Is chance or choice the essence of Nature?
by Thomas J. Chalko, PhD *
Abstract
At the beginning of the twenty first century the prevailing and vigorously defended view is that the Universe happened by chance. All fundamental sub-atomic processes are thought to be “random” and the only way to quantify them seems to be the “uncertainty” principle. Clearly, our conclusions about the Reality of the Universe are determined and limited by our imagination. Can we imagine alternatives? What if nothing in the Universe is by chance? Could it be by CHOICE?
Introduction
Very few scientific principles had greater impact on humanity than Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle1, even though the essence of the principle itself has always been highly controversial.
The origin of the uncertainty principle is very simple: we cannot imagine and conduct sufficiently accurate and non-invading experiments that would expose the reason for the non-deterministic behaviour of sub-atomic particles such as electrons. Heisenberg argued, that since the experimental study with any material apparatus has proven impossible, we do not need to create any theory, simply because we would never be able to verify it experimentally.
Instead, for practical reasons, he proposed to accept certain aspects of the sub- atomic reality as unknown and unexplorable. His uncertainty principle intelligently defined bounds of uncertainty and enabled us to use statistics as a way to quantify the sub-atomic processes. Heisenberg’s approach turned out to be very practical and enabled the unprecedented development of material technology to take place. This in turn reinforced the belief in the correctness of the uncertainty principle. As a result, the uncertainty principle itself seems to enjoy the status of the Law of Nature and is no longer questioned.
The most famous challenger of the uncertainty principle was Albert Einstein, who kept expressing his disapproval for uncertainty as the basis of the Universe by saying that “God doesn’t play dice”. Although his view was that we should seek a sensible explanation for the observable non-deterministic behaviour of the sub- atomic world – he couldn’t imagine any better alternative than the practical statistical approach of Heisenberg.
This article considers the possibility that was either overlooked or not sufficiently explored: that the non-deterministic behaviour of sub-atomic particles is a result of an intelligently encoded information transfer.
Results of electro-photonic experiments presented in this article suggest that the analysis of this concept may have an even greater impact on humanity than the uncertainty principle had. It is demonstrated that quantum encoded information transfer in Nature is not only feasible and highly probable, but it is an essential feature of material reality that enables us to determine and verify the Purpose of existence of the entire Universe.
Spread spectrum information transfer
Is it possible to transmit information using electromagnetic (EM) waves so that the transmission cannot be disrupted even by severe electromagnetic disturbances? Is it possible to make such a transmission “jam proof” so no one can sabotage it? Can such a transmission be encoded so that it is totally private and cannot be intercepted? Can the amount of information transmitted in a given bandwidth be maximised?
After World War II, the militaries in a number of countries directed a considerable research effort to find answers to the above questions. The result of their investigation is the technology known today as the “spread spectrum” transmission.
In the “spread spectrum” transmission the information is digitally encoded and “spread” along the considerable range of EM frequencies (spectrum). Only a receiver that is specially designed and programmed with the unique transmission code can receive the information. To all other receivers the transmission appears as “noise”.
After many years of military use, the “spread spectrum” transmission has been widely commercialised in the Digital Mobile Phone network. Since the “spread spectrum” transmission is virtually “jam proof”, millions of people can talk simultaneously using the same frequency range, without ever disturbing one another. The clever digital encoding of information and “spreading” it in the spectrum virtually guarantees the privacy of their conversations. The density of information in any given bandwidth is maximised.
College experiment
On the outskirts of a large metropolis, a group of highly intelligent college students was given a project: to investigate the “strange” behaviour of electromagnetic (EM) waves in the frequency range around 1.9 GHz, without being told that this frequency range is used for the digital mobile phone network.
To quantify their observations students have chosen two parameters: the frequency and the intensity of EM oscillations. Using receivers, scanners and spectrum analysers they soon concluded that the EM waves in the above frequency range behaved in an unpredictable random way.
They found that at any particular frequency the intensity of EM oscillations was highly uncertain. They also noticed, that there was a high degree of certainty that at “some” frequency a particular intensity level actually occurred at any given time. The problem was that it was impossible to predict at “which” frequency it happened at any given moment. They also encountered serious problems with the accuracy of their measurements. For example they noticed that their frequency estimates appeared “blurred” because the EM waves appeared in “lumps” or “bursts” that were very brief.
Inspired by “quantum mechanics”, highly promoted in the 20-th century, students decided to adopt a similar approach. They defined their own “uncertainty principle”, established bounds for their “uncertainty” and adopted a clever statistical approach, focusing on predicting the “probability” of observable events.
