Coyne is an ardent materialist and his brand of evolution ‘theory’ is materialist, and as such he must assert the existence of a material world which is independent of all acts of observation. He must also believe in a ‘local’ reality, which is a reality within which aspects of the ‘material’ world do not have what Einstein called ‘spooky’ instantaneous interconnections between vastly distant elements of reality. Both of these claims are shown to be false by the core discovery of quantum theory which is termed ‘entanglement’. Very precise quantum experiments have been carried out over and over again testing an inequality called ‘Bell’s inequality’. It is clear that new evolutionary forms can take shape within ‘hidden’ quantum levels of the evolutionary process of reality. And because the quantum realm has access to non-local information and mechanisms such as the quantum ‘look-ahead’ algorithm, the quantum levels of evolution can ‘feel’ out the future nature of evolving environments and thereby quantumly prepare the evolving quantum template of an animal to ‘fit’ the environment it is about to inhabit.
Coyne is an ardent materialist and his brand of evolution ‘theory’ is materialist, and as such he must assert the existence of a material world which is independent of all acts of observation. He must also believe in a ‘local’ reality, which is a reality within which aspects of the ‘material’ world do not have what Einstein called ‘spooky’ instantaneous interconnections between vastly distant elements of reality. Both of these claims are shown to be false by the core discovery of quantum theory which is termed ‘entanglement’. Very precise quantum experiments have been carried out over and over again testing an inequality called ‘Bell’s inequality’. It is clear that new evolutionary forms can take shape within ‘hidden’ quantum levels of the evolutionary process of reality. And because the quantum realm has access to non-local information and mechanisms such as the quantum ‘look-ahead’ algorithm, the quantum levels of evolution can ‘feel’ out the future nature of evolving environments and thereby quantumly prepare the evolving quantum template of an animal to ‘fit’ the environment it is about to inhabit.
Coyne is an ardent materialist and his brand of evolution ‘theory’ is materialist, and as such he must assert the existence of a material world which is independent of all acts of observation. He must also believe in a ‘local’ reality, which is a reality within which aspects of the ‘material’ world do not have what Einstein called ‘spooky’ instantaneous interconnections between vastly distant elements of reality. Both of these claims are shown to be false by the core discovery of quantum theory which is termed ‘entanglement’. Very precise quantum experiments have been carried out over and over again testing an inequality called ‘Bell’s inequality’. It is clear that new evolutionary forms can take shape within ‘hidden’ quantum levels of the evolutionary process of reality. And because the quantum realm has access to non-local information and mechanisms such as the quantum ‘look-ahead’ algorithm, the quantum levels of evolution can ‘feel’ out the future nature of evolving environments and thereby quantumly prepare the evolving quantum template of an animal to ‘fit’ the environment it is about to inhabit. This is the quantum Platonic perspective on the process of evolution.
The supporters of the hardcore materialist MUD worldview tend to consider, without actually thinking too much (if at all), that anyone involved in scientifically investigating the nature of quantum reality and its relationship to the ‘observer’ as being so irredeemably infected with what these ‘rationalists’ call ‘woo’ that they should not be taken seriously. In this article we take a more in depth look at the crucial issues raised by the paper that Tsakiris unsuccessfully attempted to draw to the unwilling attention of Jerry Coyne. For physicists such as Bohm, Planck, Schrödinger, Heisenberg and others, consciousness, or potential consciousness, is an innate and inseparable aspect of the quantum immaterial realm which underlies the apparently material realm. Furthermore, as Bohm states, “every part of the universe is related to every other part but in different degrees;” this interconnection accounts for a deep level of the evolutionary interrelationships between creatures and environments. Because of the deeply connected nature of the quantum field there must be a quantum informational interconnection between environments and the creatures within them.
For physicists such as Bohm, Planck, Schrodinger, Heisenberg and others, consciousness, or potential consciousness, is an innate and inseparable aspect of the quantum immaterial realm which underlies the apparently material realm. Furthermore, as Bohm states, “every part of the universe is related to every other part but in different degrees;” this interconnection accounts for a deep level of the evolutionary interrelationships between creatures and environments. Because of the deeply connected nature of the quantum field there must be a quantum informational interconnection between environments and the creatures within them. The supporters of the hardcore materialist worldview tend to consider, without actually thinking too much (if at all), that anyone involved in scientifically investigating the nature of quantum reality and its relationship to the ‘observer’ as being so irredeemably infected with what these ‘rationalists’ call ‘woo’ that they should not be taken seriously. In this article we take a more in depth look at the crucial issues raised by the paper that Tsakiris unsuccessfully attempted to draw to the unwilling attention of a materialist.
