Proves Karl Marx Wrong?
Has Science Discovered Something
That
Proves Karl Marx Wrong?
IN THIS CHAPTER we probe one of the deepest questions that can be raised: the question of ultimate reality.1 In a sense, the enigma of existence is implicit in our earlier discussion regarding the origin of the universe. The existence of man cannot be divorced from the existence of the universe; its origin and that of life and, thus, of man all have one common source. They are part and parcel of one reality.
Before we proceed into the rough seas of this weighty question, let me define some terms we shall be using. By universe, the scientist means space joined with time — two aspects of a common reality. Natural processes are the events, anywhere they are found, that can be observed by man to operate according to natural laws. They also include the developments in living things. Information may be the most difficult of these terms to grasp. We so take for granted that a molecule of water, say, has certain properties — certain "information" — that we never give a moment's thought to the origin of those properties or what happens to them under differing conditions, such as heat or cold.
When a scientist, for example, analyzes and describes a physical object, recording its constituent parts and characteristics, his description contains "information" about that object. Such information is uniquely identifiable with that object alone. If he or she is describing a hydrogen atom, the sum total of the description of the atom's particles — its bits and pieces, their location and velocity and direction — is that atom's information.
Common Misunderstandings
How does man exist? Does he belong to this universe and to dimensions beyond it?2 Or is man confined to physical matter that self-assembled into atoms, bacteria, and cosmos?3
Page 23
The latter idea is popular today. A number of scenarios have been advanced — especially in recent years, with the discovery that our universe had a beginning. These scenarios conveniently forget to take into account the fact that natural processes on average cannot and do not produce information.
It is accepted that intelligence produces such information. This implies that intelligence is behind every living object in the universe. For example, dust particles contain a small amount of information; an oriental rug contains a greater amount; a vacuum cleaner contains still more; and the house in which these reside still more. The laws we use daily in science demand that increased information must attend any increase in organization such as the sequence of assembled objects I've just described.
But those who set forth natural scenarios either ignore this or treat it superficially.4 The layman is often unaware that the production of information is necessary; thus, he may see no fundamental problem with nature producing the self-assembly process he reads about in a popular book or journal.
The spectrum of discussion regarding self-assembly goes from one extreme to another — from the universe "popping" into existence as a result of a quantum fluctuation,5 to a happy accident in which chemicals bounce themselves into a living object.6 All of these require incredible leaps of faith in the light of modern scientific laws that govern the systematic production of information.
One example of an alleged self-assembly process by nature is a commonly held theory regarding the stars. This says that way back near the beginning of time the stars were essentially uniform throughout the heavens. Those who hold this view say that if you were to examine any region of space at the beginning you would see that it contained the same number of stars as any other region, giving the stars a uniform appearance. However, with the passage of time, this initial symmetry of stars changed into the increased organization we see today. This appears to us as faster stars of greater number near the center, and fewer numbers of slower stars sprinkled along the outside of the star system.
This apparent structure, we are told, displays self-organization. The previous mix of uniform stars has now changed in a way that is understood to form structure. To use an earlier metaphor, the dust particles have assembled themselves into a house that contains the rug and vacuum cleaner.
Although the idea of natural self-assembly is interesting, it is nonetheless untrue. The "structure" we see in the heavens — the appearance of asymmetry, with numerous stars clustering here and there — tells us that the stars were programmed to be this way in the beginning. The Big Bang had within it imbalances that foreordained the structure we see today. However, the passage of time has magnified that original asymmetry a thousand times over.
The reason stars cluster is that they were never uniformly distributed. If a star system were truly uniform, the force acting on each star in any direction would be counterbalanced by a force of equal magnitude in the opposite direction. If the system is symmetric about its center, then we expect the
Page 24
symmetry to be preserved. This means that no star would change its velocity without a corresponding change elsewhere. Each star with its myriad sister stars would present one uniform stellar pattern across the skies.
