Some reflections on "Quo vadis Quantum Mechanics?" Extending science further! Let us see where?

The Center for Frontier Science and its director, Nancy Kolenda, deserve kudos for organizing the 2002 conference on the future of Quantum Mechanics and publishing (2005) the book, "Quo vadis Quantum Mechanics?," through Springer, as one of the important Frontier collections.

The seminar's notion could be found in A. J. Leggett's paper (Chapter 6), where he cites the "reasons for speculating that the linear formalism of standard quantum mechanics may break down at some stage between the level of the atom and human consciousness." The contributors have responded differently to this stated notion and the issue revolves around whether nature is deterministic or probabilistic and whether we are dealing with a closed or open system. This argument is what this book is about, with opinions favoring the notion and the opinions on the contrary.

In this volume one could read a collection of papers on quantum mechanics from 16 of today's preeminent theoretical physicists, two of whom are already Nobel winners. The contributions are studded with introspection, conservatism, disinterested search for the root of quantum mechanics in classical theories, incisive formulation (L. Smolin, D Aerts and S. Aerts), openness (Avshalom Elitzur), creative and cautious proposition (Gerard 'e. Hooft), and application of QM in biological system (Fritz-Albert Popp). A foreword by Roger Penrose is the crown in this beauty.

Let us take the application aspect first, biophoton emission from quantum phenomena of biological systems (Ch. 19) by Fritz-Albert Popp. Popp is one of the pioneers of this terrain. Biofields are the fields surrounding the living biological objects (2) and could have thermal, magnetic, electromagnetic and non-thermal photonic components (3). DNA activities and metabolic activities in mitochondria are principal sources of emitted biophotons, which if measured in controlled conditions could help in diagnosis and prognostification of conditions such as stress, injury and healing, and even malignant transformation. It will have numerous applications in twenty-first century medicine. Katherine Creath and Gary E. Schwartz (4) have recently reviewed various biophoton-imaging techniques.

Coming back to the subject of QM itself, Quantum mechanics is the most successful theory of the twentieth century. However, on its own it is incapable of accommodating (assimilation is far away) the paradox of probabilities and determinism of nature, and badly needs some 'windows' for survival from suffocation. On its own, that it is a theory of closed system, or a 'closed-off theory', has been admitted even by Heisenberg.

How can a completely closed system create puzzles and paradoxes? Puzzles and paradoxes could arise only when the boundary of the system is ill-defined and porous! Therefore, a quantum system cannot exhibit all its puzzles unless there is a porous boundary of its domain of activities. Such a system will have three kinds of problems and therefore mysteries, paradoxes and puzzles. Namely those are (i) within the bounds of problems and its paradoxes and puzzles--those could be categorized as 'horizontal' (H); (ii) across the boundary or the vertical problems and its paradoxes and puzzles (V); and (iii) a combination of two (V-H)--or the hybrid ones. The vertical problems (V) are of two kinds--superficial (V-s) and deeper (V-d). Superficial problem is how microscopic quantum phenomena are related to emergence of macroscopic reality! V-d mysteries/puzzles are how microscopic reality emerges from submicroscopic or sub-quantum realities! The deeper problems are somehow related to openness of the domain to a deeper reality.

It is the H-puzzles that are described by Penrose as Z-mysteries ('Z' comes from 'z' in puzzle). For example, wave particle duality, multiple superposed states, uncertainty in measuring conjugate properties, which are canonically opposite in Hamiltonian sense, etc. These puzzles have rooting in Hilbert's space formalism. Penrose's X-mysteries--'X' comes from 'x' of paradox of measurement--are V-s mysteries, the unknown point in the scale where the classical properties end and the quantum properties begin or the reverse. Non-locality might be cited as an example of Vd mysteries. Some of what we consider as H-puzzles might have contribution from a V-component and may be actually a hybrid puzzle (H-Vs or H-Vd). Different interpretations of Q.M. that indicate the remarkable intellectual ascent of the twentieth century, in fact, have been advanced to resolve the above-mentioned mysteries, puzzles and paradoxes.

James Hartle (Ch. 5) points out that "the authors of this book have jointly identified as many as thirteen different interpretations of QM." "The defining thread connecting interpretations of quantum theory is their agreement on the probabilities for the outcomes of measurements, at least to an excellent approximation," Hartle states. But what is this probability? In quantum physics it is in the context of measurement. However, probability remains an issue for physicists, philosophers and mathematicians alike. Then is it not that the issue of probability "strikes to the heart of other foundational problems"? "What distinguishes measurements from other physical processes?," Simon Saunder raises these questions on probability in Ch. 12 and responds to queries raised.

