Category Archives: Science

Quantum Conciousness

Roger Penrose, one of the most accomplished physicists of our century and his partner Stuart Hameroff are proving a theory of quantum consciousness. This is part of a growing field of quantum biology which is changing our understanding of how certain aspects of our known universe functions. In this post I am going to talk about how this discovery threatens the beliefs of everyone.

First, consciousness. We have gained a lot of knowledge on the brain in terms of mechanics but something that has always eluded scientists was how consciousness functions. How scientists discovered what parts of the brain did what was while doctors were doing surgery. A patient with their brain exposed would have certain parts of their brain stimulated with electricity and as expected their body would do certain things like raise their arm or in some cases the person would hear music etc.. The doctor would then ask a question like, “why did you do that?” and universally the patient would reply, “I didn’t do that, you did.” It didn’t matter where doctors did this in the brain, this would happen. This was perplexing because how could we possibly know after all the brain has no physical sensors to speak of.

The OR Theory asserts that consciousness is a quantum process and predictions are being proven and it is also being supported circumstantially by other advances in quantum biology, we now know the process of photosynthesis uses quantum coherence.

What can this challenge?

Untouchable Spirituality
Discovery is always the first step to interaction. The thought that spirituality could never be touched or accessed by humans via technology could be a thought of the past. What spiritualists held as a guarded elite experience could potentially be open to everyone.

“Impossible” Experiences
It is a common story that a loved one can know when another loved one either dies, lives, or is suffering. With classical science, this kind of experience would be impossible. Quantum Biology not only makes this plausible but makes all other non-local phenomenon of similar type also plausible such as remote viewing, and near death experiences. Caution: This theory doesn’t make these things real, just plausible. It also will not stop people from scamming you out of money using this new theory as a basis to their extra-sensory scams.

Classical Evolutionary Process
Quantum biology can fundamentally challenge the classical process of evolution that asserts that evolution occurred through “random” mutations. In Quantum biology, it is possible that no mutation was random and instead changes could of been executed purposefully and non-locally.

Artificial Intelligence
No matter how intelligent a system appears, without a quantum component it will not have awareness. This can alleviate some pressure on us as we build more sophisticated simulations of the human mind; we are not locking a consciousness in a box because consciousness is non-local.

Religion
Some might say that this actually helps religion and it might appear that way at first, but it really doesn’t. It creates as many issues for a religion’s spirituality concepts as the theory of evolution did for literal creation. While scientists will be forced to be faced with the reality that goes with quantum consciousness, the religious will have to face with a different sort of issue. Their “soul” is more sophisticated than simply another force locked in a biological box. Instead their “soul” is part of an ultimate dimension that is persistent.

Conclusion
There are many things that science is working on that could fundamentally change the human condition and this in my opinion could be one of the largest. This is the first scientific discovery that could dig into the issue of human existentialism in serious a way, so we should all definitely pay attention.

Easier Down Than Up

When it comes to spirituality and science there are those on either side of the spectrum who will view the other side in a patronizing condescension. The spiritualist will begrudgingly think of the scientists that “they know not what I have experienced and therefore cannot know truth.” The scientist will look on the other and say, “they do not have my mechanical knowledge of the universe, therefore, their truth is irrelevant.”

Part of the problem is that it is easier for a spiritualist to become a scientist than a scientist to become a spiritualist. If one is indoctrinated before hand to give no credence to subjective experience, then there is no chance at all of a scientist ever having an experience of a greater dimension beyond their senses without the assistance of an aid such as drugs.

Let’s for a moment imagine that a friend approaches you and tells you that you can have an experience beyond your wildest dreams and you are in doubt, but upon following his advice you in fact do have the experience he defined. However, what if the experience requires you to suspend a core trait that you have adopted to interpret the world? The experience may now be impossible to obtain.

I once met a woman who told me that her grand mother was beaten every time she talked in her native tongue this result in her complete inability to now talk in her native tongue even though she could understand. What you are capable of is very influenced by the environment you are exposed to. If your wrist is slapped at the very utterance that there might be a sense beyond our current physical senses, that there is a world that is not easily described in the physical realm, it will be swept away as silliness because how can it be proven? If it can not contribute to our expansion of physical knowledge, the scientist will assert, it serves no purpose.

Spirituality in all its various forms serves to try to answer the question of purpose not necessarily behavior. Science can tell you why the sky is blue but it can’t tell you why it isn’t purple. The answer to any question in science beyond a certain point is always, “That’s how it is.” Put another way, science is trying to find the path through the maze where as spirituality is trying to ask why there is a maze at all.

