Quantum Spirituality

Holographic Universe

2007-02-05T02:58:00.000-05:00

Last week, I discussed a film that I like very much but that doesn't necessarily coincide entirely with my own view of things, so this week I'll be discussing a topic that I find rather agreeable as a potential model for reality: holographic universe.

The link in the title will take you to Amazon's purchase page for Michael Talbot's book, The Holographic Universe. No, I'm not shilling for a dead guy's book but this is a very well written and compelling read. You can find a good synopsis (at no charge) here. Based largely on the collected works of David Bohm and Karl Pribram, Talbot's holographic model suggests that "solid" reality seems to operate very much like a hologram.

As I already stated, I find this particular model to be rather agreeable for a number of reasons. For one, a holographic model would do much towards explaining how the brain functions; possibly even more than existing theories. The book provides nearly an entire chapter to discussing this alone and makes a very interesting comparison between brain function and the way holographic film operates. To quote from the synopsis linked above:

To make a hologram, the object to be photographed is first bathed in the light of a laser beam. Then a second laser beam is bounced off the reflected light of the first and the resulting interference pattern (the area where the two laser beams commingle) is captured on film.
When the film is developed, it looks like a meaningless swirl of light and dark lines. But as soon as the developed film is illuminated by another laser beam, a three-dimensional image of the original object appears.
The three-dimensionality of such images is not the only remarkable characteristic of holograms. If a hologram of a rose is cut in half and then illuminated by a laser, each half will still be found to contain the entire image of the rose.

Indeed, even if the halves are divided again, each snippet of film will always be found to contain a smaller but intact version of the original image. Unlike normal photographs, every part of a hologram contains all the information possessed by the whole.

Much in the same way that the entirety of a holographic image is contained in the various parts of the film, the brain does seem to operate in similar fashion. For instance, a patient suffering some sort of trauma causing damage to a portion of the brain or even having to have a small section removed does not lose access to a corresponding chunk of memories being stored in the damaged area. Recall may become slower, but it still occurs and memories do not seem to be completely lost indicating that such information isn't stored in a specific location in the brain:

Then in the 1960s Pribram encountered the concept of holography and realized he had found the explanation brain scientists had been looking for. Pribram believes memories are encoded not in neurons, or small groupings of neurons, but in patterns of nerve impulses that crisscross the entire brain in the same way that patterns of laser light interference crisscross the entire area of a piece of film containing a holographic image. In other words, Pribram believes the brain is itself a hologram.

Pribram's theory also explains how the human brain can store so many memories in so little space. It has been estimated that the human brain has the capacity to memorize something on the order of 10 billion bits of information during the average human lifetime (or roughly the same amount of information contained in five sets of the Encyclopaedia Britannica).

Another reason I am inclined toward a holographic model of reality has to do with anomalous and unexplained phenomena. Science typically seems to turn a blind eye to such phenomena even when hoaxes and charlatanism are ruled out as most models and theories simply have no way to even begin incorporating the phenomena. A holographic model, on the other hand, provides adequate explanation for, and does not have a conflict with, such phenomena.

Ultimately, I suppose I find myself gravitating closest to this holographic notion due to its all inclusive nature as well as the intuitive ring of truth I feel whenever I contemplate its potential. Certainly, as Shakespeare said, there's a hell of a lot more crap going on than any of us can even begin to imagine. :)

What the #&*! DO We Know?

2007-01-29T01:29:00.000-05:00

I have a great many personal influences in regards to my "out there" way of thinking. While the film, What the #$*! Do We Know?, is by no means the greatest influence to my way of thinking, it IS a fairly popular and well-known film and therefore makes a good waypoint for the discussion I am hoping to engage in throughout the entirety of this blog.

