GE announces 12,000 job cuts in power segment. Writing on the wall for coal and gas. Only question is whether we still have time to save the planet for human life. Or, will we need to jump to Earth 2? A forced interstellar jump could completely alter the moral fabric of society, as told in Evolved.
Not sure if this normal, but it seems natural. I find myself looking at the world around us through the prism of the world I created in Evolved. Do other authors do this? Maybe it is my way of making subjective sense of recent events in France and the Middle East.
In Evolved there are extra dimensions, textured branes and dark matter in the universe. All of these aspects have an element of the possible based on current scientific theory. In such a rich world there are limitless ways to think about space travel and something greater.
Lately dark matter has been receiving more attention, as particle physicists like Dr. Lisa Randall publish new books on the subject. Dark matter should really be thought of as “transparent matter” since it does not interact with light and therefore we can not detect it directly. Instead scientists have observed its gravitational impact on the cosmos, resulting in fairly strong evidence of its existence.
What is most startling about dark matter is that it is all around us. In fact, about 85% of what surrounds us is likely dark matter. Billions of dark matter particles pass though us every second. Do other laws of physics exist for dark matter? Likely. Does this mean there could be life in the form of dark matter? Makes for fertile writing material, no?
So, getting back to my point. If there is dark matter all around us, in us, and there are likely extra dimensions around us, even in us – are we part of something greater that we do not recognize because our senses are limited?
The events in France had me pondering these questions as everyone was asking, why? Why would a religion willfully and deliberately kill innocent people? In some shallow respects I understand their “eye for an eye” argument. We have killed innocents by dropping imprecise bombs in the Middle East. War is nothing but the escalation of tit-for-tat.
But how does God play into this? Radical Islam seems to suggest a reward system for killing infidels who do not worship the proper God in the proper way, like God moves around and doles out specific prizes.
But, and this is where Evolved comes in, if God is everywhere and in every moment in time, it seems silly to think of God as moving closer. And how does targeted killing of a fellow person possibly get rewarded? I suppose I could turn the question around on the west and find our reasons wanting as well. Are we simply preserving our capitalistic society so we can accumulate more objects using Middle East energy sources? Our materialistic incentive structure drips with blood as well. Maybe we’ve just built up enough buffers (fighting happens overseas with a separate military, and multiple economic transactions exist between oil and our new car) to protect our moralistic compass from disturbance.
What I believe is that God is a constant. God is everywhere, all the time. It is up to us to open up to him, connect. The cardinal sins are simply telling us that these actions close us off from God, distract us from knowing. It really isn’t so complicated. No need to try to control the world around you. Just simply learn to control yourself, and whatever dark matter exists within you.
If science struggles to fully explain only 15% of the matter that surrounds us, all of us should maybe humble ourselves and open up to bigger possibilities.
Science and religion have historically had a tension between them. Science’s goal is primarily to explain the world objectively (how do things work?), which often is extrapolated using subjective narratives (Lawrence Krauss). Religion’s primary goal is to understand the world subjectively (more the “why me” question), which often uses objective language as a basis of evangelical and fundamentalist belief systems.
As science has progressed it has increasingly infringed upon the objective belief systems of certain religions, explaining such things as why earth is not the center of the universe and evolution did in fact occur. Followers of more fundamental belief systems have had to adjust their message, which has created somewhat of a siege mentality. Religious belief systems that have remained more subjective, or internally focused, have been impacted less. The more contemplative aspects of belief system like Buddhism, Hinduism and parts of Judaeo-Christianity have been able to integrate the progression of science, often opening up deeper understanding.
The on-going progression of scientific knowledge suggests the tension between the two sides will continue. But will science ever explain subjectivity, or the feeling of self and all the creative initiatives produced by it? Many neurologists would argue yes, our feeling of self is simply a product of a very complex physical system we do not yet understand. (Materialism or Physical-ism)
My reading has largely focused on the science side, trying to understand the theories and predictions of how we will understand consciousness. What I missed was a slide backwards on the subjective side. If our society is becoming more objective in its focus (possessing things and explaining our world objectively in the third person), are we losing hold of our subjectivity?
