I've noticed a staggering amount of peeps round here do not know the in's and out's of the Copenhagen Interpetation. For those who would like to learn more about it,i've carefully selected chapters and parts from my book that explain this bizarre world. CHAPTER THREE The Matter That Most Counts Part One The Mind One of the biggest mysteries concerning physics today is the role of the observer. The world of the mind has captured the imaginations of some of the biggest giants in the world of physics... and with good reason. We learn that the observer must play one of the most important parts in what we call reality. Hence, a physicist is compelled to say, 'the mind is reality,' and in this chapter, we will investigate why physics is driven into believing this statement. The observer plays one of the biggest roles in physics - but unfortunately, it isn't explored enough i feel. Theoretical physicist, Fred Alan Wolf has written many tributes to the theory of consciousness. Physicist and mathematician Erwin Schrödinger, most famous for 'Schrödinger’s cat paradox' also dedicated a lot time to the observer. Niels Bohr, the founder of the 'Copenhagen interpretation' showed us the effects of the observer on the observed. Einstein himself brought back the role of the observer, in many examples such as the 'twin paradox', the 'train-platform game of catch,' the 'grandfather paradox', the 'EPR paradox', ECT. The EPR paradox is by physicists Einstein, Boris (Podolsky) and Nathan (Rosen). It raises the question of the state of one half of a system that was previously attached to the other system. If one half of the system is observed and measured, what happens to the other half? Well, whatever is determined for the half being observed, instantly determines the other system, even though it is no longer connected to it. The paradox is how this happens. The research on the EPR is still on-going, and the results of physicist Alain Aspect showed a connection of entangled behavior in 1996. I can understand why Einstein was highly critical of physics; considering half of the unsolvable paradox's came from him. Even 'Schrödinger’s cat' was inspired by Einstein. It was as though Einstein was out on a mission to show everyone of the world that quantum physics was strange, and there was nothing we could do about it - and this included the paradoxical world of the observer. Though, as physics and our assumptions about physics progress, we are only just beginning to understanding some of the mysteries concerning consciousness. Just recently, physics made a big turn around. In the last decade of the 20th century, physicists proposed that gravity might be responsible for the mental phenomena of consciousness. Quantum gravity is known to keep our planets and stars in their galactic orbits, but it also exists at the subatomic level - and if it does, that must mean it exists inside of my head. The force of gravity might have a special influence on the electrons and hydrogen atoms whizzing around in my brain! This is an important discovery. If it is true, it will revolutionize our ways of thinking. We can only hope that now more discoveries on mind will arise in the future. There are already a lot of documented works on consciousness, as i said previously, and we will investigate a lot of those in this chapter. Some of these ideas will lead us into considering that there is no such thing as free-will. We will also see how the mind directly influences the properties of whatever it observes, as the information travels superluminal (faster-than-light) through time and space. These quantum waves are best described by physicist John G. Cramer. A collapse of the wave function occurs, only when two quantum waves travel through time, one travels forward in time, and the other wave travel backwards through time; then the waves meet in the present and they multiply. This multiplication is called the collapse. The original wave can only multiply with it’s complex conjugate. Multiplying two answers to obtain a single answer is common in everyday life. You might remember the mathematical formulae from school. Here are a few to example; 1. Force = mass x acceleration 2. Velocity = frequency x wavelength 3. Volume = area of base x height 4. Area = half the length of base x perpendicular height Once they multiply, the 'transaction', as Cramer terms it, is complete. He feels that using these quantum waves helps in teaching how they work. It is after all, understandable. It is quite an elementary way of looking at it all. Let's have a look at Schrödinger’s Cat. It refers to a cat that is locked up in a box, and inside the box is a device that will or will not emit poisonous gasses. Einstein had previously suggested a similar paradox, but involved an unstable keg of gunpowder instead of a cat. It suggests that if no one looks into the box, the cat has 50/50 chance. One it could be alive, or two it could be dead. Is the cat dead or alive? Schrödinger just took the next step in applying quantum mechanics to an entity that may or may not be conscious, to illustrate the putative inconsistency of quantum mechanics when going from microscopic to macroscopic events, (the world of objects the eye can see directly). He once wrote; 'One can even set up quite ridiculas cases. A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, along with the following device (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat) - in a Geiger counter there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small, that perhaps in the