Basically, this film suggests that we each of us create our own reality every second of every day based upon our thoughts, emotions, actions and even beliefs. It follows up with the notion, then, that what we call "reality" is, in fact, the multiplicity of points where these individual realities intersect with no real instance of a "singular, collective reality" at all. Obviously, such a position is very difficult, perhaps even impossible, to provide evidence for, however I find the idea intriguing. It is certainly quite empowering to think that we are directly responsible for everything in our lives as well as helping to quell those dangerous tendencies to just scapegoat anything and everything around us for all our ills and failures. By owning responsibility for all aspects of our lives, good AND bad, we are more easily enabled to determine what we do that makes things go well or ill for ourselves and are thusly able to "accentuate the positive" and "eliminate the negative", as it were. An opposing viewpoint is that we are all connected and part of a singular great consciousness experiencing the mass delusion of individuality and separateness. However, regardless to whichever of these viewpoints you care to subscribe the end result is still the same, YOU are responsible for YOUR reality. And really, until we can all get a handle on this idea of supreme personal responsibility, isn't that enough?

Now, before you get the impression that I fully advocate this film exactly as it is, let me just say that it does have its flaws. For a fairly concise rundown of all the arguments against this film, you can always check out its Wikipedia entry. Unfortunately, the Wikipedia article is every bit as biased and prejudicial as it claims the film to be so you won't get a fair counterpoint to those grievances whatsoever. Of course, it IS Wikipedia and as much as some of us would like for it to maintain scholarly standards and achieve as close to an unbiased stance as possible in all of its articles, it does not. (Any Wikipedia authors and editors who venture here, be assured that I do not completely hate you nor do I mean to be overly derogatory here. However, y'all do have some bias issues which, I am sure, are a likely contributing factor to the universal roasting you often receive from "real" scholars. Something to think about, perhaps.) Allow me to make some attempt to broach a couple of the loudest arguments against the film as well as try to offer some sort of balanced counterpoint.

Probably the biggest grievance of most of the film's detractors is the prevalence of so-called pseudoscience. That is to say, the film appears to take certain theories and ideas completely out of context and apply them in wholly incorrect ways. For instance, and perhaps most notably, is impact of the observer. Quantum physicists have repeatedly found that observation of phenomena on the quantum level actually affects those phenomena. This is probably one of the more frustrating aspects of being a quantum researcher (however, not being one, I can only offer a guess on that) as this must make experimental repetition and replication of findings insanely difficult. Going from there, the film suggests that such observational affectation must then occur on the macroscopic level giving us all the power to alter our reality merely by looking at it! Of course, such notions tend to piss off scientists to no end as they claim to find no evidence of any such whatsoever. For that promised counterbalance, however, let me just suggest that anyone who has spent any amount of time really studying, and experimenting with, the "occult" and "arcane" and really trying to apply the ideas found therein has all the evidence they need that macroscopic reality is every bit as plastic and malleable as quantum reality suggests. Before any readers decide to attempt to flame me off the internet with instant denunciations of anything "mystical", let me first ask why you are here other than trolling out of boredom? Secondly, I DO have an entire discussion of Religion of Science and its rations vs. mystical attitude, but that's a whole 'nother article for another week. For now, suffice it to say that the label of "crap pseudoscientist" seems to be thrown about by mainstream academia with every bit as much vim and vigor as was once shown by the Catholic Churh in labeling "heretic" such wacky and out there ideas as put forth by Galileo and Copernicus in their time. Hmmmm...

The other really major objection to the film is the fact that all three of the main filmmakers are dedicated followers to the Ramtha teachings of one J. Z. Knight. Rather scathing criticism has been offered suggesting that the film is nothing more than a recruitment tool for Knight's Ramtha School of Enlightenment. Now, I personally have to seriously doubt that the film is truly intended as such as I had to go digging to find out about this J. Z. Knight / Ramtha character myself and only after noticing this venomous accusation. In retrospect, and extra viewings of the film, she does appear in the movie as one of the interviewed experts. However, her presence is no more or less than any of the other interviewees and in now way did I feel during any of my viewings that I was being pushed to look into her further. Frankly, when she is listed at the end of the film as a "channeler" is where I personally felt no further need to delve into what she has to say. See, all of us have our biases no matter how hard we try to be open. My particular bias falls against the field of channeling. The subject of channeling, again, is its own subject that may be explored another week, however I will say that the subjectivity of the phenomena combined with my own lack of direct experience has much to do with my difficulty in looking at it with too much seriousness. Having said that, if one can successfully separate the subject rom the source then I think one would find some very interesting and potentially worthy ideas emanating from Ms. Knight, or Ramtha, whichever the case truly be. So there, I really do try to be as open minded as I can and not throw the baby out with the bathwater even where it concerns subjects that stretches thin my rather wide bounds of plausibility. ;-)

