According to the laws of clas­si­cal phy­sics, deter­mi­nism implies that any event occurs accor­ding to the sequence of events that pre­ce­ded it. Determinism leaves no room for choice, the conse­quence being dependent, com­ple­men­ta­ry and ines­ca­pable of the cause.

However, one may not always be aware of the prin­ciple of cau­sa­li­ty at work. This is the case when we do not dis­tin­guish all the causes that have pro­du­ced an effect. Or when the time elap­sing bet­ween a cause and its effect is so long that we do not per­ceive the link bet­ween the two. The case of a rup­tu­red aneu­rysm (see My Story) is inter­es­ting to observe from this point of view. That’s what I pro­pose you to dis­co­ver in this article.

Consciousness and determinism

A rup­tu­red aneu­rysm is the epi­tome of an event that has a cause, which is inac­ces­sible until a per­cep­tible phy­si­cal mani­fes­ta­tion occurs – for example, a blee­ding hea­dache – and a CT scan deter­mines its ori­gin. The blee­ding is as sud­den as the time bet­ween the for­ma­tion of the aneu­rysm and its rup­ture can be long.

Thus, unless a pre­vious exa­mi­na­tion has revea­led the exis­tence of an aneu­rysm, the « aneu­rysm » infor­ma­tion can remain uncons­cious for a very long time. Unfortunately, it will only reach the conscious level when it breaks. If a scan­ner then imme­dia­te­ly esta­blishes the cause-and-effect rela­tion­ship at this point, ups­tream in the chain of events, it becomes clear that the cau­sa­li­ty is less obvious to determine.

According to the neu­ro­sur­geon who took care of me, medi­cine can­not explain why an aneu­rysm forms or why it rup­tures… or why it doesn’t. Especially for people who, like me, do not report any aggra­va­ting fac­tors. Therefore, we can­not asso­ciate any cause with these events. Does that mean they’re acausal ?

Two illu­sions are lur­king here. The first is that these events without appa­rent cause are sim­ply out­side the deter­mi­nis­tic fra­me­work. Without dis­tin­gui­shing bet­ween « there is no cause » and « there is a cause but my conscious­ness has no access to it ». The second is to say that wha­te­ver hap­pens, eve­ry­thing is sub­ject only to deter­mi­nism. In this case, whe­ther or not my conscious­ness has access to the cause, the prin­ciple of cau­sa­li­ty applies in all circumstances.

Could it be, in fact, our state of conscious­ness — or uncons­cious­ness — that changes our per­cep­tion of deter­mi­nism ?

A trompe l’œil determinism

According to the phi­lo­so­pher of science Michel Bitbol, the cog­ni­tive state of the brain and the state of the world are inde­ter­mi­nate until they come into rela­tion­ship. There is a co-determination of one by the other. As in quan­tum phy­sics, objects do not have intrin­sic wave or cor­pus­cu­lar pro­per­ties [1], but reveal one or the other of these states in rela­tion to the context of the measurement.

« Our own beha­viours [that lead us to adopt spe­ci­fic beha­viours] depend on inter­ac­tion with the world, they are not pre-coded in any way in the dyna­mics of the brain and cog­ni­tion. » [2]

In other words, cog­ni­tion doesn’t work like an algo­rithm. For the phi­lo­so­pher, the power of the ana­lo­gy with quan­tum phy­sics lies in this tea­ching : eve­ry­thing is in a state of super­po­si­tion, of ini­tial non-determination.

On the contra­ry, stan­dard models of cog­ni­ti­vism consi­der that eve­ry­thing is alrea­dy enco­ded. And in this case, only this pro­gram­ming, this pre­de­ter­mi­na­tion, this memo­ry of the brain can be revea­led in this or that situa­tion. This is the model on which arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence works. There is nothing sur­pri­sing about this : man sim­ply repro­duces what he knows. However, in order to com­pete with human cog­ni­tion, robots would have to be enco­ded with « all the infor­ma­tion neces­sa­ry to respond to all the infi­ni­te­ly varied situa­tions that can be encoun­te­red in a concrete world » [3] says Michel Bitbol.

According to him, the dif­fe­rence bet­ween a com­pu­ter and our cog­ni­tion is that the com­pu­ter will only ever be able to conform to pre­de­ter­mi­ned data where human cog­ni­tion is only deter­mi­ned when it encoun­ters a situa­tion. Then « some­thing crys­tal­lizes and a cer­tain rea­di­ness to act is expres­sed that has not been actua­li­zed until now » [4] he adds.

Human Cognition : 1 — Artificial Intelligence : 0

Let’s see if this point of view is still rele­vant in the uni­fied field theo­ry. According to Nassim Haramein, there is a living, dyna­mic sys­tem that encodes eve­ry ele­men­ta­ry amount of infor­ma­tion at eve­ry moment : the uni­verse. Through arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence, man would thus repro­duce the way the uni­verse learns… without neces­sa­ri­ly being aware of his act.

