Trickster Gods and the Quantum Muse: Creativity and the Multiverse
Post on 26-Oct-2014
329 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Transcript
Trickster Gods and the
Quantum Muse:
Creativity and the Multiverse
Copyright Ian Irvine (Hobson), all rights reserved, 2012. [See also author’s bio at the end
of this document.]
Publisher: Mercurius Press, Australia, June 2012.
Image: ‘Visions of the Multiverse’ designed by Peter Wiseman (of Media Australia,
Bendigo), copyright 2012, all rights reserved. Used with permission.
[This article - part of the8 part series entitled ‘Alchemy and the
Imagination’ - began as the draft of a public talk delivered Monday
4th June, 2012, as part of the ‘Philosophy in the Library Series’
hosted by the Goldfields Library Corporation, Bendigo, Victoria
Australia]
Trickster Gods and the Quantum Muse
The Quantum world is magically unpredictable and marvelously undetermined: what
better conditions for Muses to flex their inspirational muscles in the lives of great
artists? Quantum physics opens up the imagination to a plethora of possibilities where
the possibility of mutually contradictory ways of observing something at the same time
becomes a reality.1
If, as we’ve been suggesting, the phenomena personified in deities and legendary figures like
Thoth, Hermes, Mercury, Mercurius, Hermes Trismegistus, Merlin, etc. (as well as in female
trickster/witch figures like Hecate, Cerridwen, Morganna, Vivian, etc.) exist not only on
earth but throughout the ‘Multiverse’ as theorised by modern astrophysics, astronomy,
physics, etc. then the back-road, the boundaries and in-between zones, that the trickster
figure now haunts have become vaster and stranger (more literally ‘alien’) than at any time in
the known history of the human species.
The old alchemical-Hermetic maxim, ‘as above, so below’ these days demands the
integration into our everyday consciousness of realms and dominions encompassing billions
of galaxies and star systems many of which contain millions, sometimes billions, of stars and
perhaps billions and billions of planets. The Multiverse Hermes traverses (that is ‘mediates’
for us humans) contains exotic phenomena like ‘dark matter’, ‘dark energy’, ‘quasars’, ‘black
holes’, ‘super novas’, ‘cannibalistic galaxies’, ‘anti-matter’ etc. So vast is this domain that
time and space etc. expand beyond the abilities of most of us to even conceptualise in a
meaningful way. The very act of staring up at the night sky is like stepping into a time
machine since the light from distant stars and galaxies has taken many light years (hundreds,
thousands, millions, billions) to reach us. Much of what we stare at is so out of date as to be
grossly misleading. Most systems are much older than they appear to us in the night sky.
The short of it is that this new ‘Multiverse’ governed by laws and phenomena unknown to the
alchemists and Hermetists of old needs to be integrated into any contemporary alchemical-
Hermeticist, indeed Jungian (for our purposes), attempt to re-enchant matter, human
consciousness and the faculty of creativity. Put differently, at the end of the Newtonian-
Promethean era any project that wishes to rebalance matter with the human mind
(consciousness), emotions, etc. must first integrate new discoveries in the realms of Quantum
physics and cosmology.
As Jung developed his up-date on ancient Hermesian notions of the psyche from the 1920s to
1940s he only gradually became aware of the New Physics—largely through a famous
exchange of letters between members of his circle and one of the founders of Quantum theory
Pauli, who underwent analysis with Jung in the early 1930s after a marriage break-down.
Pauli was eventually awarded the Nobel Prize for physics in 1946 and was a colleague of
Einstein, Heisenberg and other innovative physicists of the period. Jung came up with key
parts of his theory e.g. ‘synchronicity’ and ‘psychoids’ during this period. In retrospect he
was clearly looking for ways to liberate his psychological system from what he felt to be the
increasingly narrow version of ‘reality’ proposed by Newtonian-Cartesian thinking (which
remained fundamental to the Freudian approach). As a result of these theoretical
developments, which were also influenced by his studies in occult/paranormal phenomena
and ASCs (altered states of consciousness), Jung gradually developed a non-Newtonian form
of psychoanalysis. The figure of Hermes, trickster god and magician, was at the very heart of 1 Forster, 2007 [Kindle e-book Location: 1579].
this change in Jung’s thinking (as I’ve discussed elsewhere). It is not generally understood
that the trickster-Hermes figure also influenced Jung via Quantum theory. Jung was not alone
among Europe’s intelligentsia in being forced to respond to the strange new pictures of both
the micro (or sub-atomic) and macro (or cosmological) realms surfacing among physicists.
Many disciplines besides psychology started to drift, inevitably, into postmodernism due to
the ontological and epistemological uncertainties unleashed by the New Physics.
To understand the way ‘Quantum Hermes’ helped undermine some of the ontological and
epistemological foundations of modernity we need to explore the difference between versions
of reality as theorised by ‘classical physics’ and versions proposed by Quantum theory. Given
this has primarily been a series of talks about creativity we will eventually focus on the
possibilities these developments open up for the formulation of a post-postmodern ‘poetics’.
NEWTONIAN MIGRAINES IN YEAR 12 PHYSICS
When I studied Physics at Rangitoto College on Auckland’s North Shore back in the early
80s we were taught practical, which is to say Newtonian, models of the physical world. It
was ‘materialist’ physics perfectly suited to the school’s goal which was to turn out young
men and women intent on serving the Gods of industry and commerce. The endless physics
equations, however, gave me migraines and the subject matter bored me to tears. I knew
intuitively that such a version of ‘science’ had no ability to explain life’s deepest mysteries
to me. Luckily for me, the college also gave me a thorough grounding in History and
Literature!
When I returned to university at La Trobe in the early 90s the Humanities lecturers typically
critiqued much of modern science as a Promethean-Materialist phenomenon. I suspected
Cartesian-Newtonian science also gave them migraines and we were united in our view of
the cure: i.e. literature, philosophy and a sacralised perspective on life. There wasn’t a great
deal to argue about! As I studied and eventually taught literature, history, the creative arts,
etc. I came to have less and less to do with modern science. I felt that though it certainly had
its uses, especially in the worlds of medicine, engineering, etc. it reduced to a philosophy of
disenchantment and alienation whenever it sought to monopolize descriptions of: 1) human
consciousness, psyche and soul (though it didn’t even acknowledge soul!) and 2) our
relationships with each other, nature and the cosmos generally.
