Objective Reality
Home Teachers of God Contact Us

Up


Is There an Objective Reality?

December 15th, 2005
by Ramesh Balsekar

In 1982, at the University of Paris, a research team led by physicist
Alain Aspect discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic

particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously communicate
with one another regardless of the distance separating them; it
does not matter whether they are ten feet or ten billion miles apart.

Somehow each particle always seems to know what the other is doing.
This fact violates Einstein's long-held tenet that no communication
can travel faster than the speed of light. This means breaking the
time barrier, and David Bohm, of the University of London, believes
that Aspect's findings would clearly imply that objective reality does
not exist, that despite it's apparent solidity the universe is at heart
an illusion, a gigantic, splendidly detailed hologram. Unlike normal
photographs, every part of a hologram contains all the information
possessed by the whole.

The 'whole in every part' nature of a hologram teaching us that we
cannot take apart something constructed holographically: we will
not get the pieces of which it is made, we will get only smaller
wholes.  David Bohm, therefore, believes that there is no
communication between particles but that their separateness is
an illusion.
 
In other words, at some deeper level of reality, particles are not
individual entities, but are actually extensions of the same
fundamentalsomething. The universe is itself a projection, a
hologram.

In addition to its phantom-like nature, such a universe would
possess other rather startling features. If the apparent
separateness of subatomic particles is illusory, it means that at a
deeper level of reality all things in the universe are infinitely
interconnected. All nature is ultimately a seamless web. At its
deeper level, reality is sort of a superhologram in which the past,
present and future all exist simultaneously. It must be seen as
a sort of cosmic storehouse of  'All That Is'.
 
In the 1960's Karl Pribram, Stanford neurophysiologist, was drawn
to the holographic model by the puzzle of how and where memories
are stored in the brain. Pribram believes memories are encoded not
in neurons, or small groupings of neurons,but in patterns of nerve
impulses that crisscross the entire brain in the same way that patterns
of laser light interference crisscross the entire area of a piece of
film containing a holographic image. In other words, Pribram believes
that the brain itself must be a hologram also.  Pribram's theory also
explains how the human brain can store so many memories in so little
space.

Our uncanny ability to quickly retrieve whatever information we
need from the enormous store of our memories becomes more
understandable if the brain functions according to holographic
principles. One of the most amazing things about the human thinking
process is that  every piece of information seems instantly cross-
correlated with every other information - another feature intrinsic
to the hologram.

The most mind-boggling aspect of Pribram's holographic model of
the brain is what happens when it is put together with Bohm's theory.
For if the concreteness of the world is but a secondary reality and
what is 'there' is actually a holographic blur of frequencies, and if
the brain is also a hologram and only selects some of the frequencies
out of this blur and mathematically transforms them into sensory
perception, what becomes of objective 'reality'?

Put quite simply, it ceases to exist. As the Hindu view has long upheld,
the material world is MAYA, an illusion. Although we may think we are
physical beings moving through a physical world, this too is an illusion.

The holographic paradigm also has implications for so called hard
sciences like biology. Keith Floyd, a psychologist at Virginia Intermont
College, has pointed out that if the concreteness of reality is but a
holographic illusion, it would no longer be true to say the brain produces
consciousness. Rather, it is Consciousness that creates the appearance
of the brain as well as the body and everything else around us we
interpret as physical.

So, is it a matter of Consciousness within Science, or is it really Science
within Consciousness?!

In a holographic universe, as Pribram has pointed out, even random
events would have to be seen as based on holographic principles
and therefore determined. Synchronicities or meaningful coincidences
suddenly make sense, and everything in reality would have to be seen
as a metaphor. Even the most haphazard events would express some
underlying symmetry. At the very least, as noted by Basil Hiley, a
physicist at Birbeck College in London, Aspect's findings "indicate
that we must be prepared to consider radically new views of
reality."

Let me repeat this that the awakened sage knows:
 
 
What We-Are is the inconceivable Infinity, in comparison with which
what-we-think-we-are, the body-mind organism, the psychosomatic
phenomenon, is merely an appearance, an insubstantial shadow.
 
All that is necessary is the direct, intuitive apperception of this
inevitable fact, and such apperception can only be sudden and
instantaneous; otherwise, it can only be a concept in temporal
consciousness. Such apperception must also necessarily exclude
any entity to apperceive, because such an entity can only be a
concept.
 
===
 
Of additional interest is the Peter Russel flash movie: What is real?  
 
Other short presentations from Peter Russell: Audio / Video Streams