Quantum-Reality Consciousness©
What is Quantum-Reality Consciousness.
Introduction
Quantum-Reality Consciousness (Q-RC) is a new term coined by the founder of the 2knowY Organisation that describes the state of consciousness presented in the written materials and on their web-site. It is hoped that this term can be adopted generally when referring to the state that precedes (or preceded) the beginning. It is intended that the term Q-RC will be used and remain free of any existing intellectual or emotional dependency that often emerges when discussing subjects that are so much part of the Human Condition.
The term Q-RC is an umbrella description covering an interpretation of data coming from the scientific discipline of Quantum Physics the thoughts writings and practices of religion and philosophy together with the insights that gave rise to the revelations and hypothesis first published in the book 'Life's Secrets Revealed'.
Our view of time, space, and ourselves is having to change as a result of the discoveries and considerations of quantum physics. The implications of some of the interpretations placed on the data are so different to our usual perceptions of the universe and ourselves, that they will require a shift of consciousness in order to cope with the changes in ourselves and society.
Every facet of human existence and survival is held in place by the assumptions we maintain regarding ourselves and the universe around us. Can you imagine the impact on society if suddenly we had to come to terms with the fact that everything we think of as solid and real is actually an illusion. Not here at all, or only here if we agree that it is here.
We will look at this concept in detail later, but if you are not already aware of it, there is a lively discussion taking place among Quantum Physicists regarding what is known as the Copenhagen Interpretation which raises the issue that we really should be prepared to come to terms with the fact that our view of ourselves and the universe may need a complete overhaul.
Religion and philosophy have evolved, as consciousness has tried to understand itself and explain its relationship to what it sees as the physical universe in which it seems to operate. Great thinkers and teachers from different religions and philosophies throughout time have described their view of who we are, where we are, and what we are doing here.
Much philosophical thinking has been prompted by the anomalies in human behavior and the seemingly unpredictable phenomena occurring in the universe giving rise to the question, is there a purpose to it all or is it just a random series of events?.
Science was born of one aspect of consciousness, that felt it could find the unifying principle, if there was one, by studying the material universe. It has made certain observations and discoveries that have enabled us to predict in a limited way, the make up and behavior of objects and matter in space-time. We have also learned how to impose some of our ideas resulting from these observations on matter and the universe. The difficulty with this is, that if we don't understand the absolute fundamental principles of the creation maintenance and destruction of matter, space-time and energy, it is foolhardy to impose our limited understanding on the symbiotic entity we call the universe. Many voices have been heard prompting a very cautious approach, a good number of these from within the scientific community itself..
Religion in the main came from another aspect of consciousness which instinctively considered that man was somehow at the center of the universe and that it could not come to know by taking the universe to pieces and inspecting it. That perhaps knowing would ultimately prove impossible and that some greater entity had created everything including consciousness itself. And that we should adopt a subservient posture and stand in awe of this creator and try to see a greater purpose in the natural phenomena of the universe and ourselves as inhabitants. The concept of faith ( which actually implies Don't Know or Can't Know) in a Creator or Causal entity is central to The main Religions of the world.
'According
to Legend, Archimedes discovered the principle of buoyancy while taking a
bath. He jumped out and ran through the streets shouting "Eureka!" The
scientific revolution took off 1800 years later after Gutenberg introduced
the printing press in Europe and Coperincus broke the old cosmology and put
humans in their place away from the centre of the universe. Since then,
thousands of scientists have experienced that Eureka moment when they realised
that they have seen a fundamental truth not known before.'
This
an extract from the introduction to a very interesting website charting a
time-line of discoveries in physics. I have highlighted with Bold Text
an expression of the sentiment that inspired the vitally important investigations
and discoveries that ultimately may put real human consciousness right back
at the center of all things.
Learn
more about the Physics Time-Line here
So these two particular aspects of consciousness set off, motivated by their particular instinct as briefly mentioned above. A graphic depicting both journeys would show a pair of divergent lines emanating from the origin 'consciousness as a whole'. Those lines continued to accelerate and diverge as science became more able to observe and record, and display an ability to predict and to some degree influence the universe it studied. It started to make grand claims and predictions based on its observations and hypotheses arising from its efforts. The idea that science was a match, or would become so, for the creator, filled the Religious consciousness with dread, and it has to be said that some of the claims of science particularly in the medical field and the subsequent catastrophic outcomes and compensation payments made to the unfortunate patients and their offspring bears witness to this fact.