In chapter 11, Diederik Aerts and Sven Aerts try to explore why the microscopic effects, predicted and experientially verified in QM, remain irreconcilable with macroscopic reality! They offer a model for emergence of classical world from quantum world. The interesting part of their paper is the role of experience with a 'happening' aspect and a 'creative' aspect, and how we penetrate, clothe, and decorate reality from our experience. This proposition almost brings us to the views expressed by Kant, neo-Hegelian philosophers such as Bradely, and also Sri Aurobindo from India, who all distinguish 'experience' from 'appearance' of the reality. Experience of reality, according to them, is primary and the appearance of reality is secondary, the result of intervention by mind and intellect on the virgin 'memory' of the experience.

While Hans-Peter Durr (Ch. 2) suggests "liberation and purification from classical prejudice" to become "radically quantum" and cautions us not to put "classical egg shells in quantum physics today," Jeremy Butterfield (Ch. 13) elaborates on "Hamilton-Jacobi Theory as a classical root of quantum theory." The issue of wave-particle duality in Q.M. could not be resolved by any experiment. In Ch. 16, B.J. Hiley, the coauthor of The Undivided Universe with David Bohm, traces the mathematical origin" of the wave particle duality and shows the connection between classical and quantum mechanics in symplectic symmetry. Non-commutative algebra that describes the behavior of dynamic operators carrying symplectic symmetry in Q.M. was the source of notion of implicate order of Bohm, comments Hiley. Beginning from there, he develops non-commutative quantum geometry and explains the classical-quantum transition by lifting the 'classical phase space' behavior onto a 'covering space'. One could account for particle properties at the level of 'underlying phase space' and wave properties at the level of the 'covering space'. Yakir Aharonov and Shahar Dolev (Ch. 15) use two-vector formalism from which arises the concept of weak measurement and weak values. This resolves Hardy's paradox and brings new insights into quantum entanglement.

Three important highlights in this collection are Time travel, pilot-wave, and hidden variables.

Daniel Greenberger and Karl Svozil (Ch. 4) look at the paradox of time travel with their model and conclude that one can travel into the past quantum mechanically, but see only those alternatives consistent with the world left behind him. There is no possibility to change the past. In the same vein, the future is open and probabilistic to us until we choose to collapse it into one, and then that becomes inevitable and totally consistent with common sense experience. They like to explore further whether the present could change the future by a feed-forward mechanics.

Both pilot wave and hidden variable theories originate to explain some kind of determinism. Simon Saunders, however, points out on page 277 that "no one to this day produced a single model of pair creation or pair annihilation events using the pilot wave formalism." Round table discussions continued on how the issue of pair creation could be handled. Not withstanding the various views on pilot waves expressed in this volume, it would be worthwhile to quote another view from William Tiller:

   If we choose the electron as
   our physical particle, then its
   pilotwave will be defined as
   the magnetic monopole or
   'magnon.' Because the magnon
   is traveling so fast, it weaves a
   pilotwave shape around the
   electron and, since it is nonobservable
   by our present
   instruments, it is located in the
   vacuum reality and can thus
   have negative energy and
   negative mass. The detailed
   shape of the pilotwave envelope
   (magnon) will be the Fourier
   Transform of the detailed
   electron shape. (5)

Let us take the issue of hidden variables originally conceptualized by Einstein to explain that God does not play dice with the Universe. Elitzur finds both 't Hooft and Smolin to "go to great lengths to preserve determinacy by assuming hidden variables of one kind or other." Obviously they do it from different points of view. For Elitzur, "hidden-variable theories are forever-hidden-variable theories." However, the hidden variables could also be looked as follows: The scientist's task is to make the hidden variables, if any, revealed. It requires a clear description of the variable and then to predict events on the assumption of the existence of the unobservable variable. If the prediction comes true then hidden variables are demystified, although they may remain unobservable for the time being. Information glares as one of such demystified hidden variables. Randomness is antithesis of information. Forwarding of a proposal that there are different ontological categories of information, it is possible to reduce discontents that might arise out of making information as one of the demystified hidden variables.

