ABSTRACT

In his commentary, R1 to C2, TA 7, Dr. Henry Swift discusses statements about Dr. Amit Goswami's Science Within Consciousness (SWC), and Transcendental Physics (TPhysics) as presented in my book by that name. Dr. Swift feels that a superiority of TPhysics over SWC was incorrectly implied by his statements (TA 7) and mine (C2). This commentary examines the similarities and differences between SWC and TPhysics arguments related to the Von Neumann Chain and quantum wave collapse, in an attempt to dispel the notion that SWC and TPhysics are conflicting theories.

<1>
In preparing to respond to Dr. Henry Swift's Commentary, I decided to re-read Dr. Amit Goswami's book THE SELF AWARE UNIVERSE, which I wholeheartedly recommend to anyone, scientist or non-scientist, who is interested in quantum mechanics and consciousness. It merits reading more than once. I also revisited my own works, INFINITE CONTINUITY and TRANSCENDENTAL PHYSICS. After this re-reading and re-thinking, I believe I have a better understanding of the similarities and differences between Science Within Consciousness (SWC) and Transcendental Physics. So, in response to Dr. Swift's commentary, first I will respond to the "sin" Dr. Swift "complains about" in his commentary.

<2>
All scientific theories, including SWC and TPhysics, indeed all systems of logical thought are based on one or more a priori assumptions. The theory of relativity, for example, is based on at least three a priori assumptions. Two were stated explicitly by Einstein: (1) No preferred reference frame, and (2) the constant light speed. The third assumption he stated in general terms in "James Clerke Maxwell: A Commemorative Volume" as follows:

<3>
"The belief in an external world independent of the perceiving subject is the basis of all natural science."

<4>
This is the assumption of the separation of subject and object (consciousness and matter). Quantum Physics, on the other hand, is largely heuristic, developed from Planck's discovery of the quantum nature of matter and energy and pieced together from empirical data and calculations. To say that SWC is based on a priori assumption and heuristic arguments does not place it inferior or superior to any other theory. In fact, I believe Dr. Goswami's SWC to be a much more complete theory than either relativity or quantum physics, since it includes consciousness as a participant in the formation of the reality we perceive. In SWC, consciousness is introduced on the basis of physical principles and logic, as Dr. Swift says. This does not , however, absolve it of dependence on a priori assumptions and heuristic arguments. The statements in my commentary to TA 7 were not intended to imply that SWC is incomplete or inferior to Transcendental Physics, rather, they were meant to point out the need for an appropriate mathematical framework to provide logical consistency and a formal means of extending the theory.

<5>
In his commentary, Dr. Swift says that 'Transcendental Physics" provides "prose that more readily communicates with the layman the rationale behind the new science..." and that the calculus of distinctions introduced in Transcendental Physics is "a tool that could be useful in furthering and in developing the new science." On the other hand, he states that "The implication that it (the calculus of distinctions) is needed to provide an otherwise absent support for SWC is, however, unwarranted." Here, I fear, we are entering into the realm of semantics and interpretation for what is deemed necessary by one thinker may be seen as superfluous by another. Let me offer a well-documented example.

<6>
In 1907, when Hermann Minkowski developed the mathematics of four-dimensional space-time involving the use of imaginary numbers to represent the time dimension, Einstein appraised it as "uberflusige Gelehrsamkeit" or unnecessary mathematical sophistication. However, by 1916, Einstein had recognized the value of the new mathematics to the extent that while discussing Minkowski's contribution to the theory of relativity, he said: "...these inadequate remarks can give the reader only a vague notion of the important idea contributed by Minkowski. Without it, the general theory of relativity...would have perhaps got no farther than its long clothes." (pg. 57, "Relativity, The Special and General Theory").

<7>
I believe it can be argued that the standard model of the big bang expanding universe of today's cosmology would not have been developed without Minkowski's contribution to relativity. Whether SWC and the calculus of distinctions will ever be accepted as comparable to the theory of relativity and Minkowski space remains to be seen. The analogy, however, seems to me appropriate.

