Tag Archives: nonlocality

CHAPTER 4. PHILOSOPHY OF MONISTIC IDEALISM

Monistic idealism is the exact opposite of material realism. In this philosophy, consciousness, not matter, occupies a fundamental place. Both the world of matter and the world of mental phenomena are determined by consciousness. In addition to the material and mental realms (which together constitute immanent reality, or the world of manifestation), idealism posits a transcendent, archetypal realm of ideas as the source of material and mental phenomena. It is important to understand that monistic idealism, as its name suggests, is a unitary philosophy; any divisions, such as, for example, into immanent and transcendental, exist in consciousness. Only consciousness represents the ultimate reality.

In the West, the most influential formulation of the philosophy of monistic idealism comes from Plato, who gives his famous allegory of the cave in his Republic. As hundreds of generations of philosophy students have known, this allegory clearly illustrates the fundamental concepts of idealism. Plato depicts people sitting motionless in a cave and looking at the wall. The vast universe outside is projected onto the wall of the cave in the form of a shadow theater, and we humans observe these shadows. We observe the illusions of shadows, mistaking them for reality. True reality is behind us, in the light and archetypal forms casting shadows on the wall. In this allegory, the play of shadows corresponds to the unreal immanent manifestations in human experience of archetypal realities that belong to the transcendental world. In reality, the only reality is light, for light is all we see. In monistic idealism, consciousness is like the light in Plato’s cave.

The same basic ideas appear repeatedly in the idealistic literature of many cultures. In Indian Vedanta literature, the Sanskrit word
nama is used to denote the transcendental archetypes , and the word
rupa denotes their immanent form. Beyond
nama and
rupa shines the light
of Brahman – the universal consciousness, one without the other, the basis of all existence. “This entire universe that we talk and think about is nothing but
Brahman. Brahman is beyond
maya (illusion). There is nothing else.”

In Buddhist philosophy, the realm of matter and the realm of concepts are called, respectively,
nirmanakaya and
sambhogakaya, but beyond them there is the light of a single consciousness –
dharmakaya – illuminating them both. And, in fact, only
the dharmakaya exists. “Nirmanakaya is the outer appearance of the Buddha’s body and his inconceivable deeds.
The Sambhogakaya has enormous and limitless potential. The Buddha’s
Dharmakaya is free from any perception or concept of form.”

Perhaps the Taoist
yin-yang symbol is more widely known than the Indian symbols. Light
yang, considered a masculine symbol, defines the transcendental sphere, and dark
yin , a feminine symbol, defines the immanent.

Img. 13.
Yin-Yang symbol

Note their figure-ground relationship. “That which allows the dark and the light to manifest itself is
Tao ” – that which surpasses complementary manifestations.

Similarly, the Jewish Kabbalah describes two orders of reality: the transcendental one, which the Sephiroth represents as the Theogony, and the immanent one –
alma-de-peruda, “the world of separation.” According to the
Zohar, “When one contemplates things in mystical meditation, everything appears as one.”

In Christendom, the names of the transcendental and immanent realms—heaven and earth—are part of our everyday vocabulary. However, our everyday usage misses the origins of these concepts in monistic idealism. Beyond the realms of heaven and earth there is God, the King of these realms. Kingdoms do not exist separately from the King: the King is the kingdoms. As the Christian idealist Dionysius writes: “It [consciousness – the basis of being] is in our minds, souls and bodies, in heaven, on earth and everywhere, remaining one and the same in Itself. It is simultaneously in the world, around it and above it, super-heavenly and super-essential, the sun, star, fire, water, spirit, dew, cloud, stone, rock – everything that exists.”

Note that in all these descriptions it is stated that the unified consciousness is given to us through complementary manifestations: ideas and forms,
nama and
rupa, sambhogakaya and
nirmanakaya, yang and
yin, heaven and earth.

This complementary description represents an important aspect of idealist philosophy.

