Book Review: Alice in Quantumland

Quantum physics is the swan song of fundamentalist materialism. Given that quantum physics started about a hundred years ago, fundamentalist materialism is a walking corpse and has been for some time. Just to be clear, by fundamentalist materialism I refer to the belief that the universe consists of a lot of particles that behave basically like little billiard balls, and electromagnetic energy, and gravity. That's all. Nothing else. Even life, according to this paradigm, is simply a result of particular combinations of the billiard balls.

The mortal weakness of this paradigm, however, is the central assumption that the billiard balls and associated forces behave deterministically. That is, if you were able to know the position and momentum at a certain point in time of each of the billiard balls, you can predict the position and momentum of any of them at any point in time in the future (given a sufficiently powerful computer). Quantum physics says quite flatly that this assumption is incorrect. For this reason we as recovering materialists should all devote some time to learning at least the basics of quantum physics.

Alice in Quantumland: An Allegory of Quantum Physics by Robert Gilmore is a good place to start. The format of the book is exactly what you would expect given the title. The content will be more surprising. Neils Bohr once said: "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it." So if you don't know anything about quantum physics, prepare to be amazed.

In this book you'll find the standard double-slit experiment, the multiple-worlds theory, quarks, and Schrodinger's cat. The best part of the book in my opinion is the explanation of the measurement problem. The measurement problem is this: each subatomic particles could be in a variety of different states and positions before a measurement is made. The measurement instruments consist of more subatomic particles with the same properties, as does the brain of the person making the measurement. However, once a measurement is made, there is just one set of definite properties. So at what point does a collection of probabilities collapse into a single measurement?

The book doesn't cover the new string theory, but all of the basics of quantum physics are there. Pick up a copy if the subject interests you.

Book Review: A Guide for the Perplexed

Some of you may need a little help with the first step (admit there's a problem). Others may need help with how to go about finding the something else I keep talking about. A Guide for the Perplexed by E. F. Schumacher addresses both issues.

The first chapter establishes that yes, there is a problem. The map of the universe that most of us use omits things by design that are actually important. The example used in the book is of maps of cities in Soviet Russia which intentionally left out churches. The maps used by scientists (but not quantum physicists) tend to leave out anything that can't be measured by instruments and any phenomena that can't be duplicated.

The second chapter details a major thing that's missing on most scientists' maps: that there are readily apparent differences between inanimate matter, plants, animals, and people. Everyone knows this to be true, but some of the scientists will say that the differences are "epiphenomena." For example, a biologist may reduce life to chemical activity, or a psychologist may say that consciousness is an illusory phenomenon arising from neural activity.

The main part of the book deals with what the author calls "four fields of knowledge." The fields of knowledge are the answers to four questions:

1. What's in my inner world?


2. What's in other people's inner worlds?


3. How do I look to the outside world?


4. How does the outside world look to me?

The author says that these four questions must be dealt with in order, because the answer to each is necessary to get to the answer to the next. Reading the book and coming up with your own answers to the four questions may help you find the something else. Give it a try.

Book Review: Evolve Your Brain

Let's say that an man was hit by a SUV while riding a bicycle and very badly injured. With multiple fractured vertebrae in his neck, and upper spine, the normal medical procedure would involve attaching stainless steel rods to the affected vertebrae. With the surgery, he would be able to walk again, but would face reduced mobility and the possibility of continuous pain. Without the surgery, the doctors said there was a 50 percent chance he would end up paralyzed from the neck down. Which option would you choose in this situation? Now what if I told you that the man in question refused the surgery and was back on the job after 12 weeks with no pain and full movement? How did he do it? To find out, you'll have to read Evolve Your Brain: the Science of Changing Your Mind by Joe Dispenza, D.C.. Let's just say that Ramtha's "White Book" was involved.

Dr. Dispenza's book gives a lot of information about how our brains work, and how we can make them work for us. He also provides an explanation of why it's so hard to get rid of the "baggage" I keep talking about: it's been with us for so long that it's wired into our neural networks. Fortunately, his book explains how to change that.

I would recommend the book to all recovering materialists. Those materialists who are still in denial but have health problems may also benefit.

How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love Intelligent Design

Intelligent design is a theory that has been argued back and forth for years. In response to the theory of evolution, fundamentalist Christians (who in my opinion are really materialists in denial) and some scientists who pretend not to be motivated by religious considerations have asserted that certain features of animals (eyes for example) are too complex to have evolved through random mutation combined with natural selection. Some of these same people argue on a larger scale that the fundamental constants of physics, had they been different, would not have allowed for a universe capable of supporting life. Since the chance of these constants all holding the values they do is infinitesimal, they must have been determined by a supreme being. This is called the strong anthropic principle if I remember correctly. My position is that neither of these arguments are worth fighting over because, even if valid, they do not prove exactly what the people who use them want to prove.

Let's talk about intelligent design first. Does this argument prove the existence of God? If valid, it would prove the existence of a being much more powerful than us. Is that the same thing as God? To ask the question is to answer it. (Hint: Maybe.)

Now let's talk about the anthropic principle. It seems to me that the argument assumes that the fundamental constants of physics could have been different. But let's assume the argument is valid. It would prove the following:

1. There is an entity somewhere that is vastly more powerful than we can even imagine.


2. We shouldn't be calling the universe the universe, because there's obviously something outside of it manipulating constants.


3. The common anthropomorphic concept of God obviously doesn't apply to such a being.

Now those of you who are recovering materialists can forget everything I just said, because it doesn't make any difference to us. Only the common anthropomorphic concept of God requires proof. That's not our idea of God, because it is intrinsically dualist (and therefore materialist in denial) at best. Our concept of God, to the extent that a concept can even be made out of it, is something that is above, beyond and includes the physical universe as we know it. So we don't need to worry our little heads about these "scientific" theories.