Franciscan monk Richard Rohr argues we are not truly conscious when we are focused on the objects around us (including objectified other people), as opposed to truly seeing the life present around us.
“To love is to be conscious, and to be fully conscious would mean you are capable of loving. Sin always proceeds from lack of consciousness. I don’t think most people are sinners; most people are just not aware and not fully living in their own present moment.” – Richard Rohr
It is a message fairly consistent within religions: avoid the distractions of the objects around us. In other words, focus on the subjective view. A quote from the approximately 2,400 year old Bhagavad Gita:
“Pleasures conceived in the world of the senses have a beginning and an end and give birth to misery. The wise do not look for happiness in them.” – Bhagavad Gita 5:22
Yet this raises a quandary and a concern. If we are only conscious in a religious way when we do not focus on the objects of this reality, how can science, which bases its theories on objects, understand the high level of consciousness offered in religion? More concerning, does humanity lose its ability to reach higher levels of consciousness as our society relies more on object-oriented scientific theories to explain our world? Is scientific research a self-fulfilling prophesy? Rely on objects to understand our world, thus losing access to our duality, or higher consciousness!
In this way both science and religion are right. Human consciousness will become simply a physical manifestation, leaving behind the spiritual gateway to something greater. Pulling up the analogy from a previous post, we become zombies lacking a higher consciousness! (Has anyone else thought of people on their “smart” phones as zombies? Considered them self a zombie when on it?)
Alternatively, will science either hit a wall or discover new dimensions and develop new theories that make religious consciousness more scientifically feasible?
To put in in terms of my book Evolved, a silicon human could then reach the same level of consciousness as an organic human.
Can a silicon-based machine achieve consciousness? It is becoming an increasingly pressing question as scientists move closer to artificial intelligence. Yet we don’t understand our own consciousness, so how would we know? Maybe it already has happened…
We don’t understand what is consciousness, how consciousness came to exist, or why it exists. Because we don’t understand why it exists, we can’t answer whether it has any causal impact on the world. Aspects of human consciousness include:
Are all of these aspects possible within a silicon consciousness?
Another problem to consider. If consciousness is by definition subjective, then only a machine would know if it is truly conscious. This assumes objective and subjective are completely separate, with which a monism materialist might disagree (arguing the feeling of consciousness is simply the result of billions of neurons firing in a complex system).
Assuming a machine tells you it is conscious, do you believe it? A functionalist would argue “yes” since thoughts, beliefs, and even subjective states are simply functional states. A skeptic who believes there is something non-material about consciousness would simply argue the machine is a zombie, missing the essence of consciousness. Would the “conscious” silicon zombie then try to eat the skeptic’s brain? Maybe the kernel of an idea for my next book…
In an effort to understand consciousness I have been reading “Consciousness: An Introduction,” by Susan Blackmore. It offers a broad arc through research and experiments about consciousness, methodically building a case that there is little evidence supporting a dualist view of consciousness (implying humans have a soul or something other than matter that passes on). I believe she is an atheist, or someone who does not believe there is a God or gods.
Getting back to silicon-based zombies gobbling up human brains. There are several arguments why machine consciousness may ultimately prove different than human consciousness, although each are inconclusive:
All of this dances around the central issue, which is the gap in our understanding of consciousness. The large bulk of scientific research suggests consciousness is a product of the material activity of our minds (monism/ physicalist). But… the answers you find are determined by the questions you ask, and scientists ask decidedly objective questions. Therefore there is little surprise they arrive at objective answers.
Put differently, if scientists discovered tomorrow a reality beyond what we perceive (either quantum or cosmological), a reality the mechanisms of the mind can utilize, then all the scientific research into consciousness becomes lacking and religious teachings on consciousness again offer guideposts to follow.
In Evolved I take this path because well, science fiction is a wonderful platform to explore what could become main stream in science.
Image courtesy of Victor Habbick at FreeDigitalPhotos.net
When researching and writing Evolved a great deal of thought went into metaphysical questions about reality. After all, the setting is a couple thousand years in the future and the topography of the universe (explained in the book) should fit within current scientific theories and philosophies.