After a few months of work, the students had become very proud of their “theory”, because it could actually predict probabilities of many events in their frequency band. They had become quite convinced that their theory actually “described the Reality”. Statistically speaking – it DID…
Did you notice, however, that by adopting a statistical approach our students have completely MISSED millions of very real intelligent conversations? Isn’t it obvious that their conclusion has been determined and limited by their imagination?
Our students just couldn’t imagine that what appeared to them as “random” was actually the consequence of a very intelligently encoded information transfer. As a result – they didn’t even try to decode anything.
Let’s analyse in more detail why and how our students developed their belief in a “random process”. The primary reason for their belief was that they couldn’t make any deterministic predictions about the EM waves they observed.
Note that there was nothing “random” in the EM waves. In reality, millions of people were making billions of intelligent CHOICES in their individual conversations every hour. For the purpose of the information transfer, all these choices were being continuously encoded into EM waves several thousand times per second. Our students had failed to imagine and explore this possibility, so they concluded that they had observed a “random” process.
Don’t you feel uneasy about the fact that the entire science on Earth in the 21-st century is built around the “uncertainty principle”? Aren’t we missing something truly important about the Universe?
“Not appearances, but what is behind them is the most important”.2 Is the Universe by Design?
Did the Universe happen by chance or is it the result of an intelligent Design? What is more probable?
Although the probability of the Universe appearing “by chance” is generally agreed to be infinitesimally small, the entire science on Earth seems to focus on this single possibility.
What could possibly be achieved by following this narrow path of thinking? Proof that the Universe exists because it CAN? Since the Universe already DOES exist – who needs proof that the Universe “can” exist?
My preference is to consider an alternative that seems almost an infinite number of times more probable: that the Universe has been intelligently designed and – as every intelligent design – it has a Purpose3.
In fact, to a sincere and intelligent observer – every atom in Nature around us seems a masterpiece of intelligent Design. Nature in its entirety can be considered as a manifestation of a truly Great Intellect, far greater in fact that most of us can imagine.
In contrast, no one on Earth seems to be intelligent enough to MAKE an atom, even the simplest one. So far we have only learnt how to smash atoms into pieces, and even then – we cannot explain all the details about the resulting debris. What would you say to a child who continues smashing toys in order to demonstrate that “toys make themselves” ? The smashing continues…
Generations of highly intelligent people on Earth have been trying to figure out how atoms and sub-atomic “particles” such as electrons are made. Since no one could establish a deterministic model for electron oscillations, they were proclaimed “uncertain” and unexplorable. Consequently, mathematical models of the electron and other “particles” focus on estimating the probability of encountering certain states of their oscillation, according to the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg.
Is it possible that what we can only explain today as “uncertainty” in electron oscillations is actually the evidence of a continuous information transfer between electrons? Could the entire Universe be a gigantic facility to process information?
When observing intelligently functioning Nature around us it is very difficult not to admit that the Design of the Universe required a truly Great Intellect. We can also establish with a considerable certainty that the very essence of Intellect is the ability to create and process information.
Doesn’t it become obvious that the information storage and exchange should be one of the most essential features, if not the very Purpose of the truly intelligent Design of the Universe?
Quantum computing?
How many electrons does it take to remember everything on your hard disk?
Theoretically speaking, ONLY ONE, providing that the information is cleverly phase- encoded in its fundamental modes of oscillation.
If you think that this is a joke, wishful thinking or some speculation, think again. Ahn, Weinacht and Bucksbaum from the University of Michigan were the first to demonstrate experimentally4, on a small scale, that information can indeed be phase-encoded in electrons using light (i.e. photons).
The theoretical storage capacity of a single electron, or even a single photon of light, has been agreed to be phenomenal5, even though the actual encoding and retrieving of the information using the technology available to us today remains a major challenge.
Is it a coincidence that the storage capacity of every electron and every photon in the Universe is so great? Is it a coincidence that this memory capacity arises ONLY when the information is intelligently encoded? To what degree is this phenomenal storage capacity utilised in Nature around us and within us?
Ahn, Weinacht and Bucksbaum research results4 indicate that the information storage at quantum level may be temporary. Hence, to maintain the “memory” – a continuous ”copying” or “refreshing” of the information has to take place. Isn’t it what is actually going on in every electron and every photon in the Universe? Isn’t it why electrons seem to continuously emit, absorb and ”exchange” photons?
Is the information exchange the main function of electric currents in the electro- photonic field within and around our body? Is the coherence of this information transfer a feature that makes us and other creatures alive and well?
Penfield, the pioneer in brain surgery, after a lifetime of research insisted6 that the origin of human consciousness is definitely not anywhere in the brain. Have we just found where and how it is actually encoded?
Is our consciousness electro-photonic? Is our intellect encoded in electrons and photons at quantum level?