Quantum Physics & Consciousness
By: Mark Bancroft, MA
|Part One:||The Precarious Beginnings of Quantum Theory|
|Part Two:||The Problem and Challenges Facing Quantum Physics|
|Part Three:||The Solution|
"The Precarious Beginnings of Quantum Theory"
To begin to understand what quantum physics is and where this field of study is currently headed it is necessary to begin with an overview of the language used within this area of study. All too often the simple, yet critical first step of establishing clear definitions for terms and phrases describing the subject to be studied is overlooked resulting in collective myopia of the participants. In the study of quantum physics this is a common phenomenon. Apparently there exists a silent agreement which oftentimes goes unquestioned as to the meaning of words, such as: matter, reality, paradox, consciousness, subjectivity, and observation.
Even the literal definitions of "science" and "physics" are oftentimes very much different from their implied meanings. Thus, before we undertake the challenge of understanding how quantum physics came to be, the challenges it is now facing, and where it is headed; a foundation must be created from which to explore the dynamic qualities and mysterious discoveries this scientific endeavor has to share.
To begin with we must first consider what is meant by the word "science". It is quite common to think we know what science means, and therefore assume that our meaning of the word is identical to other peoples' interpretation of the word. However, upon examining the literal definition of the word and the actual work being done under the name of "science", two very different pictures are revealed. In The American Heritage Dictionarythe literal definition of the word "science" is:
1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomenon.
2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomenon.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method.1
Upon closer scrutiny the above definition reveals some interesting discoveries. In the first line we see objectivity being married to subjective interpretation. Thus science, according to strict definition, would mean objective activities (observation & experimental investigation) which are then subjected to mental thought processes (theoretical explanation of phenomenon ). Even more interesting is that in examining the second and third lines we find that science is restricted to a class of natural phenomenon, which appearsto require study and method.
The most common definition of science may be found in people's associations to the word. "Science" typically denotes absolute objectivity, unbiased assessments of observable events, and necessary exclusion of a subjective mind. Yet, according to the word's written definition (which contains the words: appears, phenomenon, and explanation ) we may conclude that our inner pictures of what science is- is not the same as what science does. Philosopher Karl Popper is quoted as saying, "Science may be described as the art of systematic over-simplification."2
Quantum physics is a branch of physics which concerns itself with the study (observation) of the subatomic realm. Physics is defined as, "The science of matter and energy and of interactions between the two. Physical properties, interactions, processes, or laws. The study of the natural or material world and phenomenon."3 Being a scientific endeavor the above definition appears to fit with the somewhat vague definition of science.
Quantum physics has directly challenged the meaning of matter for more than fifty years. Being defined as, "Something that occupies space and can be perceived by one or more senses; a physical body, a physical substance, or the universe as a whole."4 Thus, matter may also mean the entire universe; including "'not-real' stuff". The atom was considered to be the indivisible building block of the universe up until the discovery of the electron. Now, particle physicists postulate that there are sixty-one elementary particles which make up all matter in the universe.
Rather than a single atom, one must now consider the presence of quarks, neutrinos, gluons, bosons, and higgsons.5 Experiments in quantum physics suggest that the world (the universe) is not made of objects at all, rather it is created out of probability waves.6 It was discovered that as one probes deeper into the subatomic level things become more and more complex until causal reality no longer exists. Ken Wilber explains,
As scientists began exploring the world of subatomic physics, they naturally assumed that all the old Newtonian laws, or something like them, would apply to the protons, neutrons, and electrons. But they didn't. Not at all, not even a little. The shock was comparable to pulling off your glove one day and finding a lobster claw where you expected your hand.7
According to physicist Leon Lederman there are three qualities we know about quantum theory. 1. It is counterintuitive, 2. It works, 3. It has problems. Lederman goes on to write, "In spite of the great practical and intellectual success of quantum theory, we cannot be sure we know what the theory means."8 It is this ambiguity within the "hard" science of physics that has helped initiate a crisis unlike science has ever encountered. Once concerned with the motion and trajectory of particles, physics is now considering questions which would have been labeled as blasphemy throughout academic circles a hundred years ago. Now, numerous physicists are speculating about the nature of reality, the existence of consciousness, even the existence of God.