Two other major contributions in this volume are Carlo Rovelli's relational interpretation of quantum theory (Ch. 9) and matrix models of Lee Smolin (Ch. 10). While Rovelli indicates the 'jump' by stating, "all contingent properties of any physical system are taken to be meaningful only as relative to a second physical system"; Smolin argues "that the fundamental theory is a theory of matrices." There is a strange similarity in character of the two proposals. Both proposals show a kind of inescapability, although of different kinds. While Rovelli is relativizing any quantum measurement, and it seems this intertwining is endless, Smolin is reminded by Anton Zeilinger on page 125 that the degree of freedom in matrix relationship when quantized again leads to a bigger matrices. "A matrix of matrices is just a matrix!" You cannot avoid matrices (or quantizing!). A similar endless intertwining could also be observed between 'happening' and 'creation,' as stated by Aerts in chapter 11, in building up an experience.

Smolin seems incisive to state that the "final fundamental theory will be a theory of matrices." However, to get a 'ground' independent of any background where do we stare at? It seems we have no alternative but to accept unconditional consciousness as a non-negotiable imperative and also Mother Nature as its trusted custodian. Having accepted consciousness-as-such as the ground reality, which would be the great assumption for science, it is possible to formulate a unifying worldview, with the relational matrices involving consciousness, information, self, mind, space, time and energy in one hand, and consciousness, life, information, self, mind, memes and genes on the other. (6) This sets the major part of the agenda for twenty-first century's science.

There are a few remarkable contributions in this collection that fall outside the realm of any stated or new interpretation of Q.M. Elitzur and Dolev try to put quantum phenomena within a new Theory of Time (Ch. 17). They hypothesize that quantum interaction involves 'rewriting' of the evolution in space-time. "The wave function evolves beyond the 'now', i.e. outside of space-time, and its 'collapse' due to the interaction with other wave functions creates not only the events, but also the space-time within which they are located in relation to one another." Here one smells a kind of new approach! It is admitted that if we understand ontological origin of Time, many paradoxes could be resolved or assimilated. A freshening newness is felt from the contribution of Caslav Brukner and Anton Zeilinger (Ch. 3) when they try to project quantum physics as a science of information. The door of a closed system is opened up with entry of fresh air. This freshness is strengthened from the contribution of Gerard 't Hooft, where he asserts on the determinism beneath quantum mechanics (Ch. 8). To him information does not obey the boundary of the 'closed box' of science; however, the most "difficult thing is to find out a Hamiltonian that is bounded from below, and whose ground state is a vacuum that exhibits complicated vacuum fluctuations, as in the real world." Does it not sound like an echo of a great spiritual saying--the Grace is omnipresent but how many of us are in the 'State of Grace' to acknowledge, accept, and actualize its effect?

Let us share here some reflections from my published view on 'information' in The Millennium Bridge. (7) That information could cross the 'boundary' is a radical view indeed. The view could be supported by evidence from black holes. Nothing could pass through a black hole except information. It is proposed that information has a mechanic of its own, which is independent of quantum mechanics. The issue is in which recess of nature could information have an independent mechanics? How is it connected to quantum mechanics? To get into that, it is imperative to look into the nature as an extension of consciousness and as having a nested hierarchical organization. The coil of a spring on lateral view looks level; so does the nature in relation to consciousness. Nature looks 'nested' because its one level is within the other, not above or below (unlike in pyramidal hierarchy). 'Hierarchy,' because all of the 'superficial' is within the 'deep' but not vice versa. It is this 'not vice versa' that offers a sense of hierarchy. From surface to deep, those are classical nest (nest I), quantum nest (nest II), elemental nest (nest III), Mother Nature's nest (nest IV), and the nest of unconditional consciousness (nest V). While macroscopic classical nest (Nest I) somehow, at some point of scale, transits into microscopic quantum nest (Nest II), it is logical to infer that penetrating through quantum discontinuity or quantum void, microscopic quantum domain communicates with submicroscopic subquantum nest of nature (nest III) for elementary phenomenology, which includes de-conditioning and reconditioning of existential properties. Consciousness, on the other hand, is indissolubly wedded with nature and this nature (nest IV) that is most intimate to unconditional consciousness (nest V) may be called nascent nature--nature of all natures or Mother Nature. While in nests II and I, one sees natura naturata (created nature), and in nests IV and V natura naturans (creative nature), nest III is the domain of natura transformans nature in transformation) (Fig. 1).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