course of one hour at least one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges and through a relay releases a hammer which shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid. If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile no atom has decayed. The psi-function of this entire system would express this by having in it the living and the dead cat mixed, or smeared out in equal parts... which can be resolved by direct observation. That prevents us from so naively accepting as valid a 'blurred model' for representing reality. In itself, it would not embody anything unclear or contradictory. There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and snapshot of clouds and fog banks.' So... after one hour, is the cat dead or alive (1)? In the parallel universe model (even though Schrödinger never considered the many worlds theory in his paradox), the cat is both dead and alive. The cat will have split the universe into two, with a happy living cat in one universe, and a dead smeared cat in another. The Copenhagen interpretation says that a system halts when an observation takes place. Schrödinger’s cat will be in a superpositioning until such an observation is performed - until then the experiment will exist as 'decayed nucleus/dead cat' simultaneous with 'undecayed' nucleus/living cat.' This is the effect of the quantum wave function until any observation is carried out, (no such thing as a collapse happens in the parallel universe theory. Instead, the observer and the observed become involved in a split). However, Schrödinger did not make this experiment to example the split. According to the Copenhagen school of thought, the amount of uncertainty for complex quantum systems is predicted by 'quantum decoherence.' Particles which exchange photons become so entangled with each other that the uncertainty in a macroscopic system, like a cat, is almost zero - this means we can say that the cat is no longer dead and alive, but rather is one or the other - one (the cat is alive) or zero (the cat is dead). 'Wigner’s Friend,' by physicists Eugene Wigner, is an extension of Schrödinger’s Cat. It is meant to provoke thought. Professor Wigner stands outside of the room, ready to look in to see Wigner’s friend looking at the cat. Is Wigner’s friend in a happy state, or a sad state? Eugene Wigner designed the experiment to highlight how he believed consciousness is a requisite for mathematical measurement process - if a material device is substituted for Wigner’s friend, the wave function hasn't collapsed and superpositioning continues. However, he also reasons that a conscious observer must be in one state or the other. In next part, we shall have a look at the effects of the wave function in the mind. Though, for now, i will leave you with some quotations all to do with the observer and the universe. 'We ourselves can bring about into existence only very small-scale properties, like the spin of the electron. Might it require intelligent beings, 'more conscious' than ourselves to bring into existence the electrons and other particles? Barrow and Tipler, 'the Anthropic Principle.' 'No photon exists until a detector fires, only a developing potentiality. Particle-like and wave-like behavior are properties we ascribe to light. Without us, light has no properties, no existence. There is no independent reality for phenomena nor agencies of observation.' Niels Bohr 'The world in Copenhagen interpretation is merely potential before our observation, and is actual afterwards.' Bryce S. DeWitt 'We have to imagine the system a-attentively trying out all potentialities out of which one actually emerges.' David Bohm 'There is always a triple correspondence; 1. A mental image, which is in our minds and not in the external world 2. Some kind of counterpart in the external world, which is inscrutable in nature 3. A set of pointer readings, which exact science can study and connect with other pointer readings To put the conclusion crudely - the stuff of the world is 'mind stuff'. ' Sir Arthur Eddington Part Two Observation and Quantum Waves ‘Time present and time past Are both perhaps present in time future, and time future contained in time past.' T. S. Eliot Human Mind is - A state of continued being with intelligence and the capability of understanding surroundings. This is how i define the human mind, without bringing in the complexities of physics. A quantum mind equals quantum rules... and this can come to mean a lot when considering the mind. The mind is governed by the principles of quantum mechanics. Take for instance, whenever a mind attempts to remember an event. A mind does no such thing as rummaging through a file of memories like a search system on a computer... no... it actually recreates that past event inside our neural networks, as if it where happening there and then. We can do such a thing when two quantum waves multiply. An echo wave (a wave that travels backwards in time), and an offer wave (a wave that travels forwards in time). When the two waves multiply, a collapse of the wave function takes place. This is physicists John G. Cramers wave function interpretation. When Einstein considered the collapse, he said that he could not believe that such drastic changes in our universe would take place in the event of a mouse. We know now to consider that intelligence has a lot to do with it. A mouse could not collapse the wave function. In fact, only be mammals that can think with enough intelligence can collapse the wave function, like a living thing