Professor of Mathematical Physics, Frank Tipler, confidently proclaims that physics can and will lead to the immortality of humankind. He shares on page three of his book, The Physics of Immortality,
Either theology is pure nonsense, a subject with no content, or else theology must ultimately become a branch of physics…The Goal of physics is understanding the ultimate nature of reality. If God is real, physicists will eventually find Him/Her.9
As the objects of observation became smaller physicists have had to rely more upon axioms (statements true by definition) than ever before. Given the probabilistic nature of the quantum level the Newtonian model of "cause and effect" lost its predictive powers. In quantum-land there apparently are no causes. Because of this, classical language cannot be used to accurately describe quantum events.10
The reason classical language is insufficient to convey quantum discoveries is that a probabilistic universe is one in which definite boundaries (outer & inner, objective & subjective) collapse. In this sense the physicist and mystic confront a challenge; both are forced to use boundary laden language to describe a realm where there apparently are no boundaries.
A language possesses utility only so far as it can construct conventional boundaries. A language of no boundaries is no language at all, and thus the mystic who tries to speak logically and formally of unity consciousness is doomed to sound very paradoxical or contradictory. The problem is that the structure of any language cannot grasp the nature of unity consciousness, any more than a fork could grasp the ocean.11
Because of this, the mystic trying to describe unity consciousness often sounds like the quantum physicist trying to explain a probabilistic world immersed in an "and/both" paradox rather than the familiar "either/or" orientation. The inadequacy of language is just as real for the physicist as it is for the mystic; even though they are not attempting to describe the sameworld.
"The world of physics and mysticism are similar" is a wild over-generalization and is based, as one physicist recently put it, "on the use of accidental similarities of language as if these were somehow evidence of deeply rooted connections.12
Quantum physics dates back to the late nineteenth century and is associated with the work of German physicist Max Planck. In the 1890's Planck set out to explain the phenomenon of blackbody radiation; the observation that the color of light emitted from an object did not change in a linear fashion to its temperature. Planck provided an explanation for the phenomenon in 1900 by postulating that light is emitted or absorbed in packets of definite size, which he called a quanta.13 Thus light, once considered a wave, was now being described as a particle (photon) in order to solve the riddle of blackbody radiation.
During the 1920's it became clear that electrons also exhibit wave-like characteristics. This meant that particles, not just light (which has no mass), can be considered to function as particles andwaves. The wave/particle duality was directly observed in 1987 through the double slit experiment. Demonstrated in the double-slit experiment are photons and electrons displaying both particle and wave behavior.
In the two-slit experiment, if the physicist looks for a particle (uses a particle detector), he will find a particle; if he looks for a wave (uses a screen), he will see a wave pattern before him.14
This implies that reality can be a wave or a particle depending upon the observer. It also suggests that: either particles can travel beyond the speed of light (a theoretical impossiblity), or that everything is connected, joined together. Richard Feynman, considered to be one of the greatest physicists of his generation, begins his Lectures on Physics with, "The central mystery of quantum theory is encapsulated in the experiment with two holes."15 This means that if one can fully understand the double-slit experiment, then one will understand quantum physics. The strangeness of the double-slit experiment makes it apparent that at the subatomic level discrete objects do not exist; our perception of reality may be an illusionary phenomenon.
Other quirky experiments throughout the twentieth century have antagonistically confirmed that the quantum realm is inhabited not by logic and common sense; rather, by mystery, contradiction, and paradox. Einstein did not like the subjectivity inherent in quantum theory. He could not believe that the physical world was founded upon probability waves that were affected by an observer and could not be fully known. Einstein, along with Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen, published what is known as the EPR thought experiment in 1935, designed to show that the world actually does exists at the quantum level. Einstein proposed that the cause of the subatomic strangeness was simply due to unknown 'hidden variables'; one's ignorance of such variables does not mean the world does not exist. The EPR experiment was based on the idea that by exploding an electron it would be possible to measure both the position and momentum of a subatomic particle. Studying photon 'A' could provide the position, while its counterpart, photon 'B', would remain to provide the momentum of a subatomic particle due to the photons' polarized nature (coupled opposites).
