Thank you Rajani, and Michel for this introduction to Dr Amit Goswami. Very interesting.
Anna > On 17 Mar 2018, at 09:33, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote: > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: r kanth <[email protected]> > Date: Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 2:13 AM > Subject: Fwd: FROM RAJANI: INTERVIEW WITH DR. AMIT GOSWAMI, QUANTUM PHYSICIST > To: Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> > > > This is the 2nd in a proposed Series of Interviews exploring New Ideas that > may, perhaps, serve as salves for our troubled times. > The queries are mine, the responses Amit's. > Rajani > > > > > IDEAS FOR OUR TIMES (II) > > INTERVIEW: Dr . Amit Goswami > > THEMES: Quantum Physics, Consciousness, and the > Human > Condition > > [Queried by Professor > Rajani Kanth] > > 1. Explain what you mean by your Key Phrase: "Consciousness is the Ground > of Being". > > Quantum physics indicates that material being arises from possibilities, > possibilities of consciousness. > Consciousness is the ground of all being is a generalization. > All manifest being—sensing, thinking, feeling, intuition—arises from > consciousness. > > 2. How does that differ from any Other extant view of Consciousness , or > Being? > > The idea of a “ground” different from space and time is experimentally > verified in quantum physics defined by instantaneous signal-less > communication or nonlocality (space and time is local; communication requires > signals taking time). > Nonlocality translates as unity—oneness of everything for this domain of > potentiality or consciousness. > Except for the wisdom traditions, nobody talks about consciousness this way. > > 3. How did you chance upon that novel idea? > > While I was having a heated argument with a mystic friend. > In retrospect, the idea was the culmination of a creative process that > extended over about ten years. > > 4. You reject Scientific Materialism: why? > > Nonlocality, an experimental fact, simply rules it out. > We have “transferred potential experiments (replicated in many laboratories > all over the world) which show that electrical potential can be transferred > from one brain to another provided the two subjects are able to hold the > meditative intention that they will have direct communication. > Even neuroscience experiments are now supporting the new view of > consciousness and how it manifests in the brain as a self. > Besides, there are so many experiential reasons. > > 5. Does Q. Physics really displace classical (Newtonian) physics?. Where, > and why? > > Yes, quantum physics really does replace Newtonian physics for all matter, > micro and macro. > However, for the macroworld, Newtonian predictions approximately hold; in > this way materialists can argue if quantum physics has enough effect in a > macro-object like a brain for consciousness to be relevant. > I have shown that living matter is quantum because it is nonlocally > correlated with what is called subtle bodies—potentialities that give rise to > our subtle experiences of feeling and thinking. > > 6. Is it true the old Physics was deterministic whereas the new Physics is > probabilistic? Does that matter? Why? > > Yes, it is true. > Quantum objects are waves of possibility. > It matters when we realize that these waves reside not in space and time > defined by locality but in another domain outside space and time defined by > nonlocality and oneness. > This oneness is consciousness. > > 7.The social sciences have always suffered from 'physics envy': are they > justified? > > I don’t know! > I guess the physics envy comes from the fact that physics is mathematical; > but in all their efforts nobody has been successful in developing a > mathematic macroeconomics that work. > In the new paradigm, social science no longer is constrained to be > deterministic. Freedom is back! > They can relax. > Mathematics does not apply to social sciences. > > 8. There is a lot of 'quirkiness' to Q. Physics, in the popular mind: pl. > explain. > > There is no quirkiness to quantum physics. > All the quirkiness is in the mind of scientific materialists. > If you have the wrong lens, reality looks muddles up, paradoxical. > > 9. You have produced works that extend the Quantum notion to Economics, > Biology, et. al. Is that valid? > > Those are natural extension to make these sciences apply to conscious beings > like humans who have freedom, who have nonmaterial experiences, even > experiences of a self separate from the world. > Right now, what we call biology or economics only apply to machines. > We live in a topsy-turvy world in which biologists fight phantom creationists > rather than recognize that neo-Darwinism does not explain fossil gaps or the > purposiveness of evolution revealed in fossils data evolving from simple to > complex. > I wrote a book Creative evolution which explain all the data on evolution. > Materialists hold on to the notion that quantum physics is for the micro > reality; it does not apply to the macro. > But life, a biological organ, is coupled to “subtle bodies” – subtle > movements that we feel or think. > It is these subtle movements that are quantum; the physical organ becomes > quantum by virtue of nonlocal correlation with the subtle. > It is all explained in the book quoted above. > > 10. You were featured in a film called 'What the Bleep Do We Know?": your > critics felt that you turned science into vulgar populism (activism) > thereafter? How do you react? > > Amusement, as I look at Trump today. > Scientific materialists created the idea of “fake news.” > Just as we have to turn back Trumpism with political activism, so also with > quantum activism we turn back scientific materialism. > It is slow, but we are gaining traction. > > 11. You argue that so-called 'Non-Locality' proves the existence of another > domain beyond space-time? Pl. explain. > > I already explained it above, see answer to Q2. > Nonlocality—signal-less communication--confirms that quantum potentiality > resides in a definably different domain of reality, different from space and > time where locality reigns. > > 11. But there is no meaningful communication at all in the 'non-locality' > experiments that you cite. So why is it important? > > This is pure misunderstanding. > Somebody proved a theorem that information cannot be transferred via > nonlocality; but the theorem is valid if interactions are all material. > When consciousness and conscious choice enters the picture, the theorem is no > longer valid. > > 12. Does that also imply that Telepathy, ESP, etc., are all valid? > > It sure does, as I have argued in my book God is not Dead. > These ideas are experientially verified by millions of people every day; even > many scientists tacitly accept their existence. > But the official position of American physical society does not change. > How dogmatic is that? > > 13. You suggest Jesus, Buddha, et. al, were all on the right track: what do > you mean? Does God exist? > > Careful about that word God! > For most Christians, God is a super-duper human being sitting on a throne in > heaven doling out rewards and punishments, don’t forget; this is not a > scientific picture and materialists are justified fighting it. > God of quantum science, if you insist on using the word and as I have used > that word in my book quoted above, is unity consciousness. > > 14. But are Science and Religion compatible, in your Quantum frame? > > Quantum science is compatible with religion in its esoteric core (where unity > consciousness is recognized as the ground of being) but not with exoteric > religions of popular understanding where unity consciousness is caricatured > by so-called monotheistic concepts of God etc. > This is a huge problem. > Do we throw the baby out because of the dirty bathwater? > > 15. Pl. explain the particle/wave distinction: why do you think that matter > exists in a domain of possibilities prior to the 'wave-function' > 'collapsing', via sentient observation. > > Particles can exist only at one place at a time; waves can be in many > different places at the same time. > Obviously they cannot co-exist in the same domain of reality. > There is no wave-particle duality in quantum physics except in the > materialists’ mind. Quantum math clearly says quantum objects are waves. > To connect quantum math with experiment, we have to invoke measurement which > converts waves into particle. > And measurement cannot be defined without sentient observer. > Scientific materialists refuse to understand what John von Neumann and later > I clarified long ago. > Quantum measurement is about how the unity (consciousness) splits into two: > subject (observer) and object. > To understand quantum physics, you have to understand and include the subject > in your philosophy. > Materialists can’t, they are stuck with only objects. > When you have only a “hammer” in your hand, you go on insisting that the word > is “nails.” > > 16. If the Observer is so important, then is it an Anthropic universe? What > about the distinction between observer/observed so important to scientific > realism? > > It is an anthropic universe, and why do people prefer a machine universe? > There is also that well-argued anthropic principle. > Scientific realism cannot stand the idea of observer. > > 17. What do you mean by a 'Self-Aware' universe, the title of your major work? > > That the universe is self-aware through us, manifest through us; only we > living beings experience the universe which exists only in our ongoing > experiences. > We are here because of the universe, no doubt; but the universe is here > because of us. > > 18. Who agrees with you in the Scientific Community? > > Among big name physicists, there are only a few such as Henry Stapp and Casey > Blood, maybe Fred Alan Wolf, too. > But I have huge following in the healing community, both physical healers > including mainstream doctors, and psychologists. > I was deeply touched when the famous psychiatrist and consciousness > researcher Stan Grof, at a conference in Prague, openly acknowledged my work > and quantum science having given the scientific basis for transpersonal > psychology, a brain child of