It is difficult to identify the precise point at which these divergent paths of consciousness reached the furthest point of separation and then started to converge again. It is likely to have been around the time when physics was actively looking into the subatomic structure of matter, and those involved with theoretical physics, particle physics and quantum mechanics were postulating the subtle nature of the universe.
Also a time was reached when not only were we able to investigate and view the microscopic and sub atomic universe, we were leaving the planet and looking back at it from space. Giving rise to the theory that the planet earth is a living entity every component of which is essential to the creation and maintenance of the whole, 'Gaia' as it has come to be known.
The Gaia Hypothesis
By 1979 James Lovelock had published some of his ideas in a first book "Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth" in which the statement of the specification of the Gaia Hypothesis had become somewhat better defined. In this book we find him putting forward the postulate:
'...the physical and chemical condition of the surface of the Earth, of the atmosphere, and of the oceans has been and is actively made fit and comfortable by the presence of life itself. This is in contrast to the conventional wisdom which held that life adapted to the planetary conditions as it and they evolved their separate ways.''
Elsewhere, in relation to the definition of Gaia we find the following: "The entire range of living matter on Earth from whales to viruses and from oaks to algae could be regarded as constituting a single living entity capable of maintaining the Earth's atmosphere to suit its overall needs and endowed with faculties and powers far beyond those of its constituent parts...[Gaia can be defined] as a complex entity involving the Earth's biosphere, atmosphere, oceans, and soil; the totality constituting a feedback of cybernetic systems which seeks an optimal physical and chemical environment for life on this planet."
And in another section we find speculative thoughts concerning Gaia, and one's which probably appealed to many of the readers who supported the various environmental groups, but at the same time provoked the hard-lined scientific critics of the Gaia Hypothesis:
"To what extent is our collective intelligence also a part of Gaia? Do we as a species constitute a Gaian nervous system and a brain which can consciously anticipate environmental changes?"
Werner Heisenberg . was one of the greatest physicists of the twentieth century. He is best known as a founder of quantum mechanics, the new physics of the atomic world, and especially for the uncertainty principle in quantum theory.
Heisenberg formulated the uncertainty principle in February 1927 while employed as a lecturer in Niels Bohr's Institute for Theoretical Physics at the University of Copenhagen.
Bohr presented an interpretation
of Heisenberg's paper which postulated that an object in an experiment in
the everyday world cannot be both a wave and a particle at the same time,
it must be either one or the other depending on the situation. Later this
was refined to state that the wave function of an unobserved object is a combination
of both wave and particle until the experimenter chooses what to observe in
a given experiment.( Heisenberg stated that the path of an object first comes
into existence when we observe it). By choosing either the wave or the particle
the experimenter applies a bias and negates the possibility of learning about
nature as it really is.
(This
paragraph in italics is an attempt to get to the essence of Bohrs interpretation
of Heisenbergs paper and data from other sources that came to be known as
the Copenhagen Interpretation, for the purposes of this introduction to Q-RC.
See the foot of this introduction page, for links to the full text and content
of the paper and commentary on the paper and its interpretation from a wide
range of sources.)
The Copenhagen Interpretation can be taken to imply that matter doesn't actually exist, unless or until it is validated or agreed by an observer. This as I am sure you will agree is an esoteric concept and one more aligned with the Religious/philosophical aspect of consciousness as described earlier rather than the concrete origins of the scientific aspect of consciousness.
There has been and still is a great debate going on in and around Quantum Physics between those who say there must be an answer to the wave/particle dilemma that still validates the old (if that is the correct term) view. And the other which could be taken to imply that the world we see is here only because we agree that it is.
Both of these views and many that occupy positions between the two are discussed on a wide range of websites it is our intention to provide links to all of them whatever their position on the issue.
There are many wonderful resources on the Internet that provide information about the central characters of quantum physics and the part their thinking and research has played and is continuing to play.
Learn about Werner Heisenberg and an account of his contribution to Quantum Theory.
I am hoping to lead this introduction back toward a validation of the title Quantum-RealityConsciousness as an appropriate description for the gradually forming new consciousness (actually a return to the original) that is occurring as the two paths of consciousness that were once divergent are so obviously converging.
The theory
yields a lot, but it hardly brings us any closer to the secret of the Old
One.