Although the EPR experiment was theoretically plausible the hidden-variables theory was not taken seriously until 1966, by John Stuart Bell. John Bell discovered a mathematical mistake made by mathematician John von Neumann in 1932 (known as von Neumann's silly mistake) which falsely conceded that hidden variables could not be possible. Upon discovering the mistake, Bell finally proved that hidden variables could describe quantum events if non-locality was included.16 Intrigued with impossibility proofs, Bell managed to devise one that rejects all models of reality based on locality. The proof (Bell's theorem) states that the assumption of locality must satisfy a mathematical inequality, known today as Bell's inequality. In general, "Bell's theorem says that reality must be non-local."17 For Henry Stapp quantum non-locality means that, "the fundamental process of Nature lies outside space-time but generates events that can be located in space-time."18
In 1981 the EPR thought experiment was finally conducted by Alain Aspect and his colleagues. "They demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that common sense (and Einstein) were wrong, and that non-locality really does rule in the quantum world."19 Put another way,
If you want to believe there is a real world out there, you cannot do without non-locality; if you want to believe that no form of communication takes place faster than the speed of light, you cannot have a real world, independent of the observer.20
The double-slit experiment, Bell's theorem, blackbody phenomenon (The UV Catastrophe), and the EPR experiment which was carried out in the early 1980's, comprise the mysteriousness of quantum reality which refuses to be ignored. To explain the results and findings of quantum investigation physicists have had to compose elaborate theories which often appear to be no more than fictitious stories. But, no matter how strange the stories appear, keep in mind that each one is the result of the scientific method being used to investigate the subatomic universe.
The Copenhagen Interpretation: Created by Neils Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, and Max Born in 1930, the Copenhagen Interpretation is the standard interpretation of the quantum world. The theory maintains that reality exists in the form of probability waves. Physical objects only "appear" due to the collapse of their probability waves by a conscious observer. In its simplest form it means that any quantum experiment must include everything about the experiment's setup, including the experimenter.21
The Uncertainty Principle: Developed by Werner Heisenberg the principle states that it is impossible to know both the position and momentum of a quantum object. When one measures the position of an electron it will destroy information about the electrons momentum; your observation disturbs it.22
Many Worlds Theory: As an alternative to the Copenhagen Interpretation the many-worlds theory, created by Hugh Everett, Wheeler, and Graham, posits that whenever the universe faces a quantum choice, the entire universe splits into as many copies of itself as necessary to carry out every possible alternative- we experience only one world, while, in fact, for every possible quantum choice another world exists so that all probabilities are manifest.23 We get to experience only one of the many existing worlds. An associated quote regarding the theory by Francois Mauriac reads, "What this professor says is far more incredible than what we poor Christians believe."24
Transactional Analysis/ Interpretation: Presented in 1986 by John Cramer, transactional analysis offers an explanation of 'advanced waves' (waves traveling backward in time) and 'retarded waves' (waves moving forward in time) converging to create an experience of reality that has already happened. All outcomes are predestined because the future, which has already happened, is communicating quantumly with the present through the advanced waves.25
Morphogenic Fields: Introduced by Cambridge biologist Rupert Shelldrake, a person's unique genetic structure acts as an 'antenna' through which we 'tune into' a universal broadcasts known as morphogenic fields (soul?).26
Strong Anthrophic Principle: Put forward by John Wheeler, this theory tells us that our consciousness loops back into the past and creates reality, including the Big Bang. By consciously asking where do we come from, we create it all. Consciousness looks back on itself and in so doing creates all the conditions needed for the evolution of the universe, and the conscious observer.27
The Matter-Mind Connection & Monistic Idealism: The matter-mind connection takes many different forms. The theory is the counterpart to superveinence which maintains that brain states give rise to mind states. The general view is presented by Wigner, Safatti, Walker, and Muses. Sarfatti explains, "In my opinion the quantum principle involves mind in an essential way…mind creates matter."28 The top-down approach of monistic idealism goes a bit further by making a distinction between mind and consciousness. "According to monistic idealism, the consciousness of the subject in a subject-object experience is the same consciousness that is the ground of all being. Therefore, consciousness is unitive. There is one subject-consciousness, and we are that consciousness."29
The Implicate Order: David Bohm's implicate order is the most accepted explanation for coming to terms with quantum strangeness. His theories of an implicate order and the existence of a "pilot wave" mean that there is no need for hidden variables to exist; particles do not travel faster than the speed of light. The universe is seen as a giant web. Upon the web are individual particles which receive and transmit information through a pilot wave. Because the information is present in the wave it is immediately available to every single particle throughout the universe. Therefore, the wave "tells" all the particles what every other particle is doing- all the information is stored creating an implicate order.30