There is an assertion, though, that is not really explored and that is if spirituality is some form of ultimate dimension, science will ultimately bump up against it. I believe this is already starting to occur.

A 20 year old theory regarding consciousness being a quantum process which now has over 20 testable predictions found here.

A theory starting to circulate is that the origin of life follow from the fundamental rules of the universe, read more about it here.

If life and consciousness were no accident and instead they are a core part of our universe, what is the implications of that? Only time and tell.

War on the Universe

X+Y=2

When the big bang theory first emerged there was a lot of push back; the idea that the entire universe came from a single point seemed to elude to the concept of creation. Absolutely everything coming from a single point, that is absurd! As time passed the idea that this could be proof of a creator slowly vanished. Instead, the mere fact that we were smart enough to figure out a mechanic became a substitute for purpose.

Scientists quickly ran into problems with the theory and needed to come up with an explanation for things like the horizon problem which is why they invented inflation; a mathematical equation to justify the entire out come of the universe.

There is a fundamental problem with this and that is even if you can formulate an equation that has a proper result, it doesn’t actually mean the equation or numbers are correct. With algebra one of the first things you learn is that you can’t solve an equation with two unknowns such as X+Y=2. The result doesn’t change but X and Y can literally be anything.

As science figures out more and more they are constantly running into X+Y=2. This is why theories like the universe is a hologram are starting to emerge. This is a declaration that we are starting to hit a wall. Some will broadly prescribe a the gap God theory without starting to acknowledge some fundamental issues that are starting to emerge that are not only theoretical but also most probably improvable and without proof science is as accurate as religion.

Who will pick up the pieces as more people start to discover the difference between mechanics and purpose? The worst case scenario is religion because this would just make everything worse for everyone. We must instead focus on each other because it will only be with true collective intelligence that we can move past our limits.

A Different View of Pollution

Air-PollutionWhen humans talk about pollution in the world it is always with a God complex. We are destroying the world and we will soon make it uninhabitable for us. There is a key point people don’t talk about when it comes to pollution and that is with almost all types of pollution the sacrifice of one life form can lead to the great benefit of another. The concept of pollution is a human creation regarding things we do that harms ourselves directly, but pollution as a concept to nature does not exist.

In 2010 NASA-supported researchers discovered a microorganism on earth able to thrive and reproduce using the toxic chemical arsenic. This discovery forced the scientists to change how they view life. Pollution to one life form can be the requirement of another. Take oxygen for example, plants do not utilize oxygen instead it is simply a by product of consuming C02. In much the same way human fecal matter is our by product. Humans live off the excrement of plants.

So the question becomes what is pollution and what is natural? Everything humans do is natural because after all we are derived from nature. Nothing we do can ever possibly defy nature. However, we are perfectly capable of destabilizing our own ecosystem and killing ourselves. The reason we need to reduce pollution is not to save nature but to save ourselves. This is an important distinction because we should not be afraid of replacing nature with our own technology if it means it can better support our survival.

As we move forward as a race we may figure out superior ways through technology to support human life that out perform our current ecosystem. We should not fear improving on nature for ourselves if it means the human race can survive and thrive.

Understanding Random

People like to use the term random without actually really understanding what random means. The term random simply means an event has so many variables or inaccessible variables that it can’t be fully understood. Random is ignorance of the variables involved. When the variables of a situation can’t be accessed for one reason or another, science resorts to using statistical models. If a statistical model has any degree of success it is because it is picking up on constants indirectly.

In an attempt to explain the order in chaos I have built a new project which ca be accessed by clicking below.

Click Image Below To Launch Project

understandrandom

Essentially what this project does is take a series of very standard waves and combines them to build a more complex wave form. You can play around with the different settings to get all kinds of interesting wave forms.  The more waves you add and change, the more complex the final form will become. If you were not aware of all the different waves that went into creating the final form, you would have a very difficult time trying to figure out how it was created.

Another example would be to drop a dice down a very small tube and then slowly increase the size of the tube on additional rolls. As the tube got larger it would become increasingly difficult to predict how the dice would land. In the same way, in the above wave example it might be easy to guess or predict a wave form if it is only made up of two waves, but it would become increasingly difficult to predict as you added more.

The problem is that because random activity is built on orderly components, it can sometimes mislead us to believe we can predict it. In real life we have another name for it, we call it luck. What we consider luck is more a product of timing than any innate characteristic that gives us an upper hand. There will always be the temptation of trying to figure out how things work by looking at a final form, but we must aggressively resist this seduction. We can only gain true understanding by analyzing the underlying orderly components, not the final production.