Until recently this remained, more or less, my position on ‘modern science’.
FROM PROMETHEUS and NEWTON to EINSTEIN and HEISENBERG
In truth, however, science got very weird in the 20th
century. Indeed it could be argued that
it began a slow and painful transition away from the Newtonian (let us say Promethean)
paradigm toward something new, strange and wonderful. Also—and this is important for
the discussion of the trickster archetype that will follow—it became as ‘mind-expanding’,
‘unpredictable’, at times even as ‘chaotic’ as any psychoactive drug or traditional spiritual
regime. Although it is not generally acknowledged by many mainstream scientists, it
became, if anything, stranger, more bizarre, more ‘other-worldly’ than almost any of the
spiritual systems and wisdom traditions known to human history.
In this article I want to argue that the schism between science and the humanities described
by C. P. Snow back in the early 60s, and labeled at the time ‘The Two Cultures Debate’,
originated with Newtonian science’s tendency toward authoritarianism in matters of the
mind/consciousness and the soul—a tendency Romantic poets like Blake and Coleridge had
thoroughly critiqued at the dawn of the Industrial Age. The New Physics, however, is no
longer primarily Newtonian in outlook—does this fact alter the schism between the sciences
and the humanities Snow rightly highlighted? I want to suggest it does and that the signs
that a convergence of interests is emerging may well represent the major hope for the
human species and perhaps, more generally, for life on earth as this undoubtedly tumultuous
century progresses.
At the epicenter of the ‘weirdification’ of science in the 20th
century were, obviously
enough, the astrophysicists, cosmologists and Quantum physicists. After becoming
interested in what was going on in let us call it ‘equation land’ I did what any self-
respecting poet/writer who had been traumatised in his youth by Physics exams would have
done—I consulted Dr Who, Stargate Atlantis, Through the Wormhole, Fringe and any other
popular TV program I could get my hands on that dealt with ‘the New Physics’. Eventually,
I bit the bullet and bought the most recent books and ebooks on the topic2—as well as a
couple of packets of aspirin for the inevitable equation induced head-aches.
Though I’m no physicist, I’m a writer and Humanities/Social Sciences academic, I am very
interested in what the new physics has to say about: a) the nature of reality (i.e. ontology);
b) how we might choose to live our lives (ethics/morality); and c) the purpose and nature of
creativity (aesthetics/poetics).
IN SEARCH OF THE QUANTUM MUSE
Any attempt to outline a quantum influenced ‘poetic/aesthetic’ leads to a number of
questions. What has changed in science to facilitate the convergence of interests suggested
above? How has the New Physics already influenced the creative arts and humanities? Also,
how do the current theories about reality (and the place of creativity within it) proposed by
Quantum physicists and astrophysicists compare with reality as revealed to us by artists,
writers, poets etc. of all ages?3 These are vast questions and obviously a short article like
this can only really explore one or two of the main developments.
As a poet and writer I’m interested in expansive understandings of creativity and I believe
that art and literature reflect the ‘real world’ in important ways, though maybe not the real
world as described to me all those years ago in Yr. 12 physics! ‘Realism’ in literature has
passed its use by date, but so too has the postmodern obsession with ‘meta-fiction’ so
prominent in the 1980s and 90s.
2 Brian Greene’s wonderful summary text The Fabric of the Cosmos has assisted greatly, likewise, David
Bohm’s Wholeness and the Implicate Order. Interestingly Bohm seems to have been quite conscious of the links between his theory of the ‘implicate’ and ‘explicate’ orders (which he in turn links to what he calls ‘the holomovement’ i.e. the infinite ground of all being) and traditional—particularly Eastern—spiritual traditions. 3 A number of commentators—most notably Arthur Koestler (in the 1960s and 1970s) with books like The Act
of Creation, The Ghost in the Machine and The Roots of Coincidence—have attempted to assess how the revolutions in physics have impacted on 20
th century scientific and rationalistic perspectives on ‘creativity’. A
particularly fascinating contemporary reading appears in Julia Forster’s book Muses: Revealing the Nature of Inspiration (2007)—which owes a debt to Leonard Shlain’s book Art and Physics. Forster tries to explain how ancient notions of the Muse might be re-affirmed in some respects by the New Physics. She begins her final chapter by stating that Einstein’s theory of relativity ‘shattered the four tenets of Newtonian physical reality: space, time, mass and energy’.
As an extension of the convergence between the ‘New Physics’ and the Humanities I’d also
like to suggest here (like many others, including the Dali Lama) that there are emerging
parallels between Quantum physics and the world’s major wisdom traditions. Fritjof Capra
and others, of course, argued this in the 80s but science has entered stranger territory since
then. An up-date is in order.
To summarise: what can the Creative Arts and Humanities learn from the Quantum Muse?
“QUANTUM FUZZINESS” DISSOLVES CLASSICAL PHYSICS IN A FIELD
BATH OF MIND-LIKE MATTER
How have 20th
century discoveries related to the ‘new physics’ (here encompassing
cosmological discoveries) undermined the former certainties of the classical model of
science? The simplest response is that uncertainty concerning what we can really
know/discover about reality via the ‘scientific method’ developed by Francis Bacon is
fundamental to the New Physics.
Here I’d like to summarise the main innovations associated with the New Physics very
briefly without complicating proceedings with … well, equations …
* Relativity theory destroyed Newton’s static universe, likewise, the cherished separation
between time and the various dimensions of space. Matter, energy, light and time were
proved to be locked together in the ‘space-time’ continuum and the speed of light became,
as one commentator put it, ‘the policeman of the universe’ … we all know the equation …
E=MC2.