The remarkable thing is that we see something quite different. We see structure that was foreordained from the very beginning of the universe. This immense information is on display throughout the heavens, and it proclaims an intelligence that is more than the material universe — an intelligence that was present before the beginning. Otherwise, the information has no source.
Consider another example. The human body is nature's highest organized structure. We know that the information within the body — its height, weight, color, sex, voice level, temperament, and everything that makes a body — is carried within the genes, which can only be observed under a special microscope developed just twenty-five years ago.
Scientifically, we might describe in the following way how that DNA information organizes chemicals into a human body: Unbalanced electrical forces between the side chains of twenty or so kinds of amino acid residues spontaneously fold a polypeptide gene product into a three-dimensional protein structure we call a body. The resultant structure was there all the time in the unseen information along the DNA strand. The development into a body is merely the consequence of asymmetries preexisting on a smaller, unseen level.7
All of the information necessary to assemble the structure — whether a body, the star system, or whatever — is present in the preexisting distribution. As for the universe, the information necessary to its formation is directly traceable to the initial condition that brought the universe into existence.8 In principle, the ability of gravitational systems to undergo self-assembly is no different from what happens when water crystallizes into a snowflake. Natural forces merely produce movement of system parts in response to preexisting asymmetries. As time passes, the unseen microstructure is magnified into something that is easily seen. The more its organization, the greater is the information that an observer needs to describe it.
However, we need to exercise care in scientifically applying these concepts. For example, when water in the atmosphere produces snowflakes, ordinarily we might think that its organization had increased. But this is untrue. We actually need less information to describe the atmospheric water after it has changed into snowflakes than before. Why is this so? Because when water freezes, it creates countless millions of tiny ice crystals that have sixfold symmetry. Snowflakes also have this symmetry because they are made from numerous clumps of ice crystals. Since these crystals are identical to each other, the information that describes one ice crystal describes all ice crystals. Furthermore, there are constraints on the water molecules within the volume of any one ice crystal that limit the ways they can be arranged. This means that less information is needed to describe their whereabouts. Thus when
Page 25
atmospheric water changes into snowflakes, the system loses information. This isn't only true for snowflakes. It's true for all natural processes.
When we try to plumb the depths of the origin of the universe, we are really searching for the source of the original specifications that produced all that we see. What brought forth the "blueprints" that foreordained the universe and man? Everything in the world traces back to the initial condition that contained information. To explain the origin of these physical structures demands insight into the source of that information. Natural processes are mechanisms that allow things to unfold, but initial conditions foreordain the final product that we see.
For example, physical forces push apart the cloth that is tightly folded on a paratrooper's back, but the design and shape of the fabric and the way that it is packed foreordain the parachute it produces. We don't see the parachute until the moment it opens, but it's there in an unseen form from the beginning. The same is true of our world. Moments before it exploded into existence, it preexisted in the information that resided in the initial condition that gave it birth. The creation of the universe aligns with the supernatural because natural processes do not, of themselves, produce the great magnitude of information present in the initial condition from which the universe unfolded. Scientifically speaking, in order to satisfy the constraints that are involved, the galaxies must have been "preformed" within the fabric of space-time before even the atoms were made.9
The Question of Ultimate Reality
In the last analysis, the question of ultimate reality seems to have one of two answers: The first is God and what he holds in being; the second is matter and what results from its motion. The latter view was championed by Karl Marx.10
Marx's thinking suffered from wrong ideas that were believed regarding the universe a hundred years ago; the thrust of his materialistic imaginings have led to a conception of physical matter as an erratic evolution of a frothing expanse of preexisting "something." Supposedly, this material randomly contorts and distorts itself into twisted permutations of every conceivable configuration over infinite time. Its internal interplay ultimately materializes a "magic" distribution that issues forth subnuclear particles with precisely the right properties for producing all that we see and are. Clearly, to explain the origin of the universe in this way is an act of faith — and one fraught with serious flaws.
