There is a debate looming within Quantum Physics about the nature of consciousness and of God (represented by the singularity of the blackhole)

Roger Penrose “tries to show,
in chapter after chapter [of his book “The Emperor’s New Mind”],
that human thought cannot be based on any known scientific principle.
Minsky’s position is exactly the opposite –
he believes that humans are, in fact, machines,
whose functioning, although complex, is fully explainable by current physics.”

Penrose is “one of a handful of scientists
who believe that the nature of consciousness suggests a quantum process.”


There is an incredibly fascinating debate going on within scientific circles concerning the nature of consciousness. For a yogi like myself, I am thrilled beyond description to follow the play by play description of it. It is many spiritually oriented people’s dream, I believe, to witness materially oriented people drifting towards spiritual questions. In the past, questions like “who am I,” “what is my nature,” “what is thought really about,” were only considered within religious and philosophical circles within academia. Now these questions are being asked, against their own wills in many cases, by straight-ahead mathematicians and physicists. Their own scientific inquiries have finally forced them to face such issues.

Roger Penrose is leading a group of those scientists who are grabbing onto the strangest of the quantum physics material to explain the previously unexplainable nature of consciousness itself. Penrose’s work is supported by other heavy-hitters in the world of physics, like Wheeler (who I wrote about in a previously article). Wheeler’s work on the presence of singularities within every moment, every where, on the quantum level, could easily support some of Penrose’s assertions although Wheeler, himself, may not be ready to do so personally.

Wheeler is saying that reality is all about bits: the choice between zero or one. This is the basic duality of life. Is it . . . or is it not? Zero or one. Empty or full? Real or unreal? Good or bad? The most fundamental of choices. The most fundamental expression of free will. No matter what is happening we always have a full and complete choice to say either, “this is good,” or “this is bad:” ONE or ZERO.

In the world of computer science this is called the binary language and is the fundamental language that all computers that we know of, speak. Zero or one: this is, for computers, the same as “on or off.” Computers are essentially a huge conglomeration of “on and off” switches. Amazing!– that what we know as the internet today is essentially nothing but a hugely complex interplay of “on and off” switches which we all are manipulating, individually and collectively.

But is that the essence of consciousness entirely? Could there be something more than just the simple choice, good vs. bad, to the functioning of thought and self-reflection?

Alan Turning thought so. Turning is considered one of the creators of the computer (second to Von Neumann) but his visions for the computer were never really pursued. He believed that computers could be more alive, more conscious than computers of today actually are. One of the fundamental differences, he stated, between a computer that was simply a tool (which is how he would have categorized the computers of today) and a computer that is intelligent, is that a computer that is intelligent could be wrong. The computers of today are never wrong in the way that Turner meant. They always add up correctly (assuming we program them correctly), they always perform exactly as programmed. Turner believed that real consciousness (in both a machine and in an organism) required the leeway to be wrong. This type of computer would still be programmed (just like we are born with DNA) but that they would have the flexibility to be wrong.

He saw that ability to be wrong in nature. He studied morphogenesis, which is the ability to grow in nature, to grow from a seed into a plant, and saw the hand of experimentation and self-reflection. Nature tried something and then observed whether it was right or not and THEN made a new plan based on the results. Our computers of today may be programmed to do something new if something goes wrong (like an anti-virus software) but they cannot then determine what next to do on their own. Their programming always has to precede and anticipate all possible outcomes of their behavior otherwise they crash.

Turning even came up with formulae to describe this aspect of being able to be wrong (and not crash) but his ideas were never pursued. Some say that it was because of his untimely death and others say that his ideas threatened religious and psychological social systems of his day. Whatever the case, I believe that he would be thrilled by the modern inquiries of physics into the nature of reality and consciousness.  For isn’t Wheeler’s assertions that the true nature of reality is about information also a statement that the true nature of reality is about consciousness? He might not agree but that doesn’t prevent us to see into the finer details of what is happening. Isn’t his statement that the nature of reality is about information also a statement that consciousness is more than just the binary language that our current computers are based on?

Wheeler says that reality is binary but it is obvious that our binary-based computers today are not alive, so doesn’t that support what Penrose is saying? Penrose is saying that reality may be about bits or choices but the interplay between them is not classical but quantum; that is, the making of a choice is not as simple as it sounds. If it is all about choices, who is making those choices? We are trying to describe consciousness here so you can’t answer by saying, “consciousness is making those choices.” Consciousness can’t be the one who asks and also the question itself, can it?

That’s where the singularity or the black hole comes in to save the day. Otherwise scientists couldn’t even approach the question at the end of the last paragraph. They don’t have the tools to study that question. But with the singularity they do. By studying the role of the singularity within each moment of reality, within each choice, on or off, empty or full, good or bad, that is made in creating what happens next, physics has the tool to close the circle asked in the above question. Physics can connect the dots per se; that is, they can prove that the one who asks is the same as the the question itself. Once the singularity is recognized as the embodiment of Infinite Oneness then they will realize that it is the spark that brings life into the otherwise mechanical answering of a million-billion yes or no questions. Once they recognize that the singularity is bigger than the universe and at the same time is a size smaller than the smallest thing then they will have closed the circle on consciousness and the nature of life itself.

Luckily, despite the obvious, scientists will not see the singularity in this Absolute way. Not seeing It as Absolute will allow them to continue to study It with the approval and interest of conventional material oriented society and so they can pursue it all the way to a proof, in their own language, that the singularity is omnipresent and essential to the most fundamental quantum process of answering each and every “zero or one” situation. The singularity is what determines the answer to each binary question within reality and the singularity is self-reflective in the way that Turner described, growing upon what happened before and therefore answering each successive question in a new way. The singularity is the essence, or true indivisible kernel, of consciousness itself. It is unique and Infinite, omnipresent and strangely non-existent at the same time. It is the “I AM” principle and if there is such a thing, It is the true God particle.


About Kilaya

Kilaya is a yogi who is also well-versed in the sciences. He studied physics and mathematics at college, biology and molecular biology on his own, fluid dynamics while working as a professional plumber and has always had a passion for in-depth psychology. Now he adds what he has learned from his spiritual master, Amma, and from his life as a professional astrologer to his writings in order to make discoveries that may inspire others.

Posted on March 1, 2015, in Spiritual Physics and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Leave a comment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: