Is Reality the Right Saucer of Milk?: Schrodinger, Quantum & the Occult

 

www.magusmagazines.com

Is Reality the Right Saucer of Milk?: Schrodinger, Quantum & the Occult  

 

            The study of the supernatural begins with a sense of awe. Something spectral, outside the norm or different. Often times, the supernatural defies the empirical and is based solely on experiential happenings. And always it is attached to a sense of wonder. However, anthropologists, folklorists, and students of religion sometimes disagree as to whether the supernatural is in a system or if the system is made up of the supernatural. It is the classic macro/micro debate. For example, a scholar of the supernatural needs an office, a place to investigate, laboratory, tech equipment, an archive of narratives, cameras, witnesses, an audience, and ‘evidence’ or variances of the phenomenon. This structure is formed from local narratives that are collected, classified, changed, and performed in a myriad of ways. the supernatural begins at the local level then moves globally as it shifts and traded through dissemination.

            What this means is that a student of the supernatural has a choice of routes and can focus on either the local or the global aspects of the supernatural. We can either study the spirit of the phenomenon as a whole or render an inquiry into a local paranormal investigative team. Just as Capitalism has a ‘spirit’ but no plausible opposite since its everywhere, a trading room on Wall Street has many competitors inShanghai, London etc…Wall Street is connected in many ways and it is bigger only in this sense. As Latour has remarked, it is not wider. The point is to not focus on Capitalism but don’t stay stuck in the trading room either. We must follow the connections. After all, “what is acting at the same moment in any place is coming from many other places, many distant materials, and many faraway actors” (Bruno Latour,Reassembling the Social. 206). The paranormal also fits this pattern. Although researching the spirit of phenomenon is essential, we must also hone in on local teams that help make the narratives a viable piece of folklore.

            This idea of faraway entities interacting on the local arena also finds its place in quantum physics. According to Capra, “In the framework of quantum theory, distinct physical entities are therefore idealizations which are meaningful only to the extent that the main part of the interaction has a long range” (Capra, The Tao of Physics. 137). In other words, each transaction involves effects extending over great distances. This was the essence of the Einstein/Bohr debate of the 1920s. Einstein was convinced that there are no nonlocal connections. He believed that there must be some external reality consisting of independent spatially separated events. Bohr opined that nonlocal connections do exist. In quantum theory, particles transcend usual information transfer and two separated particles (even by space and time) can influence one another. John Bell settled the matter once and for all. He devised an experiment where two electrons are brought close to each other. At the instant we perform a measurement on particle 1 and set its rotational spin, the second particle automatically began to spin along its opposite axis thus giving the pair of total spin of 0. But would this happening occur if the electrons were separated by long distances? Einstein said ‘No’ because since no signal travels faster than light, it is impossible that a measurement on 1 will ‘instantly’ determine spin on the other. There must be some lag time. Bohr posited that a two-particle system is an indivisible whole. Even if their separated, the pair of electrons will continue to act on one another. Bells’ theorem proved consistent with Bohr’s theory and showed that electrons, and by extension the universe, is interconnected.

            The paranormal also shows ideas of interconnection or unification. If we postulate the probabilities of potentialities based upon measurement, we can surmise the legitimacy of paranormal phenomenon. It’s not hard. Television is full of ghosthunting investigators utilizing a potential ‘Haunted House’ as a laboratory. Experiments are run in a myriad of ways to capture evidence of some supernatural entity. Often times, the ghost or specter is used as an ethnographic informant and structured interviewing is implemented to form a dialogue with the unseen. If we postulate that consciousness of spirit has some corresponding mechanism in our ordinary sphere of influence, the system can be seen as a pair of interconnecting parts. For example, if we use a voice recorder to measure the probability of spirit talking and we capture an anomalous recording on the device, can we find a corresponding sound vibration or band-width to use as a mechanism or catalyst for the happening? Probabilities can be mustered by using quantum thinking in areas of the paranormal. Sure, its difficult to verify. But is difficulty a justifiable reason to not explore these potentialities?