There are plenty more objections and criticisms of the film, but most seem to relate back to these two issues I have already put forth so I'll go ahead and step off the critic bus here. In all, I would say that while the film does seem to stretch plausibility on many points, it still has many ideas worth considering and well worth at least a watch. But don't take my word for it. See the film for yourself and make up your own damn mind. :-)

My Top 10

2007-01-22T02:14:00.000-05:00

I had another article lined up to post today, but I found other inspiration for this week's post instead. One of the commenters had a recent blog post concerning their top ten life changing books of all time and inviting comments and other blog posts on the same subject. So I decided to go for this topic myself and present my own list of Top 10 Life Changing Reads (in no particular order):

A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle: Before Harry Potter, there were the Wallace children. This book, acquired at a rather early age, was probably one of my first experiences in really thinking beyond the limits of "normal reality".

Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau: This gem of an essay should be on everyone's must read list. It lays out some of the perennial pitfalls of governments and society and I have a very hard time seeing this piece as ever being not relevant.

The Garden of Forking Paths by Jorge Luis Borges: A lesson in reality hacking complete with words to the wise regarding the potential consequences therein.

Dune by Frank Herbert: What can I possibly say about this one that hasn't already been said plenty? If you actually haven't read it, then you ARE missing out.

The Teachings of Don Juan: A Yaqui Way of Knowledge by Carlos Castaneda: Another excellent take on perception and the nature of reality.

Tao Te Ching by Lao-Tzu: Wisdom from out of time for all the ages.

The Illuminatus! Trilogy by Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson: One of the many entrance points to Chapel Perilous. A highly entertaining read and a life altering experience all rolled up into one.

The Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot: An extremely interesting model for reality that doesn't get near enough consideration.

Ubik by Philip K. Dick: Messages from beyond the grave...or TO there?

Poker Without Cards by Ben Mack: Mass advertising as mass mind control.

So there's my top ten listing of life changing reads. I would be very interested to know what inspires all of you this week.

About Beliefs

2007-01-15T00:34:00.000-05:00

Before I get too far along with this blog, let me just go ahead and jump this hurdle now so we can all be on the same page about where I'm coming from and move on. Whenever I have cause to discuss these issues of mysticism and high strangeness with others, the inevitable question always comes along: "Just what exactly DO you believe?" So, allow me to explain myself as succinctly and clearly as possible:

I do not BELIEVE anything.

Basically, I have two rather broad categories: that of which I know, have direct experiance of and can intelligently discuss; and that which I do not and cannot. Belief, to me, tends to serve as little more than an intellectual crutch. Belief also tends to be the sole source of much of the mayhem, murder and strife that occurs in this old world. If not for mass numbers of people who absolutely insist in a concept of a one, true religion as demonstrated by this God or that dogma, there would be significantly less cause for hatred and dissonance. I cannot help but see this type of mindset as the utmost foolishness and therefore will not allow myself to invest blind faith in anything I cannot otherwise get my head around.

Now, understand that I consider myself to be a fairly deeply spiritual person. I have a pretty neat relationship with my understanding of Deity and I truly do not wish to undermine anyone's faith, but rather I would like for all to consider what you 'faith' truly teaches and whether it really coincides with your understanding of Spirit. I would suggest that religion has very little to do with Spirit and quite a lot to do with control. Control over populations via mind control of rather insidious nature. The main thrust of religion, specifically differences of religion, is to divide humanity thereby making the species as a whole much easier for the various ruling classes to control. Cultural differences, while presenting something of an obstacle to common understanding, can certainly be gotten around whereas blind, zealous belief in any "one, true way" presents an obviously much more difficult hurdle. I certainly don't see radical Islamists and Christian fundamentalists discussing their problems over a potluck dinner anytime soon, get it? For my fellow Americans I simply must ask: How many times have YOU seen and/or heard our 'erstwhile' presidente trotting Jesus out like a show pony in a last, desperate attempt to gerner support for his privateering campaign in Iraq and why-oh-why does it not make you all as ill as it does myself?

