The Great Consciousness Debate
Because the world seems to be on the precipice of many metaphysical changes, and because the world just lost one of Pop Culture’s most vocal and creative proponents of quantum science (in the form of David Lynch) we thought we’d tackle the hotly contested battleground of Consciousness.
Where do you stand on the great consciousness debate?
We humans used to be quite comfortable in the solid fact that we could describe the universe, from an objective viewpoint, with our brains (that housed our consciousness). Quantum theory has punched some big holes in this viewpoint–but many classical physicists are still clinging to the idea of an objective universe–despite the findings of what Einstein called the “spooky” nature of the quantum realm. Think of the old question, “If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to hear it–does it make a sound?” A classical physicist will answer, “Yes.” A Quantum Physicist will answer, “No.”
Ahhh–we hear you, Coffee Talkers–”Why should I care?”
Well, there are very real implications in quantum theory for our everyday lives, and how we might go about them. In simplistic terms, we’re talking about the difference between a solid, objective universe that we view with our brains (that house our consciousness)--and a universe of conscious potentiality that manifests into form only when a conscious entity observes it.
CoffeeTalkers: “Then why are we not in this crazy mess of a universe where every individual is manifesting something different in our “reality?”
Ahhh, another good question, Coffee Talkers. Quantum theory involves the notion of “collective agreements” that form our “reality.” Collective agreements come into play when a certain percentage of we conscious beings agree that something exists. For instance, we’ve been taught and conditioned to believe in the Empire State Building, and so–there it is.
This has powerful implications for the world we live in. It gives real power to the adage, “If you change how you view the world, the world you view changes.”
You may have heard of the concept of “A New Earth,” in some spirituality circles. Essentially, what this entails is the raising of the collective consciousness of a certain percentage of us here on Earth, until a “new reality” is manifest that doesn’t include some of the nastier elements of human existence–like war, poverty, and disease. Quantum theory tells us that this is absolutely possible.
Assuming this “power of the people” is a very real thing, this could be something that the “powers that be” in the world might want to suppress. I mean, what powerful world leader wants their decisions reversed by a public vibrating with higher consciousness?
Coffee Talkers: “Hmmm, I kind of like where you’re going with this–but how do we accomplish it, what will it cost me, and how will it affect my everyday life?”
Ahhh, more great questions.
In the words of The Beatles, “All you need is love, love. Love is all you need.”
Sounds silly? Well, I’m sure you have heard of the range of experiments that involve, quite literally, love as a laboratory catalyst for growth as seen with plants and crystal formations. Research shows that plants thrive with loving comments and wilt with hateful ones, as crystal formations grow when exposed to loving comments and stagnate with hateful comments. It’s a real thing. Can you imagine the ripple effect of we humans being loving to ourselves and others might have on the world?
And what do we have to lose? Research has also shown that when we do something loving to another, we get a dose of feel-good chemicals in our brains. This happens when we even witness a loving act.
So, we suggest you err on the side of assuming that we manifest the world we see and agree upon, from a field of pure consciousness–and that we can powerfully affect the world we create by being loving. If we’re wrong, then you still will have made your private world better by filling it with love and making yourself feel good.
What have you got to lose?
Until next time
Scott and Lennart