Usually, when we look around, we see only matter. Heaven is not a tangible object of ordinary perception. This is not only what leads us to call matter real, but also what leads us to accept the philosophy of realism, which declares matter (and its alternative form, energy) to be the only reality. However, many idealists argued that by going beyond the mundane, everyday experience, one could directly experience heaven. People who make such statements are called mystics. Mysticism offers experimental proof of monistic idealism.

Mysticism

Realism grows out of our everyday perception. Our daily experience of the world provides abundant evidence that things are material and separate from each other and from us.

Of course, mental experience does not agree with this formulation. Experiences of the mind such as thought do not appear to be material, and so we have come up with a dualistic philosophy that places the mind and body in different realms. The disadvantages of dualism are well known. In particular, it cannot explain how the separate, immaterial mind interacts with the material body. If this kind of mind-body interaction existed, then energy exchanges would have to occur between these two spheres. In numerous experiments we find that the energy of the material universe itself remains constant (this is the law of conservation of energy). There is also no data that would indicate the loss or acquisition of energy by the material sphere. How might this be if there were interactions between these two areas?

Idealism, although it considers consciousness to be the primary reality, and therefore attaches importance to subjective, mental experience, does not assume that consciousness is the mind. (Beware of possible semantic confusion:
consciousness is
a relatively new word in the English language. The word mind is often used to denote consciousness, especially in older literature
. In this book, the distinction between mind and consciousness is necessary and important .) Instead, idealism asserts that both material objects (such as a ball) and mental objects (such as the thought of a ball) are objects of consciousness. In addition, in experience there is a subject – the experiencer. What is the nature of this experiencer? In monistic idealism this question is of paramount importance.

According to monistic idealism, the consciousness of the subject in subject-object experience is the same consciousness that represents the basis of all existence. Therefore, consciousness is one. There is only one consciousness-subject, and we are this consciousness. “You are That,” says the sacred books of Hinduism known as the Upanishads.

Why then do we seem so separate in our everyday experience? As the mystics insist, this separateness is an illusion. If we meditate on the true nature of our self, we discover – as mystics of all times have discovered – that behind all diversity there is only one consciousness. This one consciousness-subject-self has many names. Hindus call it
atman; Christians call it the Holy Spirit, or in Quaker Christianity, the inner light. Whatever it is called, everyone agrees that the experience of this one consciousness is of inestimable value.

Buddhist mystics often refer to consciousness outside of man as the no-self, leading to the potential misconception that they may be denying consciousness entirely. The Buddha explained this misconception this way: “There is the Unborn, the Beginningless, the Uncreated, the Formless. If it were not for this Unborn, Beginningless, Uncreated, Formless, salvation from the world of the born, the beginning, the created, the formless would be impossible.”

Thus, mystics are those people who testify to this fundamental reality of unity in diversity. Comparison of mystical texts from different cultures and spiritual traditions speaks of the universality of the mystical experience of unity.

European mystic of the 15th century. Caterina Adorna from Genoa simply and beautifully formulated her knowledge: “My being is God, not by virtue of mere participation, but by virtue of a genuine transformation of my being.”

In China, 6th century. the great Huineng, an illiterate peasant whose sudden insight eventually led to the founding of Zen Buddhism, declared: “Our very nature-self is the Buddha, and besides this nature there is no other Buddha.”

Sufi mystic of the 12th century. Ibn al-Arabi, revered by the Sufis as the Sheikh of Sheikhs, said this: “You neither cease to be nor continue to exist. You are He, not bound by such limitations. Therefore, if you know that your own being is like this, then you know God; and if not, then no.”

In the XIV century. Kabbalist Moshe de Leon—the probable author of the main book of the Kabbalists,
the Zohar —wrote: “God… when he has just decided to begin his work of creation,
He is called. God in the full unfolding of His Being, Bliss and Love, in which He becomes capable of being perceived by the mind of the heart… is called
You. But God in His highest manifestation, where the fullness of His Being finds its full expression in the last and all-embracing of His attributes, is called Self.”

