INFINITE ASCENT & DESCENT:
PROOF OF THE PRIMACY OF CONSCIOUSNESS

by Edward R. Close, Ph.D.

Truth and Consciousness

Perhaps everything that can be said has already been said. If so, then we can say, (quoting someone, of course), that "there is nothing new under the sun." But, is it true that there is nothing new under the sun? How can we know what is true, when truth is often relative, and it can be shown that that which is true in one context may prove to be false in a different context? Does this mean that there is no such thing as absolute truth, or is there another context, unknown to most of us, most of the time, a context of absolute reality untainted by relative truth? What can be said about absolute truth? The Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein said: "Concerning that about which nothing can be said, we must remain silent." If absolute truth exists, it cannot be subject to contextual interpretation, and it is therefore, beyond proof or disproof. Can anyone intelligently discuss something that is beyond his or her experience?

What about science? Can truth uncovered by science be absolute? Careful experiment and calculations show that all closed physical systems are subject to the second law of thermodynamics, that is, they tend to break down, to disintegrate. If it is true that the universe is expanding into the cold, dead nothingness of empty space, and that, as Bertrand Russell said, all we dream, think, or do, is doomed to disappear in the ultimate heat-death of the universe, then perhaps all efforts to know truth are ultimately futile. We must ask, however, whether consciousness is a closed mechanical system. Is consciousness subject to the second law of thermodynamics, the law of entropy? Or is consciousness truly infinite?

One of the pitfalls for many of today's thinkers, especially scientists, is the intellectual isolation of thought processes from direct experience. Those who have fallen into this intellectual trap will probably think that the two subjects addressed in this article are mutually incompatible. The two subjects are scientific knowledge and spiritual experience. The thesis of this discussion is, that in fact, there is only one reality, and these two ways of knowing should not be separated. In the early days of natural science, they were separated for an intellectually valid reason: In order to distance their work from pseudo-science and chicanery, scientists limited themselves to a study of the physical properties of the observable universe. Unfortunately, this artificial separation led to the belief that matter, energy, time and space constitute the sum total of all that exists, and consciousness was excluded from scientific investigation. In light of new evidence, this approach is no longer acceptable. Empirical evidence and a sound theoretical basis establishing the fact that consciousness, not matter, is the primary substance of reality is now available.

Consciousness must now be included in any description of reality that hopes to be complete. When consciousness is included in a mathematical description of reality, it emerges as the basic substance of which the universe is made, and the primacy of consciousness is established in theory. But the primacy of consciousness is not just theory. For many, it is a statement based on experience. When this is fully understood and accepted, one realizes that:

(1) the existence of consciousness is a miracle of the first order,

(2) every conscious being is unique,

(3) every life is meant to be a love affair with the Infinite, and

(4) the object of human existence is not to amass a fortune or discover new science, or even to perform good and benevolent works; the purpose of life is to know and become one with Absolute Truth.

Because thinking is easily convoluted, however, and language is ambiguous at best, the simple primacy of consciousness has become obscured for most people, and Truth has become very elusive.

Most of the time, everyone thinks he or she knows what is true and what is false. Without some confidence in the ability to discern reality from illusion, right from wrong, it would be impossible to survive and function in this world. But, if we examine the basis of our "knowing" critically, we often find that our convictions rest on foundations of shifting sand. How is it that we know anything? Science moves forward on the carefully constructed vehicles of logical deduction, inference and experimentation. But even the most rigorous logical system can lead to erroneous conclusions if even one of the under-lying basic assumptions is false.

Science and Assumptions

At the root of every theory of knowledge, there are a priori assumptions, assumptions that are so taken for granted that we generally fail to acknowledge them. A case in point is the assumption of the absolute separation of consciousness and matter, subject and object. Einstein said: "The belief in an external world independent of the perceiving subject is the basis of all natural science." Of course, this "belief" is not a scientific hypothesis, since it cannot be proved. It is an assumption that seems so obvious that few take issue with it, yet we now have both empirical evidence and logical proof that it is incorrect. Bell's Theorem and the Aspect Experiment, which were inspired by the famous Einstein-Bohr debate, provide persuasive evidence that, at the most basic level of physical reality, the quantum level, this assumption does not hold.

John Bell, the author of Bell's Theorem, said that he shares with most other physicists "…a degree of embarrassment at consciousness being dragged into physics…" And yet, he continues: "It remains a logical possibility that it is the act of consciousness that is ultimately responsible for the reduction of the wave packet."