While the transition boundary between nests I and II is not known, between nests II and III it is porous at quantum discontinuity and quantum void. The transition between III and IV is the toughest since the entry into nest IV demands 'surrender' of all properties, and for getting back into nest III an inside-out phenomenon occurs. The most flimsy boundary is encountered between nest IV and nest V. When one's nature becomes Mother Nature, one is consciousness. Every nest has a mechanic of its own, run by a specific currency. In the elemental nest (nest III) of nature, information acts as a currency. Consciousness (nest V) plays its mechanics with currency of 'life.' The 'life' as currency in nest V and the information as currency of nest III are connected by an intermediate currency that might be called 'information manifold' or 'causal currency,' the currency of nest IV. A non-living entity can never generate new information. For all practical purposes, the origin/source of new information is 'life.' Attila Grandpierre (8) has recently elaborated the link between 'life' and information. The inescapable challenge to twenty-first century scientists is the nest III of nature and information mechanics therein. Without gaining mastery of mechanics in nest III it is not possible to assimilate the puzzles and paradoxes in nest II, and it is impossible to connect it (QM) with mechanics of nests IV and V.

In a paper on the composite Model of Psyche, (9) there is a sketch indicating the relationship between information, mind, space, time and energy. To sum up the idea in the paper, specific information gets selected by a mind that is primed and prepared. The selected information impregnates the receptive mind. The pregnant mind delivers the 'form' inside information by an inside-out phenomenon. Form is made of space and time. The process is accompanied by the release of energy as well (Fig. 2).

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

All that our senses experience could tell us what is form and movement. Therefore, the message in information needs to be translated into 'form' and energy. Mind or mind-like structure and process in nature could only execute it by an inside-out phenomenon. The purpose of this inside-out phenomenon on information executed by the mind is to deliver 'form' (space and time) and energy. 'Form' goes back to mind as 'idea' and is processed there. Energy is used by neurons. This 'information-split' explains the basis of psychosomatic connection (Fig. 3).

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

The proposition makes a compelling case to look into the relational matrices of the extraordinary family members, information as father, mind as mother, and space, time, and energy as three children in the family!

The relational matrices constantly remind us of aesthetics and values. A relationship continues to work only in accordance with mutually agreed value-systems of its constituents. This axiology of values observed in relationship of space, time, energy, form, and information emanates without violating the ontologic consciousness that forms the ground, independent of any background. Phenomenology of consciousness, i.e., not-happening, 'happenings,' and the 'set of happenings,' (for example creation of information, mind, space, time and energy) are subject to acceptance of this ontologic status of consciousness. This also requires 'surrender' to its axiology, i.e., the phenomenology of consciousness requires approval of axiology emanating from its ontologic status. There are, it is admitted, epistemic constrains to realize this agenda of consciousness in the brain. These epistemic constrains are introduced by perception of uncertainty--the root or origin of all probabilities encountered in epistemology. There are perception-independent bifurcations in nature. However, on the ground of consciousness, those appear as divisions of the Indivisible.

Chapter one brought me much joy, with Elitzur laying down brilliantly all the expectations from an anticipated theory. He deserves congratulation for his imagery, for he retains sanity and clarity, and balances the 'sacrifice' and 'unexpected dividends' observed in the genesis of a new theory. Anew theory would be appealing to persons who expected it to come. Its 'beauty,' 'unity,' 'continuity,' and the ability for novel prediction (which could not be done by any other existing theory) would be alarming. I pray Elitzur's imagery comes as real in our lifetime that he has also hoped for!

I was wondering why Nancy sent me the book and marked in the covering letter as a 'review copy.' She knows me as one who coined the term and concept of supracortical consciousness in 1985 and has been engaged in the expansion of this concept since then. Is there any connection between experience of supracortical consciousness and the material utility or demise of quantum mechanics? To get an answer, one has to go to the last paper of the volume (Ch. 20) where Henry Stapp responds: "Quantum theory will go where it is most needed, which is into the effort to understand ourselves and in particular the connection of our minds to our bodies." Stapp's proposition stands like a visionary's statement.

Let me explain bit terms such as consciousness, conscious experience, and mind. Consciousness forms the background of all experiences. It is the ground Reality of Nature. Consciousness is like the spider, which weaves the net but itself is outside the net. Conscious experience is in the context of a brain or a brain-like structure and process in nature. The three attributes of consciousness--that it is impenetrable, a leveler, and purposeful--are reflected in conscious experience, which is (10) respectively subjective, unitary and intentional. Gerald Edelman's characterization (11) of any conscious states as being private, integrative and differentiating is consistent with the above statements. Mind, on the other hand, originates with duality of consciousness. In monism, materialistic, idealistic or monism of consciousness, there is no mind. "Mind is that which cuts consciousness into two" (Sri Aurobindo). Mind separates two conscious systems. Mind is the gap. End of Mind is the beginning of consciousness. Mind acts as an organ of communication between two conscious systems. As there are different levels of consciousness, so are there various layers of mind in between.