capable to make the distinction between an object that is red, with an object that is yellow. A mouse does not know the difference, so no collapse would occur. However, with consciousness comes many problems. Not only is there the trouble of whenever we come to observe something, but also the problem of how the phenomenon of consciousness arises. Is it really just a case of enough electrons rubbing off each other in my brain? Well, many candidates are responsible for my aware matter... One candidate might be the wave function and the collapse and out of which 'pops' intelligence, as we have seen previously. There is also the weakest force, gravity, also mentioned as a possible candidate. How is gravity the weakest force? I remember when someone came to me and said, 'you think gravity is weak? Just walk off the edge of a building and tell me if you are still saying the same thing!' He was quite serious, however, there is a reason why physicists believe that gravity is the weakest force. Let us have a look at the other forces. The weak is responsible for all particle emissions and decays, such as a decay of a neutron into a proton. The strong forces, hold all particles inside the nucleus together, we think through the presence of the gluon. If you take all matter into consideration, all 10^80 particles in our universe, that is a lot of force for both electroweak and strong. The electromagnetic force is also very strong. Have you ever wondered why matter simply doesn't flow through other matter when it comes into contact with each other? The reason why my hand doesn't simply pass through a mirror (for example), is because of a force known as 'electro-static propulsion'. There are billions of negatively-charged electrons whizzing around in my hand. They act like magnets, all pushing against each other, and off foreign bodies. It is natures way of having a Universe so 'chock-a-block' with hard matter. This is because of the electromagnetic forces. Now comes gravity. This is indeed the weakest force in our universe, even though it has disastrous consequences for a biological entity like myself, if i walked off the edge of a building. You can be sure, when i reached the bottom, my particles will be splattered on the ground against the force.... so technically, it was the electromagnetic resistant force that obliterated my body. Gravity only helped me along the way. Now, the mystery of consciousness might be answered through the presence of gravity. As you should have seen in the previous parts, there is no matter, without the presence of gravity. In fact, gravity is matter. If gravity governs the relationship of all matter, from the galactic orbits to the particles inside of my brain, then gravity might have something to do with the phenomenon of consciousness. That, in mediation with the Uncertainty Principle, and the Collapse of the Wave Function (we shall see later that Fred A. Wolf believes the Uncertainty Principle has a lot to do with consciousness). And there is the 4th dimension, the imaginary dimension of space. Time is mind. Both are so entangled, physicists see neither as being separate as two different things. Where there is mind, there is a boundary between what is past and what is future, that, and we are smack in the middle; we call this the present moment. We move through time, and leave the present behind us, turning it into past, thus the mind is the best system that is able to know what a past event is to a future event. In much the same sense, one might say that the present/consciousness is a sandwich creation of both past and future. Somehow, the past determines the present, and the future plays a statistical role in the present. In fact, one might even say that the present is a potentiality of futures and a construct of all past events - after all, the present is nothing more than an ensemble of all that was past. As physicist John A. Wheeler put it once; ''The past has no existence except as it is recorded in the present.'' Every time we come to observe something, these quantum waves comb time, from past, as far back as the big bang to the present, and one from the Big Crunch, the future to the present. Now, the waves stop and will cancel out if they are meaningless. As you can guess, it would be meaningless if it does not multiply with a second wave coming from the past, ultimately collapsing the wave function. The collapse creates reality - and the collapse happens whenever we come to measure the properties of a quantum system. However, if this is so, a question arises. How did the universe begin, if there was no observer to witness the events of Big Bang? According to Quantum Physics, because there was no observer around at Big Bang, all possible start-up positions had to arise side-by-side, because no resolution was ever made to distinguish one from another. Now, physics can be a bit tedious at times. To get around our misunderstandings we can apply some rather ridiculas examples to explain how we are supposed to envision situations. To explain this 'superpositioning' in the very beginning, I’m going to use a classic analogy - one you may have heard of, or seen in cartoons; it is the 100 monkeys all typing away randomly on type writers... statistics says, that if you give these hypothetical monkeys long enough, they will eventually write a famous piece of work, like Shakespeare's, 'A Midsummer Nights Dream...' Now, you can imagine these monkeys being the equivalent of the universe 15 billion years ago - bare with me on this, as bizarre as it might sound - imagine that these random pushing’s of buttons resembled the universe at time zero, a attentively flicking through all possible start up positions. You can think about the statistics with the monkeys for a second. The chances they would create a 'Shakespearean' play runs into billions upon billions upon billions - almost unthinkable numbers - granted, that the monkeys would eventually do so, in the matter of 10 years, to 10 billion years. The product of this play, is equivalent to the product of everything visible today. Whether one considers the start up condition chosen by the universe as nothing but a fluke, or some divine purpose or otherwise, it is truly remarkable. This superpositioning at the beginning means that every outcome lay as a potential, totally superimposed upon each other, like layers on a cake - an infinite amount of them. So how did reality form without any observer, a second after Big Bang? Before i answer this question, let me tell you that when the Big Bang occurred, just a moment after it also occurred a Big Crunch. It's here that both the start and the end become meaningful, and our universe can work in the order it was intentioned by God. We (think) that reality at the beginning had no observer - but reality did still form nevertheless. It all came about like a ghostly world where everything existed as potential - nothing was real, in the sense we 'see' or 'touch', or 'sense' in any other way. Thus it turned out that the past is constantly being written in the present. It is our observations now that are making up for an unobserved universe at the beginning of time. In 1985 in Maryland at College Park, physicists Carroll Alley, Oleg Jakubowick and William Wickes conducted an experiment that would verify that all that is contained in the present, also determines any past... somehow, now makes 'what was' or 'might have been'. They used photons (light particles) that would bounce off an apparatus made of mirrors. The photon would travel through two slits, like found in the double slit experiment, seen in ch.1. Now, if the mirror was positioned up, the photon would interfere with itself, just like the double slit experiment, where a photon is in its wave-like function. With the mirrors down, the photon would be as a particle and no interference would be present. In other words, with the mirror present, a photon had to travel through both slits in order to maintain its wave description. The interesting part, was that the choice to insert the mirror or not, as the case may be, was made after the photon entered the setup! This meant that their last second decision did indeed decide what path the photon would take - either by one path, or by both... somehow, the choice of now, determines, alters or chooses what is past. This verifies that quantum waves travel backward through time (echo wave) into the past. This means that the present is making 'time' more and more real, by giving itself a unique past. In physics, we are informed that reality soley depends on us - to such an extent, that we can alter the past through how we perceive a memory of an event. The mind doesn't actually delve back in time or anything, but rather we can add intrinsic details that might or might not be entirely accurate to a past event - and this is the similar effect of the Wicks experiment that we have just investigated. Thus we can alter and recreate unspecified memories of a past event, just like the photon that had no specific path before and after it had entered the Wicks experiment, until we come along and make a definite path for it. And if you think what we do now in the present is defining what we might call past is weird, it is possible for us to have a complete knowledge about a system here in the present, like a position and a path by a 'two-time' measurement, one made in the past and one made in the future! (Don't worry... if a position is made in the past then its path is not yet known, but can be knowable in the future, making a correct record in the Present... in this case, the Uncertainty Principle is not violated, just as long, both the position and paths are made at different times). It was physicists Albert, Aharonov and D'Amato who forwarded this idea. According to them, it is very possible to have both information of a location of a particle in the past, and a path in the future, and know with certainty both the location and path simultaneously in the present. In this sense, what is past, and what can happen in the future, traps the information as a record in the present. They can act like a sandwich. However, there is another way to defy the uncertainty principle - in fact, as physicist David Z. Albert informs us, it happens everyday. It happens with us. We know where we are. We know where we are going. No uncertainty can arise in our minds about these objective facts of my existence. Somehow, the mind even though it is made of matter, does not need to have the uncertainty of matter when it comes to self-awareness. The mind itself, is a paradox on so many levels. It exists as if not a care in the world can effect it - impervious to the rules and conditions of dead matter. Here in my head, exists a world of (mostly) time, and a vision of space - but this time and space is twisted to suite my existence and measurements, so that what i experience, seems independent of anything 'out there.' You see, i know of self-knowledge, but can never know the knowledge of another. Here, a separation can be made, and it is equally here, the objective 'I' can arise. If my self-awareness did not work, the uncertainty principle would get a hold of me, and nothing would be the same. This is a principle called, 'secret knowledge.' Part Four Mind, Time and Defining Reality 'If reality is what we see, smell and touch, then reality Is nothing more than electrical signals interpreted by the brain.' (3) The Matrix When Einstein linked space and time together as one single geometric continuum, it revolutionized our way of thinking about spacetime, and reality - he once said himself, 'the non-mathematician is seized by a mysterious shuddering when he hears of four dimensional things.' What does a four dimensional object look like? Well, let us consider a football - the three dimensional scape of reality makes the ball look nice and round doesn't it? Except, the ball, when cast into the four dimensional realm looks more like a 'tick-tack' - those elongated 'bullet-like' sweets - the football is stretched outwards, and this is what a four dimensional object look like. The thing about linking space and time together introduces a lot indeed - however, the main point i am going to raise in this book, is that the relationship between time and space, actually introduces more relationships, if you like, a king relationship between mind and reality. Somehow, time is mind; this is because of one major statement. That is, that time is a product of the mind. The time we all experience, the so-called 'asymptotic time,' is totally an imaginary concept. Time is like the shadow of consciousness - it sets boundary's between what is past and what is future; it also sets a barrier between what is external and internal. What is the internal reality? This is the world of feeling and sense - the world that any individual experiences. I sit here quite happily, writing the words of this book (which might i add, are written somewhere in a special blueprint intended for reality), i am experiencing feelings and thoughts. Most of the time, i feel as though my mind is objectively 'out there' - but this seems to be an illusion, as it really doesn't exist anywhere really. Not only does my consciousness feel as though it exists outside my mortal coil, i also never take heed that i am apart of the great and wide universe - most of the time i act as though i am separate of the great chain of life; Einstein referred to this as a prison - a human illusion. Somehow, the ethereal internal world creates the physical, material external reality - an inextricable relationship can be made between the world of outside and the world of inside, like a fine interwoven tapestry. I am made of the outside world, but my consciousness is very much inside of me. This boundary my mind creates between what is me, the internal world to the external world, one can imagine, keeps me from insanity - it is a way to keep my thoughts and analysation separate from the information of the world. Yet, from this perspective, one might think that knowledge - that is information - flows from the outside world and into our being - but is this completely true? To some extent, i am the external world - not only am i physically made of it, and made of mostly 98% of space itself, i am also the creator of the things i observe; it seems as though any information of the outside world, may well actually originate inside of me. After all, i create reality, and thus reality is me. Some physicists think that the Copenhaganists superfluously stresses the role of the observer - of course, a counter argument can be made, as others believe that not enough correlation is made between the observer and the observed. Some theorists use the parallel universe theory as the reason for consciousness. Astrophysicist Fred Hoyle believes that consciousness arises out of a tight bundle of universes - he believes that everything external are a product of messages from the future (possibly by some superintelligence) - and when we are aware of one at any time, we tend to tune into a universe-possibility, and the rest of the possibilities are discarded. He believes that it is these universes that do not evolve that spark consciousness when bundled together into a region of space. Hoyle died in 2001. Most physicists should agree that the collapse of the wave function must occur in a conscious being. One quantum wave from the future and one from the past meet together in the present and multiply, creating the conscious mind - although, the theory would not be accepted in the parallel universe model - considering that no collapse occurs. Apart from the chemistry inside of my head, any proposals thought to spark consciousness will be responsible for the phenomenon of awareness. It will be a multitude of aspects - not just a single proponent - and change just a single statistic, a small iota of difference, and consciousness would disappear in a flash... As you will see in part six, we will be exploring other candidates as well, thought to be responsible for consciousness - including a suggestion brought forth by physicist Fred A. Wolf, a leading theoretical scientist in the world of the human psyche. Now, to end this part, let us consider time, without the human mind. Time is messy without mind. Without mind, everything may as well have happened at an infinite speed. Without mind, there is no time at all - present time, or 'real time', is non-existent without mind to set boundaries for what is past and what is future. Thus, past and future, exist simultaneously, like a single present time. The Big Bang happens simultaneously