The Forbidden Universe (42 page)

The universality of intelligence and other mental and emotional phenomena once thought to be exclusively human supports the idea that nature – and indeed the universe –
wants
to produce self-aware organisms able to take control of their environment. But even given our
ever-closer
kinship with other species, there does seem a real gulf – a quantum leap – that separates us from even our nearest evolutionary relatives. We wear clothes, tell stories, glory in language, explore our own planet and even deep space with increasingly sophisticated science.

The Dawkins school of thought doesn’t deny that we humans are in a unique position, especially when controlling our evolutionary destiny, but contend that it is all just an accident, and there’s nothing inherently special
about our abilities. Others disagree. Michael Polanyi, Hungarian philosopher of science declares:

And Simon Conway Morris once again defends human greatness:

But is it intelligence that the universe seems compelled to seek – or is it consciousness? At its most basic, intelligence is the ability to adapt behaviour in response to data received by the senses, the type of intelligence exhibited by
bacteria
and slime moulds. That kind of problem-solving intelligence doesn’t necessarily require self-awareness or the ability to reflect. Slime moulds can learn to negotiate mazes, but still demonstrate nothing like human consciousness. Slime mould philosophers are very rare – as far as we know.

If the universe is designed for life then there must be a reason – something that life is needed for. Cosmic
evolutionary
theorists such as Teilhard de Chardin argue that consciousness is what life – and even matter – is ultimately striving for. Carl Sagan famously declared that ‘we are a way for the Cosmos to know itself’.
¹⁵
Are we really? Does the universe for some reason
need
conscious entities? And if so, why?

Very bizarrely, there is real scientific evidence that the purpose of the universe is indeed to produce conscious, thinking entities – for a very good reason. It needs us to bring the universe itself into being …

We are now entering a very strange world indeed.

We know what we mean by ‘consciousness’ because we all have it and never stop using it until the day we die – and perhaps not even then. But can this elusive invisible thing that shapes our personalities and all of our utterances be defined and explained scientifically? Where does it reside, how does it work, and how does it relate to the world around us? Unlike DNA, which creates and maintains our bodies, it is impossible to locate or analyse consciousness under a microscope, although it is assumed to be connected with the brain.

Since the late 1980s there have been many attempts to explain consciousness in terms of quantum processes. One of the first was by Oxford University mathematician Roger Penrose – author of
The Emperor’s New Mind
(1989) – who went on to collaborate with Stephen Hawking. Penrose said: ‘There is a certain sense in which I would say the universe has a purpose. It’s not there just somehow by chance.’
¹⁶

However, most attempts to link consciousness and quantum theory tend to be fuzzy and speculative, which is not totally surprising as they seek to explain one nebulous issue in terms of another. Basically, although there is a groundswell of feeling that consciousness will prove to be explicable in terms of quantum processes rather than as a chemical product of the brain or similar phenomenon in the ‘macro’ world, it is still very early days. But if the quantum route does turn out to be fruitful, the implications are enormous. It will mean human consciousness is intimately
connected with the physical world at a very fundamental level, an astonishing – even apparently magical – scenario, with which the old Hermeticists would be totally at home. And this fits with accumulating evidence from the physical sciences that the very existence of consciousness can and does have a tangible, measurable effect on the world of matter.

One of the physicists drawn into the study of
consciousness
was Dick J. Bierman of the University of Amsterdam. From physics he moved into artificial intelligence, which naturally involved a study of cognition – how the mind picks up and processes information about the external world. This led him into the study of consciousness and its relationship with quantum physics. In fact, he got drawn even further into the physicists’ forbidden realm of parapsychology, the study of alleged weird abilities and events, known collectively as
psi
. He reasoned that psychic abilities could be a possible manifestation of the interface between consciousness and the quantum world.

But was Bierman brave or just foolhardy to enter the world of parapsychology? Even the word itself is a turn-off to self-confessed rationalists. Ever since attempts began to scientifically test claims of psychic abilities – telepathy, precognition and psychokinesis, or mind over matter – the scientific world has opposed not just the claims, but even the idea of testing them (unless the tests disprove the claims, of course). But why the prejudice?

The fundamental objection is that such phenomena just
can’t
exist since they violate the most basic, common sense principles that underpin our understanding of the material world. Telepathy upsets the rule that there must be a physical link between two objects for them to transmit information to each other. Precognition stands the concept of cause and effect on its head. Psychokinesis, or the alleged effect of mind over matter, is the ultimate horror, since it
violates pretty much all the basic principles, including the laws of energy conservation. If real, psychokinesis would mean that it is possible to conjure energy out of nowhere. Unsurprisingly the scientific community at large has a problem with the paranormal. Such things can’t possibly
be
.