Karl Marx suggested that "religion is the opiate of the masses", and opiates don't just pacify, they are HIGHLY addictive. Some people seem to need their religion like a junkie needs that next fix. And it's not like there aren't plenty of examples trying desperately to rip those blinders off, either. Sex and mondey scandals among fundie televangelists, Cat'lic priests diddling kids like there's no tomorrow, and let's face it, graphic beheadings on TV certainly don't make ME want to leap out and start studying the handiest Quran I might find.

Before the flamewars begin, let me just reiterate that I have NO doubts that there are hearts and souls of purest intent to be found in every religion. My argument is not against individuals, but the very Institutions of Organized religion themselves that I hold to be intrinsically flawed and stained at the very core. Seek out God, please. But do so based on your own understanding and leave the doctrines and dogma to rot with their pushers.

I do realize that the previous paragraphs seem to convey a very cavalier and possibly even elitist attituede. I'm pretty sure those who know me personally would suggest that while I can BE very cavalier and SEEM elitist, nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is that I try very hard to be as respectful of and open to everyone else around me as much as I possibly can. I sometimes fail quite spectacularly at this, but I really do try. Much of the confusion surriounding my attitude, particularly among those who have never actually met me, stems from the fact that I seem to hold the entire world to impossibly high standards. The fact is, however, that I hold no one to any standard higher than that wo which I expect myself to follow. So while I can sometimes seem hard towards others, I am always exponentially harder on myself.

I am curious, however, as to the general demographics to which I may or may not appeal. I invite all readers this week to briefly introduce themselves via the comments as to their own paths of belief and/or spiritual pursuit. I promise, I will not lambast anyone regardless of faith and will only discuss the point insofar as you are comfortable doing so. It is not my intention to deter anyone from their chosen path, but I am always curious as to who may, or may not, find my discussion topics appealing. My highest appreciation will, in fact, be given towards anyone who cares to participate.

Thank you.

Dedication

2007-01-08T03:42:00.000-05:00

I grasp the blade of your abandon
And cut away my bonds of reason.
Free am I now
To roam the cosmos in search of wisdom
Or remain sitting here sniffing my own farts,
For truly all things are sacred
For in truth nothing is sacred.
Free am I now
To live in this dream
And dance this illusion.
I am yours,
For as long as it suits me.
FREE AM I NOW!

Hail Eris!

All Hail Discordia!!

Evocation

2007-01-01T02:27:00.000-05:00

Welcome to my new blog! Some of you might just recall an earlier blogging foray of mine called Rhymes With Orange (not to be confused with the comic strip of the same title). What began as a completely freshman attempt at the art of the weblog with little to no direction as to content eventually spiraled into vitriolic diatribes that not only cast myself in an incorrect light as some venemous madman (which I assure you I am not, no venom to my madness at all, honest) but also served to keep me in a state of low level anger at damn near the entire world around me all the time. This constant state of aggravation did very little for me emotionally and physically, to say the very least. And so, that blog was disbanded and even deleted so as to purge myself of that anger.

And so, after much thought and consideration, I have decided to start this new year with this new blog, Quantum Spirituality. Rather than a complete lack of focus and completely open-ended content schema, I would like to focus this blog entirely on matters of spirituality and science and how the two, once thought to be completely incompatible, actually converge, particularly with some of the more recent discoveries and advances within the fields of quantum mechanics and chaos theory. Instead of spending all my time railing on impotently about what I perceive to be intrinsically flawed with humanity and the world, I felt my time would be better spent sharing thoughts and ideas I hope can help make it better.

I intend to post only once a week, so those bloggers out there already spending a lot of time on this decidedly time consuming hobby will hopefully not feel overwhelmed adding another piece to what I am sure is an already bloated reading list. Posts will generally occur on Sunday nights / Monday mornings and I will be more than open to further discussion within the comments during the rest of the week.

And so, I welcome you all to my little corner of the blogosphere. Perhaps together we can discover ways of making this a better, kinder world for all. Lacking that, at least we can have some fun! Until next week, HAPPY NEW YEAR!!