For example, as living agents we affirm that all we see and are is a useful end for us. We perceive the hypothetical initial "magic" that produced everything as functioning toward a useful end — namely, human life. This then implies that since a natural process produced a magical distribution, which in turn produced us, our existence was inevitable, because the occurrence of the magical distribution over infinite time was a certainty.
Page 26
In simpler terms, if there is infinite time, then everything that we see and are must eventually happen. Of course, the magic word is "if." But what is the origin of this infinite time? And what is the source of the matter that is able to productively undergo infinite contortions? Anything is possible for an uncritical mind, but this kind of picture is deceptively naive for several reasons.
Time The consensus of scientists is that the universe, and therefore space and time, had a beginning. But if time had a beginning, how can one suppose that infinite time exists? To believe this is to ignore the verdict of an international jury of scientists who have declared otherwise. In other words, to believe in infinite time is not only to believe in something not supported by evidence, but to accept something that is contrary to it.11 Some people may accept the idea of infinite time because it provides the unending opportunity for the world and life to appear without the conceptual necessity for God. However, the evidence indicating that our world, and therefore space-time, had a beginning teaches that the notion of infinite time is wrong. The beginning of space-time means the beginning of time.
Pleasure and Pain A while ago, when we considered man's existence, we noted that the human body was "written" into the genes that comprise DNA. However, man is more than his body, and human life more than what is in the DNA blueprints. For example, materialistic belief ignores the mysterious qualities of pleasure and pain. But how can non-living matter ultimately configure itself into beings that experience pleasure and pain? What is pleasure? And what is pain? What is their source, and why do they exist? How, for instance, do concepts such as horror and paradise have meaning other than in terms of an absolute private experience of unbearable pain or indescribable ecstasy? We know of no property of physical matter that could have produced these. Pleasure and pain are things that people experience. They have meaning only in terms of consciousness — and not matter.12
Individuality Physical matter universally interacts in a way that would seem to preclude private experience. The laws governing chemicals on earth, for example, are the same as those that control physical matter on distant stars, and the forces that connect the two span the billions of light-years separating them. Einstein's theory teaches that the mass of these distant stars contributes to the forces creating cyclones and tornados on earth; the theory identifies gravitation as the mechanism by which they do so and gives us a mathematical tool to describe it.13
But the exercise of conscience is an individual matter which a materialistic concept of reality does not explain. How can private experiences materialize in a universal system where each part "knows" about every other part? If we materialized from a universal system and consist only of physical matter and its motion universally interacting, each with every other part, how is it that my thoughts are known only to me? And your thoughts are known only to you? The materialistic point of view fails to explain why certain common experiences are absolutely private.
Page 27
Color We all know what we mean by the color green. The experience is common to all of us when we look, for example, at grass. If I say to you, "Close your eyes and picture the color green," you know what I mean. You can easily picture it; "green" materializes in your mind.
Yet, despite the universality of this experience, it is absolutely impossible to describe what you know as "green" in your mind to a person born blind. In saying this, we are not speaking about the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation that activates electrical signals into your brain from your retina. Instead, we are speaking of what you experience in your mind when you look at grass and see "green."14
The property we know as "green" cannot be communicated using physical descriptives. No numbers, labels, or measurements allow us to convey "green" to someone born blind. Instead, it must be directly perceived. This suggests that the mental experience "green" that is activated by electrical signals into the brain, and that originates from within space and time, enables the mind to access something that properly belongs to a realm outside of physical reality. Were it otherwise, the mental experience "green" would reside within space and time and thus be capable of impartation by physical descriptives. However, and as we all know, it is impossible to communicate this experience. It must be directly accessed.
Life The materialistic world view fails to account for life itself. We know, for example, that the union of a human sperm and egg precipitates a new living system that then undergoes continuous development into a third human being. But what is the origin of this new life? If, in its entirety, it resides in space and time, was it dispersed throughout the physical world prior to the sperm uniting with the egg? If dispersed, then what property of physical matter preserved its identity? And what distribution nourished its existence? Were there answers to these questions, they would serve to endow physical matter with supernatural qualities.