The cause of the reduction of the wave packet is one of the biggest puzzles of modern physics. Of course, quantum physicists are concerned with this question, but why should the average person care how elementary particles come into being? What difference does it make if they blink in and out of existence every nanosecond, or even if they don't actually exist at all? We do perceive a physical world, and we must deal with it every day. Science is, however, a search for the nature of reality, and the search for the most basic building blocks of the material universe has led us to the realization that the idea of the existence of elementary particles independent of the observer is totally false. Furthermore, every being conscious enough to wonder about the nature of the universe must eventually ask: "What am I? How did I come to be? What is the meaning and purpose of life?" Any truth uncovered by science that hints at the ultimate nature of reality has profound bearing on these important questions.

Many scientists are content to leave the metaphysical questions raised by new discoveries like Bell's Theorem and the Aspect Experiment to the philosophers. "Quantum mechanics works!" they say, "So what, if elementary particles cannot be said to exist until they have registered in some observation or measurement?" It was Bohr's position that science is not about discovering the ultimate nature of reality. "We can only describe that which we experience", he declared, echoing Wittgenstein. But many scientists, deeply disturbed by the suggestion that consciousness may be involved at the very most basic level of physical reality, unscientifically declare that consciousness has nothing to do with the collapse of the wave function. A camera, photographic plate, or any number of physical devices may provide receptors causing the collapse of the wave function without the involvement of a conscious observer, they reason. This reasoning, however, is flawed. We have no knowledge of any object, no way to observe a universe without consciousness. The assumption that the universe would exist as it is, or that it would exist at all, without consciousness cannot be considered to be a scientific hypothesis, because it is not open to proof or disproof.

Science has taken a lop-sided approach for some time, by ignoring the role of the observer, and trying to explain consciousness as a by-product of material evolution. A change in mode of thought, and a transformation of individual consciousness is needed. Thus the journey should be undertaken on two levels: first, on the level of logic, and second, on the level of direct spiritual experience. In addition to trying to explain consciousness in physical terms, we should be trying to explain matter and energy in terms of consciousness. After all, consciousness is the only thing we experience directly. Pursuing the intellectual aspect of the journey, while avoiding the spiritual transformation, is a mistake. The result is an impoverished experience that misses the point. By attacking the problem objectively from both sides we will achieve a better understanding of the interaction of consciousness and matter and produce a more meaningful explanation of consciousness.

One of the barriers to understanding the meaning of discoveries on the frontiers of physics, especially for the non-specialist, is that, with conventional methods, tensor calculus, wave equations and probability matrices are required to describe the phenomena of quantum mechanics. Not everyone has command of these sophisticated mathematical tools. But truth is ultimately very simple, and a clear understanding of the nature of reality may be achieved by a much simpler approach. This approach involves focusing on the most basic function of consciousness, the act that underlies all thought, including mathematics and logic: the drawing of the distinction between subject and object. It is this distinction that creates the illusion of the absolute separation of self from other.

The Calculus of Distinctions and Infinite Descent/Ascent

A new mathematics, the calculus of distinctions, is offered as the intellectual vehicle. The calculus of distinctions allows us to penetrate the thickets of thorny vectors in Hilbert space, sail across the turbulent waters of Schrödinger and Maxwell wave equations, fly over the maze of probability matrices and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, and space warp beyond Einstein's Minkowski spacetime continuum. What are distinctions? Every conscious experience depends upon distinctions. Starting with the first distinction, we can follow the hierarchy of distinctions from one level of complexity to the next. Using the calculus of distinctions, we can probe this subtle interface between consciousness and matter by taking an approach similar to that described by Jon von Neumann in The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. The act of observation divides the world into two parts: the observer and the observed. The mechanics of information transfer by photons and electrons from the object to the observer can be most simply represented by the descriptive mathematics of the calculus of distinctions. Defining the quanta as distinctions, we may trace the flow of information by reflected elementary particles (photons), from the object to the receptive structures of the eye, optic nerve and brain, as a series of elementary particles (electrons) carry the information to the consciousness of the observer.