It is believed that the mystic of the 8th century. Padmasambhava brought Tantric Buddhism to Tibet. His wife, the divinely inspired Yeshe Tsogyal, expressed her wisdom this way: “But when you finally find me, one clear Truth arises from within: Absolute Awareness pervades the Universe.”

Meister Eckhart, a 13th-century Dominican friar, wrote: “In this breakthrough I realize that God and I are one. Then I am what I was, and neither decrease nor increase, for then I am the immovable cause that moves all things.”

Sufi mystic of the 10th century. Mansur al-Khalaj makes the statement: “I am the Truth!”

8th century Hindu mystic Shankara eloquently expressed his realization: “I am a reality without beginning, which has no equal. I do not participate in the illusion of “I” and “you”, “this” and “that”. I am Brahman, one without a second, bliss without end, eternal unchanging truth… I reside in all beings as soul, pure consciousness, the basis of all phenomena, internal and external. I am both the enjoyer and the enjoyed. In the days of my ignorance I considered all this to be separate from myself. Now I know that I am All.”

And finally, Jesus of Nazareth declared, “My Father and I are one.”

What is the meaning of the experience of oneness? For the mystic, it opens the door to a transformation of being that liberates love, universal compassion and freedom from the cohesion of life in acquired separateness and from the compensatory attachments to which we cling. (In Sanskrit this liberated existence is called
moksha.)

Idealist philosophy grew out of the experience and creative intuition of the mystics, who constantly emphasized the direct experiential aspect of fundamental reality. “The Tao that can be spoken of is not the absolute Tao,” said Lao Tzu. Mystics warn that all teachings and metaphysical writings should be considered fingers pointing to the moon, and not the moon itself.

As
the Lankavatara Sutra reminds us: “These teachings are but a finger pointing to the Noble Truth… They are intended to be considered and guided by the discerning minds of all men, but they are not the Truth itself, which man can comprehend only for himself, in the very depths of his own consciousness.”

Some mystics resort to paradoxical descriptions. Ibn al-Arabi writes: “Neither existence nor non-existence can be attributed to it (consciousness) … It is neither existing nor non-existent. He cannot be called either the First or the Last.”

Essentially, idealistic metaphysics itself can be considered paradoxical, since it includes the paradoxical concept of the beyond (transcendent). What is transcendental? Philosophy can only answer
neti, neti – neither this nor that. But what is it? Philosophy is silent. Or, as the
Upanishads say: “It is within all this / It is beyond all this.”

Is the transcendental sphere located within the immanent world? Yes. Is it outside the immanent world? Yes. This is very confusing.

Idealistic philosophy for the most part does not answer the following questions: “How is a holistic and indivisible consciousness divided into the reality of the subject-object? How does one consciousness become many?” We are not satisfied with the only answer that the observed multiplicity of the world is an illusion.

In this book we will argue that, given quantum physics, monistic idealism is the correct philosophy for science. In addition, the integration of science and mysticism helps resolve some of the difficult issues that mysticism raises.

The integration of science and mysticism should not be too confusing – after all, they have one important similarity: both science and mysticism grew out of empirical data interpreted in the light of theoretical explanatory principles. In science, theory serves both as an explanation of data and as a tool for prediction and guidance for future experiments. Idealistic philosophy can also be seen as a creative theory that acts as an explanation for the empirical observations of mystics as well as a guide for other seekers of Truth. Finally, mysticism, like science, appears to be universal. There is no parochialism in mysticism – it arises when religions simplify mystical teachings to make them more suitable for transmission to the masses.