Or was it newly created at the moment of conception? If we say that, then we are forced to believe that nucleic acids eventually acquire awareness of their own existence when they are mixed. Again we ask: What magic quality of dead physical matter produces this?
Either approach leads us into serious problems. The first picture presents us with countless billions of unseen preexisting space-time life forms that become visible when sperms meet eggs, while the second scenario alleges that batches of chemicals become conscious when they are mixed. These distasteful alternatives arise because we started with a materialistic world view. But there is another world view that avoids these problems.
Consider again a person born blind who has never experienced the color green. One obvious explanation for his or her failing to undergo the mental experience "green" is that "green" resides in a realm outside the physical world of space and time, and that optical defects in the body disable signals into the brain that would give the mind access to that realm. However, this implies that the life in our brain may also reside in that other realm.
Page 28
If so, then the physical distribution of the brain's gray matter can be understood as an interlocking pathway channeling life from that other realm into the space and time of our world. This would explain why a person born blind could experience life, but not "green." The distribution of gray matter develops within moments of conception, at the region where the sperm meets the egg. Thus the channel would be open from the time of conception. Thereafter, all that changes is the mechanism of physical nourishment, and the means by which oxygen is delivered to metabolize carbohydrate in the cells.15
The notion of channeling life from another realm into the space and time of our world is, in concept, not unlike our bringing music into the kitchen by means of a radio tuned to a particular station. In this metaphor, the kitchen is our world, the music is life, and the distant station is the other realm. Music enters the kitchen because the radio is tuned to a particular station. The tuning corresponds to the distribution of gray matter in our brain, serving as a connecting tunnel that links the other realm to our world.
For what purpose have I chosen this illustration? Certainly not to explain life in so simple a fashion as was outlined above. Instead, to show that a materialistic world view is a very limiting outlook. It denies us other options for dealing with the question of consciousness and life. Materialism forces us to view everything in the world in terms of matter and its motion. Stated differently, it explains the living in terms of the dead, and it extols the dead as though it were living.
Theism, however, removes this strait jacket by allowing us to explain life in terms of the living, and the highly organized world in terms of intelligence and design. It allows us to introduce "other realms" in much the same way that a shadow moving on the earth's surface can be explained by an airplane's flying past the sun; or, ripples in a brook can be understood in terms of rocks beneath the surface. Examples abound in which the visible owes its existence to the invisible. Is not a television picture explained in terms of invisible signals through space? And a hydrogen bomb explosion as the annihilation of atomic matter too small to see? In like manner, theism asserts that our world and all that lies within it owes its existence to an eternal Intelligence whose desires are revealed in the Bible, whose designs are displayed in nature, and whose decisions are recorded in history.16
Consciousness Materialism offers no explanation whatever for the empirical fact that each of us is aware of his own existence. This consciousness also causes us to be aware of the passage of time — one of the most fundamental aspects of our existence. These attributes are alien to dead matter; rocks and bookcases and wastebaskets "know" nothing of them. Yet they constitute an integral part of the very fabric of our being.17 Majestic sunsets, beautiful music, and tender love are the exclusive providence of human life. To assert that nonliving particles bounced themselves into an awareness and enjoyment of them strains the bounds of credulity.
Page 29
Free Will If human life came from a "magical" distribution of physical matter, then the laws governing it ought to govern us. But this does not appear to be the case. All laws governing physical matter can be expressed in differential form, meaning that initial conditions are necessary to precipitate that action.