* In the 1920s Erwin Schrodinger, Werner Heisenberg and Niels Bohr further undermined
classical physics (as well as Einstein’s innovations) by suggesting that scientists would
never be able to know all the laws that govern our Universe. Their studies of sub-atomic
particles revealed a fundamental unpredictability to matter at the quantum level (sometimes
termed ‘Quantum fuzziness’). They stated that outcomes can only ever be predicted ‘on
average’ (the so called ‘probability wave’) and that matter at the Quantum level displays a
strange wavelike quality4 that contains ‘all possible outcomes’ at once (i.e. all possible
worlds/universes/presents, pasts & futures?) before ‘collapsing’ into a particular time-bound
present due to the actions of observers. One casualty of such a theory appeared to be the
classical scientific principle of ‘causality’.5
Similarly, the nature of human consciousness, irrelevant to classical theories concerning
‘matter’, became important again (no mere evolutionary epiphenomena). Some
contemporary physicists are even suggesting that in Quantum Mechanics ‘matter’ is ‘mind-
like’ and that the matter/mind duality that haunted Industrial Age science has been seriously
undermined. Likewise, the impartiality of the objective scientific observer, so central to the
scientific method, is challenged by the Quantum approach. Einstein famously—and
4 The ‘wave’ aspect to electrons was first formulated in a famous equation (‘Schrodinger’s equation) by Erwin
Schrodinger in 1925. It led to the development of ‘wave mechanics’ which is central to ‘quantum mechanics’. 5 The psychologist Carl Jung in Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle (p.7) recognized that Quantum
theory undermined the Newtonian principle of ‘causality, when he wrote: ‘In the realm of very small quantities prediction becomes uncertain, if not impossible, because very small quantities no longer behave in accordance with the known natural laws. … the causal principle is only of relative use for explaining natural processes …’
somewhat petulantly—critiqued this new approach by saying ‘My God does not play dice
with the universe!’ (or something to that effect)6
TRICKSTER ON THE BEACH OF THE QUANTUM OCEAN
At this point it is worth discussing the role of the trickster archetype in all of this. Recent
theories of creativity and the paranormal emphasise the role of the ‘trickster’ element in
processes of social and cultural transformation.7 As discussed throughout this series of
articles on Hermes and creativity, the trickster figure— an archetype found world-wide—
displays particular traits, notably:1) the ability to violate social boundaries with relative
impunity (i.e. the trickster is anti-conformist); 2) the ability to resacralise ordinary life (i.e.
trickster ‘magic’ is an antidote to disenchantment and desacralisation); 3) unpredictability;
4) an association with alleged paranormal phenomena (e.g. synchronicity, telepathy and
precognition); 5) a satirical disposition (often in the service of political rebellion); and 6)
prodigious mental agility (often taking the form of immense learning and wisdom in the
senex trickster figure). The trickster also encourages: 7) social leveling (when manifesting at
the social level); 8) consciousness expansion; and 9) creativity. Typically the trickster also
acts as a 10) mediator between ‘worlds in conflict’ during periods of great change.
To paraphrase Hansen (and also Jung), tricksters serve the life force via processes of
constructive ‘destructuring’. Hansen also suggests that Tricksters are usually most active
during periods of personal or collective upheaval and change, i.e. periods of transition.
In many traditions, of course, the creative imagination works in tandem with the life-force.
Which leads to the first part of a central proposal of this particular article: that creativity,
when it is operating effectively in either the individual psyche or the collective psyche, may
be accompanied by signs of ‘constructive destructuring’ i.e. destructuring of inflexible,
oppressive etc. paradigms. The second proposal of this article is that post-Newtonian
science (particularly the science associated with Quantum theory) is better placed to
understand the Tricksterish ‘destructuring’ process we’ve theorized as fundamental to
cultural and economic postmodernism. Why?
Clearly the ‘indeterminacy’ and ‘unpredictability’ associated with matter in the ‘new
physics’—summarised by Heisenberg’s ‘Uncertainty Principle’—uncovers a primeval
‘trickster’ element to the behaviour of all matter at the sub-atomic level. I’m tempted to call
the Uncertainty Principle ‘Heisenberg’s Joker’ or some such thing, for it plays a cruel trick
on all ‘scientists’ who believe that their main task is to explore, describe and control an
independent reality ‘out there’ somewhere in the cosmos. Consistent with trickster’s ability
to blur and violate boundaries in order to further consciousness, the mind observing the
6 ‘In the Quantum paradigm, solid matter is no longer the static stuff we believed it to be—it is moving,
unpredictable and here by virtue of being observed. Space is not empty but full of invisible energy bizarrely buzzing about us.’ [Forster, 2007, Kindle e-book location 1367] 7 G.P. Hanson’s work The Trickster and the Paranormal is particularly interesting since Hansen makes use of
established sociological theories to assess the trickster archetype’s ‘destructuring’ and ‘boundary blurring’ characteristics. Deldon Anne McNeely’s book Mercury Rising: Women, Evil and the Trickster Gods is also relevant. McNeely (p.19) writes: ‘[the] trickster … violates boundaries, ridicules righteousness, and poses ethical questions … [‘Trickster’s purpose is] … to further awareness and communication between all possible factions.’ Elsewhere McNeely extends Trickster’s influence to social phenomena: ‘The continual rise of commercialism, communication explosion, relativity of values, prominence of satirical comedy, high energy, fast pace, and preoccupation with sexual imagery of our times characterise Trickster rising.’
phenomenon of ‘quantum state collapse’ may actually be said to influence the choices made
by matter. The implication is that the minds of classical scientists are spookily ‘making’ (at
least to some extent) the phenomena they believe themselves to be merely observing.
LATER 20th
CENTURY DEVELOPMENTS IN THE NEW PHYSICS:
ENTANGLED MATTER
As it turned out the Quantum physicists were onto something—numerous later experiments
demonstrated the accuracy of their theories.8 The mainstream sciences, however, continued
as though nothing much had changed and the notion arose that though something was
indeed amiss in the sub-atomic realms, at the macro level of matter the laws of classical
physics plus Einstein’s modification i.e. the ‘space-time’ continuum, still prevailed—this
détente, effectively between ‘classical science’ and ‘Quantum physics’, became known as
‘the Copenhagen Interpretation’. It ensured that the triumvirate of Newton, Darwin and
Einstein were at the helm of the good ship ‘Science’ for most of the 20th
century. Quantum
‘spookiness’ (to quote Einstein), was temporarily quarantined and uncomfortable questions
about the mind’s influence on matter were dismissed as largely philosophic in nature. Most
importantly for our purposes, Quantum uncertainty and ‘action at a distance’ phenomena
(e.g. entanglement and the possibility that we inhabit a ‘non-local universe’) were deemed
irrelevant to the functioning of the human brain and nervous system in the macro realm of
large scale objects. The parapsychologists and purveyors of religious superstition were
asked to contain their enthusiasm for the ‘new physics’.