<8>
Another ready example of the importance of new mathematics to physical theory is found in Bell's Theorem. Without Bell's Theorem, an innovative mathematical expression of the necessary conditions for non-local interactions at the quantum level, the Einstein-Bohr conflict over the ultimate nature of reality might have endured indefinitely as a philosophical debate between opposing camps.

<9>
New mathematics has been necessary for every paradigm shift in the past and the new science of SWC, if successful, will be a more profound paradigm shift than any previous shift, relativity and quantum mechanics included. Materialistic scientists see the idealist scientific theory of SWC as an arbitrary philosophical system that can be neither proved or disproved and thus they reject it. The proof of the necessity of non-quantum receptors (presented at Tucson II, Toward a Science of Consciousness and in Appendix C of TRANSCENDENTAL PHYSICS) on the other hand, in a manner similar to the basis for non-locality provided by Bell's Theorem, provides a mathematical basis for the establishment of a non-physical science to complement physical science. This, I believe, is what both SWC and Transcendental Physics are all about.

<10>
In summary, I believe that SWC and Transcendental Physics contain complementary concepts and logical developments which, when properly combined, will go a long way toward establishing the transcendental science that many of us foresee as the necessary and sufficient paradigm of the near future. The "sin" Dr. Swift complains of is, in my opinion, simply a misunderstanding.

<11>
A brief discussion of what I see as the similarities and differences between SWC and Transcendental Physics follows. Hopefully, it will provide a deeper insight into the nature of both approaches to the new, more comprehensive science of consciousness and matter.

<12>
SWC as presented in THE SELF-AWARE UNIVERSE - How Consciousness Creates the Material World," and TRANSCENDENTAL PHYSICS both conclude that consciousness is the primary reality underlying all phenomena, and that conscious observation is the cause of the collapse of the quantum wave function bringing certain aspects of the manifold possibilities of the quantum wave form into physical manifestation in the space- time continuum. They both argue that a science based on the primacy of consciousness is more complete than the current materialistic paradigm and necessary for the well-being of science and mankind in general. Both SWC and TPhysics discuss the Einstein-Bohr debate, the EPR paradox, Bell's Theorem, and the Clausner and Aspect experiments. Both discuss the Von Neumann Chain and the "measurement problem" of quantum mechanics, and it is here that the most significant conceptual and procedural differences arise.

<13>
Both SWC and TPhysics conclude that an omnipresent or transcendent Consciousness (which some might call simply God) and an immanent consciousness (individualized consciousness) are involved in the collapse of the wave function. SWC resolves the measurement problem by saying that a measurement is complete "when the transcendent consciousness collapses the wave function by means of an immanent brain-mind looking on with awareness" (pg. 97, THE SELF-AWARE UNIVERSE). and on page 186, "The point of Von Neumann's Chain, of course, is that the dichotomy of the measuring apparatuses that observe Schrodinger's cat goes 'all the way down.' The system is an infinitely regressive one. It does not collapse of itself...we have the makings of a tangled hierarchy."

<14>
The key to understanding SWC's concept of tangled hierarchy is found in the discussions on pages 98 and 99: The paradox of the circularity of quantum measurement is "no paradox because consciousness acts from outside the [physical] system and completes the meaning circuit." and "I suspect that the situation in the brain-mind, with consciousness collapsing the wave function but only when awareness is present is a tangled hierarchy [as introduced by Douglas Hofstadter] and that our immanent self-reference is of tangled hierarchical origin. An observation by a self-referential system is where the Von Neumann Chain stops."

<15>
The argument presented is that the measurement problem, the Schrodinger's Cat Paradox, the double-slit experiment, etc., are all explained by accepting the existence of self-referential consciousness as the source of all being. This is a heuristic argument for the existence of an omnipresent, transcendent consciousness (God) of which all immanent consciousness (sentient beings) are a part.

