This is a subject which I tread lightly upon. But since this conflict has raged since the dawn of science and still rages on today, I feel compelled to address it. One cannot exist in this world without wondering where it came from and who made it (if "anybody"). I do not profess to be an expert on this subject, but there are some simple relations that can be established.

The key to this argument seems to be the question of determinism. In a perfectly deterministic universe, we are understood to be nothing more than machines-biological robots-exhibiting whatever behavior we tend to exhibit simply because of our social programming and the chemical processes which go on inside our minds and bodies. Like clock mechanisms, we go through our daily grind of activities, driven by whatever energy sources there are available to us (i.e. food). What we do depends partially on our genetic program and partially our environmental experiences (during our "growing" years).

The argument of the quantum is somewhat counter to this since there are indeed, certain biological apparatus in the human brain which operate according to pure "chance." However, whenever one of these pure chance coincidences takes place in large numbers, modern-day physicists have a tendency to cite the postulate of the "conscious atom" as the explanation. The embodiment of this postulate is the mind experiment "lovingly" referred to by many physicists as Schrödinger's Cat.

I will not discuss this experiment in-depth, but I will basically argue that it is similar (in some respects) to the flip of a coin; Heads, the cat lives, Tails, the cat dies.

The argument of the quantum suggests that decisions made by the individual mind may be of two types: The first is our natural "programming" in which we follow habitual patterns of behavior, such as driving a car or eating. The second occurs when we become conscious of "self." This is felt by many physicists (and philosophers) to be the essence of spirituality in human beings. For example, the coincidental alignment of many neuronal pathways at the same moment of a decision is seen as an exhibition of the conscious atom.

Somehow, this is reflected as "free-will" in the human in which such action takes place. If it is indeed pure chance which guides such interactions of the mind and the universe, then we are tempted to suggest that such massive alignments may only be guided "spiritually." This can only be so because it happens often enough to say that it cannot be pure chance.

Is this the case? Does the creator watch from above and "tweak" the occasional quantum so that things can go His way? Or are we the ones who "reach into" the spiritual essence and "extract" what we desire of this strange and confusing world?

My first inclination is to wish that we had so much control over our destinies and that our ability to make decisions could be guided spiritually. My second inclination is to question my ability to do so. My third inclination is to become aware of my conscious self and say something silly like, "I am that I am." And I am. I know it, I think it and I feel it. I exist, in a state of awareness that cannot be denied, but can only prove it to myself and no other. It is, in fact, the only thing in the universe that I can prove. Everything else is theory-it may exist. You may exist. Et cetera.

Finally, I am inclined to suggest, "If this, then why not other ways too?" In other words, if we are, indeed, free-willed, then it need not be the result of the quantum probability, although this is a very attractive explanation of it. The idea of the conscious atom seems to be in accordance with the idea of the "cosmic consciousness." But what stops us from taking this further?

Suppose that the "power" of the spiritual essence is not limited to simply altering the outcomes of quantum choices? Suppose it could be used to "part the Red Sea?" Is this a quantum coincidence?

I make note of this particular fact; The idea of uncertainty comes partly out of our inability to measure things with exactitude and partly out of the mathematics-particularly that many quantum processes are well described by a quantum wave equation. We are limited by our tools. As it turns out, we are attempting to use our tools to measure our tools. This is like trying to hand-draw a straight line and using it to try and draw another straight line. It can be done to a certain degree, but it will never be perfect. It is simply the result of what we have to work with. I cannot ever obligingly agree that it is always (or even some of the time) the result of spiritual intervention. It is a mere facet of existence.

Of course, the whole idea of the quantum decision-making process (and awareness-as a result) clashes horribly with the concepts carried within the Time-Energy Theory, particularly with respect to creation and annihilation of the universe. However, even the Time-Energy Theory can supply its own version of "spirituality" and free-will. If one can imagine a thing, then it may be possible. But if one can imagine a thing, one can imagine many more things, as well.

Another conflict arises in the cyclic nature of the universe. We say that if there is a probability that an event will occur no matter how remote, then on the infinite domain, that event must occur. This remains true for all possible events unless there is a recurrence. Once this happens, the cycle of the universe is fixed inescapably and all other probabilities are locked out.