The elephant in the room turned out to be the difficulties associated with resolving this
schism between the macro realms (governed by Relativity etc.) and the micro realms
(governed by ‘Quantum fuzziness’ and the ‘Observer Paradox’).
In the latter part of the 20th
century various discoveries gradually undermined the classical
belief that our macro level universe remains essentially untouched by quantum
unpredictability.
In 1964, John Bell proposed a way to measure the spin of sub-atomic particles/waves.9 By
the 1980s ‘entangled’ photons projected in opposite directions were being tested for like
properties and something earthshattering was discovered – entangled photons (but not un-
entangled photons) were found to be influencing each other’s behaviour at a distance and
faster than the speed of light. The existence of what became known as ‘quantum
entanglement’ phenomena—previously predicted by Schrodinger and rejected by Einstein—
appeared to have been confirmed and the Newtonian vision of reality took yet another body-
blow.10
THE COSMOLOGICAL REVOLUTION – THE MUSE PLUCKS STRINGS
ACROSS 45 BILLION LIGHT YEARS of AUDITORIUM
8 Thomas Young’s famous ‘double-slit experiment’ being one of the most important in it a particle apparently
went through/chose both slits at the same time. 9 Bell was inspired by a troika of physicists, known as the ‘EPR’ (Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen) who had
earlier sought to remove the ‘uncertainty’ inherent in Heisenberg’s picture of the sub-atomic world. 10
Herbert Frolich’s had first proposed the idea of ‘Quantum entanglement’ as a means of interpreting certain
consequences related to general Quantum theory as laid down by Schrodinger, Bohr and Heisenberg.
Meanwhile attempts to merge Quantum theory with Relativity were leading to bizarre new
cosmological theories. Some physicists found that they could only explain the schism
between the two theories of ‘matter’ by positing the existence of other dimensions to the
universe. They proposed that the universe is not composed of the four dimensions proposed
by classical physics and Einstein—i.e. 3 spatial dimensions plus time—but, in M Theory—
the final incarnation of the various String Theories proposed in the 1980s and 90s—eleven.
Thus in order to merge Relativity with Quantum Mechanics a further seven spatial
dimensions, ‘enfolded’, ‘curled’ or ‘nested’ within our everyday world was proposed. Most
of these theorised spatial dimensions are thought to be unbelievably small, others, however,
are thought to be much larger than the three spatial dimensions we all know and cook
breakfast in.
But the physicists were not yet done with inventing dimensions, realities, worlds, universes
etc. Another group proposed that there exists an ‘anti-matter universe’ exactly matching our
own universe though in negatively charged form. (PS: That makes 8 other places to visit in
the summer holidays and counting!). Meanwhile, in 1957 Hugh Everett, emboldened by
experimental confirmations of earlier Quantum speculations, proposed the ‘many worlds’
thesis, i.e. the theory of ‘parallel universes’ so beloved of science fiction writers. After
observer initiated ‘wave collapse’ into a particular moment of our experienced reality the
‘unused’ alternative universes of the moment do not simply cease to exist, Everett theorized
that they actually manifest… somewhere.11
Other somewhat exuberant ‘many universe’ enthusiasts were eventually bolstered in their
thinking by deep space discoveries—e.g. black holes, quasars, dark energy, dark matter etc.
as well as, in the late 1990s, the discovery that our universe appears to be expanding along a
definitive path—perhaps due to the impact of neighboring BUBBLE universes. ‘Dark
energy’ and ‘dark matter’ from other universes are theorized as gravitational evidence of
neighbouring ‘bubble universes’ impacting on our own.
And then there are the multi-dimensional ‘brane universes’ that came into vogue in the
1990s—opposed, as always, by joy-police skeptics who baptized their own theory the ‘no-
brane universe’. When we add in the ‘p-brane’ universe we note that contemporary
physicists retain a sense of humour in among all the monstrously complex equations. All
jokes aside, we may all be living inside a 3-brane bubble universe billions of light-years …
flat.
WHEN THE MUMMY UNIVERSE LOVES THE DADDY UNIVERSE VERY,
VERY MUCH …
One could be forgiven for suggesting that modern physics has become quite promiscuous
(and compulsively so) in its creation of alternative universes, worlds, dimensions etc.. And
when I use the term ‘creation’ here I mean it literally, John Barrow in The Book of
Universes writes:
Could we ‘create’ a Universe in the laboratory by stimulating one of the fluctuations that
produce the same effect in the eternal inflation process?
11
To some physicists it became apparent that observers in a sense unconsciously select worlds out of the
Quantum ocean every moment of every day (bringing in, some say, that hoary old chestnut ‘mind’). In this view
of the implications of quantum physics we collapse out of an infinity of possible worlds each moment of our
lives, into the particular world we inhabit.
Barely missing a beat he continues: ‘Several attempts were made to prove that this
was possible or impossible, none definitive, but there seemed to be dramatic unwanted
by-products.’
Well, yes … there could be … like where to put ‘everything’ if an experiment actually
succeeds! However, Barry is not done with growing cute little baby universes in the
lab:
Imagine very advanced civilisations … that have developed [an] understanding … for
creating special fluctuations in their own part of the Universe, which then inflate rapidly
to create new baby Universes … 12
Barrow’s fascinating book outlines some of the many ‘universe’ shapes theorized by serious
physicists over the past 100 years or so. Just a few examples will suffice to illustrate where
things are headed—apart from the claustrophobia provoking ‘bubble universe’, there have
been equations for fractal universes, undulating universes, a Swiss Cheese universe (though
that theory is full of holes), perturbed universes (Emo/Goth universes?), a table-top universe
(great for putting and table-tennis), chaotic (‘punk/anarchistic?) universes, self-creating
universes, fake universes, home-made universes, wrap-up universes and, Lemaitre and
Tolman’s ‘kinky universe’ … fun for the adventurous!