For example, these laws tell us that a bullet fired from a rifle off the horizon of the earth travels along a parabolic path. But how high the bullet will go and where it will land is determined by the angle at which the rifle is held, and its muzzle velocity at the time it is fired. These initial conditions are specified by intelligence, not physical matter; and the angle at which the rifle is held and the amount of gunpowder in each bullet are decisions made by a conscious agent. Such decisions are not subject to quantum laws governing physical matter. Does not this teach us that the two — the conscious capacity for free choice, and the involuntary unfolding of physical matter — are separate and distinct?18
Information The presupposition that alleges that physical matter produces all we see and are fails in a most profound way for it ignores the scientific law that constrains physical matter from systematically generating information. However, no such constraint exists for intelligence. The New Generalized Second Law of Thermodynamics (discussed in later chapters) imposes fundamental limits on the information-producing capacity of nature.19 In effect, it relegates nature to the status of an informational eunuch. Yet, if this is so, how do we explain the advent of the universe, living cells, and man? Matter and its motion are characterized by random activity that is incompatible with irreversible evolutive processes. Of itself, this does not deny the popular evolutive hypothesis, but it does demand a source for the information within the blueprint that guides it. The New Generalized Second Law disqualifies physical matter as this source because it mandates that, on average, nature must lose rather than gain information. Otherwise, nature becomes a perpetual motion machine. Theism, however, suffers no such constraint because it introduces the element of intelligence — something that we know produces information.
Observer The belief that reality is "matter and its motion" has a basic flaw. It forces a human being (an observer) to fundamentally consist of a special arrangement of subatomic particles and their motion. But the quantum laws that describe the location of these particles tell us that in the absence of an observer a special arrangement is impossible, because they are not confined to any one place. Instead, they are "smeared" throughout space. It is therefore quite meaningless to conceptualize man as a magical distribution of subatomic entities because to do so requires that their material substance be located in specifiable regions in space. In other words, physical matter must be "localized" in order to form a human body; but if the observer (man) is only his body, then the body must preexist in order to localize the physical matter.
Let me illustrate. Consider a large lawn with green grass extending in
Page 30
all directions. A boy cuts the grass and then rakes it into one large pile just off one corner of the lawn. Before he cut the lawn, the grass in the pile was "smeared out" across the whole lawn. In the absence of an observer, this is how physical matter behaves; like grass on a lawn, it is spread throughout space. But the act of an intelligence observing the physical matter is like the boy who cuts and then rakes the grass into a pile — observing physical matter coalesces it into a heap that is confined to one region of space.
Ordinarily we call this heap a particle. If we have a large number of them, their location and velocity in space is called a distribution. The materialistic world view reduces man to a special distribution, a magical arrangement of locations and velocities of particles. But, as we have seen, man must first exist to coalesce the physical matter into the magical arrangement that is alleged to produce man. Here we have a chicken-and-egg problem. We need man (the chicken) to coalesce particles (the egg) to produce man (the chicken).
We can illustrate the problem another way. Consider the lawn metaphor just cited, but this time assume that the boy has no rake with which to do the job. The situation now is as follows: The boy needs to put grass into piles using a rake he will purchase with money obtained after he has put grass into piles. Metaphorically speaking, putting grass into piles is coalescing particles; man (the observer) is the rake that enables this to happen. But the rake (man) is a later result of the earlier piles of grass (particles).
Or think of a horse pulling a cart. The horse is a magical arrangement of particles, and the cart is man, the observer. The difficulty is that before the horse can pull the cart, quantum laws require the cart to pull the horse. In other words, the observer must first coalesce the particles. Only in this way can we get the special arrangement. But the special arrangement is alleged to be the observer. We therefore need what we don't have — the observer — in order to get what we need — the special arrangement that makes the observer.
To say that the chaotic motion of lifeless particles eventually endowed itself with a living awareness of its own existence is to suggest the logically impossible. Such a hypothesis implicitly presupposes that an observer exists to materialize particles for magical arrangement, while at the same time alleging that such an observer is a consequence of the materializing process.20
One way out of this perplexing dilemma is to assume the existence of a Supreme Observer. Then, out of all of the ways that matter could distribute itself, he can materialize precisely the right distribution to produce our world. In effect, he is the gardener who cuts the lawn and piles the grass in exactly the right locations. Left to its own accord, grass grows everywhere. It doesn't cut itself into any special arrangements. Likewise, physical matter smears itself throughout space. Although he is unseen, the special arrangements of subatomic particles throughout the world bear witness to him, a Supreme Observer, in the same way that piles of grass attest to the existence of a gardener.
