate around the
end of one age and the beginning of another. As he wrote in the
introduction to Flying Saucers: "It is not presumption that drives
me, but my conscience as a psychiatrist that bids spare those few who
will fulfill my duty and prepare those few which are in accord with
the end of an era."
'Jung found precedence for these archetypal harbingers of change in
preceding periods of history that involved the collective psyche: As
we know from ancient Egyptian history, there are manifestations of
psychic changes which always appear at the end of one Platonic month
and at the beginning of another. Apparently they are changes in the
constellations of psychic dominants, of the archetypes, or "gods" as
they used to be called, which bring about, or accompany, long-lasting
transformation of the collective psyche.
'The changes in archetypes seem to have a connection to major
movements in astrological houses. "This transformation, " noted Jung,
"started in the historical era and left its traces first in the
passing of the aeon of Taurus into that of Aries, and then of Aries
into Pisces, whose beginning coincides with the rise of Christianity.
We are now nearing that great change which may be expected when the
spring-point enters Aquarius."'
[Bell 87] Bell, J. "Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics",
Cambridge University Press, 1987
[Bell 89] Bell, J. : "Towards an exact quantum mechanics", in "Themes
in Contemporary Physics II. Essays in honor of Julian Schwinger's
70th birthday", Deser, S. , and Finkelstein, R. J. Ed. , World
Scientific, Singapore 1989
[Bell 90] Bell, J. : "Against measurement", in "Sixty-Two Years of
Uncertainty. Historical, Philosophical and Physical Inquiries into
the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics", Proceedings of a NATO Advanced
Study Institute, August 5-15, Erice, Ed. Arthur I. Miller, NATO ASI
Series B vol. 226 , Plenum Press, New York 1990
[Eccles 77] Eccles, J., Popper, K.: "Self and its Brain", Springer ,
New York 1977
[Eccles 92] Beck, F. and Eccles, J.C.: "Quantum aspects of brain
activity and the role of consciousness", Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., USA,
89 (1992) pp. 11357-11361.
[Eccles 94] Eccles, J.C.: "How the Self Controls its Brain",
Springer, Berlin 1994
[Ellis 73] Ellis, G., Hawking, S.: "The Large Scale Structure of
Space-Time", Cambridge University Press, 1973
[Ellis 93] Ellis, G.: "Before the Beginning", Bowerdean/Marion Boyars, 1993.
[Gold97] Goldstein, S. : "Quantum Theory without Observers"
[Jung64] Jung, C.G.: "Flying Saucers. A Modern Myth of Things Seen in
the Skies." Vol. 10 & 18. The Collected Works of C.G. Jung.,
Translated by R.F.C. Hull. Bollingen Series XX. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 1964
[Stapp 93] Stapp, H.P.: "Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics",
Springer Verlag, Berlin 1993
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ibogaine