One of my favourite Universe theories, sees our 3D-(mem)brane Universe as composed of
billions and billions etc. of ‘energy strings’ (some closed, some open and some … loopy)
that ‘stick’ to the outer part of the universal ‘brane’. In M-theory, the 3-brane Universal
consciousness, if she exists, might mischievously be visualized as a cosmic musician
endlessly strumming her ‘superstring’ matter guitar (or harp) across the immense aeons and
vast expanses of space-time. This is one version of the ‘Quantum Muse’. As a poet/song-
writer I find this cosmological development quite appealing!
The above list of universes drawn from Barrow’s research is not exhaustive. And the
cosmological inventiveness evident among astrophysicists is surely augmented by theories
proposing that our universe began as a single electron just prior to the Big-Bang. It is
proposed by some that ‘quantum fluctuations’ of some sort precipitated the ‘expansion’ we
know as the ‘Big Bang’ some 13.7 billion years ago. However, surely such a proposal is no
less fantastic than, well, the Biblical notion that an all-powerful monotheistic God created
the firmament etc. in six days …
In the face of all this we note that three or four years ago those in the Quantum know
stopped talking about ‘the Universe’ and began talking about ‘the Multiverse’. The changed
terminology understates an immense paradigm shift.
OUR BRAINS AND RELATIONAL FIELDS AS GATEWAYS TO THE
QUANTUM OCEAN?
Some mainstream scientists now believe that macro scale ‘quantum entanglement’
phenomena can be activated and sustained in living organisms.13
Researchers assessing
12
John Barrow, The Book of Universes, 2012 p.232-233. 13
As summarised by Dean Radin in his book Entangled Minds, and also by Louisa Gilder in her book, The Age of Entanglement the concept quickly migrated from the relatively safe world of sub-atomic phenomena to
biological systems capable of influencing ‘quantum state collapse’ phenomena in the human
brain believe that we possess biological systems capable of harnessing information etc.
gleaned from beyond the space-time continuum. Rupert Sheldrake fuelled this line of
thinking with his theory that ‘morphogenetic fields’ i.e. biological energy fields that do not
obey the known laws of physics, exist around all organic life-forms. He acknowledged his
proposed morphic fields possessed quantum field characteristics.14
Currently, the so-called Orch-Or theory posits that ‘microtubules’ in the human brain are
capable of processing and amplifying Quantum inputs originating from the ‘freewheeling’
subatomic realms. These microtubules are also capable—via biological amplification
processes—of activating nominally ‘classical’ biological systems through ‘quantum
entanglement’.15
Day to day communication between the ‘indeterminate’, and possibly
‘infinite’ Quantum realms (or what Bohm calls the Holomovement) may also influence
memory storage and retrieval, dreams, reverie, perception, and even cellular
communications between distant brain structures—i.e. some of the fundamental processes
associated with the psyche are possibly influenced by quantum fields. The Quantum
approach to consciousness and the brain is summarized in a recent collection of papers by
leaders in the field entitled Cosmology of Consciousness: Quantum Physics and
Neuroscience of Mind:
‘What is consciousness in our model? We take it as a field phenomenon, analogous to but
preceding the quantum field. This field is characterized by generalized principles already
described in quantum physics: complementarity, non-locality, scaleinvariance and
undivided wholeness. But … we cannot define it from the outside. To extend Wheeler’s
reasoning, consciousness includes us human observers. … In keeping with Heisenberg’s
implication, the universe presents the face that the observer is looking for …’16
Arising out of these speculations (critiqued ferociously, it is true, by skeptics), some
adventurous thinkers since the 1980s have been writing about the ‘holonomic’,
‘holographic’ or ‘Quantum’ brain as well as the emerging field of ‘quantum psychology’.
Paralleling the above developments researchers interested in telepathy, precognition,
synchronicity, remote viewing, etc. started to devise experiments capable of testing the
existence of quantum effects embedded in the human nervous system and brain.17
David
Bohm’s experiments monitoring people’s ability to discern when others are staring at them
from behind is one example. Some of the recent experiments conducted by researchers into
paranormal phenomena have produced ‘anomalous’ results and, if legitimate, collectively
suggest that desire, novelty and survival fears, as well as kinship, friendship and love
explain ‘macroscopic’ phenomena like cell communications, the way flocks of birds appear to know what each other will do next and so on. 14
In The Presence of the Past (p.119) he wrote: ‘Morphic fields may indeed be comparable in status to quantum matter fields. If atoms can be said to have morphic fields, then these may well be what are already described within quantum field theory.’ 15
See Penrose and Hameroff, ‘Consciousness in the Universe: Neuroscience, Quantum Space-Time Geometry and Orch Or Theory’ in Cosmology of Consciousness: Quantum Physics and Neuroscience of Mind (2011) for a relatively technical description of the Orch-Or theory and its implications for consciousness research. 16
Kafatos, Tanzi and Chopra in Cosmology of Consciousness: Quantum Physics and Neuroscience of Mind
[ebook location 140] 17
Dean Radin’s Entangled Minds: Extrasensory Experiences in a Quantum Reality is an accessible introduction
to the impact of Quantum theorising on the field of parapsychology G. P Hansen’s The Trickster and the
Paranormal also has some useful chapters on the topic.
‘entanglements’ can skew experimental data into small but significant divergences from
chance only outcomes. This doesn’t mean that anyone soon will have the ability to mind-
blast evil-doers with archaic spells or levitate. Rather it is suggested that these results point
to innate capacities allowing some individuals to access the ‘timelessness’, say, of the
Quantum realms in order to give them a very slight evolutionary survival edge. The
divergence from ‘chance’ in some of these experiments may be significant but only slightly
so due to the influence of what physicists call ‘decoherence’.
