We previously mentioned that “Consciousness” has the ability to observe an outcome and have it become reality. We also discussed the implication of “Connectivity” underlying all consciousness. As I’m sure you’re aware, this thinking is contrary to conventional scientific wisdom.

Prevailing Science views “Consciousness” as a biologic attribute. Science says that the observer normally observes by measurement or observation of the activity of electrons and other subatomic particles. Einstein stated that he would like to think that the moon is still there even if he was not watching it. This thinking is based on a number of assumptions.

• Assumption #1:
  An electron or subatomic particle cannot know or make a choice.
• Assumption #2:
  Consciousness does not exist in an inanimate object.
• Assumption #3:
  Consciousness is evident only in higher forms of life.

From our everyday perspective, these assumptions or suppositions seem quite reasonable because we define “life” as a biologic with the ability to reproduce itself.

But when it comes to Quantum Mechanics, these assumptions undermine its entire basis. Yet, the validity of Quantum Mechanics has never been proven wrong. What needs to be done, then, is to re-examine the assumptions we have operated under for so long!

Geoffrey Taylor, a British scientist in 1909, first did the famous double-slit experiment. His work revealed that when a particle, such as an electron, is presented with a single path as in a slit, this follows a predictable path and ends up at one place. However, when the particle is presented with two slits it has the tendency to take both paths. Prior to this experiment, scientists thought this finding impossible for a single object.

Taylor discovered that the electron behaves like a wave and produced a diffraction pattern, i.e. a wave effect. This wave-particle duality has been described by some as quantum weirdness. The real fascination with this finding is that when the wave-particle is chosen to behave as a particle, it still is able to produce wave-like behavior yet at the end it registers as a particle. This last quirk in the behavior of the particle reinforces the belief that it simply is quantum weirdness.

This perception of quantum weirdness can easily be addressed, if we were to suspend or negate Assumption #1. But if we were to do so, we would have to change our perspective of the world, because the negation or suspension of Assumption #1 automatically breaks Assumption #2 and #3. Science is reluctant to break away from these earlier models.

Science may be reluctant but this does not change the fact that Quantum Mechanics time and time again has held up its validity under intense scrutiny. Up to this point, any occurrence which questions the solidity of prior scientific conclusions was labeled “quantum weirdness.” But it’s time for Science to wake up and face the truth. Science must get its head out of the sand and acknowledge that “indeed! The king has no clothes!”

The scientific community must be bold in addressing this issue. We cannot continue to benefit from Quantum Mechanics without fully accepting all of its ramifications. To do so is the equivalent of giving a baby a loaded AK-47 to play with while having the safety off.