alongside a Big Crunch, without a mind to perceive the duration of time in-between. Now, to grasp this, lets' use a hypothetical but true idea that my mind works faster than my dogs. To explain this, let us take an example, where i am standing at one end of a room, and my dog stands at the other end. In my hand is a ball, and i decide to roll it towards her. I would observe the ball rolling towards her at a constant speed, and will eventually reach her, two seconds later. However, the time it took for the ball to reach her, was perceived differently for my dog. My dog will have experienced it taking a little longer. My perception of time is no more correct than my dog’s perception of time - it is nothing but a matter of our brains functioning at different speeds. Existence, reflected in the evolution of time is nothing but momentary flashes of consciousness which we are able to apply a duration to; without us to make this distinction, time exists as one single frame. Because of this, anything is possible when it comes to time; my time can move faster than another’s time and equally my time can be your time - nothing is absolute - we will be looking at the differential speeds of time we can experience in next part. There are even individuals that experience time as a short five seconds. They have a neural disorder, where they might be talking to someone and then reintroducing themselves all over again in the matter of seconds. It is a rare and bizarre phenomena - with only a handful in the world that have this debilitating mental disorder. This 'time' perception is interesting more and more scientists. To imagine time existing as a single frame without mind isn't easy to contemplate. One way to describe our universe without an observer is to imagine i entered a lift, with sixteen levels. This lift represents the universe, and the levels i move up resembles present time. When inside, i press the button to take me to the sixteenth level. Just imagine that the first level is the birth of my life, and the sixteenth level represents my death. Just like a typical elevator, as it ascends the levels, each level will light up - and one can imagine each level that lights up represents the present moment. Thus, as level two lights up, level one is now dimmed, and now exists as my past as mere memory. All dimmed numbered levels above level two exists as my future. The interpretation between what is past and what is future is determined by me, in the present; but what if i never got into the lift? If i am not present, then there is no present! The barren elevator has no one there to distinguish level two from level one. Thus, no one is there to determine a past level to a present level. The levels may as well exist simultaneously. Now, this is just the same as the universe itself; it is like a lift, that moves through time when a mind is present. Without a mind, the universe is meaningless, and time will exist as if it were a single frame. The Observer and the Atom Everything is made up of 'observables'. If i looked at a dice, i could say that it has observables. I could say it has dimensions - with six sides as a result. I could also say it has dots placed on each side. What i see are observables. Everything that is physical is made up of things we can measure. Let us take a particle as a quick and easy explanation. A particle has many observables. One observable is spin - all fundamental matter has spin - from the smallest matter which is an electron, to the smallest quanta of energy, which is a photon... every particle has a spin value, which can be either a 'half-integer' or an 'increasing integer'. The lowest spin that any particle can have is a 1/2. Thus a particle with a 1/2 spin can be potentially observed as either an up-spin or a down-spin. It is here the relationship between mind and matter can come into play - again, mind is matter. A particle, before any resolution is made, has to have both a spin-up and a spin-down simultaneously - this is the effect of the quantum wave function. Whenever an observation is made on a particle, a direction is made for it. We can observe it to be with a spin-up or a spin-down. Thus we essentially create the function of the matter being observed. Another effect we can have on matter, is found in the 'Zeno-Effect' in quantum physics. Suppose a scientist came along to observe an atom. Now, one might think that the atom would behave just as normally, despite the fact of it being observed - and would eventually radiate away its energy. However, it turns out that this is not the case at all. The very act of observation 'somehow' suspends the little atom in time, and prevents it from evolving and releasing any energy! Thus, the observer and the atom have some strange effects on each other. You know, i wouldn't make the argument i make in this book, if it wasn't for the 'blind-obvious' fact that the mind interacts with the space and time, and the matter contained within it. More so, is the question to how we come to affect matter in such ways... Mind is a dimension. A virtual superdimension threaded into the real 'ordinary' dimensions of spacetime. This virtual dimension is powered by the rules and conditions of consciousness and imaginary processes, and this makes our relationship to matter quite incomprehensible. The photon for instance is a zero-time particle. That leaves this luxen particle in the category of the potential... not quite real... might i even say it exists as a ghost, as it whizzes across the galaxy. Now imagine the photon was