Metaphysics is a traditional branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world that encompasses it. Scientists tend to overlook it, but it illuminates the assumptions we make about our reality, as well as the holes in current scientific theories. Questions about causality, cosmology, time, and consciousness have consumed much of my thoughts even after writing Evolved.
Structuring the overlapping and conflicting arguments about each of these topics has been a challenge. In addition, all of these questions force a deeper dive into quantum physics (the apparent root system of our reality), and even slivers within the overall field like quantum statistical mechanics. My path over the past few years has been equal parts of befuddlement and enlightenment. A few books I have read half a dozen times in an effort to fully appreciate the author’s wisdom.
At some point one has to put a stake in the ground and begin building a world around it. Let me start with the stake planted around causality. In Evolved, humanity believes in an open future, a Neils Bohr reality (explained below) and one in which humanity has control over its choices (free will) and real chance exists. The mechanism I use in the book to explain the mechanism behind the measurement problem is cosmological in nature to allow for this metaphysical existence.
My protagonist, however, comes to believe humanity exists in a deterministic world, a David Bohm world (explained below). Part of his challenge is to overcome the deterministic nature of the physical world to save humanity’s apparently preset course of destruction. The mechanism to allow for this level of control also comes from a cosmological theory. With that, a little explanation of quantum mechanics is in order.
From a quantum perspective there are two ways of looking at our reality, and it involves the uncertainty associated with the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics. The fundamental question about the probabilities found at the quantum level is whether they simply reflect ignorance or an indeterminate reality.
Niels Bohr is one of the founding fathers of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum probabilities. This interpretation of the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics is that we understand quantum wave lengths completely, but they are not deterministic. Most scientists intuitively favor this interpretation because it depicts a world of becoming, allowing for an open future, or indeterminate reality. In other words, chance is allowed for within this interpretation, which is seemingly supported by observation and mathematical constructs like chaos theory.
Yet, the Copenhagen interpretation leaves some puzzles. Foremost is the measurement problem. The theory enables extremely accurate predictions of relative probabilities at the quantum level based on deterministic wave functions calculations, but we do not understand the actual process that provides a seemingly indeterminate definitive answer on each occasion of measurement. In other words, what is the mechanism that allows for this indeterminate reality?
David Albert takes a stab at this mechanism in his book Time and Chance. Dr. Albert lays out the challenge of finding the mechanism within the Copenhagen interpretation.
The idea … is to stick with the standard way of thinking about what it means to be in a superposition, and to stick with the idea that a quantum-mechanical wave function amounts, all by itself, to a complete description of a physical system, and to account for the emergence of determinate outcomes of experiments … by means of explicit violations of the deterministic differential equations of motion, and to try to develop some precise idea of the circumstances under which those violations occur. – David Z. Albert
Dr. Albert offers one fully worked out scientific solution, which involves the GRW theory. Within this theory the wave function of a single particle almost always evolves according to linear deterministic equations of motion, except for a probability within the wave function itself for a random localization of the particle to occur. Furthermore, the effects of these “jumps” will convert superpositions of macroscopically different states in a way consistent with standard-mechanical probabilities. This mechanism allows for real dynamical chance to enter into scientific discussion and our observable reality.
David Bohm, on the other hand, produced a complete quantum theory arguing the probabilities reflect our ignorance about the complete nature of the quantum mechanical wave function. Bohm argued wave functions act like force fields, guiding the particle along a particular course. In this sense our spatial reality is fully deterministic since the wave function is deterministic. Or, in other words, the future movement of every particle can be calculated into the future if we had a complete understanding of the wave function. In this theory, chance does not exist.
Another set of theories fall into modal interpretations, which differentiate between dynamical state (determines what may be the case) and the value state (represents what is actually occurring). Since the dynamical state always evolves according to the Schrodinger equation, the evolution of our reality is entirely deterministic within these modal interpretations. Only the probabilities associated with the value state are real dynamical chances.
Quantum decoherence was developed by David Bohm. The theory does not explain a mechanism for the wave function collapse, but instead a mechanism for the appearance of the collapse. The appearance is due to “leaking” of quantum information into the environment so that the superposition of the wavelength exists, but beyond our ability to measure it. Decoherence became fundamental to Hugh Everett’s many-world interpretation and has been incorporated into various theories. Since decoherence does not provide an actual mechanism, it cannot offer an opening for chance to enter into our reality.