Page 31
Two Realities There is yet another flaw in the materialistic world view — a flaw that reaches to the very taproot of reality itself. New insights into the nature of reality from quantum physics show that everything in the world we commonly regard as physical or material obeys quantum laws. These include all that we see and touch, what we measure and generally regard as real. Such things are called "quantum objects" because they obey quantum laws. However, a second category of objects does not obey quantum laws. Instead, they harmonize with the systems of laws that were believed to describe reality roughly before the turn of the century. These are called "classical objects." For example, a classical object is an observer or intellect, what the Bible calls "spirit."
This discovery is profound, because it indicates that reality consists of two substances, not one. The correct world view is not only matter and its motion (quantum objects), but observers or intelligences (classical objects) coexisting as separate components of a twofold system. Scientifically speaking, the simplest conclusion forced upon us by quantum laws is that the joint system of an observer and physical matter cannot be described by a wave function after they interact; instead, they comprise a mixture.21 These new insights are the kiss of death to materialistic philosophy and to dialectical materialism. Simply put: Karl Marx misunderstood reality. He was wrong.22
Summarizing and Clarifying
The ten items I have touched upon in this chapter may be thought of as separate arrows converging onto one bull's eye. Namely, reality is more than physical matter. Scripture revealed this thousands of years ago, and now we are starting to catch up to it. Quantum physics is teaching us that there really is something beyond the physical stuff we see — something the Bible calls "spirit." We love, we fear, we experience emotions and consciousness, all because we are spirit (intelligence) as well as matter (quantum object).
It is instructive to realize what is happening today. Scientific understandings are converging on biblical truths. Although written thousands of years ago, Scripture teaches that the world had a beginning — and now science agrees. The Bible also teaches that the world came into existence from nothing — a revelation now echoed in the literature by an accepted cosmological theory.23 The notion that man is more than his body is a biblical concept. Now quantum laws show us that the observer is indeed separate and distinct from the quantum objects he observes.
Moreover, the universe in which he lives is seen from the First Law not to have arisen of its own accord. Nature is not a magician that can make things appear out of thin air, and natural processes are not quantum burps that grow into other worlds. Nature has no free lunch, and cannot create something out of nothing. As discussed in chapter 3, quantum fluctuations can give rise to bubbles that can inflate, but they cannot percolate. Recall our boiling water and expanding pot analogy. Although fluctuations can
Page 32
produce bubbles that can form and inflate, the pot grows so fast that they never reach the water's surface.24 However, things do exist. Since natural processes do not pop things into existence from nothing, the obvious answer is that some unnatural process did it.
There is, however, another point to consider. For the sake of argument, let's hypothesize some obscure natural process that, of its own accord, produces an unlimited number of universes by means of quantum fluctuations. Let's be generous and allow the "bubbles" generated by these fluctuations to circumscribe every conceivable distribution of physical matter. However, by definition, this process, and everything that proceeds from it, is subject to quantum laws — laws that teach that none of the universes it creates can be ours unless we are there to witness it.25 Since observers are classical objects, human intelligence is not subject to quantum laws. How then can we be the result of a quantum fluctuation that such laws brought into being?
Whoever accepts a materialistic world view ought to consider one final point. Thought processes supersede the external world, not vice versa. The reason is that consciousness is the primary element. In principle, the external world can be denied — but it is logically impossible to deny consciousness. Do so, and you deny the very ground of your being. If you doubt this, then the very doubt you profess has proved the existence of what you are doubting. But since you are doubting that consciousness cannot be denied, for you to deny "consciousness" is to destroy the very doubt that you profess. Thus it is logically impossible to deny consciousness. This is what led Rene Descartes to write: "I think, therefore I am" (Discourse on Method, 1637).