Religion

To come to an understanding of the Truth, the mystic usually finds and uses one or another methodology. Methodologies, or spiritual paths, have both similarities and differences. Differences that are secondary to the mystical insight itself contribute to the differences in religions based on the teachings of the mystics. For example, Buddhism developed from the teachings of Buddha, Judaism from the teachings of Moses, Christianity from the teachings of Jesus, Islam from the teachings of Mohammed (although, strictly speaking, Mohammed is considered the last of a number of prophets, including Moses and Jesus), and Taoism from the teachings of Lao Tzu. However, there are no rules without exceptions. Hinduism is not based on the teachings of any one teacher, but rather includes many teachings and many paths.

Mysticism involves the search for truth about ultimate reality, but religion has a slightly different function. Followers of this or that mystic (most often after his death) may realize that the individual search for truth is not for everyone. Most people, lost in the illusion of the separateness of their ego and busy fulfilling its aspirations, do not feel the urge to discover the truth for themselves. How then can one share the light of mystical comprehension with these people?

The answer is by simplifying it. Followers simplify the truth to make it accessible to the average person. This person is usually consumed by the demands of everyday life. Lacking the time and commitment necessary to understand the subtleties of transcendence, he cannot appreciate the importance of direct mystical experience. Therefore, the disseminators of the truth discovered by the mystic replace the direct experience of a single consciousness with the idea of ​​God. Unfortunately, God, the transcendent creator of the immanent world, is transformed in the mind of the average person into the dualistic image of a powerful Lord in Heaven ruling over the Earth below. The mystic’s revelation inevitably becomes emasculated and distorted.

The mystic’s followers, acting with the best of intentions, unwittingly play the role of the devil in an old joke: One day God and the devil were walking together, and God picked up a piece of paper. “What does it say?” – asked the devil. “True,” God calmly answered. “Give it to me,” said the devil impatiently. “I’ll organize it for you.”

However, despite the difficulties and errors of systematization, religion still conveys the spirit of the mystic’s revelation – this is what gives it vitality. After all, for mystics, the significance of realizing the transcendental nature of Reality is that they are strengthened in a mode of being where virtues such as love become simple. How can you not love, knowing that there is one consciousness and that you and the other are not really separate from each other?

But how can an ordinary person, who is not aware of unity, be motivated to love others? The mystic clearly understands that ignorance of transcendental unity is an obstacle to love. The end result of the absence of love is suffering. To avoid suffering, the mystic advises us to turn inward and begin a journey of self-discovery. In a religious context, this teaching is transformed into a statement that if we want to be saved, we must turn to God as the highest value in our lives. The method of this salvation is a set of practices based on the original teachings that form the moral code of a particular religion – the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule of Christian ethics, the precepts of Buddhism, the law of the Koran or Talmud, and so on.

Of course, not all religions introduce the concept of God. For example, in Buddhism there is no concept of God. On the other hand, there are many gods in Hinduism. However, even in these cases, the above considerations regarding religion are obvious. Thus we come to three universal aspects of all exoteric religions:

1. All religions start from the premise that our way of life is wrong. Wrongness has different names – ignorance, original sin, or simply suffering.

2. All religions promise a way out of this wrongness, provided that the “path” is followed. This way out is called salvation, liberation from the wheel of suffering in the world, enlightenment, or eternal life in the Kingdom of God – paradise.

3. The path consists of adherence to religion and the community of followers of religion, and adherence to a prescribed code of moral and social rules. In addition to the way different religions distort the esoteric teaching of transcendence, they differ from each other precisely in their codes of ethical and social rules.

Note the obligatory dualism of the first point: wrong and right (or evil and good). In contrast, the mystical path consists of transcending all dualities, including good and evil. Note also that the clergy turns the second point into a carrot and a stick—hell and heaven. On the other hand, mysticism does not contrast heaven and hell, considering both as natural accompanying circumstances of our way of life.

As you can see, when filtered through the religions of the world, the monism of monistic idealism becomes even more obscure and dualistic ideas predominate. In the East, thanks to the endless influx of people willing to study mysticism, monistic idealism in its esoteric form, at least in part, retained fame and respect among the general public. However, mysticism has had relatively little influence in the West. The dualism of Judeo-Christian monotheistic religions, supported by a powerful hierarchy of interpreters, prevailed in the mass consciousness. But like the Cartesian mind-body dualism, God-world dualism does not seem to stand up to scientific scrutiny. As scientific evidence undermines religion, there is a tendency to throw out the baby with the dirty bathwater—ethics and values ​​taught by religion—ethics and values ​​that continue to be valid and useful.