Other than consciousness or its phenomenal hands, what else could assimilate the paradox of closed and open system in one hand and probabilities and certitude on the other? Consciousness assimilates those paradoxes through information, often by creating new information. Information is what reduces uncertainty (Shanon). Following the principle of simila similibus information originates out of uncertainty in conjugal relation of nature (mostly 'life') and consciousness. New information is the language consciousness speaks. Along the evolutionary scale, consciousness is seen to get 'concentrated' in neurons, especially in the organized conglomerate of neurons. However consciousness is not merely neurocentric, it is also independent of neurons. Consciousness is where no neuron could be found. Consciousness certainly could also be brain-independent. Evidence for existence of brain-independent consciousness could be cited from neurophenomenology (e.g. out of body experience, autoscopy, etc.) and neurobehaviorism (e.g. love, altruism, disinterested search for Truth).

Supracortical consciousness as a being-consciousness is the first milestone of a stable experience of brain-independent consciousness by a brain-trapped consciousness by means of self-consciousness. It seems to be the first visible result of the effort of an ever-evolving brainstem-limbico-cortical brain to internalize, systemize and rather 'biologize' the universal or even transuniversal consciousness. The existence of supracortical consciousness nullifies the view that there is nothing above or outside the cerebral cortex in the context of neuroscience. It also affirms that the present cerebral cortex is not the last mantle of the brain. Further evolution of the organ brain in this case is a natural expectation!

The concepts of multiple universe(s) and supracortical consciousness are so intimately related that the two may be viewed as a pair. We all try to figure out the boundary of the universe under constrains imposed by the cerebral cortex. For scientific pursuits recognized as 'successful' so far, there is one and only one universe. English dictionaries do not offer a plural for the universe, assuming that the universe is only one. In Conquering the Brain (12) the plural for universe has been taken as multiverse. Multiple universe(s) form a system--the "Multiversity." In scientific cosmology the suggestions for existence of multiple universe(s) come from: (i) Black hole theory (e.g. Wheeler's white hole and worm hole, baby universe and black hole within black hole multiverse of Lee Smolin (13)); (ii) Inflation theory (e.g. Alan Guth (14) and 'Eternal Inflation' multiverse of Andrei Linde (15)); and (iii) the String theory. According to Shamit Kachur, a Stanford theorist, the number of potential universes may be nearly one followed by hundred zeroes. 'Eternal inflation' multiverse is based on quantum fields theory (QFT) and black hole within black hole is grossly based on general theory of relativity. The theory of multiple universe(s) is an open-ended theory. So is the theory of supracortical consciousness. The meaning of transcortical could be transuniversal as well.

Could this supracortical consciousness be expressed in a language the physicists may find easier to understand? Probably yes. To do this let us first understand Penrose's position. To quote from his foreword:

   It is a striking fact that almost all
   the interpretations of quantum
   mechanics, that do not involve
   an actual change in the quantum
   formalism, depend to some
   degree on the presence of
   consciousness for providing the
   'observer' that is required for
   effective realization of the R
   procedure and the consequent
   emergence of a classical-like
   world. My own position is to
   take issue with this, and to
   regard some form of an objective
   physical R procedure to be a
   necessary ingredient of an
   improved theory of quantum
   mechanics. This is not to say
   that I believe that the admittedly
   mysterious phenomenon of
   consciousness has no connection
   with the measurement
   paradox of quantum theory. Far
   from it; but my belief is that this
   phenomenon depends upon an
   objective form of quantum
   R procedure--not that it is
   responsible for R.

This 'R', as envisaged by Penrose, is an objective R (OR).

J. Andrew Ross, a writer and the philosopher and the author of Lifeball, has posted his new book, Mindworlds: Consciousness and Related Studies (16) in the Net. In the last chapter (Ch. 16) titled, "Roads to Realty," subtitled "Penrose and Wolfram Compared," (pp. 283-299) he reviews Penrose's work and position, as Penrose himself clarified it in the Foreword of this Volume. Near the end of the chapter, Andrew Ross quotes Penrose, the last few lines of his quote add further relevance to the subject.