Niels Bohr understood this very well. He wrote:
The word consciousness, applied to ourselves as well as to others, is indispensable when dealing with the human situation.26
Eugene Wigner, in quoting Bohr, goes on to say:
In view of this, one may well wonder how materialism, the doctrine that "life could be explained by sophisticated combinations of physical and chemical laws," could so long be accepted by the majority of scientists.27
Chapter Five || Table of Contents
1. DeWitt B. Physics Today (1970) 23:30 Sep. Epstein P. Amer. Jour. Phys. (1945) 13:127. Einstein A. Jour. Franklin Inst. (1936) 221:349. Einstein A. et.al. Phys. Rev. (1935) 47:777. Bohr N. Nature (1935) 121:65. Bohr N. Phys. Rev. (1935) 48:696.
2. Stapp H. Mind, Matter & Quantum Mechanics (1981) LBL 12631 Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. Popper K. & Eccles J. The Self and Its Brain (1977) Springer-Verlag. Zeh H. Fourth Int. Conf. on Unity of Sci. (1975) New York. Wigner E. Proc. Amer. Phil. Soc. (1969) 113:95. Good I. ed. The Scientist Speculates (1961) Heinemann / Basic B.
3. Kuhn H. & Waser J. Biophysics (1983) Hoppe W. et.al. ed. Springer-Verlag (17:830). Scott J. New Scientist (1981) :153 Jan 15. Prigogine I. From Being To Becoming (1980) Freeman. Sagan C. Cosmos (1980) Random House. Folsome C. The Origin of Life (1979) Freeman.
4. Prigogine I. & Stengers I. Order Out of Chaos (1984) Bantam Books (9:283).
5. Gott J. Nature (1982) 295:304.
6. Nicolis G. & Prigogine I. Self-Organization In Nonequilibrium Systems (1977) Wiley.
7. Davis B. Science (1980) 209:78 Jul 4.
8. Buchel W. Nature (1967) 213:319.
9. Trefil J. Space Time Infinity :233.
10. Montgomery J. The Importance of a Materialistic Metaphysic to Marxist Thought and an Examination of Its Truth Value in the Shape of the Past (1975) Bethany II.2:217. Berlin I. Historical Materialism in Karl Marx (1963) Time Reading Program Special Edition 6:101.
11. Trefil J. (1983) ibid. ch. 3.
12. Pugh G. Zygon (1976) 11:2.
13. Misner C. et.al. Gravitation (1973) Freeman 21.12:543.
14. Gombrich E. Art and Illusion: A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation (1961) Princeton Univ.
15. Gregory R. Mind In Science (1981) Cambridge Univ. Press.
16. Montgomery J. ibid.
17. Popper K. ibid.
18. MacKay D. The Clockwork Image (1974) InterVarsity Press.
19. von Neumann J. Quantum Theory and Measurement (1983) Wheeler J. & Zurek W. ed. (V:549). Levine R. & Tribus M. ed. The Maximum Entropy Formalism (1979) MIT Conference (1978) May 2 MIT Press.
20. Wootters W. & Zurek W. Quantum Theory and Measurement (1983) Wheeler J. & Zurek W. ed. (III:443). Belinfante F. Measurement and Time Reversal in Objective Quantum Theory (1975) Pergamon.
21. Wigner E. Mind-Body Question in Quantum Theory & Measurement, Wheeler, J. & Zurek W. Ed. (1983) Princeton U. Press (I.12:180).
22. Wigner E. op.cit. (I.12:168). Wheeler J. Quantum Mechanics a Half Century Later (1977) Leite Lopes J. & Paty M. ed. Reidel Dordrecht (Holland).
23. Guth A. op.cit. ch.3.
24. An early rapid growth of the universe explains its huge entropy, homogenous mixing, flatness problem, and absence of magnetic monopoles. These are defined in the Glossary.
25. Our universe is that distribution of physical matter whose interactions we affirm as coherent under a pattern of logical relations in our mind that align with the pattern of physical laws we discover through measurement.
26. Bohr N. Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge (1960) Wiley :92.
27. Wigner E. (1983) op.cit. (I.12:174).