DO POETS, MYSTICS, MUSICIANS & TRANSPERSONAL PSYCHOLOGISTS
FACILITATE THE ‘COLLAPSE OF THE WAVE FUNCTION’?
Seizing on such developments, some excitable thinkers argue that story-telling, music,
dance, meditation, dramatic ritual, art, poetry, etc. as well as strong emotions—especially
desire/love, fear, reverie, love of novelty, affection for kin, etc.—activate the brain systems
etc. that process information originating in the timeless and infinite Quantum realms. The
intuitive ‘leaps’ creative artists and thinkers often describe (as well as the intuitive ‘all at
once’ epiphanies often observed in psychotherapy and elsewhere) may thus be explained by
way of an individual’s sudden access to the quantum dimensions.
A number of thinkers have even suggested that matter may not actually be the fundamental
substance of the Multiverse. Instead mind (rather, the unbounded timeless consciousness
associated with the Quantum realms/Multiverse or Holomovement) may actually prove
fundamental (i.e. mind or consciousness preexists and animates what we understand to be
‘matter’). By this view any particular universe—e.g. ours, to keep things simple!—can be
thought of as a limited time-bound manifestation of an all-pervasive (i.e. ‘multiverse
pervasive’), pre-big bang, non-local consciousness. In a recent paper Kafatos, Tanzi and
Chopra reach precisely this conclusion:
“Consciousness includes human mental processes, but it is not just a human attribute.
Existing outside space and time, it was “there” “before” these two words had any
meaning. In essence, space and time are conceptual artifacts that sprang from primordial
consciousness. The reason that the human mind meshes with nature, mathematics, and the
fundamental forces described by physics, is no accident: we mesh because we are a
product of the same conceptual expansion by which primordial consciousness turned into
the physical world.”18
The same paper describes what amounts to the collapse of the Newtonian paradigm:
‘There is at bottom no strictly mechanistic, physical foundation for the cosmos. The
situation is far more radical than most practicing scientists suppose. Whatever is the
fundamental source of creation, it itself must be uncreated …’19
THE URGENT NEED TO HUMANISE THE MULTIVERSE
Those proposing such radical views of reality still have work to do to convince ordinary
people that this new paradigm has anything to do with their day to day lives. The average
person wants to know how the new physics explains mental processes. They wonder what it
18
‘How Consciousness Becomes the Physical Universe’ [ebook location 144] in Cosmology of Consciousnes:
Quantum Physics and Neuroscience of Mind (2011). 19
ibid [location 133].
has to say about emotion, free-will, suffering, how we should behave towards others
(ethics/morality), our ability to give and receive love, etc. Also, whether it proves or
disproves the existence of God (or the Gods), and so on. Of course these are also the kinds
of questions that interest (and inspire) writers, artists, musicians etc. However, in the
intellectual confusion associated with the slow collapse of the Newtonian paradigm,
definitive answers to many of these questions are difficult to come by.
Many of the ideas proposed by the new physics have only been described by way of
mathematical equations—the approach also favoured by classical physicists due to its
supposed objective, i.e. scientific status. Mathematics, however, may not suit the new
‘observer influenced’ reality birthed by Quantum thinking. The new theories are in urgent
need of being humanized—i.e. animated—by human desire, longing, inquisitiveness,
imagination, etc. For example, what exactly exists in the various dimensions, parallel
worlds etc. proposed by contemporary physicists? Are we talking about dimensions
inhabited by the dead or perhaps by the soon to be created? Are some of these
dimensions/universes free of suffering—is there a non-Darwinian Universe for example?
How do these parallel universes/dimensions etc. affect our consciousness? Likewise, can we
access them via the collective unconscious, if so, for what purposes? Are some of these
dimensions inhabited by Gods and Goddesses or fabulous creatures capable of ‘magic’? Do
Jung’s archetypes exist in the Quantum realm or do they exist between the Quantum realm
and ordinary consciousness?20
The creative arts may well be crucial to the humanization
process I’m advocating—they represent an alternative to the cool logic of equations.
Science fiction, of course, has been the main genre relaying the discoveries of the New
Physics to the average person.
Similarly, there are schools of modern psychology quite sympathetic to both traditional
metaphysics and emerging quantum perspectives. I’m thinking in particular of the
archetypal psychology of Carl Jung and the Transpersonal Psychology of the likes of Ken
Wilbur and Stan Grof.21
I have a hunch that something like Jung’s ‘archetypes’ (which I see
as rooted in developmental stages) may structure our day to day ‘personal’ experiences of
consciousness/unconsciousness and relationship in what Bohm calls ‘the explicate order’.
However, it’s also possible that they may have access to the so-called ‘implicate’ order. In
short they may mediate between timeless ‘quantum fields’ dealing associated with ‘potential
futures’ and our more Newtonian experience of a ‘specific’ lived existence in the ‘explicate
order’ (i.e. the life we lead after the collapse of the wave function).
20
See Robert Verdicchio’s Quantum Archetypes: Science, Metaphysics and Spirit (2005) for the first inkling
that archetypes may exist in ‘quantum fields’. The book is patchy in places but worth reading for this ground-
breaking insight alone. Why ground-breaking? Because to my mind the idea links Quantum incursions into
ordinary life to: a) strong emotions (desire, attachment, fear, hope/wish etc.) etc. themselves related to
archetypal constellations (i.e. to archetypal relationships), and b) ordinary development processes catalogued
scrupulously, though in Newtonian-speak, by Developmental and Life-Span psychologists etc. ‘Desire’ and
‘development/growth’, so fundamental to our day to day living may then be seen to motivate ‘wave collapse’
phenomena as well as other types of communication between what Bohm calls the ‘explicate’ and ‘implicate’
orders. Quantum psychology is made instantly relevant to all human beings. 21
Indeed, since the 1960s a large number of commentators have noticed certain convergences between ancient spiritual perspectives and certain aspects of the new Physics. In the realm of psychology, the famous collaboration between Carl Jung, founder of archetypal psychoanalysis and Nobel Prize winning (1945) quantum physicist Wolfgang Pauli helped undermine the scientific foundations of some of the more mechanistic mid-century psychological schools (e.g. Behaviourism and Psychobiology).