".... I envisage that the phenomenon of consciousness--which I take to be a real process, arising 'out there' in the physical world--fundamentally makes use of the actual OR process." (17)

Following this, Andrew Ross expresses his wonders, "How cortical processes can relate to OR is obscure, but OR is a quagmire issue that nobody expects to solve in the near future." He continues, "It seems to me that the Emperor's new mind, regarded as the subjective entity that reflects or complements reality as a whole, at least as we currently understand it, deserves to instantiate its own named variant of consciousness. I would like to suggest that we call this variant supracortical consciousness, to exapt a term I first met in the works of A. K. Mukhopadhyay, an Indian professor of Medicine who is also an accomplished mystical philosopher." Andrew Ross defines supracortical consciousness in his own terms on page 297:

   Supracortical consciousness
   may be described to a first
   approximation as a unified state
   of phenomenal reality that
   quangles with the omnium from
   moment to moment and thus
   enables us to regard ourselves
   as living in a superficially
   classical physical world.

J. Andrew Ross is the first one to make a connection between supracortical consciousness and Penrose's position.

Penrose, though, admits the subtlety of the concept of information and is out there for a solution. He not only experiences Emperor's new mind but also recognizes a dangerous quagmire and finally is seen bouncing back to what is safe and is his favorite, the Relativity and, therefore, misses the spirit of creativity. It is difficult, although not impossible, to catch creativity in the language of mathematics, the language Penrose is familiar with! Similarly if someone follows Penrose and collapses omnium in preference to multiverse, one proves too hasty to catch the ultimate, and as a consequence, again misses the phenomenal and creative hands of consciousness! Creativity involves a bit of love (sharing), sex (desire to continue), ego (conditioning), and existential issues of life and death. It also requires what we need to get into the multiverse, the relational matrices of consciousness, information, space, time, matter, and energy.

Being out there is, however, the first inescapable step to make a new beginning. This new beginning sets a demand from the scientists, the exploration of a new system--"The Multiversity," with pluralism at the highest intellectually comprehensible level. For the humanist it seems equivalent to exploration of supracortical consciousness. It certainly offers a new frontier to neuroscientist, the context of further evolution of the human brain.

We have yet to address what is the quagmire that Ross points out! Its location is out there, in nest III of nature. Penrose uses the word "quanglement" (probably meaning quagmire of quantum entanglement) to describe it. In the language of mathematics, the nearest approximation of the issue is the problem of infinity encountered in quantum fields theory. The issue interests us since it is related to generations of space and time from information by quantum fields.

It has been stated that the mind takes information inside out to create space, time and energy. This may be true in the context of human activities, but how can it explain the creation of space, time, and energy inside this universe or for space-time energy for the universe itself? What could be the equivalent of structure, properties, and process of mind in nature? In The Millennium Bridge it is proposed and argued that nature's mind is in nest III. Nests IV and V are independent of mind. No mind, which is formed to act as organ of communication between two conscious systems, could be found out there in nest IV or V. Mind ends at the boundary of nest III and IV of nature. What could be the mind-equivalent structure and process, which might execute an inside-out operation on information? Taking a cue from Fig. 1, it may be said that it is done by fields in nest III. The recognized fields in nest III of nature are quantum fields. The quantum fields that are studded with the problem of infinity are suggested to play the role of mind.

The above statement has a link with the quagmire, which is apparent because of a gross twist in the fact of the mathematical statement that says quantum fields theory faces the problem of Infinity. To untwist and straighten out the fact there is this suggestion, a radical one indeed: It is to reverse the directionality of connection of quantum fields with infinity, i.e., to look at the quantum fields as they really are, as the "messengers" of infinity! When quantum fields are messengers of infinity (consciousness!) and human mind realizes those as such the person does not observe a quagmire, but looks at the fountainhead of creativity (Fig. 4). The fountainhead is at the meeting point of answers of three fundamental questions addressed in Prasna Upanishad and Brihadaranayk Upanishad: Who am I?, What is this world?, What is consciousness-as-such? What follows this realization in the brain is a cascade of reversal in the steps of conceptualization caused by the glimpse of supracortical consciousness. The whole neuraxis behaves as an inverted tree with branches down as peripheral nerves and the roots of the tree are open to infinity (Inverted Neuraxis)!

[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]

Having read through Quo vadis Quantum Mechanics?, I may further stretch out to respond to the physics of supracortical experience in a more affirmative way. Supracortical consciousness is the sense that keeps the brain open at the boundary of the universe. The remarkable feature of supracortical consciousness is that it brings human beings from the center to the boundary of the universe, where the brain remains informationally "open"; and we all know that exciting things happen at the boundary, be it a discovery, or a new creation or terrorism! If one looks carefully at the physics of relational matrices in supracortical consciousness, I believe it would appear similar, may be identical, to that of multiple universe(s). Supracortical consciousness co-exists with multiple universe(s).