           

Inherently, the problem of the supernatural is one of Existence. The whole point of studying anomalous entities is to come to grips with our wanting to believe in something outside normal circles of space and time. We conjure narratives of myth and folklore. We apply reason and rationality in an attempt to explain scientifically what the anomalous re-presents to us. Probabilities and potentialities are the new symbols of the paranormal entity. More than an estimation of an occurrence or true statement, probability has become synonymous with the entity itself. Furthermore, the entity sits betwixt and between Being and Nothingness. Like the appearance of Schrodinger’s Cat, the supernatural creature cannot be said to ‘Be’ or ‘Not Be’ really there. As our perspective changes, so does the behavior of the entity. As Capra remarked, “The introduction of probability waves, in a sense, resolves the paradox of particles being waves by putting it in a totally new context; but at the same time it leads to another pair of opposite concepts which is even more fundamental that of Existence and Non-Existence. We can never say that an atomic particle exists at a certain place, nor can we say that it does not exist. Being a probability pattern, the particle has tendencies to exist in various places and thus manifests a strange kind of physical reality between Existence and Non-Existence” (Capra, Tao of Physics. 154). The particle recalls the supernatural entity in that it enjoys a liminal existence. As it is measured or as it is ethnographically studied, the particle sits without a status and is inbetween shifts in agency. Is it a limbo or purgatory existence? It is process of becoming and the state just before objective knowledge and subjective experience is unified into a new assembly? It is all these things and more.

            The quantum is a sufficient metaphor for the supernatural. After all, many supernatural creatures can only be said to be perceived indirectly. Such in the case of the voice recorder or shadow on film. Particles exhibit similar behavior. Again Capra remarks that there are “Other particles that belong to a category called resonances. They live for a considerable shorter time, decaying after a few ‘particle seconds’, so they can never travel farther than a few times their own size. This means they cannot be seen in the bubble chamber; their existence can only be inferred indirectly” (Capra 228). Supernatural creatures also show the tendency to be indirectly perceived. For example, ceremonial magicians perform highly ritualized and formal invocations of the anomalous. Sometimes the rite consists of a complex magical circle, liturgy, and intense visualization. As the invocation progresses, sometimes a change of air pressure or strange sound is all that announces the entrance of the desired Being. Like the particle, the existence of the entity can sometimes only be inferred indirectly. A resonance and a supernatural entity cannot be said to be objects or events. They are an experience or happening…..    

MYSTERIUM TREMENDUM- RECONCILING HEISENBERG’S ‘UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE’ IN REGARDS TO THE BALTIC ANOMALY

www.magusmagazines.comADDENDUM: MYSTERIUM TREMENDUM- RECONCILING HEISENBERG’S ‘UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE’ IN REGARDS TO THE BALTIC ANOMALY

            Fundamental to acquiring a solid grasp of any state of affairs is being able to perceive changes in relations. That being so, position and movement are an essential aspect of confirming or falsifying how we perceive variances in association. Our discussion of the Baltic Anomaly makes use of relational study as we probe objective knowledge and subjective experience. By referencing object and subject or evidence and ‘what we understand of the evidence as it changes through time’, we are able to map out and plot the trajectory of the Baltic Anomaly event. As ‘what we understand’ acts as an epistemic conduit, the ontology of the Anomaly continuously changesVis ‘a Vis the changes made in understanding and reassembling the data. Like new puzzle pieces of a puzzle, information is constantly entering the fray to be recognized and included in defining what the Anomaly really is.

            

I know that obtaining a certainty of relations is considered by many to be an impossibility. In fact, object/subject study is ripe with theories suggesting that evidence and ‘what we understand’ can never coexist much less converge into a coherent ontological status. This problem is called Heisenberg’s ‘Uncertainty Relations’ and is best described in terms of particles. According to the Heisenberg dilemma, we can’t know both the position and velocity of a particle at the same time. The moment we pinpoint the exact position of a particle, the momentum or velocity becomes less defined. In other words, if you know the position, then seek to determine its velocity, you destroy what you know about its position. The problem also occurs if we focus on the velocity of the particle. Feyerabend states that, “if by some trick you can determine its momentum with absolute precision, then you not only don’t know anything about its position, there doesn’t even exist anything like a position any more” (Feyerabend 1991). What we know about one, annihilates what we know about the other.

            

It’s easy to see how ‘Uncertainty Relations’ can be applied to the Baltic Anomaly as well. Object and Subject or evidence and ‘what we understand’ are proportional to position and velocity in Heisenberg’s Uncertainty. For example, the more evidence that is collected lends to a lesser understanding of the evidence as it changes through time. As we collect data, what we know becomes less defined because there is more information to work with. Inversely, as what we understand through time becomes more pronounced, we tend to discover less new evidence. We narrow the playing field to include only what we already understand. Subsequently, when ‘less is considered’, the research programme becomes suspended and begins to degenerate. Thus, the Heisenberg problem makes it impossible to create an ontology or plot its trajectory because either the Anomaly becomes indefinite due to discovering more but understanding less. Or, we understand more through time yet suspend our context of discovery. We only consider what evidence is already there. Either scenario threatens to dissolve the entire ontology before it can even be created.