But the argument of the cyclic universe is refuted by the idea of metaphysical influence on this domain and the power of free will as it impacts our universe. There is the most problem-free viewpoint which directly states that these do not have any effect on our existence whatsoever. This is the model atheistic viewpoint and it does not conflict with the Time-Energy Theory in any fashion. In the examination of the quantum mechanical principles however, we reason that during an experiment our very presence or non-presence influences an experiment. If we decide to be elsewhere during the experiment, have we done so as a result of free-will or have we done so because of environmental influences? There is evidence to support both notions. If we deny any notion of spiritual influence, we are bound to reason that we are driven strictly by our environment and biological programming. And so, lacking spiritual influences, we are not in fact, free-willed beings.

What then, if we are to assume a spiritual existence? The conflict with the Time-Energy Theory is that the universe is unrepeatable because of psychic and free-willed intervention.

Suppose that in this cycle of the universe we decide to be present for our experiment. But because of free-will or psychic influence, we decide to be elsewhere during the next cycle of the universe. Hence, our universe becomes unrepeatable. Suddenly, because we have changed our minds all probabilities become possible, and since on the infinite domain any event which can occur must occur, then all probable events must occur.

We are reminded however, that during any single cycle of the universe, only one particle is in existence. On the infinite domain there are an infinite number of probable events, and the amount of time required for the occurrence of an infinite number of probable events is infinity. By this reckoning the single particle which constitutes the universe cannot return to become the second particle in the universe, or the third, or so on-the universe would not exist.

This does not preclude the notion of free-will or spiritual influence.

I resort here to quoting Albert Einstein who once said, "Science without religion is blind. Religion without science is lame." One cannot presume to comment upon the nature of the universe without commenting upon the nature of God. It is not my intention to purport my views about religion. However, one cannot ignore the possibility (probability, if you like) of there being a "world" beyond ours.

There is, if we assume that a "spiritual" world exists, a common misconception we often make which is that that world must experience time as we do-second-by-second, hour-by-hour, etc. There is no evidence anywhere that will support this view. In fact, any evidence suggests otherwise.

At any rate, we cannot assume that any spiritual world which may exist beyond ours, exists in time as we do. There is evidence that the proposed (by the various recognized religions) spiritual world does not experience time at all. All of the known religions of our world purport that God is an unchanging being-that He is always the same. We must assume then, by those reckonings, that God, whoever or whatever He is, operates on a fixed set of rules. Any spiritual world which might exist, must also operate by a set of rules which are likewise, unchanging.

Spiritually influenced free-will must operate similarly. Any spiritual influence on our universe must operate according to a fixed set of rules. That is to say given a particular event, there will be a function of spiritual "essence" to be applied before, during and/or after that event, which must be applied to the event which has changed, is changing or will change all other events in the universe, which directly indicates that the probability of a particular event in the infinite domain does not necessarily have the value of one (100%). It changes with the impact of the spiritual world upon the universe. This imposes itself upon the concept of free-will, implying, of course, that free-will is spiritually endowed.

By all known laws of the universe and common sense, the universe should not exist, and there should be nothing anywhere, anytime. The probability of existence is therefore zero, or infinitely improbable. A function required to overcome this should be infinite in nature, at least with respect to our perceptions.

This problem essentially answers its own question. The universe may arise out of spiritual intervention, but by that intervention and the fixed laws which apply, the probability of the event in question is not one, but infinity. The event in question is the creation of the universe. Without getting into the problems of "comparative infinities," this suggests that the two functions (non-existence and spiritual free-will) may have collided to produce a value of one (1).

Go to Chapter 18

Home Begin Preface Acknowledgements Contents Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 7 Chapter 8 Chapter 9 Chapter 10 Chapter 11 Chapter 12 Chapter 13 Chapter 14 Chapter 15 Chapter 16 Chapter 17 Chapter 18 Appendix A Appendix B1 Appendix B2 Appendix C1 Appendix C2 Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F Appendix G General References Future Books About the Front Cover About the Author Index