The evidence which has been claimed for the formative causation hypothesis is controversial and is generally discounted by mainstream workers in the field. And, because the power of the dominance of the materialist worldview is still overwhelming the kind of evidence required in order to convince skeptics would have to be irresistible. This is because there seems to be a deeply ingrained antagonistic prejudice towards theories which threaten materialistic approaches to understanding the process of reality. The approach adopted within the quantum Mindnature perspective in challenging the mechanistic-materialist worldview begins from a significantly different point because it takes the quantum evidence as it is now as the ground for developing a metaphysical overview, an overview which precisely coheres with all significant current quantum perspectives. As this work shows the breadth, scope and depth of the overarching and detailed metaphysical perspective is so dramatic that it is difficult to conceive of an alternative metaphysical perspective bringing together diverse areas of discourse together in such a detailed and precise manner. It was not anticipated at the outset, for instance, that the natural evolutionary development of the quantum Mindnature perspective itself would account for the process of evolution as well as otherwise unexplained phenomena within the field of evolutionary development. And one of the significant implications of this perspective is that something akin to formative causation must be operating at, and through, the quantum level.
Three quantum paradoxical experiments — (1) double-slit, (2) delayed choice, and (3) EPR paradox ones are considered. These experiments definitely indicate the inadequacy of the mate- rialist paradigm. The materialist doctrine can not describe, explain and predict phenomena and strangeness of quantum world, and the concept of matter is inconsistent at the quantum level. Doubtless, from the materialistic point of view, two propositions saying about that the physical properties of the system are in themselves, they are objective and independent of measurement (1) and measurement (observation) of one system does not affect the result of the measurement (observation) of another system (2) are not verified by the recent experiments confirming so- called quantum non-locality or non-local realism. In relation to this, we have to doubt the truth of materialist ontology which denies the existence of transcendental objects or any extrasensory phenomena with certainty. There should be set boundaries for the materialist paradigm, beyond which it can not be accepted. The poliontichny paradigm that considers reality in potential and actual modes is proposed as an alternative world view embracing both material and quantum world. The unity of the world is not denied but it can be distinguished by two structural levels — two modes of reality evidencing the dual nature of the Universe.
In classical physics there is, in accordance with common sense, an objective world ‘out there’. That world evolves in a clear and deterministic way, being governed by precisely formulated mathematical equations. This is as true for the theories of Maxwell and Einstein as it is for the original Newtonian scheme. Physical reality is taken to exist independently of ourselves; and exactly how the classical world ‘is’ is not affected by how we might choose to look at it. Moreover, our bodies and our brains are themselves to be part of that world. They, also, are viewed as evolving according to the same precise and deterministic classical equations. All our actions are to be fixed by these equations - no matter how we might feel that our conscious wills may be influencing how we behave. Such a picture appears to lie at the background of most serious 1 philosophical arguments concerned with the nature of reality, of our conscious perceptions, and of our apparent free will. Some people might have an uncomfortable feeling that there should also be a role for quantum theory - that fundamental but disturbing scheme of things which, in the first quarter of this century, arose out of observations of subtle discrepancies between the actual behaviour of the world and the descriptions of classical physics. To many, the term ‘quantum theory’ evokes merely some vague concept of an ‘uncertainty principle’, which, at the level of particles, atoms or molecules, forbids precision in our descriptions and yields merely probabilistic behaviour. Actually, quantum descriptions are very precise, as we shall see, although radically different from the familiar classical ones. Moreover, we shall find, despite a common view to the contrary, that probabilities do not arise at the minute quantum level of particles, atoms, or molecules - those evolve deterministically - but, seemingly, via some mysterious larger-scale action connected with the emergence of a classical world that we can consciously perceive. We must try to understand this, and how quantum theory forces us to change our view of physical reality.