So with that it should be obvious it remains an open question as to what the probabilities of quantum mechanics mean. We naturally prefer to think of ourselves in control, with free will. It is decidedly unwelcome to consider the possibility that we live in a deterministic reality. But that, to me, is a fun avenue to explore since it will make the reader uncomfortable and force more consideration about ourselves.
One last note. I am by no means an expert on quantum physics or philosophy. So please leave a comment if you believe I am wrong on a theory, or misrepresented an argument.
Does chance exist in our reality?
Do we live in an indeterminate universe?
Two different questions, but closely related. The first asks whether anything is truly random. The second incorporates the first but also asks whether we can actively change how the future plays out. Is there room in our universe for free will?
You might be surprised that scientists and philosophers find it quite difficult to allow an opening for chance to exist in our reality. Time is asymmetric, but just because we can’t perceive the future doesn’t mean it is random in nature. Theoretically, the laws of physics should determine how the future unfolds.
Those probabilities in quantum mechanics? In the wrong place to allow for real chance. The probabilities reflect our inability to measure effectively at the quantum level. They do not allow for random wave functions, unless one incorporates the GRW theory into the model. GRW theory implies an inherent randomness within the quantum wave functions, allowing a wave function to randomly reset itself every billion years, or so. (It also implies many dimensions exist beyond what we perceive)
So, does humanity have any chance? It would appear the answer is no, or at least an extraordinarily small degree. Does that mean we have no free will? Let’s return to that idea of extra dimensions.
String theory implies ten, or even eleven dimensions if you include time. GRW theory implies more dimensions than that. Other theories suggest we live in a multi-universe, which requires multiple dimensions. Science, and math, consistently suggests something more is going on than we perceive with our limited senses.
Do extra dimensions open up the opportunity for free will? Does consciousness use extra dimensions to change the deterministic universe we perceive? Is consciousness simply a receiver of something from extra dimensions, manipulating this reality for some greater purpose? Is life’s ability to create order in a less organized environment a hint of its higher purpose? These are the questions explored in Evolved.
When I started writing Evolved I entered through a well-defined sturdy portal with a neon light blinking “Science” above it. When the writing was finished I had unexpectedly popped out of some twisted rabbit hole into a reality well beyond what we perceive today. It is something I hope to share with the world one day.
Is consciousness a product of the way our brains are wired? Or, is our brain a receiver of a greater consciousness? Is consciousness simply a by-product of evolution? Does a dog have a conscious level? Does a reptile? How about a tree? Alternatively, is our brain simply a more advanced receiver of something greater? Is the purpose of evolution of improve the receiver? As computers continue to advance will a computer eventually receive this consciousness? If it does happen, will a computer be considered “alive?” What about subconscious and unconscious thought processes? Will a computer need to dream?
We’re moving into a new phase of our relationship with computers. Gone are the days of simple automation of menial physical tasks. Even knowledge workers are finding themselves displaced by computer algorithms. Anyone in financial services knows how trading and portfolio management have evolved to displace knowledge workers. Apparently the new phase will be about computer augmentation of human tasks. Essentially the argument is using machines to deepen the abilities of humans. But, what does that mean about where we are headed? Will we be permanently wired into computer networks? (My daughters seem to be headed that way at times) Will one day computers write blogs about the latest developments in nanotechnology? Perhaps. Will they write novels? Hard to rule out completely.
Rolling the clock forward a few millennia (I like to take a long, long term approach), we may find a world in which computers (call them silicon life forms) and traditional humans (call them organic) look and act quite similar. Maybe they even have equal “life” rights under the laws of the galaxy. Now what? Are humans obsolete? Kicked to the curb with a cup in our blistered hands hoping some benevolent silicon life form throws its unneeded piece of nourishment towards us? Worse, some Terminator-like future in which we are actively battling one another for supremacy?
