[1]
ABSTRACT

Henry Swift argues convincingly that the next logical paradigm shift is to a consciousness- based science. He discusses the successes of Amit Goswami's Science Within Consciousness (SWC) and mentions "Transcendental Physics" (Paradigm Press, 1997) as evidence of the growing recognition of the primacy of consciousness as a scientific principle. The purpose of this article is to address the following topics raised by Dr. Swift: The introduction of consciousness into physics, and new mathematics required by scientific paradigm shifts. In addition, an outline of the calculus of distinctions proof of the involvement of consciousness in the collapse of the wave function is presented.

[2]
Science Within Consciousness (SWC) as presented in Dr. Goswami's work, represents a conceptual leap to a new consciousness-based scientific paradigm. Dr. Goswami resolves the question of wave collapse in quantum mechanics by assuming that consciousness is the agent of collapse (TA7[11]). Through a series of arguments, he shows us that this assumption is consistent with the philosophical position that consciousness is the ground of all being. This version of scientific idealism is consistent with Aldous Huxley's perennial philosophy, the core philosophy underlying the major religions of the world. While it is introduced as a scientific principle solely on the basis of assumption and heuristic argument, once accepted, the view that consciousness is the ground of all being provides a logically consistent basis for addressing phenomena considered by most of today's scientists to be beyond the domain of science. There is certainly nothing wrong with the SWC approach, (after all, every theory has its a priori assumptions) but the argument for such a radical new paradigm shift is made much stronger by the proof of the necessity of non-quantum receptors (i.e., receptors that are not composed of quanta) presented in "Transcendental Physics" (Paradigm Press, 1997).

[3]
When science undergoes a paradigm shift, the resulting breakthrough in underlying theory allows us to answer questions that we couldn't even ask before. Sometimes problems too complex to formulate in the old paradigm become so simple that they may seem trivial in the new paradigm, and strikingly simple relationships between basic elements of reality are often revealed. Newton's F=ma and Einstein's E=mc**2 are examples. The major scientific revolutions of the past, associated with names like Copernicus, Newton, Einstein, and Bohr, are fairly well known. But the fact that each shift required a new descriptive mathematical tool, as pointed out by Dr. Swift in TA7[15], is perhaps somewhat less well known.

[4]
For the Copernican revolution, TA7[4], spherical geometry was needed to describe shapes and movement on the curved surface of the earth. Newton's revolution, TA&[5], was made possible through the development of integral and differential calculus, new mathematical tools capable of describing the trajectories of moving masses accelerated by gravitational forces. And with Einstein's revolution, TA7[6]&[7], time had to be treated as a fourth dimension, requiring a new application of Riemann's algebra. This new application, developed by mathematicians Minkowski and Hilbert, gave rise to modern cosmology and the current standard model of the expanding universe.

[5]
Close on the heels of Einstein's revolution came quantum mechanics, TA7[8]. As with the previous paradigm shifts, new mathematical applications were required. Wave equations and probability matrices were developed by Schrödinger and Heisenberg to describe the spectrum of probable states of elementary particles, all of which, it turns out, exist only as possibilities until one particular state is forced to manifest by a specific act of observation or measurement. While Einstein's relativity revealed the fact that the form and sequence of events observed depends upon the relative motion of the observers, quantum physics declares that the only reality that we can legitimately investigate is that which can be experienced by a conscious observer.

[6]
With every major shift of the scientific paradigm toward a more complete understanding of the reality we experience, new mathematics have been required, TA&[15], and the current paradigm shift is no exception. Since the new paradigm will extend the domain of scientific investigation to include consciousness and related phenomena that lie outside the domain of the current paradigm, a radical new mathematical approach is needed to describe the interaction of consciousness with the world of matter and energy. How does consciousness interact with the material universe? By recognizing and creating distinctions in material reality. A calculus dealing with the drawing of distinctions was developed by G. Spencer Brown, and presented to the world in his book "Laws of Form", published in 1969. He called this new calculus the calculus of indications.

