Review:

Science Touches Fingers with the Beyond
Both these books give superbly clear expositions of the state of contemporary quantum theory and cosmology, and are worthwhile for that alone. Paul Davies’ explanation of ‘superstring’ theory and ‘dark energy’ is a model of how complex mathematical concepts can be rendered intelligible to the scientific layman. However the intention of both books is to point beyond the science we have now, towards a vaster meaning which touches the very roots of human consciousness itself.

Quantum physics demands that mind and matter are inextricably interwoven. Theory demands that sub-atomic particles exist in a condition of probability between alternative states, until the observer collapses the wave equation, and probability switches to the certainty of one or other of the alternatives. But what is the connection between mind and matter? Some jump into the quantum vacuum and come out the far side into a spiritual universe. For others this is a leap of faith too far, and a phase change from science to unjustified speculation. (See the review of Laszlo’s work by Chris Clarke and Mike King in a previous edition of Network) , Both Thuan and Davies wish to avoid such criticism, and yet both are convinced that science has moved beyond materialism to some union of mind and matter beyond what we know at present, but towards which our knowledge is moving. They are like mediaeval sailors who want to cross the ocean, but dare not lose sight of the shore. Thuan gives a meticulously clear account of modern science, and shows how the causal mechanical Newtonian world view has given way to a universe of random probabilities, in which, despite EinsteinÕs disapproval, God apparently plays dice with existence. A linear law yields an accurately predicted effect from an accurately measured cause. Bundles of linear laws give clearly predicted answers. Science has advanced by discovering linear laws, and hence the reductionist assumes that complex things like life, consciousness, or the weather, can be broken down into the operation of simpler, easy to understand, linear laws. However the whole is often greater than the sum of its parts. The full reality of existence is a creative chaos operating within the structure of a precise harmony.

The so called ‘Anthropic principle’ indicates how finely balanced the fundamental laws of matter have to be in order for a universe to exist within which human life is possible. The slightest shift in any major parameter would mean a universe in which life or complexity of any sort could not possibly exist. Reality as we know it, is only possible within these parameters: all life and consciousness can only exist within this exactly measured framework, and yet given the fundamental laws by themselves it would impossible to predict the evolution of life and consciousness. Within the harmony of law there is a power of creative chaos. Thuan argues that it is dishonest not to recognise that the chaos of material existence has built in ‘strange attractors’ which organise the chaos into harmony. These are attractors pointing towards increased complexity. The chaos of the ‘big bang’ condenses to atoms, molecules, galaxies, stars and planets. On this planet, and perhaps many others, the drive for complexity leads on into the evolution of life and mind. Thus the appearance of mankind and human thought are a consequence of the inbuilt parameters of the universe.

Paul Davies gives an equally meticulous survey of the state of modern science, but his concern is with the ‘Goldilocks Engima’ or the Anthropic principle of why our universe is exactly right for the evolution of conscious life on earth. The fact that we are here to observe the universe specifies the fundamental physical parameters of the universe to a fantastically precise degree. Not only do conditions on this planet have to be finely balanced to allow the evolution of carbon based life forms, but that in turn demands exactly the right conditions for creation of the elements in the nuclear furnaces of stars, and that again requires that parameters for the fundamental forces in the ‘big bang’ at the beginning of the universe are as we measure them. The slightest variation in these parameters would mean a totally different universe, or no universe at all. The whole universe has to be exactly as it is, for us to be here in one insignificant corner to observe it. The statistical chances of this happening by random chance have been calculated at about 10 to the power of 120. This is a fantastically large number, and is in the order of the number of atoms in the entire universe multiplied by itself. Mere random chance is hardly adequate to describe such impossible odds.

Davies gives six answers, plus the answer that the whole of experience is a virtual fake, and the answer that there is no answer. He examines all six reasonable theories, and gives the pros and cons. They are:-

(A) The universe is just absurd. It is as it is.
(B) Our universe is unique. There is a ‘theory of everything’ which will link all the parameters together.
(C) The multiverse. Our universe is just one of a series of universes in a perhaps infinite sequence.
(D) Intelligent design. God did it.
(E) An inbuilt parameter along side the four fundamental forces drives the universe towards life and intelligence.
(F) A loop in time enables intelligent life to create the universe which gave rise to it by a process of backward causation.

Answer (A) was the standard scientific answer in the mid 20th century. May be it still is. The universe just is, and that is that. If at one corner it contains intelligent observers who think about it, then that is an absurd accident which tells us nothing about the universe itself. However the search for a ‘theory of everything’ seeks for one unifying formula for all the fundamental forces. It must first ask why things are as they are, and this opens the flood gates to further questions. One answer is that the parameters for the strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism and gravitation can all only fit together in one way (B1), and we are it. A successful ‘theory of everything’ will therefore explain why the universe is as it is. Alternatively the parameters could be different (B2), but it so happens they are not. In either case the question ‘why?’ remains unanswered. Davies also notes that neither version explains the biological friendliness of our universe.

Another alternative is the multiverse (C). Our universe is just one of a series of universes. This also comes in two versions. The first version is that there is an infinity of universes, and in infinity anything can happen, even anything as improbable as us. The catch is that a theory that explains anything and everything explains nothing. In the other version of the multiverse theory, universes are subject to a process of evolution similar to life on earth. The fundamental parameters of existence fluctuate randomly, but universes give rise to daughter universes, and gradually universes with more stable basic forces accumulate, until our universe emerges at the end of the evolutionary chain. Davies points that the drive towards evolutionary complexity still requires to be explained.

(D) is intelligent design. Very few scientists will accept this, but on Davies’ analysis, Aristotle’s unmoved mover is only marginally less credible than all other alternatives. Intelligent design presumes some transcendent intelligence outside the universe creating it. Option (E) postulates an immanent parameter within the universe alongside the four fundamental forces which operates as a drive towards life and consciousness. This is Thuan’s solution, and one cautiously favoured by Davies.

The other solution (F), also favoured by Davies, is taken from an idea by the leading quantum physicist John Wheeler. This is a ‘boot strap’ universe in which matter gives rise to life, life gives rise to mind, and mind gives rise to matter through a time reversal effect. Light passing through a double slit produces a diffraction pattern. A single photon of light passing through a double slit can act as either a wave or a particle: which it does depends on whether it is registered as a particle by a detector, or seen as a diffraction pattern on a screen. This in itself indicates that reality in quantum physics depends on the observer. More paradoxically it can be shown that the choice between detector and screen can be delayed until after the photon has passed through the slits, yet to produce either the spot of light or the diffraction pattern, it must have somehow known how it would be registered before it passed through. This backward causation in time can be extrapolated into a speculation that mind may have collapsed the wave equation of the universe backwards in time, so as to make the universe favourable to the evolution of life and mind in forward time.

These two books lead to some inexorable conclusions. Firstly mind is so interwoven with matter at the basic level, that naive materialism in the manner of Dennett, Dawkins and Churchland may be philosophically valid, but it is scientifically irrelevant. Secondly, following quantum physics and cosmology to their limits points to fundamental metaphysical questions beyond the present limits of scientific inquiry. The third conclusion is stated explicitly by Thuan and hinted at by Davies. Mind must be more than what normally goes on inside the human skull. Any further exploration of the nature of existence is going to have to refer to the dimensions of mystical and paranormal experience.
Max Payne is a Vice-President of the Network.

*Chaos & Harmony

*The Goldilocks Enigma