My caricature



Ark's Homepage


Curriculum Vitae

What's New

Physics and the Mysterious

Event Enhanced Quantum Physics (EEQT)

Quantum Future

My Kaluza-Klein pages

Links to my other online papers dealing with hyperdimensional physics

QFG Site Map

Note added on February 24, 1998:

When this page was still at my home site, Institute of Theoretical Physics, University of Wroclaw, I received a copy of a new regulation, according to which "including links, even indirect ones, to any page on Internet dealing with the matters of religion or personal outlook on life" will not be tolerated by in this Institution. Sure, it is impossible to control even indirect links - that would mean killing the web - which is nothing but a chain of links. There is also a question of what, precisely, is an "outlook" and what not. Declaring:

"I am a scientist and freedom of expression is what I value most" - reveals my outlook! Thus I have moved this page, and all other pages, to THIS site.

QF EmblemQuantum Future Metaphysics

* Why Quantum Future?

Why Quantum Future ? But first: why anything at all?

René Magritte, whose "Le Château des Pyrenées" I have chosen to illustrate this project, is quoted to say:

I am unaware of the real reason why I paint, just as I am unaware of the reason for living and dying.

Which probably is true for most of us. So, we want to understand these reasons. Then we will be able to better perform our duties. Because we will understand why there are any duties at all. Of course we do not know for sure which of our efforts brings us closer to this goal of understanding. There are different paths - and all need to be explored. One thing however needs to be kept in mind: one should always watch carefully as to not be indoctrinated or obsessed. Religion, culture, but also with science - each of them separately and all of them together - they CAN indoctrinate us, close our minds, make us their slaves....

* Quantum Theory and Mind?

The following paragraph was written on April 20, 1995 - when this page was created for the first time. A year later, my perspective has changed. It has changed mainly because of feedback that I have received from those good spirits that have visited my pages and shared with me their personal views and their personal experiences. I thank all of them: to those that sent me a word of encouragement as well as to those that criticised this or that on these pages. My perspective became different from that of a year ago. But I decided to leave this first version untouched and append the new perspective to the old one. I feel that it is better this way. I do not like hiding the fact that I err.
Yet, in October 1996, I was compelled to realize that the original perspective was perhaps the right one. Knowledge IS the highest value. All Error originates essentially in a lack of knowledge. Egotism has the same source. But having knowledge must be distinguished from knowing facts. There is an important factor that distinguishes true knowledge from knowledge of material facts. A true knowledge can not be learned only from books, can not be learned at universities. It must ALSO be felt, it must be internally experienced. It comes as a revelation, as a gift - where from we do not know - to a fearless seeker.

The old perspective:

I am writing the main points now, just not to forget. Later on I will edit and elaborate on them. I am writing this in a chapter on Metaphysics - not on Physics! Physics must be based on numbers and on data. Metaphysics is something different. It is about "reasons" for looking for those specific numbers and data - and not some other ones. It is about the reasons for asking particular questions among infinities of other questions that could be asked as well. These reasons are often personal reasons. Everybody has their own reasons. What counts in the final instant - are the results, not the reasons. We know too well of wrong results obtained from right beliefs, and of excellent results based on wrong beliefs. So beliefs do not count that much. Perhaps they do not count at all? This being said - here are mine:

  • I do believe that there is such a thing as Universal Mind. or something of this kind- as a separate reality.
  • I do believe that we need a theory that encompasses Matter and Mind.
  • I do believe that Quantum Theory is an important, but temporary, step toward this goal.
  • I do not believe that Quantum Theory implies Mind or that it needs Mind - here I disagree with H.P. Stapp. However, I do believe that, at some point, our points of view will meet. Because at some point I will have to include Mind in my formalism, and he will have to become more specific about Reality than he is now.
  • I do believe that our Creator - if there is one - allows for randomness - contrary to Einstein's belief. I mean not that "God is playing dice" - of course not. But "He" allows Nature to play dice. And "He" allows Intelligence to choose unless intelligence is asleep - then dice is being tossed and we live under Murphy's law.
  • In short: I believe that we, through some yet hidden intelligence in us (but its glimpses are perhaps known to mystics), are allowed to act against this randomness.
  • I believe we have Free Will - in quantities that depend on a person, on time, perhaps on "positions of stars," perhaps on "shapes of morphogenetic fields," perhaps ... I do not know. That is one of the main puzzles that QF aims to solve.
  • I do not believe that chaos, non-computability or complexity can replace randomness in this respect. Computationally - yes. But to a limited degree. I believe there is a true random element in the Universe. Of course if asked what do I mean by this: "true random" - I will have a very hard time answering. I know: all these theories of complexity and randomness and such. Kolomogorov, Chaitin, Chaos, Universality and whatever else. But quantum theory is above these abstract speculations. Because quantum theory is not that abstract. It is about Nature and it is becoming also about Us.
  • I believe that the theory that encompasses Matter and Mind must start with Quantum Theory - the best theory of matter that we have. Even if in other places I criticise it strongly. Even if I say that `it is not even a theory'. Why? Why do I value Quantum Theory so much while at the same time criticising it so strongly? Because it is supported by some powerful mathematics, and because it is able to produce numbers. EEQT - its `event enhanced' version - goes even further: not only does it produce numbers that concern averages but also it simulates real events for individual histories. But EEQT is only the first step. It is too phenomenological. Even if I like to call it a "Columbus solution to the quantum measurement problem", even then it is just the beginning. Not even a first step...
  • I do not believe that biological systems must be studied by other means - other than physics, other than mathematics - as suggested by B. Josephson .
  • But in a sense I agree with Josephson: physics can and should be made less dogmatic - and its field should be extended; including at least a refined information theory.
    We can not make any real progress without mathematics - the most logical theory that we have - even if its logic has its own flaws (Goedel). Without mathematics we will be drawn into pure metaphysics - and this will be the end of our civilisation.

Changes in the perspective as of April 16, 1996:

I think that Universal Mind is an oversimplification. I think it is also a misleading concept. Why? Because using it may suggest I am an atheist. And I am not. (But I am also not adherent to any particular religion...) What does that means? Stressing Universal Mind suggests Knowledge has the highest value. But it is not the case. What counts first are the moral values. Logical values come later.

Do we need a theory that encompasses Matter and Mind? Yes, I still believe that we do. But ... Yes, there is a "but." Again it has to do with moral values. We know from history that the results of science can be used for good and for evil purposes. We know even more: that they are always used also for evil purposes - whatever the precautions taken! This holds for ordinary science. Now, if the dream of creating a theory relating Mind to Matter will come true - then the scope of science will extend tremendously. By acting directly on minds, one person will be able to influence instantly lives of millions. Unless we grow morally this could be a disaster for our planet. So what to do? No simple answer exists. But whenever we see somebody (like me before) who tends to make knowledge the highest value - then one has to be on guard. Knowledge can, and often does, lead to evil ... (but lack of Knowledge can lead to even more evil....)

dali-per.gif Concerning Quantum Theory - at present I value it less than before. I believe it is a temporary way of dealing with the infinite depth of the Unknown. We need new concepts that will allow us to ask new questions. We need to understand the nature of Time - this is one of the most crucial problems.

Concerning randomness and Einstein's dissatisfaction with the picture of "God playing dice" : if we think of the Universe as infinitely complex - then using probability theory may be the only way to describe the Infinite in finite terms. This may be the true reason for randomness in Nature. We can use our Free Will to control random events (to some degree). In fact, we must exercise our Free Will. Otherwise the merciless Law-of-Universal-Decay-of-Everything will lead the World back into Chaos. Randomness was necessary to create the Universe - that it is open into the Future - but Randomness is pushing this Universe back into the original Pleroma state. Unless Intelligence intervenes, unless the Good wins over the Evil, unless the Free Will acts to help the Creation, unless WE consider it our highest duty - unless all that happens - the Window into the Future may close forever.

A year ago I disagreed with Josephson. Today I am not that sure that physics and mathematics will suffice to understand biological systems. Taking into account the two already mentioned factors: the necessity of strong moral principles when dealing with living beings and the infinite complexity of Creation, we must conclude that sterile science is either doomed to fail or doomed to lead us to disaster.

For the actual perspective see my Physics of the Mysterious

Return to:



Last modified on: June 27, 2005.