In any case I am
convinced that He does not throw dice.
Einstein, writing to Max Born, 4 December 1926.
The above quotation as you can see was from Albert Einstein and is referring to his opinion at that time, that God doesn't play dice. Which is an interesting combination of both aspects of consciousness as identified in this introduction to Q-RC. On the one hand validating the notion of a creator or creating influence, whilst on the other hand implying that this creating influence does not have an uncertainty factor, that there must be a predictable mechanism for all things which can be apprehended by taking the nature of objects their location in space etc. to be fundamentally reliable when studying the universe.
Much
of the basic discussion in quantum physics around the Copenhagen Interpretation
is as I have said between those that feel that the real answers lie in the
question that if the actuality and nature of matter or the universe is dependent
on, or greatly influenced by the intention or desire of the observer. Then
what is the nature of the relationship between the observer and the thing
observed. The underlying essence of this question is who or what in fact is
the observer.
The other
view is that the observer is separate from the thing observed, that the observer
occupies a location in space and can therefore rely on this fact when interpreting
data from experiments and should ultimately design an experiment which will
provide conclusive proof of this fact.
There is an interesting parallel to this difference of approach in quantum physics to be found in the two fundamentally different approaches in meditation techniques employed by the religious/philosophical aspect of consciousness in an effort to answer the same question.
The first approach validates the notion that if the intellect can be allowed to become gradually more still or less dominant it will make it possible to become aware of that which may be apprehended by a quieter state of mind leading to a greater degree of knowing. Often described rather in the fashion of peeling an onion to get to the truth or all-knowing what ever the preferred description that lies at the center of the onion. As the intellect becomes yet more still, a greater degree of perception will be acquired thus revealing another more subtle layer of relative truth. A greater degree of stillness will bring to light another layer etc. etc. until ultimately all-knowing will be achieved.
Although this approach has an appeal and seems satisfactory at first glance, it implies that the ultimate state or whatever we should call it, is available as the result of following a process formulated by intellect.
Critics of this approach would say that this is a recipe for endless peeling (Time) which is driven by the desire to satisfy a theory that the truth may lay at the center of the onion. The very acceptance of this approach formulated by the intellect which itself is operating in time (some would say creates time) by virtue of the comparative process of intellectualisation, which takes one object (thought or concept) and compares it with another and produces yet another or others. The product of this approach clearly, is more objects more locations in space, the very activity that the meditator is trying to go beyond.
The second fundamental approach to meditation isn't an approach at all, in the strictest sense. It is more of an instinct that if we use the picture of the onion and agree that in some way the absolute answer could lie at the center. And if as we all agree that intellect and its theories and processes cannot actually come to know what is beyond or at the center, because they perpetuate matter time and space. The more we look for something to identify or label the more likely that ultimately we will find it, as we said yet another layer. (Another particle, wave etc.). The second approach to meditation asks is it possible for that which lies at the center of the onion to be known without applying a process without intellectual need or emotional desire. Is it possible to swallow the onion whole or for the onion to explode from the inside out as it were, instantly, without the time generating process of peeling? Is it possible that if the divide between the observer and the thing observed did not exist, that another state of consciousness, perhaps we might call it 'true consciousness' is actually available.
Is it possible that before we start or started to intellectualise at all, that a state of consciousness exists in which the potential for intellectualisation and therefore the universe exists but is not realised until an impulse or reason to intellectualise occurs.
As we said right at the start of this introduction, Science, Physics (in particular quantum physics), Philosophy, Religion are all elements of human consciousness generated in an attempt to understand itself and explain its relationship to what it sees as the physical universe in which it seems to operate.
Quantum-RealityConsciousness is an expression for that state which is not subject to time, does not occupy a location in space, it is that within which the big bang occurred and therefore in which the identifiable elements of the universe exist both macrocosmic and microcosmic.
This
site is dedicated to that state of consciousness which we say is the matrix
within which all creation occurs
that state which the founders of 2knowy Organisation have called Quantum-RealityConsciousness.
It is hoped that this site can attract input from all interested parties and welcomes contributions which will be published here if it is considered that they seriously add to clarification of the subject of Q-RC.
Mail the author Rod Ohlsson To contribute to these pages or suggest a link.
Public Discussion Forum To contribute to the 2knowY organisation public forum.
Links to other relevant sources of information