Exposing the illogicality of dualistic religions does not necessarily lead to a monistic philosophy of material realism. As we have seen, there is an alternative monism. Given how quantum physics refutes material realism, monistic idealism may be the only viable monistic philosophy of reality. Another option is to abandon metaphysics entirely, which has been the main focus of philosophy for some time. Currently, this trend appears to be reversing.

We must now pose the decisive question: is science compatible with monistic idealism? If not, then we should abandon metaphysics in the pursuit of science, further aggravating the threatening crisis of faith. If so, then we must reformulate science according to the demands of philosophy. In this book we argue that monistic idealism is not only compatible with quantum physics, but also necessary for its interpretation. The paradoxes of the new physics disappear when we consider them from the point of view of monistic idealism. Moreover, quantum physics, combined with monistic idealism, gives us a powerful paradigm with which to resolve some of the paradoxes of mysticism – for example, the question of transcendence and multiplicity. Our work points to the beginnings of idealistic science and the revival of religion.

An idealistic metaphysics for quantum objects

Quantum objects exhibit complementary aspects of wave and particle. Is quantum complementarity—the resolution of wave-particle duality—the same thing as the complementarity of monistic idealism?

The writer George Leonard clearly saw a parallel between these two types of complementarity when he wrote in The Silent Pulse: “Quantum mechanics is the ultimate koan of our time.” Koans are tools used in Zen Buddhism to break through apparent paradoxes to transcendental solutions. Let’s compare koans with complementarity.

In one koan, Zen student Daibei asks Zen master Baso, “What is Buddha?” Baso replies: “The mind is the Buddha.” When another monk asked the same question, Baso replied, “This mind is not the Buddha.”

Compare this with Bohr’s principle of complementarity. Ask Bohr: “Is an electron a particle?” Sometimes Bohr can answer: “Yes.” When we look at the trace of an electron in a condensation chamber, it makes sense to say that the electron is a particle. However, Bohr, puffing on his pipe, will say: “You must agree that the electron is a wave.” Bohr, like the Zen master, seems to be of two minds about the nature of electrons.

Quantum waves are waves of probability. To see the wave aspect, such as the diffraction pattern, it is necessary to experiment with many wave particles.
We can never experimentally see the wave aspect of a single quantum object: a single wave particle is always detected as a localized particle . Nevertheless, even a single wave particle has a wave aspect. Does the wave aspect of a single wave particle exist in transcendental space since it never appears in ordinary space? Does Bohr’s idea of ​​complementarity point to the same transcendental order of reality that the philosophy of monistic idealism speaks of?

Bohr never gave a definitive positive answer to such questions, and yet his Nobel coat of arms featured the Chinese
yin-yang symbol. Could it be that Bohr understood the complementarity of quantum physics in a similar way to monistic idealism, that he was a proponent of idealistic metaphysics as applied to quantum objects?

Let’s remember the uncertainty principle. If the product of the uncertainties of position and momentum is a constant, then decreasing the uncertainty of one increases the uncertainty of the other. Extrapolating this conclusion, one can see that if the position is known with complete certainty, then the impulse becomes completely uncertain, and vice versa – when the impulse is known with complete certainty, the position becomes completely uncertain.

Many newcomers to quantum physics object to these implications of the uncertainty principle, saying, “But surely the electron must be somewhere—we just don’t know where.” No, things are worse. We cannot even determine the position of an electron in ordinary space-time. Obviously, quantum objects exist in a completely different way from the familiar macro-objects of everyday life.

