ABSTRACT

An attempt has been made at clarifying certain ideas suggested earlier, with particular emphasis on the putative source of mind and matter, and on the epistemological side of the QM-mind relation.

<1>
[12] 'He suggests that the underlying origin of concept formation, as well as of matter, has to be the unstructured matrix. This is in agreement with my position, if it is concurred that mind and matter are secondary (Cartesian) differentiations.'

<2>
Yes, I believe that mind and matter are secondary (Cartesian) differentiations, and would like to make my point of view (certainly not original) a bit more comprehensible.

<3>
The putative common source of matter and psyche, which is usually designated as the Universal Mind, could not be either matter only or psyche only, nor could it be qualified with concepts as 'large' and 'small', 'left' and 'right', 'before' and 'after', and many other of that kind, which are valid of the world we grew up in and which we can perceive with our sensory systems.

<4>
To explain this, I shall make use of an imaginary example.

Let us imagine an Eskimo who has never seen and will never see an elephant in his life, but who can nevertheless make observations on an elephant's trunk by means of two complemental devices: 'nose' and 'arm'. In the course of these observations the Eskimo will find out that elephant's trunk is something pretty similar to both 'nose' and 'arm', but he would never fully comprehend the notion of 'trunk' due to what Wolfgang Pauli called (explaining the notion of 'spin') 'klassisch nicht beschreibbare Zweideutigkeit'. Perhaps we are in a similar situation, with the minor difference that we talk about psyche and matter without being able to comprehend the true nature of the Universal Mind: It looks to be BOTH an inanimate 'vacuum', if viewed from the prospective of the source of matter, AND 'non-being', as the source of the psyche. Note that this speculation is valid within the framework of Niels Bohr's epistemology *contraria sunt complementa*.

<5>
Hence the 'connection' between matter and the psyche is made by, and passes via their common source, the Universal Mind.

<6>
[14] 'The paradox in this particular attempt of devising a positive encompassing would be the attempt to create God starting from His created world. Again, rather than deciding from reading Margenau's book whether he had tried to do this, I would appreciate knowing Chakalov's opinion on this matter.'

<7>
I believe arguments-from-design, such as the strong anthropic principle, cannot serve as a *proof* for God's existence (John 1:1-4). (Besides, if we find a proof, then the whole Christian theology would be reduced to science, and there would be no need to pray (Matthew 7:7-11) because there is no sense of praying to differential equations.) Hence the task of devising an *exclusively* positive encompassing is, in my opinion, unfeasible.

<8>
[44] 'My present guess is that this conceptual approach might help in dealing with some questions concerning QM, in particular the QM-experience relation, and that this might also in part answer Chakalov's point <5> which relates to QM. That means I suggest to concentrate on the epistemological rather than the experimental or mathematical side of the QM-mind relation.'

<9>
In a recent web page, dated August 20, 1997, John Cramer wrote: 'The transactional interpretation, a leading alternative to the Copenhagen interpretation, uses an explicitly nonlocal transaction model to account for quantum events. This model describes any quantum event as a space-time 'handshake' executed through an exchange of retarded waves (psi) and advanced waves (psi*) as symbolized in the quantum formalism.'

More on http://mist.npl.washington.edu:80/npl/int_rep/ti_over/ti_over.html

<10>
Perhaps the 'handshaking' atemporal medium has some mental reflection or qualia? Say, the unstructured matrix? The striking similarity is that in both cases we have a non-physical entity which holds the concrete,
point-like explications of certain physical parameters (e.g., the state of the system observed, see the Schroedinger's cat paradox at http://www.npl.washington.edu/ti ) or, in the case of the unstructured matrix, the specific explication of some Platonic idea. In both cases a direct observation or perception is impossible, and yet the two entities are fully compatible with the 'established' theories in quantum physics and in psychology. Or perhaps they are just two complementary emanations from ONE entity, the Universal Mind? Why not?


[Dimiter G. Chakalov, MA, is parapsychologist in Sofia
e-mail maver@omega.bg]