These become deep questions. What is life? What is the essence of humanity? If humanity is about processing information and collecting objects, well then I don’t see much difference between silicon life and organic. In fact, if our essence is simply internal circuitry that drives us to collect and manage objects then we’re likely going to compete more and more with silicon life forms as they become more adept at, well, that definition of “living.”
The management of objects by both organic and silicon life form could be termed the “super conscious.” Silicon augments organic capabilities, such as improved information sharing and more rapid processing capabilities. Already our organic thoughts are shared immediately with the world when we post ideas on social networks. Silicon enables improved communication and processing, and humanity is better off as coordination of ideas improves. Organic life argues it is the creative side, like a right-left brain breakdown. But, will creativity eventually become the realm of computers as well? If so, what then? If not, why not?
Let’s take a different approach. Does this movement towards the super conscious pull us away from our organic essence? From our creative source? Which is what exactly? Better wiring? Or, is that something a connection to something greater? Maybe the augmentation enhances our connection to our creative source. I’m certainly not arguing we should go back to the woods and shun all electronic devices. I’m just saying are we not spending enough time understanding another network or sorts? One that defines us and has brought us to our current level. Call this the “supra conscious” and puts our brain as either the creator of it or a receiver of it.
The supra conscious, or collective consciousness among life, is not a new idea or even without scientific underpinnings from quantum theory. Many spiritual leaders believe in it. Think of it as we are all connected to something greater. A spiritual side if that resonates, another dimension for the cosmologists in the audience, entanglement for the particle physicists, a collective subconscious for the psychologists.
The Super versus Supra Consciousness tension is central to the novel Evolved. Two paths to save humanity. One rooted firmly in observation, testing and science; the other a more difficult uncharted and almost forgotten inner path. How Amos, the protagonist, handles this choice determines the fate of humanity.
These questions may help us understand ourselves a little better. It has helped me.
Bubble Universes, Multi-universes, D-Branes, and others – there are no shortage of theories about how our universe is structured. Like most economic forecasts, they are probably all wrong (sorry, my inner financial analyst couldn’t resist). This is no slam of the great minds of our time, it is simply a reflection of how little we really know about the universe. The good news is new information should be collected when new discoveries are made about particle physics with the recently revved up Large Hadron Collider, and the new observations of the universe are made with the launch of new satellites. (Not to mention the current fly-by of Pluto by New Horizons)
Until the great minds of our time unravel the mysteries of our reality, us mere mortals must choose an argument. For me, D-branes made the most sense. Dr. Lisa Randall, a particle physicist, offers a spoon feeding of the theory, allowing my simple mind to grasp it. Intuitively the theory makes more sense to me, as opposed to theories like multi-universes in which every possibility exists at once. Finally, Dr. Randall dangled some lovely worm (holes) in front of an aspirational science fiction writer.
D-Branes, or simply branes, is an effort to combine the mathematical beauty (so I’m told) of string theory with the science of observation of particle physics and the Standard Model. The brane we are confined to may have around 96% of dark matter (matter we cannot see) within it, offering another rich avenue to explore in science fiction story-telling. What makes it interesting for me is the theory these branes can warp and exist in a higher dimensional bulk (er, universe). When writing Evolved, this gave me a rich texture for the environment combined with opportunities to explore higher dimensions. It also gave me an interesting theory about two branes, or a separate energy field, interacting and causing our reality, or the Big Bang.
Warping means the brane itself can have a curvature to it. Taking this one step further into the fiction, I imagined a brane with a rich texture of mountain ranges on it. From our perspective held within the brane we cannot see these ridges. But, once identified they provide short cuts when traveling within the brane. Think of travelers through a mountain range with a map that enables them to choose the easiest path. More interesting, these ridges provide short cuts for particles that are only loosely bound to the brane. Neutrinos are strange particles that seem to only weakly interact with mass. I used neutrinos as a vehicle to travel between ridges. At this point I realize I’m moving further into fiction, but I made a great deal of effort to have at least an argument behind the fiction.
After all, part of the fun of Science Fiction is letting the mind wander over possibilities.
[Image courtesy of Stuart Miles at FreeDigitalPhotos.net]
The challenge of Presence is a big part of Evolved. Presence both in the spatial and temporal sense. Mahayana Buddhism talks about Zen through meditation, a way of seeking emptiness for enlightenment. Judaism describes God in one form as Present. There is something special about the present, being present. In our world we tend to live in the past, highlighted by recent neurological studies focused on the time lag between subconscious and conscious thought.