The objec­tive of the « Million Object Challenge » pro­ject [5], for example, is to share in a « cloud » acces­sible to all par­ti­ci­pa­ting robots the lear­ning of each one. In this way, eve­ryone bene­fits in real time from the dis­co­ve­ries of others. If the cloud is to robots what the quan­tum vacuum is to each point of conscious­ness that makes up the uni­verse, the com­pa­ri­son with arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence stops there. Because robots use only an infi­ni­te­ly limi­ted amount of infor­ma­tion to inter­act : infor­ma­tion from the mecha­nis­tic world and not all the infor­ma­tion from the quan­tum vacuum.

The infor­ma­tion of the quan­tum vacuum is dis­tri­bu­ted in the field of human conscious­ness as well as in the field of the uncons­cious. In other words, there is much more infor­ma­tion enco­ded in the quan­tum vacuum than can ever be enco­ded in a robot. The robot can only be powe­red by infor­ma­tion from the concrete world, i.e. from what was once revea­led to the human conscious­ness. It can only encode what is revea­led and can only reveal what is encoded.

One could say that it is a mecha­ni­cal sys­tem of condi­tio­ning while the uni­verse is a living sys­tem that is gra­dual­ly beco­ming conscious of itself. At its scale, the human being is connec­ted to the conscious and uncons­cious fields of the quan­tum vacuum. Although it usual­ly uses the infor­ma­tion in the robot uncons­cious­ly to deter­mine itself, it will always have « advance infor­ma­tion » about the robot, which is taught in a com­ple­te­ly pre­de­ter­mi­ned way.

Everything is still being determined

With the same enco­ding prin­ciple, the human being is the­re­fore a very large win­ner in rela­tion to the amount of infor­ma­tion avai­lable to him, infor­ma­tion to which he does not neces­sa­ri­ly have access, howe­ver. And with equal enco­ding prin­ciples, it is no less true that human cog­ni­tion is only deter­mi­ned when it encoun­ters a situa­tion. Because none of these encoun­ters are ever com­ple­te­ly simi­lar to any other. This is because human beings and the uni­verse, each at their own level, are constant­ly lear­ning about them­selves thanks to the feed­back of infor­ma­tion that links mat­ter and vacuum (see the article Quantum gra­vi­ty and Schwarzschild pro­ton).

Everything is still being deter­mi­ned. Each new piece of infor­ma­tion switches the sys­tem from a cer­tain state to an unde­ter­mi­ned state. And each encoun­ter bet­ween cog­ni­tion and situa­tion causes the sys­tem to switch from an unde­ter­mi­ned to a deter­mi­ned state. Thus, the feed­back loop is like a dance bet­ween non-determinism and determinism.

In fact, the uni­fied phy­sics des­cri­bed by Nassim Haramein makes quan­tum phy­sics as we know it obso­lete. Rather, it pro­poses a model where deter­mi­nism has as much place as non-determinism, thanks to frac­tals. The phy­si­cist explains :

« A frac­tal equa­tion is a repe­ti­tion of an equa­tion that is deter­mi­nis­tic, but when you repeat it it converts into a feed­back open to infi­ni­ty so that you have a com­ple­te­ly non-linear, non-deterministic beha­vior. So from a very deter­mi­nis­tic equa­tion you get a com­plex non-linear result, and you jus­ti­fy both sides of the uni­verse, the deter­mi­nis­tic part and the non-deterministic part. » [6]

Broadening our field of consciousness

Since our men­tal is grap­pling with the past-present-future sequence of events, its ten­den­cy will be to make us think of the uni­verse in a deter­mi­nis­tic way only. Perceiving the non-deterministic side requires us to broa­den our field of conscious­ness.

On this eman­ci­pa­tion depends our abi­li­ty to access a lar­ger share of the infor­ma­tion contai­ned in the quan­tum vacuum. The more deve­lo­ped our state of conscious­ness is in rela­tion to the mind, the more like­ly we are to receive accu­rate, use­ful and consistent infor­ma­tion. And the more we can make this type of infor­ma­tion avai­lable to others, through the vacuum.

In return, we receive infor­ma­tion that has inter­ac­ted with other infor­ma­tion in the quan­tum field. But always in reso­nance [7] with the ones we sent beforehand.

In the second part of this article, I pro­pose on the one hand to dis­co­ver how our state of conscious­ness goes hand in hand with our abi­li­ty to decode this infor­ma­tion and use it. And on the other hand, based on my expe­rience, what I’ve seen of the dyna­mics bet­ween enco­ding and deco­ding information.

Notes and references

[1] See on this sub­ject the articles About quan­tum theo­ry.
[2] BITBOL Michel. (October 9, 2015). Is our thin­king quan­tum ? France Culture, Public Science [pod­cast], free trans­la­tion
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] See How robots can qui­ck­ly teach each other to grasp new objects 
[6] HARAMEIN Nassim, Nassim Haramein at Rogue Valley Metaphysical Library (1)
[7] See also the articles on the but­ter­fly effect about resonance.