Heisenberg also recognized that a quantum object cannot occupy a given place and at the same time move in a predictable manner. Any attempt to take a snapshot of a submicroscopic object provides only its position, but information about its state of motion is lost. And vice versa.

This observation raises another question: what does the object do between snapshots? (This is analogous to the question about electrons making quantum jumps between the orbits of a Bohr atom: where does the electron go between jumps?) We cannot assign a specific trajectory to the electron. To do this, we would need to know its initial speed and position, which would violate the uncertainty principle. Can we attribute to the electron any apparent reality in space and time between observations? The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics gives a negative answer to this question.

Between observations, the electron, in accordance with the Schrödinger equation, spreads out – but, according to Heisenberg, probabilistically, in potency (Heisenberg took the term
potency from Aristotle). Where do these potencies exist? Since the electron wave immediately collapses upon observation, the potencies cannot be located in the material realm of space-time; As you remember, in space-time all objects must obey the speed limit established by Einstein. Therefore, the sphere of potency must be outside space-time. Potentialities exist in the transcendental realm of reality. Between observations, the electron, like Plato’s archetypes, exists as a form of possibility in the transcendental realm of potentialities. (The poet Emily Dickinson writes, “I dwell in Possibility.” If the electron could talk, this would probably be how it would describe itself.)

Electrons are too far removed from ordinary personal reality. Suppose we ask, “Does the moon exist when we are not looking at it?” To the extent that the moon is ultimately a quantum object (composed entirely of quantum objects), we must say no; So says physicist David Mermin. Between observations, the moon also exists as a form of possibility in the transcendental sphere of potentialities.

Perhaps the most important and most insidious assumption we learn as children is that there is a material world of objects outside of us, independent of the subjects who observe it. There is detailed evidence in favor of such an assumption. For example, whenever we look at the moon, we find it where we expect it to be, according to its classically calculated trajectory. Naturally, we assume that the moon is always there in space-time, even when we are not looking at it. Quantum physics says no. When we do not look at the moon, its wave of possibility blurs, although by an extremely small amount; When we look, the wave collapses; therefore, the wave could not be in space-time. It makes more sense to accept the assumption of idealistic metaphysics: no object exists in space-time without a conscious subject looking at it.

So, quantum waves are like Plato’s archetypes in the transcendental realm of consciousness, and the particles that appear as a result of our observation are immanent shadows on the cave wall. Consciousness is the factor that causes the collapse of the wave of a quantum object existing in potency, making it an immanent particle in the world of manifestation. This is the basic tenet of idealistic metaphysics that we will use in this book for quantum objects. We will see that in the light of this simple idea, all the famous paradoxes of quantum physics melt away like morning fog.

Note that Heisenberg himself came close to idealistic metaphysics when he proposed the concept of potency. An important new element is that the sphere of potency also exists in consciousness. There is nothing outside consciousness. This monistic view of the world is crucial.

Science discovers the transcendental

Before the modern interpretation of new physics, the word “transcendence” was rarely mentioned in the dictionary. The term was even considered heretical (and still is for adherents of science, which obeys classical laws in a deterministic and mechanistic universe of cause and effect).

For the philosophers of Ancient Rome, transcendence meant “the state of going beyond all possible experience and knowledge” or “being beyond comprehension.” In monistic idealism, transcendental also means “not this, and not anything known.” Today, modern science is invading areas that for more than four thousand years were the domain of religion and philosophy. Is the universe just an objectively predictable series of phenomena that man can observe and control, or is it much more elusive and even more amazing? Over the past three centuries, science has become the unrivaled touchstone of reality. We are fortunate to be part of this evolutionary and transcendental process in which science not only changes itself, but also changes our understanding of reality.