The universe in Evolved is split into two (what we think of as reality and something else) through the interaction of a ten dimensional brane with a field of resistance. The mind of the protagonist, the Evolved, strives to make two back into one. While writing Evolved I danced around the concept of presence through many re-writes, approaching it from a cosmological, quantum, philosophical, neurological and then psychological angle. When I finally felt like I had wrestled the concept into something that made sense, I read Martin Buber’s “I and Thou” and Richard Rohr’s “Immortal Diamond.” They approached this concept from a religious and spiritual perspective. Their message came together with what I had written like a thunder clap in my head. Richard Rohr discusses Presence from the Christian faith:
In some ways, presence is the “one thing necessary” (Luke 10:42), and perhaps the hardest thing of all. Just try to keep your heart open, your mind without division or resistance, and your body not somewhere else. Such simple presence is the practical, daily task of all mature religion and all spiritual disciplines. Once you are “present and accounted for,” you grow from everything, even the problematic and difficult things. If your presence is wrong, you will not recognize the Real Presence even in the Eucharist. The Presence will be there–it always is–but you won’t be. I love to say that it has been much easier for Jesus to teach bread and wine what it is than to teach humans, who always resist their deepest and simplest identity.
– Richard Rohr
Two is better than one, as the saying goes. This seems true from the smallest to the largest scale. Did you know particles in quantum theory like photons are monogamous? Only two can become entangled, not three. Entangled particles are connected in a way not completely understood by physicists, but basically it means the measurement of one determines the value of the entangled particle, no matter the distance separating them. Breaking the entanglement is possible, but costs energy. It is one of the stranger and least intuitive aspects of quantum theory, and also one that has proven vexing when scientists have tried to integrate the theory of general relativity with quantum theory.
Bridging quantum theory and the theory of relativity has been an on-going effort, resulting in fields of study like string theory. String theory replaces particles with loops and strands, creating a mathematical basis allowing for the two theories to combine, but not without contradictions. String theory requires higher dimension objects called D-branes to solve some of the contradictions between quantum and relativity. String theory suggests D-branes (branes for short) are ten dimensions, although there are theories that imply many more dimensions are necessary. Dr. Randall at Harvard does a great job pulling it together in a readable manner.
Before your brain cramps, simply think of a dimension as a necessary descriptor to describe your location precisely. In the reality we understand, we can locate every particle by its three spatial dimensions and time. But let’s say we found a way to shift gravitational force, holding everything else constant. Well then, we’d need another descriptor, or dimension, in order to describe our location precisely.
In the book Evolved the universe is based on ten dimensional branes within a higher dimension bulk universe. Think of it as objects floating in space. Humanity is in a four dimensional reality (three spatial plus time) within the ten dimensional brane. The Big Bang was the point when the brane (referred to as “The One” in the book) collided with a resistance field in the higher dimension bulk universe, causing the conversion of energy to mass in three spatial dimensions and dividing the reality we understand from the remaining dimensions held within the brane. It is this theme of division, and its counter force of unification, that runs through Evolved. If you look at the Evolved symbol you’ll see a caret-like symbol with a vertical line above it. This is the ‘Two into One’ theme. A lot more to the symbol, but let’s leave it at that for now.
If division was the split of one into two, unification is the effort of making two into one. Our world is defined by the tension between these opposing aspects. I find it interesting you see this unification at the quantum level through entanglement. In our life the will to unify surrounds us. The Rusty Blackbirds reminded my daughters and I of unification yesterday as they squawked at our presence near their three babies in their nest under the eave of the shed by the dock. The Loons watching us closely as we rowed near their nest with eggs was another reminder, as was the startled Eastern Phoebe flapping out of her nest with eggs when we opened the back door. Of course, the Bald Eagles swooping over our shed on their way to their nest where junior typically perches on the edge is a dramatic reminder.
Makes you wonder if evolution is simply “The One” trying to reunify itself in a divisive reality…
Evolved 