If we recall the working definition of science which reads, such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomenon , and contrast it to the actual work being done in quantum physics, it becomes apparent that science is extending its reach into blatantly subjective areas. Quantum physics has created a probabilistic world and is using this world to explain what we perceive to be reality. However, quantum physics tells us nothing about the world in which we live. At the quantum level the cause of everything is no-cause; yet, our experience of the world is one predominately ruled by "cause and effect".31
Because of the inherent subjectivity of quantum physics speculation has emerged over whether science is reaching an end. Nobel prize winner Sheldon Glashow, head of Harvard Universities physics department lectured at a 1989 symposium entitled, The End of Science? His view is that science is "certainly slowing down" and that any new breakthroughs in physics apparently will be so far detached from any practical value that the field will become unimportant. An essay written by Glashow and a fellow colleague proclaims that, "for the first time since the Dark Ages, we can see how our noble search may end, with faith replacing science once again."32 In 1969 UC Berkeley biologist Gunther Stent wrote,
If there are any limits to science, any barriers to further progress, then science may well be moving at unprecedented speed just before it crashes into them. When science seems most muscular, triumphant, potent, that may be when it is nearest death.33
Fred Alan Wolf concludes that, "something is going to emerge from this," and sees the fabric science falling apart like tissue paper.34 (back to top)
"The Problem and Challenges Facing Quantum Physics"
Ultimately, the current crisis of quantum physics has to do with the discovery that at the subatomic level there are no boundaries. This was in strict opposition to the fourteen decades of success enjoyed by science which was based on a deterministic, boundary-centered approach.
Because the subatomic particles possessed no boundaries, there could be no meta-boundaries, no measurements; and hence also no precise meta-meta-boundaries, no "laws." To this day there is no law, no meta-meta-map, governing the movements of a single electron, because a single electron doesn't have a boundary in the first place. You can't have a meta-boundary or a meta-meta-boundary if there isn't even a boundary to begin with. Nuclear physicists must now work with probabilities and statistics.35
With the absence of boundaries, which were the crux of the scientific era, quantum physics is now experiencing an unmerciful identity crisis. Because no definite laws (meta-boundaries) applied to the quantum realm the "hard" science of subatomic physics crashed head on with subjectivity. Now we see physics futilely trying to explain consciousness, free-will, the existence of God, mind, and mystical Oneness. Not only did physics lose the deterministic tools composing the scientific method, its inherent boundary which decided what gets studied was also vanquished.
The new physics has simply discovered the one-dimensional interpenetration of its own level (nonsentient mass/ energy). While this is an important discovery, it cannot be equated with the extraordinary phenomenon of multidimensional interpenetration described by mystics. To put it crudely, the study of physics is on the first floor, describing the interactions of its elements; the mystics are on the sixth floor describing the interaction of all six floors. Physics and mysticism are not two different approaches to the same reality.36
To maintain that physics is capable of explaining consciousness and spirit is similar to trying understand all that takes place in the World Trade Center by analyzing the concrete foundation upon which the building stands. Is it reasonable to assume that by knowing the physical foundation one can then accurately describe all past and present events affected by the existence of the World Trade Center, as well as their causes and future implications? Probably not.
Although tempting, trying to rely upon quantum physics to validate the existence of God; explain consciousness and mystical experiences; and give meaning to our human experience, is an ill-advised approach.
To begin with, the maps and tools used within physics are not adequate, not engineered, for subjective consideration- the pillar of science were never designed to accommodate subjective exploration. Though many physicists inwardly know that subjectivity is a factor in quantum exploration the approach has not sufficiently evolved to integrate scientific objectivity and mental subjectivity. John Gribbin points out,
We construct a model, or an image; but then all too often, we forget what we have done, and we confuse the image with reality. So when one particular model turns out not to apply in all circumstances, even a respectable physicist like Nick Herbert can fall into the trap of calling it a 'lie'.37
The scientific method has proven extremely successful for describing the macroscopic world of matter; and the method does notneed to be abandoned. It must be recognized where and when to apply the method, and not rely upon its past achievements to explain subjective experience.
The very structure of science, as well, is presently not constructed to provide a capable vehicle which can be used for qualitative, subjective exploration. Based upon the creation of boundaries and systematic analysis the scientific method was never intended to provide synthesis and meaning to explain consciousness. By its nature, science is a competitive and individualistic endeavor creating a culture of vested interests, divisional conflicts, and inner political disputes. Should we assume that such a fractured institution can be employed to answer the unitive mysteries of our being?