his and others. > I think only the descendants of what you call Euromodernism are the major > hold-outs. > > 19. How does traditional Darwinian Evolution fit in with your Quantum views? > > Like a sore thumb. > I have already referred to my book called Creative Evolution above correcting > the shortcomings of Darwinism with a consciousness view of evolution. > Darwinism is like Newtonian physics in the new biology; it holds for > evolution within a species or small changes of microevolution. > To understand macroevolution, you got to bring in quantum leaps. > > 20. Is there a Crisis in Physics with Newtonians, Einsteinians, and Q. > Physicists, all disagreeing about fundamentals? > > Yeah, the antagonists all disagree that subjects exist, that living beings > exist, beyond what their little lens allows them to see. > Oh, where is Paul Dirac now who said, In order to see a great new truth, you > have to give up a great old prejudice. > Scientific materialists have to give up materialism; it is not compatible > with experiments. There is a domain of nonlocality; there also are > nonmaterial “stuff,” both ideas verified by experimental data. > Let us be scientific, folks. > > 21. You have also stepped - trespassed? - into the domain of healing. What is > Quantum Healing? > > Quantum healing consists of quantum leaps of healing, producing a > discontinuous leap from disease to wellness. > I have shown that the creative process can lead to quantum healing and that > idea, too, is being verified as large number of people are using it to get > healed. > > 22. You suggest that ancient Indian and Chinese philosophy (yoga, chi, > chakras, ayurveda , etc ) have useful insights to offer us: what do you mean? > > They do, but you have to accept the idea of nonphysical subtle objects to see > the cogency of these philosophies and practices. > Yog, Ayurveda, TCM, are all about movements of vital energy, a nonphysical > energy connected with purposive functions of life. > It is possible to measure these energies now; that should end the debate. > > 23. Do you still see yourself as a normal scientist, carrying on scientific > research? > > Yes, of course. > I am a normal scientist without abnormal lens on the eyes. > > 24. Is there any scientific caution you adopt toward your own notion of > 'consciousness is the ground of being': is it, e.g., disprovable? How? > > Of course. > Recent neuroscience studies of people who delve into loving kindness creative > and meditative practices for a long time are showing nonlocality in the brain > that signifies that these people “live” in nonlocal consciousness. > All materialists need to do is to find explanation of these data without > resorting to nonlocality to “disprove” the idea of nonlocal consciousness. > > 25. What do you think of Transhumanism? Does it use any Q. insights? > > It would be better for it if it did. > > 25. Is there a website you can direct the curious to ? > > Yes, thanks. amitgoswami.org > > 26. Name your most important works. > > The Self-Aware Universe; Physics of the Soul; The Quantum Doctor; Creative > Evolution; How Quantum Activism can Save Civilization; Quantum Creativity; > Quantum economics; and the upcoming The Quantum science of Happiness. > > > 25. What is the biggest danger facing humankind today, in your opinion? > > I am not oblivious of the perils of global climate change, terrorism, > Trumpism, failed economics, and all that. > It may sound far-fetched, but please note that scientific materialism > contributed to all of these potential disasters. > Also, please note that adapting a quantum worldview in our society will go a > long way toward correcting the trend. > My book How Quantum Activism can save Civilization gives all the details. > > 24. What is the future of your own interpretation of Q. Physics? > > It is experimentally verified. > Transferred potential from brain to brain, nonlocal self modality in the > brain, those are replicated data. > Experimentally verified scientific ideas are forever. > [©R.Kanth, 2018] > > > > > > > > > -- > P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net > > Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: > http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation > > Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; > http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens > > > > > _______________________________________________ > P2P Foundation - Mailing list > > Blog - http://www.blog.p2pfoundation.net > Wiki - http://www.p2pfoundation.net > > Show some love and help us maintain and update our knowledge commons by > making a donation. Thank you for your support. > https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/donation > > https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list Blog - http://www.blog.p2pfoundation.net Wiki - http://www.p2pfoundation.net Show some love and help us maintain and update our knowledge commons by making a donation. Thank you for your support. https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/donation https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