            

The solution to maintaining ‘definiteness’ in our ontology is in measurements. If we measure our evidence, we can discern the relationship between the evidence and ‘what we understand’ at a given time. We can also infer ‘what we understand’ either immediately before or after the measurement. The Object was always in a well-defined position because the evidence could have been measured at any time. Likewise, ‘what we understand through time’ was always well-defined because it was possible to measure in relation to the evidence at any given time. What we understand was there had we the inclination to measure it against the evidence. The fact that both the evidence and ‘what we understand’ could be measured indicates that object and subject were always in a well-defined position. Focusing on one was no threat to the other because they are defined in relation to each other.

            

Another difference between a particle and the Baltic Anomaly is in the identity that is produced by configuring evidence and ‘what we understand’. Although a particle’s position and velocity can be measured in relation to each other, the Anomaly’s object/subject relationship creates an identity-constituting space time. The Anomaly has a personal identity that is lost on the particle. In addition to identity, the Anomaly also enters an alterity and state of vagrancy where in-between occurs while an ontology is being created. An incandescent liminal state, evidence and ‘what we understand’ disassemble only long enough to be re-configured into a new state of Being. We don’t have any evidence that position and velocity of a particle enter into any intermediate or ‘betwixt and between’ state. Furthermore, no interpretation is needed when measuring the distance between position and velocity. However, the Anomaly relies on an interpretation of old and new evidence to form coherent versions of truth.      

Science & Spirituality: What is the 'Gravity' of the situation?

www.magusmagazines.com

It’s really no surprise esoteric thought is drawn to the cosmos. There is something precious about the cold infinity of abyss set afire with clusters of life-giving suns. The ancient saw no distinction whatsoever with the cosmos of Nuit and their god-forms. They were one and wholly the same. Have we lost this in modern times? I often wonder whether it’s the cosmologists and physicists that are now the only real proponents of religious thought. That perhaps the trajectory of religious feeling has been lost on religions and preserved in those that traverse space. Listen to them talk. When NASA landed a spacecraft on the Rosetta Comet in 2014, the press conference revealed much of the state of mind of these off-world travelers. They spoke with reverence. With an air of excitement, these scientists evoked a sense of the sacred much more than anything I’ve seen from current religious milieus. The tone of these scientists reminded me of Wickes when he remarked, “I looked upon space and I beheld darkness. In that darkness moves mysterious forces. Not like the gods of man’s conceiving were they, but strange primeval beings born before the gods of human form. They were hooded in darkness. Through their fingers they drew the threads of blackness and even wove them back and forth.”[1] A plea for the intangible and ethereal and bewildering, these men of science were not unlike their god-fearing predecessors such as Copernicus, Galileo, or Newton.

Hollywood has begun to catch on. Although Kubrick’s 2001 certainly had religious overtones, the more recent Gravity boggles the mind in its blatant use of esoteric paradigms. Watch it again. And for god sake listen to the music. Bullock’s character is separated from the world, undergoes a liminal set of Ordeals and comes blazing back to earth a new Being. The experiences this character has in the vacuum effectively leaves a wreckage of her former self. We bear witness to her dissolving as every possible thing that could go wrong does. Nuit herself is a catalyst and agent of change. It is in the expansiveness of the abyss that we are confronted with the terrifying purge of form that leads to recognition of the immanent. The film is a mystery teaching. Watching it evokes Bendyaev when he wrote that “The absolute is a definitive mystery. God is transcendental; an abyss separates man from him. But the transcendental nature of god is our immanent experience.”[2] In the film’s concluding sequence we see the transformation and utter bewilderment of emerging a new Being. Bullock looks up in almost disbelief of what she just underwent.

It’s a sad state of affairs when our representatives of religion are no more spiritual than the atheists they pretend to despise. When they are paid millions to deliver spiritually empty prayers, ask for more millions, and provide ‘spin’ on secular issues having nothing at all to do with renewal. But it is equally baffling and indeed encouraging to know that science has taken up the mantle. That we can find honest spiritual milieus in government space programs and in privately funded manufacturers such as SpaceX. Who would have thought given the history of science and religion that it would be the scientists that embody the ineffable and mysterious? Perhaps this is what the ancients knew. They knew that in preserving child-like grace they retained the wonder and awe of the numinous event. And while doing so, honor a time before religion became a slave to man. Somewhere, Giordano Bruno and Galileo are having a well-deserved laugh.

---

[1] Wickes, F. The Inner World Of Man. 1950. Boston. Siglo.

[2] Bendyaev, N. Spirit and Reality. 1946. London. Geoffrey Bles.