to travel the universe in either a wave description or as a particle... but before this, the photon has no state. It is us therego, who applies and ascribes the photon with a wave-like or particle-like attributes. This goes for all matter. Part Seven The Spark of Consciousness Consciousness... how does it arise? I believe it requires all possible candidates. The way i see it, why should there be any ingredients if they are never going to be used? In other words, there are principles so that matter can exist, and somehow, all principles of matter are valid and responsible for the phenom of consciousness. Is it just a matter of particles that are arranged rather accurately in my head? Or are a multitude of aspects concerning matter responsible? Well, I don't think that consciousness is a product via one cause - I’m sure of that fact. I am positive that the force of consciousness is an ensemble of many aspects. Consciousness is like a force - it is an imaginary force that somehow doesn’t exist in space or time or at least, physics thinks it doesn't exist in space or time. In fact, in some paradoxical sense, it is the force that allows any force to have effect and substance, because it is mind-consciousness that really defines the world around it. According to theoretical physicist Fred Alan Wolf, the uncertainty principle has something to do with sparking consciousness, and i agree. Somehow the atoms inside my head work the way they do, because of a coherent set of laws in uncertainty. Thus, out of the uncertainty paradoxically rises certainty in consciousness. With the insight from Fred A. Wolf, we can see that consciousness is a result of very fine tuning, right down to the subatomic level using the rules of Uncertainty. But, as i have pointed out, all rules that govern matter will be responsible for my awareness; i make this assumption because if you removed any of these rules, consciousness would theoretically fail to exist! This means that quantum gravity will also be a candidate for consciousness as suspected by physicists - including the electromagnetic force, with all the electrical signals occurring inside of my head every second. And there is the quantum wave function - a collapse will occur in the presence of self-awareness (5). And of course, there are the numerous particles whizzing around in my head. This chemistry will also result in its own awareness. And 'hey presto' - consciousness prevails. Also, i believe that the exclusion principle might have something to do with it. If Parallel Universes exist, then my brain is superimposed among an infinite amount of other me's, enclosed into a tight region of space, and as they bundle together, like a stable family of atoms or molecules, my consciousness will simply emerge out of the living matter; that is, if we have our assumptions correct, and that conscious awareness does indeed arise from matter. How do we know we are conscious? As simple as the above question might seem, there is no direct evidence, apart from our objective awareness that allows us to say, 'we are definately conscious.' Why is this a hard question to prove? Is it because consciousness is untestable, apart from psychology? Why should we ask such a question? Can we not simply say we are conscious, since we all communicate and think? O'k, one question at a time. Well, consciousness is an invisible thing. We presume that it must radiate from matter itself, or exist a bit like a force field around electromagnetic matter. In fact, it is out of the living mobile matter that my consciousness can arise. It will not do anyone any good to say that all mobile or living matter is consciousness. We know this not to be true, since bacterium and plant life exists without, what we would define as consciousness. Even the carnivorous plants such as the pitcher plant or the Venus fly trap do not have a consciousness, or a mind to think. When it comes to us, we have subjective self-awareness; this is in definition consciousness, isn't it? We can, as i believe define what consciousness is to what consciousness isn't, using sleep states as an example. When asleep, we don't 'think' in the same manor as we might think whilst being awake. Whilst asleep, we are incapable of independent thought (except for the phenomena known as lucid dreaming), in fact, in certain dreams we can behave a bit like a robot. It is the 'diluted phenom' of awareness during sleep that allows my brain to move into a dream state. Because i am not objectively aware, my brain can act a bit wild, and frivolous in its dreams. It is here, during a dream, one vivid enough that it is actually making its mark on me, existing as a very low form of experience. It is only when we awake that we can turn this experience into memory, as we often say, 'i just remembered a dream i had.' This ability to ask such a question shows us the differential state between being awake and being asleep - but also shows us what it is like being conscious and what is it like with a non-conscious thing - like a plant. Being asleep might be the closest existence we will ever have to being a plant; as a plant is not aware of its existence, just as we are normally not aware of our existences in our sleep. It is only when we are awake we can say, 'yes, i do exist.' For me, when comparing a persons state when asleep to being awake, shows me that consciousness does indeed exist, whether or not we have any direct material evidence of our subjective awareness or not. The old proverb 'i think, therefore i am,' seems to work here.