The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics requires that a moving elementary particle has no localized form until it impacts upon a receptor. And information is carried from the object to the observer by a series of sources, elementary particles (first photons, and then electrons), and receptors. Quantum mechanics also tells us that mass and energy exist only in multiples of minimum quantities (quanta). Since the physical structure of the brain is finite, the series of sources and receptors must end with a final receptor. But what is the final receptor? If it is a physical structure, it is by definition, made of elementary particles, quanta of matter and energy, and if the information of the incoming quanta is absorbed by physical particles, how can we account for the image of the object of observation that arises in consciousness? Is it composed of patterns of matter and energy formed by the information in the incoming quanta? If so, there is a minimum volume within which the image of an object can appear and be stored, since matter and energy can only occur in discrete, finite packets. If the image is material, what is the consciousness, the final receptor, that perceives this image? Is it also made up of quanta of matter and energy? If so, then the elementary particles of which it is composed also had no local physical form until they registered on a prior receptor. And that prior receptor, if it was composed of quanta of matter and energy, also had to have had a prior receptor, and so on. Thus the quest for the first receptor becomes an infinite regression in time and space. But quantum mechanics tells us that the time and space available in the universe and in the finite physical structure of the brain of a sentient being is limited. There is, therefore, a "bottom" to physical phenomena, the infinite regress or descent is impossible, and we have a logical contradiction. Conclusion: the first and final receptors cannot be composed of quanta of matter and energy.

This same logical contradiction is discovered by inner research. See, for instance, the teachings of Ramana Maharshi. Seek to discover the nature and location of the self by inquiring: "Who am I, and where does this ‘I’ reside?" Attempting to locate the perceiving self, you will soon realizes that any part of the physical body, the heart, head, brain, brain cells, etc., identified as the location of the self, immediately becomes an object perceived by the self, and the perceiving subject is therefore something other than the structure. The conclusion, again, is that consciousness is something beyond matter and energy.

Given this conclusion, we can no longer maintain the assumption of scientific materialism, i.e., that reality consists of nothing but matter and energy interacting in time and space. No one can deny the fact that consciousness exists; we all experience it directly. But the separation of reality into the observer and the observed and the logic of infinite descent forces us to conclude that consciousness cannot be composed of quanta of matter or energy. In order to continue in an objective, scientific manner, we must therefore abandon the limiting assumption of materialism and allow non-quantum consciousness to take its place as a real substance, along with matter and energy.

What is the nature of this conscious non-quantum substance? The great difficulty in answering this question lies in the fact that it is by definition the very essence of awareness, the principle that allows sentient beings to exist in such a way as to be able to ask this question in the first place. We can begin by identifying the two basic functions of consciousness: The primary function of drawing distinctions, first between self and other, and then in what it perceives to be other than itself. The secondary function of consciousness is to organize those distinctions into logical structure and order. Consciousness forms images of structures and forms within its own substance parallel to structures it has distinguished in the perceived external sphere. The formation of these images gives rise to the concept of space, and the recognition of changes in them gives rise to the notion of time, and the storage of successive images in consciousness constitutes the faculty of memory.

Some of the innate features of consciousness include:

Continuity - The substance of consciousness exhibits infinite divisibility, or continuity, distinguishing it from the discreet quanta of matter and energy.

Nonlocality - Because of its inherent continuity, consciousness is able to perceive phenomena ranging from a single quantum to objects composed of many distinct parts. This awareness suggests that the conscious substance in which images are formed is connected, comprising a unified whole.

Complementarity - Consciousness and the physical universe are complementary aspects of the reality we experience, since they are both necessary for that experience to occur.

Uncertainty - The identification of consciousness with a structure of matter and energy, e.g., the body through which it perceives the physical universe, gives rise to uncertainty because of the limitations of knowledge imposed by the boundaries of that which is perceived to encompass the self. Quantum physicists have found that the quantum level of reality exhibits the last three of these features.

At first it may seem curious that some of the features of consciousness are necessary features of the physical universe at the quantum level. On the other hand, if the substance of consciousness is actually the ground of all phenomena, rather than an abstract epiphenomenon of matter, then this finding is perfectly natural and would have been expected, if we had not assumed mind and matter, consciousness and energy, to be separate in the first place. If we accept the similarity of the features of quantum reality and consciousness revealed by empirical evidence and the logic of infinite descent to be more than coincidence, we begin to see reality as a unified whole. Reality is revealed as something that includes both subject and object, something that manifests as a spectrum ranging from non-quantum consciousness to quantized energy and matter. This "something" is the root substance of all phenomena, the ineffable potential from which all forms are selected by the drawing of distinctions.

We can see how the branches of logic and mathematics, and the vast foliage of the various sciences sprout naturally, like a tree of distinctions, from the trunk of the initial distinction. We find that the roots of this tree are the many primary distinctions of self from other, and amazingly, no matter how many individuals become aware of this first distinction, that distinction is the same; that is to say, this tree of distinctions is rooted in the eternal reality of Primary Consciousness. Primary Consciousness, once experienced, becomes the key to all understanding, because it is awareness of the nexus between the physical world and the world of Spirit.