<16>
By contrast, the Calculus of Distinctions is used in TRANSCENDENTAL PHYSICS to prove the necessary existence of non-quantum receptors in consciousness. While SWC states that wave function collapse is accomplished from "outside" physical reality, TPhysics discusses how the drawing of distinctions by a conscious observer selects one aspect of the continuous spectrum of reality for observation and completes the self-referential loop from Primary Consciousness through individualized consciousness. In other words, Primary Consciousness contains individualized consciousness and all matter and energy within itself. Individualized consciousness acting in an observant role may collapse a wave form, thus drawing form out of the non-quantum state into the quantum state and then transfers that form back to the non-quantum state, completing the loop. TPhysics focuses on the primary function of consciousness which is the drawing of distinctions, while SWC focuses on the concept of tangled hierarchy. If reality is based in self-referential consciousness as both conclude, then the concepts are unquestionably related. The higher-order expressions of the Calculus of Distinctions, which mimic physical particle-wave structure (pp. 196-204, TRANSCENDENTAL PHYSICS), are self-referential expressions. Thus the Calculus of Distinctions of TPhysics appears to be the appropriate tool for the mathematical description of the root concepts of SWC.

<17>
The way in which SWC and Transcendental Physics complement each other as well as their similarities and differences might best be illustrated by a specific example.

<18>
The classical consciousness-matter interaction problem: wave-function collapse and the Von Neumann Chain. When quanta of light and electron energy are chosen as elementary distinctions (as in Appendix C of TRANSCENDENTAL PHYSICS) the Calculus of Distinctions can be used with remarkable efficiency/economy to model the transfer of information from an object of observation to the eye, optic nerve, brain tissue and consciousness of the observer. Quantum theory, validated by the Aspect experiment, tells us that each transfer involves the impact of elementary quanta on some receptor, and each receptor in the classical physical conceptualization is composed of quanta of matter and energy. Those quanta, in turn, must have impacted other receptors in order to come out of the quantum-wave state of multiple possibilities, but those receptors are also composed of quanta, and so forth. The result is an infinite descent in time and space. Yet an infinite descent is an impossibility if quanta of matter and energy have a definite,measurable, finite extent which cannot be divided into anything smaller, and the descent appears to end in the image perceived in the consciousness of the observer, so how can there be an *infinite* descent? This is a paradox. The descent cannot be both *finite* (where it reaches an end or stopping point) and *infinite* (where it must continue descending forever). This paradox is resolved only if the final receptor is non-quantum, i.e., not composed of quanta of matter and/or energy. The final receptor cannot be made up of quanta of matter and/or energy, because that would necessitate the continuance of the Chain. Without a receptor which is something other than quanta of matter and/or energy, there can be no final receptor and no initial receptor, no beginning and no end, nothing to bring matter/energy quanta out of an infinitely continuous system of wave-function probabilities.

<19>
Somewhat more complex applications of the Calculus of Distinctions suggest that the first and final receptors bringing the physical universe out of the spectrum of possibilities represented by Schrodinger wave functions must be non-quantum, non-local consciousness. Such a background of primary consciousness pervading the universe explains why the logical patterns of individual consciousness--notably mathematics and symbolic logic--seem to mimic the patterns of matter and energy in nature. The natural patterns of the universe, i.e., laws of physics, chemistry, biology, etc., are manifestations of non-local, non-temporal patterns existing in the background of Primary Consciousness.

<20>
In conclusion, SWC and Transcendental Physics are not, in my opinion, conflicting theories. The resolution of apparent conflicts between SWC and Transcendental Physics should not diminish either theory. On the contrary, such efforts will shed light on the path to advancing both toward the common goal of scientific paradigm shift to a logical system capable of integrating and extending our understanding of matter and consciousness and the interaction between the them.

<21>
REFERENCES
Goswami, Amit (1993) The Self-Aware Universe
Close, E.R. (1989) Infinite Continuity
Close, E.R. (1997) Transcendental Physics
Einstein, A. (1931) James Clerke Maxwell, A Commemorative Volume
Einstein, A. (1916) Relativity, The Special and The General Theory
Pais, Abraham (1982) Subtle Is The Lord -- The Science and Life of Albert Einstein
Hofstadter, D. (1981) Godel, Escher & Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid
Hofstadter, D. (1985) Metamagical Themas: Questing for the Essence of Mind andPattern

E.R.Close

e-mail <authors2@showme.net>