[7]
The calculus of distinctions (C/D), presented in Chapter 7 and Appendix D of "Transcendental Physics" goes beyond Brown's calculus of indications, by including the consciousness of the observer as a distinct reality. The focus of the C/D is on distinctions in consciousness as the most basic elements of perception, description, or information transfer. The concept of distinction is analogous to the concept of variable in algebra. Just as a variable may be represented in an equation by a symbol and manipulated mathematically before its numerical value is known, a distinction may be represented by a symbol and manipulated mathematically without regard to what kind of distinction it may be.

[8]
In the case of the individual observer, the distinctions that make up the object of observation, registering as an image in the consciousness of the observer, may be represented by a C/D expression. Since a distinction may be composed of many sub-distinctions, a single C/D expression may represent the universe selected for observation at any point in time by a conscious observer. The rest of the universe, not represented by distinctions in the consciousness of the observer, is void, from the point of view of the observer.

[9]
The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, validated by the Aspect experiment in 1982, and by numerous experiments since, says that elementary particles remain in a state of multiple probabilities until they register on a receptor. J.A. Wheeler (1994), summarized this by saying: "No elementary phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is a registered phenomenon." Observation involves elementary particles, such as photons, which activate a chain of sources and receptors, a process that results in information being received in the consciousness of the observer in the form of an image. Since no quantum in the chain can exist until it registers on a receptor, what can the final receptor in the consciousness of the observer be? Current science assumes that it must be physical. However, when this process is represented by a C/D expression (See Transcendental Physics" Appendix C) the result is an infinite descent in time and space. But such an infinite descent is impossible because quanta are of fixed, finite size. Thus the logic of the C/D forces us to conclude that the final receptor in consciousness cannot be composed of physical quanta.

[10]
If we run the motion picture of the expanding universe backward to the point in time when the first elementary particles of matter and energy appeared, we make a remarkable discovery: There were no physical structures made of elementary particles to act as receptors to bring the first particles out of the probabilistic wave form. There is no question that matter and energy may have existed in a different form at the time of the big bang, and perhaps for some time thereafter. However, at some point the first elementary particle of the physical universe as we know it had to appear. The first quantum would still be a probabilistic wave if it hadn't found a receptor, and yet that receptor cannot have been composed of quanta of matter or energy. As in the case of the individual observer, the evaluation of the C/D expression indicates that the final receptor cannot be physical. We concluded that the final receptor in the consciousness of a sentient observer must be non-physical, making consciousness the only thing known to contain non-quantum receptors. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the first receptor was some form of consciousness.

[11]
Using the new mathematics of the calculus of distinctions, the infinite descent proofs presented in "Transcendental Physics" start with the current state of the observer and the universe and proceed step by step forward to the final receptor in the consciousness of an observer, or backward to the first ever quantum. And regardless of whether you go forward or backward in time, when the last possible quantum step dictated by the fixed value of Planck's constant is reached, the value of the C/D expression is found to be invalid. The expression becomes valid and the infinite descent is avoided only when the descent moves beyond the quanta of physical structure to a non-quantum receptor. This conclusion implies that no physical universe can exist without consciousness. This greatly strengthens the argument for the primacy of consciousness and the paradigm shift to transcendental science presented in Dr. Swift's article.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REFERENCES

1) Aspect, A., Grangier, P., and Roger, G. (1982), Experimental Realization of
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm Gedankenexperiment: a new violation of Bell's
inequalities, Physics Review

2) Brown, George Spencer, (1969), Laws of Form, George Allen and Unwin, Ltd.

3) Close, Edward R. (1997), Transcendental Physics, Paradigm Press

4) Goswami, Amit (1993), The Self-Aware Universe, Jeremy Tarcher/Putnam

5) Wheeler, John A., (1994), At Home in the Universe, AIP Press

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION:

Edward R. Close did his undergraduate work in physics and mathematics at Central Methodist College, Fayette, Missouri, graduate work in theoretical physics and environmental engineering at the University of Missouri at Rolla, the University of Iowa in Iowa City, UCLA, UC Davis, Johns Hopkins University, and Pacific Western University, earning a Ph.D. in environmental engineering in 1989. He has worked in fifteen states, Puerto Rico, and Saudi Arabia, and traveled in the Middle East, Europe and India. He has taught mathematics, physics and meditation techniques, and has been a student of religious philosophy since his undergraduate days. He is a registered professional hydrologist, a member of several professional organizations, MENSA and Self-Realization Fellowship.

e-mail <authors2@showme.net>