Alwyn Scott tells us in his 1995 book, Stairway to the Mind,that:
Individual scientists are often not well informed about the large-scale, hierarchical nature of science because they are too close to it…In order to be successful it is necessary to specialize in a branch of science, so in a sense there is no such thing as a "scientist."38
Alan Wallace, a Buddhist physicist, informs us that because physics makes observations, one must know the observer.39 If physicists studying objective reality are unwilling to know themselves(the observer); (seriously consider their subjective nature) how can we willingly delegate exploration of the subjective universe to such explorers? In an era of diminishing returns and subjective riddles physics has lost its stable foundation and structural coherence. Clarity has evaporated resulting in confusion about what physics is, what it is capable of achieving, and which direction it should go. The atlas is gone, the boundary has shattered, the scientific faith is face to face with a ghastly quandary. (back to top)
Two primary schools of thought have emerged which claim to offer a solution to (a way out of) the present crisis. The fundamentalist camp maintains the position that there is nothing especially significant about the phenomenon of consciousness. The inner experience of "I" that the mind encounters is the result of definite processes occurring within the brain. Consciousness is considered to be nothing more than "a passenger along for the ride."
Opposing the strict fundamentalists is the school of thought referred to as monistic idealism. As discussed earlier monistic idealists believe that consciousness gives rise to the mind, as well as every existent and non-existent element throughout the universe. Not only is consciousness responsible for the physical universe and its elements it isthe universe. This school of thought refuses to accept boundaries, maintaining that all boundaries are illusionary.; whereas the fundamentalists assert that boundaries do exist and must be accepted. Each school suffers from the inability to integrate its opponents arguments into an mutually agreeable theory. Being mutually exclusive each falls into the same trap- the compulsion to collapse the universe into a flatland model incapable of holding the paradoxical and hierarchical nature of the phenomenal universe.
Between the two extremes of idealism and fundamentalism is found a school of thought which concludes consciousness to be an emergent phenomenon resulting from quantum mechanical, neurological occurrences taking place within the brain. Rather than deny consciousness or state that the universe is consciousness, the emergent theory seeks to bring the two together. Alwyn Scott concedes that,
Nonetheless I can state without qualification that I do not believe consciousness can be analyzed in the same way that a hydrogen atom can be understood. Indeed, as I hope the earlier chapters of this book have demonstrated, consciousness is an awesomely complex phenomenon. It is so complex that it cannot be reduced to some fundamental theory or to one simple biological or chemical transaction. Instead it must be approached from every level of the hierarchy.40
Although the emergent theory holds promise, at the present time it is too narrow to reconcile the phenomenal world with subatomic reality. In the preface Scott mentions that the goal of an emergent theory is to explain the nature of the mind; not the nature of life or human existence. However, can we honestly separate the three? The limited focus appears to have confined the author to consider physics, biochemistry, electrophysiology, neurology, cultural sociology, and psychology as the key ingredients responsible for our human experience. We must not forget to question who gets to decide what is to be studied in defining ourexistence.
The clarifying question in regards to all of the above is not, How can physics solve the challenges it now faces? But; rather, Is physics a capable means for interpreting consciousness? Is physics our best choice for understanding our subjective mind, religion, behavior, culture- our human experience? A more suitable alternative would be to establish an area of study which is emergent from various human interests, including, but not limited to: history, religion, physics, sociology, psychology, business, life sciences, cultural studies, spirituality, philosophy, education, cosmology, art, ecology, creativity, mythology, mysticism, and music- culminating into the field of study which is presently termed Consciousness Studies.
Such an "institution" would ideally be an integrative approach which draws from the areas of human interest both past and present. Certain areas would not be excluded, nor favored, due to financial motivations or special interests. Because such a field of inquiry would be based upon synthesis, it would potentially not threaten the existence of established institutions, such as physics. Physics gives rise to the need for such an institution but does not rely upon it for its existence. The study of consciousness, being a transcendent creation from established fields, would objectively learn what tools each constituent field has to offer, and how to use and apply the tools in useful and purposeful ways. The challenge facing physics is whether or not science will let go of the inflated superiority it has enjoyed during the past four hundred years- and the challenge is well underway. In a world which has suppressed subjectivity and meaning for four centuries, repressed material will eventually surface- it is surfacing.