Given the fact that Quantum versions of reality are, if anything, more fabulous than the
often colorful cosmologies outlined by many of the world’s spiritual traditions it might also
be prudent for mainstream scientists still enamoured with purely ‘Newtonian’ versions of
science and reality to adopt more tolerant attitudes toward those who hold to spiritual,
mystical etc. perspectives that modern physics is currently unable to categorically disprove.
More than ever we require intense, ongoing ‘dialogue among equals’ between experts on the
‘New Physics’, creative artists of all descriptions, scholars in the Humanities and Social
Sciences, the more progressive thinkers among the ‘Perennialists’ and ‘ethnopoeticists’
(with their interest in global wisdom traditions), and the various transpersonal schools of
psychology (e.g. Jung, Grof and Wilbur).
TRICKSTER AND MUSE AS CREATIVE REVOLUTIONARIES
What does the creativity associated with the trickster archetype have to do with all of this?
An important task carried out by creative individuals throughout history has been that of
expanding the collective consciousness in times of need. In this sense creativity is
inherently unpredictable and critical of systematized justifications for the oppressive ‘status
Quo.’ In this sense, creativity serves a fundamental ‘survival oriented’ purpose. I’m
suggesting that creative activities allow us to ‘access’ material, knowledge, perspectives etc.
resident in the Quantum realms (or ‘Multiversal Mind’)—realms beyond the straight jacket
of time and space as defined by classical physics.
A Quantum influenced contemporary poetics also invites us to confront the many crises of
our age with a more expansive vision of the place of consciousness in the Multiverse. To
my mind, neither the atheistic reductionism implicit to classical physics nor the oppressive
narrowness of vision associated with religious and ideological forms of fundamentalism are
justified by the discoveries of the New Physics, consequently they have little to offer any
Quantum influenced ‘poetic’ and may even represent a deliberate narrowing of perspective
by power-mongers that can only be described, ultimately, as forms of ontologically
generated oppression. My own sense is that acknowledgement by artists/writers/musicians
that they select worlds out of a fundamental unpredictability to matter and mind whenever
they create works of art or literature etc. would be seen as fundamental to Quantum
influenced perspectives on creativity. This implies, of course, a profound sense of creative
responsibility out of vogue among many postmodern writers and artists.22
Concepts influenced by the New Physics have already influenced a number of modernist
and postmodernist literary movements e.g. John Cage’s and Jackson McLow’s ‘chance
operations’, the Fluxists, aspects of the Situationist poetics, Oulipo, as well as the so-called
‘Actualist’ fiction writers e.g. Thomas Pynchon, John Barth, Robert Coover, Margaret
Attwood, etc. However, for me many of these wonderful avant garde innovators didn’t
quite respond to the central epiphany of the New Physics, i.e. what David Bohn described as
the ‘undivided wholeness’ and interdependence [within diversity] of beings and matter
associated with what he termed ‘the Implicate Order’. At the deepest levels of matter it
seems that ‘actuality’ or (potentiality) and ‘possibility’ are almost indistinguishable. To my
22
This would supersede both the ‘realist’ mode which seeks to objectively represent the world as is and postmodernist modes that ignore the world (and deny their role in minute-to-minute world making) instead focusing their attention exclusively on language as a self-contained system. Susan Strehle, in Fiction in the Quantum Universe, uses the term ‘actualist’, a phrase borrowed from Heisenberg, for postmodern literature that she suggests is influenced by the new physics.
mind, only Magical Realism, and perhaps Surrealism with its commitment to the
‘marvelous’, have come close to grasping the profound implications of these insights.
HOW TO GROW YOUR OWN BABY UNIVERSE THROUGH ART AND
LITERATURE
We need to accelerate the postmodern shift from the alienation and dehumanisation inherent
to classical science to a new, more holistic, kind of science—a science, perhaps, in the
service of the all-pervasive consciousness that birthed and maintains the vast Multiverse we
each inhabit as conscious beings. The role of the creative artist in such an epoch may well
be to assist this process via tricksterish imaginative interventions. What is required is a
bloodless deconstruction of the alienated and fragmented modes of consciousness associated
with both scientific and economic materialism, as well as all forms of religious and
ideological fundamentalism.23
In truth all of the great cultural paradigm shifts of history have also been ‘creativity
revolutions’. Civilisations that open up to and encourage the kinds of ‘world making’ and
‘unmaking’ experiments initiated by the Muse and Trickster archetypes have tended to
renew themselves and survive, whereas those that have sought to control or censor the Muse
and Trickster within their creative minorities, have often collapsed. This is because they
eventually come up against what we might term the essential, unpredictable ‘free will’ of
both matter and mind—a free will, we theorise (along with the Existentialists), in the
service of the life force.
If we seek the Quantum Muse and Hermes guide of souls (the Greek trickster God)—or
Kokopelli, Loki, etc.—creative people need look no further than the impulse behind the
creative imagination to in a sense accept, sample, try on, live etc. all the possible realities,
worlds, futures etc. on offer at any particular moment via the Quantum realms. The
archetypes of Muse and Trickster may well be our best guides to particular types of non-
oppressive ‘wave collapse’ (that is livable ‘futures’, ‘worlds’, ‘realities’)—we do not need
some naïve Frankenstein to create a ‘baby universe’ in some sterile lab, nor do we need the
services of a ‘Quantum computer’ busily processing data from multiple parallel universes
all at once. Poets, artists, musicians have been suggesting futures, realities, universes,
moment to moment, for tens of thousands of years. Their ‘baby universes’ arrive in dreams,
reveries, meditations etc. and become solid in poetry, music, art, dance, etc. and ever it has
been.
23
Bohm, David, In Wholeness and the Implicate Order, 1980 [Kindle EBook Location 386] states: ‘Wholeness
is what is real … fragmentation is the response of this whole to man’s action, guided by illusory perception,
which is shaped by fragmentary thought.’
Bibliography
* Ralph Abraham, Terence McKenna and Rupert Sheldrake, Fwd. by Jean Houston, Chaos,
Creativity and Cosmic Consciousness, Park Street Press, 1992 & 2001. [Kindle e-book
version].