Blurring The Lines

bionic hands

Jason Koger is one of the first people to have two complete bionic hands. After losing both his hands, using technology he now has the capability to grasp things as small as jelly beans. Advances like this one support the idea that technology is rapidly integrating directly with us as opposed to being simply an auxiliary source of information or capability.

As technology becomes more advanced something very apparent rises to the surface. What we consider to be advanced technology is simply us catching up with nature. The primary difference between technology and traditional nature is that we have far more control over technology. As advanced as we often think we are, all our technology really does is replicate things in nature. Let’s use a car for example. While a car may not have any organic material present besides oil, a car functions very similar to the human body. It takes in food (gasoline) and then converts this food into energy which is utilized to execute its primary function of movement. While engaging in this process it does other similar things to us as well, for instance a car has filters and this is the same function our liver serves.

Soon we are going to start running into issues between what our technology can accomplish and our ideals. For instance, we all want to protect trees (for the most part) but trees are highly inefficient at clearing the atmosphere of pollutants; we require a significant amount of trees. What if with technology we can create a better tree? What if this new tree was almost indistinguishable from current trees?

The answer to this question is that humanity should come first, but we should make sure we are not jeopardizing ourselves by implementing brand new technology too quickly. With anything brand new there is always the potential for problems. We can mitigate this risk by not implementing new technology too fast. That said, we should never dismiss technology for the sole reason that it is in conflict with our existing ideals because our ideals can always change.

The Modern Problem

modern-society-affects-our-sharing-habits-2In the Bible there is not a single reference to the rejection of slavery. At that time in history slavery was just a normal part of life. As our civilization matured we realized that slavery lead to all kinds of abuses of humanity and that we could rise above it. The modern problem is the fact that religions are increasingly having less answers on not just the universe but also on moral issues. Usually what happens is that the truth becomes so blindingly obvious that the various religions will either adapt or die off.

A good example is cloning, the various issues regarding it are not discussed anywhere in religious texts. Our relationship with how industry should relate to nature is also not discussed in religion. When talking about the modern problem an example I like to use is leprosy. During the time of Jesus leprosy was a pretty big issue, and Jesus could apparently heal it. Today, we can cure leprosy without any type of divine intervention. What we once would of considered a miracle is just business as usual today. Another major issue religion might face in the next 200 years is the end of aging; something else that will have deep philosophical and moral implications.

Standard religious views have changed with time such as the idea that the earth is the center of the universe. The fact that we were not the center of the universe had deep philosophical implications because it would seem to imply that when we were “created” God didn’t give us any preferential treatment, a staple belief of the selfish human. Today of course, the issue is rarely discussed.

One of the last standing vestiges of religious “theory”  is of course creation. Despite the tremendous amount of circumstantial evidence for evolution, the fact that macro evolution cannot be produced in the lab yet is the last string of hope for people who require a creation myth story. If we can produce macro evolution in the lab and or show the creation of some more complex proteins in the primordial soup, smarter and younger generations will not buy into any creation myths. Of course religions will adapt, the creation myth will become a metaphorical story instead of a literal one and people requiring religion will use a combination of tactics including pseudo logic to justify their beliefs.

“You would not get angry at a record player for not being able to play a CD.”

Unlike many critics however, I see religion as a catalyst for scientific progression. This might sound completely absurd, but let me explain. Religion in many ways has forced science to go above and beyond to prove points. Without religion there would be very little value in aggressively trying to show macro evolution in the lab. Further, I believe religion had a very small part in pushing scientists to find other means of acquiring stem cells for research.

For many religious adherents, there is a point of no return. It is a point when there beliefs are so integrated into their personalities that no amount of data will change their minds short of methods we have yet to realize as a society. A good metaphor would be a record player trying to play a CD, at a certain point new data becomes incompatible with previous modes of thought. This isn’t a characteristic restricted only to religion, it happens in science as well. Keep in mind, that we don’t necessarily want a record player to play a CD because the record player acts as a historical reference.

As Architects of order we do not limit ourselves because of change, however, this cannot be reasonably extended to the rest of the human population. Only so much effort should be exerted in an attempt to gain compatibility of thought because ultimately characters with archaic forms of perception will die. There  is a separate issue of perception transference from parents to children, but the modern problem will resolve the majority of that issue. It might be easy to get angry at these people who do not seem to grasp certain modern concepts but anger and hate is not only frivolous, it is irrational. You would not get angry at a record player for not being able to play a CD. In the same way an architect should not get angry at a religious adherent for being incapable of accepting certain lines of modern thought.