Believing that physics is capable of explaining consciousness and all the subjective feelings relating to the human experience is like business accounting, upon discovering the corporate balance sheet, thinking it can not just work with and understand numbers; but, also: understand organizational culture; accurately predict customers' future behaviors; grasp global economics; understand foreign governments, relations, and national politics; know the upcoming weather patterns which will affect the world crops; and, ultimately create the perfect economy, with the perfect citizens, within the perfect environment…all with the use of the perfect balance sheet!
The study of consciousness would be similar to the late arrival of business management. Finance, accounting, and marketing became overly complex and required a new department which would integrate the parts together. Management was an emergent phenomenon brought about by its established counterparts. Today, management is mandatory for the operation of medium and large sized corporations; without management the corporate would be much less efficient, innovative, and creative.
The establishment of Consciousness Studies as a field of study is a viable alternative to the current scientific paradigm. Upon reviewing the present day theories (stories) from physics; establishing an integrative study of consciousness may not be as preposterous as it first sounds- it may very well prove to be the only solution that can embrace the increasing complexity of our existence. (back to top) (back to articles)
1 The American Heritage Dictionary of English Language, Third Editioncopyright 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from InfoSoft International, Inc.
2 The Columbia Dictionary of Quotations is licensed from Columbia University Press. Copyright 1993 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
3 Op.Cit., The American Heritage Dictionary
5 Class handout, The Quantum Universe. P.197.
6 Barry E. Martin, Ph.D. The Matter Myth: Quandaries of Modern Physics, lecture notes. JFK University, (July, 9, 1996).
7 Wilber, Ken. No Boundary: Eastern and Western Approaches to Personal Growth. Shambhala Publications, Inc. Boston, MA. (1979) p.36.
8 Lederman, Leon. The God Particle. Class handout, p.185.
9 Tipler, Frank J. The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead. Doubleday, New York. (1994) p.3.
10Op.Cit., Barry E. Martin, Ph.D.
11 Op.Cit., Ken Wilber, No Boundary, p.55.
12 Bernstein, J. The Emergent Paradigm in Science. In ReVision, (1978) pp.1-2.
13Op.Cit., Barry E. Martin, Ph.D.
14 Zohar, Danah and Marshall, Ian. The Quantum Society: Mind, Physics, and a New Social Vision. William Morrow and Company, Inc. New York. (1994) p.45.
15 Gribbin, John. Schrodinger's Kittens and the Search for Reality. Little, Brown and Company, New York. (1995) p.1.
16 Ibid., p.158.
17 Herbert, Nick. Quantum Reality, Bell's Interconnectedness Theorem. Class handout, p. 212.
18 Stapp, H.P. "Are superluminal connections necessary?" Nuovo Cimento (1977) p.191.
19Op.Cit., John Gribbin, p. 23.
24 The Holographic Paradigm and Other Paradoxes: Exploring the Leading Edge of Science, Ken Wilber, editor. Shambhala Publications, Inc. Boston, MA. (1995) p.175.
25Op.Cit., Barry E. Martin, Ph.D. August 7, 1996.
26Ibid., August 28, 1996.
27Ibid., August 8, 1996.
28 Safatti, J. "Implications of Meta-physics for Psychoenergetic Systems." Psychoenergetic Systems, 1, 1974.
29 Amit Goswami, Ph.D. The Self Aware Universe: How Consciousness Creates the Material World. G.P. Putnam's Sons, New York. (1995) p.51.
30Op.Cit., Barry E. Martin, Ph.D. September 4, 1996.
32 "Desperately Seeking Superstrings," Sheldon Glashow and Paul Ginsparg, Physics Today, 1986, p.7.
33 Stent, Gunther. The Coming of the Golden Age: A View of the End of Progress. Natural History Press, New York. (1969) p.94.
34Film, interview with Fred Alan Wolf.
35 Op.Cit., Wilber, No Boundary, p.37.
36 Op.Cit., Wilber, The Holographic Paradigm, pp.165-166.
37 Op.Cit., Gribbin, Schrodinger's Kittens and the Search for Reality, p.186.
38 Scott, Alwyn. Stairway to the Mind: The Controversial New Science of Consciousness. Copernicus, New York. (1996) p.vii.
39Op.Cit., Barry E. Martin, Ph.D., July 3, 1996.
40 Op.Cit., Alwyn Scott, Stairway to the Mind, p.159.
Mark Bancroft, MA, CHT
Nevada City, CA
Article: Copyright (C) 1998. Mark Bancroft, MA, Nevada City, CA, 95959. All rights reserved.