Suparcortical experience is the experience of that ground, which is independent of any background. The grounding of this background-independent-reality is, however, done in the brain. We call it experience of supracortical consciousness. Supracortical consciousness is not the end, nor the omnium. It is a new beginning for the brain, the beginning of realization of the experience of an experience-independent reality, the Reality of consciousness and its nature (Mother Nature). In addition to oneness, a new kind of pluralism is its outcome. Here, there is "multiplicity without derogating from its own unity," "All and the One are the same existence." It is a "unity which no play of multiplicity can abrogate or diminish" (Sri Aurobindo). (18)

For quantum mechanics to be generally operational and to have a realistic framework where hypothesis of an independent existing reality is taken seriously, one has to consider the reality as happenings and set of happenings, asserts Diederik Aerts and Sven Aerts in Ch. 11. In supracortical worldview, too, space is no longer the ground for events and time is not merely a recorder of happenings. Space and time, like energy, are themselves happenings. Happenings and the set of happenings in turn, are constituents of a reality we call consciousness and its nature (Mother Nature). If quantum mechanics were to be "global," it has to be event based, opines Geoffrey F. Chew in Chapter 18. He also suggests an "information reservoir" in nature. If information really does not obey the boundary ('t Hooft) of present science (cerebral cortex and the universe), then why can't we consider that this information reservoir in nature (Geoffrey Chew) is in dynamic communication with information in the "global workspace" (Bernard J. Barr (19)) inside the brain?

The experience of supracortical consciousness realizes within the brain, oneness of different information found in nests III, II and I of nature. In experience of supracortical consciousness there occurs a fusion of different personal realities and realities in nature's nests I to V. The presence of different categories of information makes the situation probabilistic. At the same time, oneness of several information categories makes it deterministic. Supracortical consciousness, therefore, could be the "resonance" of probabilities and certitude. It is the most intimate image of intertwined arrow of time and probabilities. (20) This openness to information warrants an extraordinary integrity of the system, which would be both axiological and phenomenal, in addition to classical and quantum integrity as we are familiar ordinarily.

The proposition opens up new frontiers for neuroscience! Could the brain behave as 't Hooft's "Hamiltonian that is bounded from below and whose ground state is a vacuum that exhibits complicated vacuum fluctuations as in the real world"? If it were not the brain as a whole, could the candidate be at the microscopic level, the free dendritic spines of cerebral cortex? Or, could those be the synaptic clefts in the superficial neuronal layers of the cortex? Could this Hamiltonian be Phonon, concentrated in the dissipative structure in and around these free dendritic spines of the cerebral cortex so that the system, although remaining informationally open, could explore, in association with Photon, the possibilities of different scopes for materializing it at a classical level with the help of a password obtained from "conformon"? (Conformon is the wave package of energy that maintains conformity of DNA, enzymes and other macro structures. Ilya Prigogine relates conformon with life. Penrose too finds conformal operator in Twister's space). The picture remains incomplete without Neutrino, since without its intent it is impossible to change the old conformity upheld by conformon. What we ordinarily call different states of consciousness could then reflect the selective and gating status of a network of neurons sorting out information bouncing on the boundary of the system brain! Selective and gated informational openness of any system (including brain) could, therefore, assimilate both its horizontal and vertical puzzles. Selective exchange of information across the boundary could account for V- and V-H puzzles, and gated arrival/departure of the selected ones may explain H-puzzles of the system.

Are we near the probability of a fusion of Evolution and Creation? Most likely! When the self (consciousness) of the system wills to come out of conditioned existence (ego) of life and, the desire (sex) is so intense that the system is ready to pay the price equivalent of death, the system may be called to be at evolutionary threshold. Such a primed system could get engaged with the creative poise of Mother Nature. Her hands extend as an extraordinary constellation of Neutrino, Conformon, Photon and Phonon. Superposition of creative poise of Mother Nature on the system at evolutionary threshold could change the meaning, context, and the purpose of the system altogether.

Could the experience of supracortical consciousness be translated into an experience of space-time? Probably yes! Supracortical consciousness is experienced when for the being the time as fourth coordinate of Minkowski's space, time as fourth coordinate of Hilbert's space and the causal time ('t Hooft) (in spacelessness) reach the point of singularity in personal time. Corresponding three spaces merge in personal space. Could it ever happen realistically? Of course, yes! And, it is the occasion when further evolution of the brain gets initiated. It probably initiates somatic mutation and/or recombination of neuronal genes. It also possibly brings a stir in the stem cell pool of the brain! All these processes contribute in the creation of new space and new time according to necessity of a new brain-consciousness! The experience of supracortical consciousness is, therefore, not the end, it is a new beginning. This openness, information selection, information gating, and a stir in stem-ingredients could be applied to all systems in which we observe evolution.