Experiencing The Ultimate

The calculus of distinctions journey follows the logic of infinite descent, while the same journey experienced on a conscious spiritual level is a path of infinite ascent. At the end of this ascent, in the primordial clear space of Primary Consciousness, we experience the first distinction, that of self from other. Using the calculus of distinctions, we may return, tracing the consequences of the first distinction back through the quanta of atoms and molecules, all the way to the commonplace and extraordinary experiences of our everyday lives. The importance of combining the intellectual understanding of the infinite descent of distinctions with the direct experience of the infinite ascent of consciousness cannot be overstated. Intellectual understanding, because it depends on neurological (brain) processes, is subject to entropy, just like any finite physical system. With physical death, your brain will disintegrate. Books, records, houses, monuments, all things erected in this world to document intellectual achievements, dreams, and discoveries, will definitely cease to exist one day, and it may seem that Bertrand Russell was right. Direct experience of the ascent to Pure Consciousness, however, proves him wrong.

With the realization of the primacy of consciousness, it becomes perfectly clear that this realization was the purpose of individual awareness and the goal of sentient life from the beginning. Why is it, then, that most people are unaware of this, and often see no purpose or meaning in the world that they experience? It is because the very process by which we obtain knowledge depends upon the distinction of self from other, while the experience of the primacy of consciousness is experience of the Whole. In other words, intellectual understanding depends upon the fragmentation of reality into many parts, and this is the antithesis of the ultimate goal. Does this mean that utilizing the intellect is bad? No, because thinking is necessary and crucial to survival. Intellectualism without spiritual experience, however, is not good, because, being only half of the story, it leads to erroneous conclusions. The most serious erroneous conclusion embraced by many intellectuals is the conclusion that nothing exists beyond the physical world revealed by the physical sense organs. Imagining themselves (and everyone else) to be an accident of nature, they are imprisoned in a world constructed by their own intellect.

People of any society, including believers in the current scientific paradigm, have limited themselves to a world of their own fashioning, and will see only what they are conditioned to see. It is thus difficult, if not impossible for them to comprehend that someone else may have experienced something beyond their current understanding. Because their conceptual model of reality is known and comfortable, they are prone to deny the possibility that any other reality exists.
Enlightened beings who are aware of the Conscious Whole, are among us, but it is rare for them to communicate their experience because of the barriers of thought and belief that we ourselves construct. How can one who has reached the ultimate experience of realization of the Whole, relate the experience to anyone who has not at least had a glimpse of it? No one who has experienced the ultimate wants to burst another individual's bubble of belief, because sudden exposure to a reality beyond one's comprehension could lead to anxiety, fear, insanity, or even death. It is better to expand the bubble slowly, in small increments, by providing inspirational example.

Verbal expressions of the ultimate experience are necessarily filled with paradox, and the Truth is beyond words. It can only be hinted at in poetry, music, and art. It may be true that there is nothing new under the sun, but experience proves that the conscious source of all things is ever new. We are admonished: "Be still and know that I am God." It turns out that only by remaining silent, really silent to the core of our being, may we experience that about which nothing can be said.

REFERENCES

1 Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus logico-philosophicus, London, 1922

2 Bertrand Russell, A Free Man's Worship

3 Amit Goswami, The Self-Aware Universe: How Consciousness Creates the Material World, New York, Tarcher/Putnam, 1993

4 Albert Einstein, James Clerke Maxwell: A Commemorative Volume, Cambridge University Press, 1931

5 A. Aspect, P. Grangier, and G. Roger, Experimental Realization of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm Gedankenexperiment: a new violation of Bell's inequalities, Physical Review, 48, p. 91-94

6 John Bell, The Moral Aspect of Quantum Mechanics, p. 279, in Preludes in Theoretical Physics, Amsterdam, 1966

7 Neils Bohr, Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge, 1958

8 John Wheeler, At Home in the Universe, American Institute of Physics, 1994

9 Edward R. Close, Transcendental Physics, Appendix D, Paradigm Press, 1997, and toExcel Press, iUniverse.com, Inc., Lincoln, Nebraska, 2000

10 Jon von Neumann, The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Princeton University Press, 1955

11 Arthur Osborne, editor, The Collected Works of Ramana Maharshi, Samuel Weiser, New York, 1972

12 G.S. Brown, Laws of Form, George Allen and Unwin, Ltd., London, 1969

13 Edward R. Close, The Case for the Non-Quantum Receptor, Journal of Consciousness Studies, Abstracts from Tucson II, 1996

14 Psalms 46:10, King James Version of the Bible