An exciting achievement – an experiment by a team of physicists in Orcy, France – not only confirmed the idea of ​​transcendence in quantum physics, but also clarified the very concept of transcendence. The experiment of Alain Aspect and his collaborators shows that when two quantum objects are “correlated”, then when one of them is measured (causing the collapse of its wave function), the wave function of the other also instantly collapses – even at a macroscopic distance, even in the absence of a signal in space – time mediating their connection. However, Einstein argued that all connections and interactions in the material world must be mediated by signals propagating in space (the principle of locality), and therefore must be limited by the speed of light. Where then is the instantaneous communication between correlated quantum objects that is responsible for their action at a distance without signaling? The short answer is: in the transcendental realm of reality.

In physics, instantaneous action at a distance that is not mediated by signals is called nonlocality. The correlation of quantum objects in the Aspect experiment is a non-local correlation. Once we recognize quantum nonlocality as an established physical aspect of the world in which we live, it becomes easier in science to speak of a transcendental realm beyond the manifest physical realm of spacetime. According to physicist Henry Stapp, quantum nonlocality indicates that “a fundamental process of Nature lies outside space-time, but produces events that can be detected in space-time.”

Warning: If the words “outside space” make you think of another “box” outside the dimensional “box” we are in, forget it. Another box, by definition, can be made as much a part of the universe of space as our own. In the case of non-local communication, we are forced to think about a realm of reality outside of space-time, since non-local communication cannot happen in space-time.

There is another paradoxical way to imagine non-local reality – as being everywhere and nowhere, always and never. It’s still paradoxical, but it’s thought-provoking, isn’t it? I like to play with the word
nowhere
, which I first read as “now here” as a child
. Nonlocality (and transcendence) is nowhere and now here.

About 2,500 years ago, Democritus proposed the philosophy of materialism, but shortly thereafter Plato gave one of the first clear formulations of the philosophy of monistic idealism. As Werner Heisenberg observed, quantum mechanics shows that of the two thinkers, Plato and Democritus, who most influenced Western civilization, Plato may ultimately emerge victorious. The success enjoyed in science by the atomism of Democritus in the last three centuries can only be a temporary delusion. Quantum theory, interpreted from the position of idealistic metaphysics, opens the way for idealistic science, in which consciousness takes the leading place, and matter recedes into the background.

The book “The Self-Aware Universe. How consciousness creates the material world.” Amit Goswami

Contents

PREFACE
PART I. The Union of Science and Spirituality
CHAPTER 1. THE CHAPTER AND THE BRIDGE
CHAPTER 2. OLD PHYSICS AND ITS PHILOSOPHICAL HERITAGE
CHAPTER 3. QUANTUM PHYSICS AND THE DEATH OF MATERIAL REALISM
CHAPTER 4. THE PHILOSOPHY OF MONISTIC IDEALISM
PART II. IDEALISM AND THE RESOLUTION OF QUANTUM PARADOXES
CHAPTER 5. OBJECTS IN TWO PLACES AT THE SAME TIME AND EFFECTS THAT PRECEDE THEIR CAUSES
CHAPTER 6. THE NINE LIVES OF SCHRODINGER’S CAT
CHAPTER 7. I CHOOSE WITH THEREFORE, I AM
CHAPTER 8. THE EINSTEIN-PODOLSKY-ROSEN PARADOX
CHAPTER 9. RECONCILIATION OF REALISM AND IDEALISM
PART III. SELF-REFERENCE: HOW ONE BECOMES MANY
CHAPTER 10. EXPLORING THE MIND-BODY PROBLEM
CHAPTER 11. IN SEARCH OF THE QUANTUM MIND
CHAPTER 12. PARADOXES AND COMPLEX HIERARCHIES
CHAPTER 13. “I” OF CONSCIOUSNESS
CHAPTER 14. UNIFICATION OF PSYCHOLOGIES
PART IV . RETURN OF CHARM
CHAPTER 15. WAR AND PEACE
CHAPTER 16. EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL CREATIVITY
CHAPTER 17. THE AWAKENING OF BUDDHA
CHAPTER 18. IDEALISMAL THEORY OF ETHICS
CHAPTER 19. SPIRITUAL JOY
GLOBAR OF TERMS