* Karen Barad, Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of
Matter and Meaning, Duke University Press, 2007 Kindle e-book version, 2007.
* John D. Barrow, The Book of Universes, Vintage, 2012.
* David Bohm, In Wholeness and the Implicate Order, 1980 [Kindle E-Book edition (from
Taylor and Francis e-library) 2005].
* David Bohm & B. J Hiley, The Undivided Universe, 1993 [Kindle E-Book edition (from
Taylor and Francis e-library) 2005].
* David Bohm & F. David Peat, Science, Order and Creativity, Routledge Classics, 1987 &
Taylor and Francis e-library 2010.
* Fritjof Capra, The Turning Point: Science Society and the Rising Culture, Flamingo, 1988.
* Fritjof Capra, The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels Between Modern
Physics and Eastern Mysticism, Flamingo 1987.
* Paul Davies & Niels Henrik Gregersen (Editors), Information and the Nature of Reality,
Cambridge University Press, Kindle e-book version 2010.
* George F.R. Ellis, ‘Does the Multiverse Really Exist?’ in Scientific America, August
2011.
* Julia Forster, Muses – Revealing the Nature of Inspiration, Pocket Essentials, Kindle e-
book version, 2007.
* Louisa Gilder, The Age of Entanglement: When Quantum Physics was Reborn, Alfred A.
Knopf, Kindle e-book version, 2008.
* Derek Gjertson, Ch. 5 ‘Do Philosophical Problems End in Science’ especially p.70-84
‘Quantum Reality’, in Science and Philosophy: Past and Present, Pelican, 1989.
* Amit Goswami, God is not Dead: What Quantum Physics Tells us About our Origins and
how we Should Live, Hampton Roads Publishing, Kindle e-book edition, 2012.
* Amit Goswami, How Quantum Activism Can Save Civilisation, Hampton Roads
Publishing, Kindle E-Book version, 2011.
* Brian Greene, The Fabric of the Cosmos, Penguin, 2004.
* John Gribbin, In Search of the Multiverse, Allen Lane (an Imprint og Penguin Books,
Kindle e-book version, 2009.
* Stanislav Grof, Beyond the Brain: Birth, Death and Transcendence in Psychotherapy,
State University of New York Press, 1985.
* Stuart Hameroff, Subhash Kak, Sir Roger Penrose Rudolf Schild, Cosmology of
Consciousness: Quantum Physics and Neuroscience of Mind, Contents selected from Vol.
3, 13 & 14, Cambridge 2011.
* George. P. Hansen, The Trickster and the Paranormal, Xlibris, 2001.
* John Horgan, The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twighlight of
the Scientific Age, Little Brown Books, 1997.
* Carl G Jung, Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle, Routledge and Kegan Paul,
1977.
* Michio Kaku, Physics of the Impossible,: A Scientific Exploration into the World of
Phasers, Force Fields, Teleportation, and Time Travel, Doubleday, Kindle e-book edition,
2008.
* Arthur Koestler, The Act of Creation, Picador, 1981.
* Arthur Koestler, The Ghost in the Machine, Picador, 1975.
* Arthur Koestler, The Roots of Coincidence, Picador, 1976.
* Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd
edition, University of
Chicago Press, 1970.
* Leon M Lederman & Christopher T. Hill, Quantum Physics for Poets, Prometheus Books,
2011. [Kindle e-book version]
* Steven Manly, Visions of the Multiverse, New Page Books, Kindle e-book version, 2010.
* Deldon Anne McNeely, Mercury Rising: Women, Evil and the Trickster Gods, (revised
edition), Fisher King Press, 2011.
* Dean Radin, The Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena, Harper
Collins e-books,
* Dean Radin, Entangled Minds: Extrasensory Experiences in a Quantum Reality, Paraview
Pocket Books, Kindle e-book version 2006.
* Lisa Randall, Warped Passages: Unravelling the Universe’s Hidden Dimensions,
Penguin, 2005.
* Paul R. Samson & David Pitt, The Biosphere and the Noosphere Reader, Routledge,
1999, kindle e-book version Taylor and Francis e-library 2006.
* Rudy Schild (Editor in Chief), Quantum Physics of Consciousness, Contents selected
from Vols. 3-14, 2011.
* Rupert Sheldrake, The Presence of the Past, Fontana, 1989.
* Leonard Shlain, Art and Physics: Parallel Visions in Space, Time and Light, Harper
Perennial, 2007.
* Lenny Smith, Chaos: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, 2007. [Kindle
e-book version].
* Susan Strehle, Fiction in the Quantum Universe, The University of North Carolina Press,
1992. [Kindle e-book edition].
* Robert J. Verdicchio, Quantum Archetypes: Science, Metaphysics and Spirit,
Authorhouse, 2005 [Kindle e-book version].
* Fred Alan Wolf, Matter into Feeling: A New Alchemy of Science and Spirit, Moment
Point Press, 2002. [Kindle e-book version of the same].
* Shing-Tung Yau, The Shape of Inner Space: String Theory and the Geometry of the
Universe’s Hidden Dimensions, Basic books (Perseus Books), Kindle ebook version, 2010.
Author Bio (as at May 2013)
Dr. Ian Irvine is an Australian-based poet/lyricist, writer and non-fiction writer.
His work has featured in publications as diverse as Humanitas (USA), The
Antigonish Review (Canada), Tears in the Fence (UK), Linq (Australia) and
Takahe (NZ), among others. His work has also appeared in two Australian
national poetry anthologies: Best Australian Poems 2005 (Black Ink Books) and
Agenda: ‘Australian Edition’, 2005. He is the author of three books and
currently teaches in the Professional Writing and Editing programs at both
Bendigo TAFE and Victoria University. He has also taught history and social
theory at La Trobe University (Bendigo). He holds a PhD for work on creative,
normative and dysfunctional forms of alienation and morbid ennui.. This article
on creativity and the New Physics (based on the draft of a public talk delivered
June 4th
2012) is fundamental to his developing thinking on Transpersonal
Relational Poetics.
top related