Supracortical consciousness becomes an experience when the quantum "discontinuity" (the 'sink' of quantum nest of nature) and the quantum 'void' (the fountainhead of quantum nest of nature) superpose in the perception of the being in such a way that the person is able to answer in one voice simultaneously two questions: (i) Quo vadis (where are you going) quantum mechanics?, and (ii) Unde venis (where do you come from) quantum mechanics? And the answer is, I suppose, classical mechanics, quantum mechanics, information mechanics, and causal mechanics are mechanics in their own rights, independent but interconnected, and are ontologically governed by the mechanics of consciousness. Let me conclude that this is the agenda for twenty-first century science. This agenda is not merely scientific, but artistic and humanistic as well. It is not less spiritual either!

References

(1.) Quo vadis Quantum Mechanics? (2005). Eds. A. Elitzur, S. Dolev, N. Kolenda. USA: Springer.

(2.) Rubik, B. (2002). "The Biofield Hypothesis: Its Biophysical Basis and Role in Medicine." Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 8, 703-717.

(3.) Oschman, J. L. (2000). Energy Medicine: The Scientific Basis. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone.

(4.) Creath, K., Schwartz, G.E. (2005). What Biophoton Images of Plants Can Tell Us about Biofields and Healing." Journal of Scientific Exploration, 19 (4), 531-550.

(5.) Tiller, W. A. (1997). Science and Human Transformation. USA: Pavior, 64-65.

(6.) Mukhopadhyay, A. K. (In Press, expected in 2006). "The Self and its Memes and Genes. Genes, Memes, Self, Information and Consciousness". In History of Science and Philosophy of Science. Volume XIII, Part Six, of PHISPC (Project of the History of Indian Science, Philosophy and Culture), Ed. P. Sengupta. New Delhi: Publ. Center for Studies in Civilization.

(7.) Mukhopadhyay, A. K. (2000). The Millennium Bridge. Towards the Mechanics of Consciousness and the Akhanda Paradigm. New Delhi: Conscious Publications.

(8.) Grandpierre, A. (2004). "Entropy and Information of Human Organisms and the Nature of Life." Frontier Perspectives, 13(2), 16-21.

(9.) Mukhopadhyay, A. K. (2005). A Composite Model of Psyche: Its Practical Relevance in Psychotherapy. In Psychotherapy, Yoga and Spirituality. Ed. Ganesh Shankar. New Delhi: Jagadamba Publishing Company, 20-29.

(10.) Nagel, T, quoted by E.R. Kandel 2000). "From Nerve Cells to Cognition," in Principles of Neural Science. International (Fourth) Edition. Ed. Eric. R. Kandel, James H. Schwartz, Thomas M, Jessel. New York, London, Singapore, New Delhi: McGraw Hill, 381-403.

(11.) Edelman, G. (1992). Bright Air. Brilliant Fire. Penguin.

(12.) Mukhopadhyay, A. K. (1995). Conquering the Brain. Towards the Essence of the Multiversity and the Akhanda Paradigm. New Delhi: Conscious Publications.

(13.) Smolin, L. (1997). The Life of the Cosmos. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

(14.) Guth, A. H. (1997). The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins. Perseus Books.

(15.) Linde, A. D., Linde, D. & Mezhlumlan (1994). "From the Big Bang Theory to the Theory of Stationary Universe." Physical Review, D 49, 1783.

(16.) Ross, J. A. (2004). Mindworlds: Consciousness and Related Studies. http://www.andyross.net (PDF format). P. 297 (accessed on 05-08-06, Indian time 3-30 PM).

(17.) Penrose, R. (2004). The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe. London: Jonathan Cape.

(18.) Sri Aurobindo. (1972). The Life Divine. Birth Centenary Edition, Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram, 138-139.

(19.) Barr, B. J. (1997). "In the Theatre of Consciousness: Global Workspace Theory, A Rigorous Scientific Theory of Consciousness." Journal of Consciousness Studies, 4(4), 292-309.

(20.) Zeh, H. (1999). The Physical Basis of the Direction of Time, 3rd edition. Berline: Springer-Verlag.

Dr. A. K. Mukhopadhyay, MD

All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi-110 029

Email: [e-mail]