However, these rules only apply to the macro world of the atom and above. As understanding of the subatomic, quantum world has grown over the last century, it has become increasingly obvious that the common-sense principles with which we judge the world have no
jurisdiction
down there. There, effects sometimes precede causes (‘backward causation’). Particles can jump from one energy state to another without apparently getting the energy from anywhere. Experiments have shown that two particles created by the same event – a collision in a particle accelerator, for example – remain in some weird way connected, continuing to influence each other even when far apart and no longer linked in any way. And they can do so instantaneously, even seeming to breach the ultimate barrier of the speed of light.

Of all these violations of common sense, the most relevant to this discussion are the ones that relate to time. It may seem odd to most of us, but the fact that time usually flows in just one direction is a real puzzle to physicists, since there is no discernable reason for this according to the laws of physics. In theory many physical processes should be able to work in either direction. Whole conferences have been devoted to the problem of ‘time asymmetry’, such as one organized – somewhat unexpectedly – by NATO in 1991 in Magazan, Spain where celebrity scientists such as Stephen Hawking and John Archibald Wheeler delivered papers.
¹⁷

In his 1988 paper, ‘A World with Retroactive Causation’, Bierman argues that even in the macro world, ‘there is empirical evidence that effects can precede causes’.
¹⁸
He argues that no paradox is involved, and that his findings fit the discoveries of quantum physics. Describing its implications ‘far-reaching’ is something of an
understatement
.

Given that subatomic particles have been demonstrated to act fast and loose with supposedly inviolable physical principles, it seems almost unsophisticated to insist that they have to be obeyed everywhere else – with no exceptions. The ever-perceptive Paul Davies makes the point that whereas scientists are quite happy to explore ideas of backward causation and instantaneous communication between unconnected particles, ‘it is only when the end state involves life and mind that most scientists take fright and bale out’.
¹⁹
In other words, it is fine for a subatomic particle to ‘see’ into the future, but not for a human being.

A handful of physicists – most prominently British professor Brian Josephson, joint winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1973 for his work on superconductivity – has openly accepted the reality of psi and is actively seeking a quantum explanation. As a result he is now head of the Mind-Matter Unification Project at Cambridge’s Cavendish Laboratory. Josephson is fond of using the Royal Society’s motto,
nullius in verba
– our favourite translation being ‘take nobody’s word for it’ – against scientists who dismiss parapsychology without deigning to look at the evidence. In an interview for
New Scientist
in 2006 on this very topic he railed:

He added: ‘These things are not hard to prove, they’re just hard to get accepted.’
²¹

The general trend towards linking consciousness and quantum physics promises parapsychologists real hope. If mind and matter prove to be connected at that deep level it could offer an explanation for psi that keeps it within physical laws. This is the line taken, for example, by leading American parapsychologist Dean Radin in
Entangled Minds: Extrasensory Experience in a Quantum Reality
(2006).

The most exciting discoveries to emerge from
parapsychology
in recent years do appear to confirm a link between consciousness and the material world at the quantum level. This began serendipitously during research by Bierman.

In the mid-1970s Bierman pioneered the use of Random Event Generators (REGs, also called Random Number Generators) in psi experiments. The advantage of REGs is that they circumvent one of the main problems in evaluating psi experiments. To substantiate claims of extraordinary abilities, the outcome of an experiment has to be compared to chance, which is why all too often
parapsychology
disappears into a fog of tedious calculations and statistics that become hard to interpret – or have several possible interpretations. Bierman first used a REG in experiments where volunteers tried to mentally influence the output. It was therefore easy to see whether the output had deviated statistically from chance – as indeed it had, unequivocally.
²²

In 1995 Bierman was using an REG in a house in Amsterdam where poltergeist activity was allegedly taking place, testing whether the REG behaved differently when the invisible hooligan was at work. When the results were analysed for one particular day they did indeed show a ninety-minute period of non-random output – but puzzlingly this related to no spooky goings on in the house. Bierman and his team realized it coincided with something rather more mundane: the 1995 UEFA Champions League final, in which Ajax – the famous Amsterdam football team – was playing AC Milan. Even more tantalizing, the moment of greatest non-randomness coincided with Ajax scoring the only goal of the game.
²³

The REG output was obviously affected by some aspect of the game, the most obvious candidate being the country’s intense focus and collective excitement. The same effect has been found since, for example in a 2004 study by German researchers at the Institut für Psycho-Physik in Cologne, during an important football match in the city.
²⁴
This suggested a completely new avenue for research, not involving the special mental states associated with psi but the collective workings of ordinary people’s consciousness in everyday situations.

Bierman’s accidental discovery particularly excited a group of American parapsychologists, including Dean Radin. Seeking the same effect in 1996, he and his colleagues began the REG monitoring of mass events such as the Oscars, the Super bowl and the opening and closing ceremonies of the Atlanta Olympics – anything with television audiences of many millions. Although the results were variable, they seemed to confirm Bierman’s discovery. This encouraged them to follow a new line. Rather than picking selected events in advance, they decided to set up a system to permanently monitor fluctuations in global randomness. This way they could find out if a similar effect coincided with unplanned news events – major disasters or the death of an international celebrity, for example.