AMKent books

I will be using Von Nuemann-Wigners ‘Friend‘ thought experiment (put simply, consciousness is responsible for quantum matter change under observation, not just devices). The premise of this first contribution to an on-going series will use heavily the quantum mechanical phenomena of matter change under observation. The initial assertation from experiments such as ‘The Double-Slit Experiment‘, ‘Quantum Zeno Effect‘, ‘Schrodinger’s cat‘ and ‘Stress-Induced Phase Transition in Crystals‘ is that observation changes matter (be it quantum or classical as is the case with these). Now, on a macro-level observation does not change matter, this is usually a quantum occurrence known as the ‘Observer Effect’. The interaction of observation and measurement collapses wavelengths when tested using either electrons or photons, from waves to particles the matter passes through the slits.

With that loose groundwork set, the soul as an ‘ultimate observer‘ can be introduced along with the purpose of this discussion. If the wavelength of consciousness (using Descartes Duality) collapses, then its transformation could transform it into something palatable for our brains to transmit. The Observer in this case would have to be ‘The Soul‘, essentially interacting as a non-physical entity with the physical world. Additionally, this would mean that the soul would act as a deeper interactive catalyst than the energy the consciousness is comprised of (current consensus is electromagnetic energy). A popular paradigm is that consciousness evolved through biological matter such as neurotransmitters and dopamine, we are the product of interoception, an internal longitudinal process that led us to awareness. My main problem with this is that in the midst of an infinite universe, an individual biology, or entire tribe (currently nearing 10 billion), creating consciousness from only its own internal mutation seems anthropomorphic. Consciousness, as I shall discuss further along these entries, does not stop at what we perceive as consciousness (to be aware and interact with the external). Nature is hierarchal, and without getting into linguistic problems (see Wittgenstein for that), operates vastly above our encompassment and command of it.

We are three-dimensional, with the arguable ‘illusion‘ of cognitive independence to interact with our external surroundings. When I speak of the soul, I do not mean a white blob that drifts in and out of every human, I see it more as a top-down ethereal antagonist. It acts as an ultimate observer for all mater in its primal form, but what we perceive of it in our dimensional limitations is unseen (Think the book ‘Flatland’ by Abbott, how the 2D could not comprehend the 3D cube, or the cube to the 4D tesseract). Essentially, this cyclical reaction from observational interaction could be what self-propagates an eternal flame so to speak, or an ever-expanding universe. I understand these implications are severe, grandiose, and some may feel the soul could be some kind of place holder for a ‘God’. Additionally, the irony of my dismissal of the internal evolution of consciousness in the human brain vs the internal evolution of all-matter to a soul is not lost on me. The nuances here is what shall make the difference, There may be something beyond this ultimate observer, but for now I shall work on the soul.

A.M. Kent: Meditations on The Soul