Consciousness, cells, and wave collapse as faith outcomes.

Earlier today I was thinking about the links and relationship of quantum physics and the macro-world. According to Dr. Goswami, there are three aspects of quantum that do not work well in the macro world of Newtonian physics: discontinuity, non-locality, and tangled hierarchy. The idea of tangled hierarchy is the most difficult to conceptualize and still develop some meaningful examples for non-physicists like myself.

As I understand the tangled hierarchy concept, there is no distinction between subject and object. This is exemplified in the observation (and requirement?) that there must be an observer present to collapse the possibility wave into material phenomena. A tremendous amount of research exists to support this concept and the observations which generate the data appear consistently from experiment to experiment. This much is relatively clear for me and I think I “get it” when it comes to the big picture.

As challenges go my most difficult to understand is how the set of possibilities collapse to form the universe we live in. If there is a relationship between the quantum aspects of our universe and the macro-world which is built on the foundation of the quantum materials then what or when or how or whatever happened to collapse the universe into what we know today? How could the possibilities collapse without someone to cause the collapse while the observer could not exist until after the collapse occurred? How could the universe collapse without having an observer present to cause the collapse? So no matter what happens there is an antecedent occurrence which makes the outcome possible, but the antecedent is a consequence of the prior event so it is always a matter of a never ending hierarchy just like the chicken and egg problem.

Dr. Goswami explains as best I understand it, that the observer is the first complex cell that developed and had a consciousness. This part that a cell had consciousness, is not difficult to understand given the work of Dr. Bruce Lipton and his research on cell membranes and consciousness. They fit together well. However, I’m hung up in between the collapsing of the possibilities and the creation of the cell. Still this is where consciousness as the underlying structure of the universe began to make itself felt. So when the cell developed and stabilized it was possible for consciousness to impact the universe in a material form into specific outcomes. This caused the infinite number of possibilities to manifest as a single form that we have as the universe today.

We know, according to this model, that consciousness is the underlying and causal property of the universe. Evidence, anecdotal and inferential, indicates consciousness has not stopped interacting with the consciousness that we bring to the events of our lives. Consequently, our activity in describing a limited number of the infinite potential outcomes represents faith which drives the collapse of the possibilities. To describe specific results amidst the vast number of potential outcomes is the expression of having faith that someone can change his or her world in a particular direction.

Each of our religions attempts to help us get to the point that we can exercise faith and describe a limited outcome to the future events. Ideally if we all worked together we could collapse the possibility waves into one where peace and love are the outcomes. The challenge for us is to not specify how that outcome has to happen – just that it will happen.

Hesitating in conversation - faith in action

When reaching the end of our rope with another person, it is really easy to forget that the rope is of infinite length with places to hold on to so we can rest between tuggings. The rest stops on the rope help us to ask one very basic question before we respond to a situation: Do I need to think before I answer?

Most of the time, I find, it is easier not to ask myself that question. I just want to get out of me, whatever it is that arose never considering intentionality of the other person. And here's the interesting part - even if I do not know the intentionality, I act upon my interpretation of the intentionality. My internal systems act based upon my instantaneous imputation of motive into a single isolated event and occasionally like everyone else, I’m right. So I hold on to the times I have been correct and forget about the vastly larger numbers of times I have been wrong.

Some studies indicate people process information on an unconscious level in about .1 - .2 second. (We have received input and are ready to respond within this period of time, regardless of our consciousness of the input.) However, we process in a conscious way in about .5 seconds. (We can determine the content of the input in a conscious manner.) So whatever issues I have operating in the background, they will be part of my unconscious response, if I do not hesitate – even if my perceptions are incorrect.

I remember learning many years ago in junior college psychology class that pipe smokers were considered more intellectual and objective than non-pipe smokers. Of course the answer eluded us for a while until we could observe a pipe smoker in action. One of the students asked the smoker a question and he answered AFTER pausing and puffing on his pipe. We, as did other people, assumed he was thinking about the question. He wasn’t. He was smoking the pipe. However, we attributed a quality to the behavior and so drew some additional, and incorrect, conclusions.

In terms of faith the key is the future of the relationship. It is about being able to return to difficult and divisive issues time and again without damaging the relationship itself. My hesitation shows my willingness to give credence to the points and suppositions of the other. Even if it is only the pipe smoker in action, since we have all hesitated at one point or another when we have wanted to say something, we give the hesitation a quality of thoughtfulness and purposefulness helping to strengthen the moment from both sides. It ceases to be a moment of argumentation, but rather becomes a moment of possibilities or potentialities that draw us together into the movements of a greater dance.

In this instance my faith causes me to act upon the infinite possibilities of a future relationship. It is kept alive because of my choice to hesitate despite my intent to do something. And it seems faith is like this: it allows the option of an alternative choice when circumstances see not an infinite set, but a calculable number with anticipated outcomes. In these situations faith raises its head and sees beyond the horizon of conscious perception into the vastness still being formed.

A friend forwarded this short video about the importance of hesitation, 6 and 1/2 minutes. Please enjoy.
http://jonathanfields.com/blog/do-you-realize-what-your-words-can-do/

Familiarity of Faith

Amazing isn’t it. How when you’re going to write about something for your next entry and someone sends you a note and suddenly your focus for the entry changes. This is exactly what happened today. I thought I wanted to talk about faith (duh, what’s the name of the website) but also a specific aspect of faith—pausing before responding to another person’s comments and how this demonstrates faith. But the exchange told me that what I really wanted to present for consideration was familiarity of faith.

By familiarity of faith I mean the perception that we have faith in something simply because we expect it to be a particular way since it has always been that way. Think about the sun rising in the morning. In all of our collective experiences it has always happened. Collectively we all agree that it will happen again when morning arrives. But that’s the circular reasoning since morning is when the sun rises and that’s how we define morning. There is a danger here of missing the focus. It is not really faith in the sun rising tomorrow. It is the expectation we hold that it will happen: assumed, assured, and predictable. Where is the faith?

There is no faith involved in this aspect of our perception. It is an assumption existing independently of our actual faith activities and adventures. Perhaps as children we questioned our parents or teachers about the sun rising in the morning and were told to have faith and it will happen. At what point did we cease having faith in the sun rising and it became a banal statement of expectation? How did we move from expectancy and involvement of faith into a world where personal involvement was not necessary and we still called it faith?

The major religions of the world, or some call them faiths, teach an interesting formula of involvement and detachment for faith to occur. Faith requires the looking forward to possible outcomes and the perception that the specifics have already occurred. This allows for both detachment and involvement but they are used to moderate each other, not to define them. This is where the problem with familiarity of faith occurs. The detachment exists, but it is not truly detachment it is rather a type of unrecognized boredom that has no content of interaction with the future. The involvement that brings my expectation of outcomes is not part of the process. The future is perceived as the status quo moving forward in time just as each day moves forward, but there is no expectancy of different possible outcomes.

As a result, mountains remain where they are. Students of religion and disciples of dogma doubt the reality of the miracles occurring in other faiths; unfortunately this perception contaminates even their own.