The quantum theory of reincarnation

As much as I don't understand a lick of whatever your talking about, I can appreciate someone using Wikipedia within reason.

Ebert: I appreciate that you think I used it within reason.

"There can be no doubt that one characteristic of 'reality' is that it lacks essence. That is not to say it has no essence, but merely lacks it."

- Woody Allen

If you want to see fear in the eyes of a quantum physicist, mention the word "measurement." -- Folk saying

Which folk would those be? Folk sayings are usually old epithets that are handed down generation to generation, and are still commonly used.

Quantum theory has only been around 100 years, and frankly, that line is hardly going to become a folk saying. The common man does not often talk about quantum physics.

So where did you get this 'folk saying' from? I see a few references to it on the web, mostly pointing to this article.

Ebert: Learned it at my grandmother's knee.

Dear Mr. Ebert,

By the end of that post, you were beginning to sound like this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ruler_of_the_Universe#The_Ruler_of_the_Universe

Are you sure you are in Chicago and not in a shack on a remote planet with only a cat for company?

Ebert: I was hoping you would guess that.

Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass, Section 6:

"What do you think has become of the young and old men?

And what do you think has become of the women and children?

"They are alive and well somewhere;
The smallest sprout shows there is really no death;
And if ever there was, it led forward life, and does not wait at the end to arrest it,
And ceas’d the moment life appear’d.

"All goes onward and outward—nothing collapses;
And to die is different from what any one supposed, and luckier."

And of course, the famous opening:

"I CELEBRATE myself;

And what I assume you shall assume;

For every atom belonging to me, as good belongs to you."

Good enough for me.

Ebert: I have this moment been seized with the need to take Walt down from the shelf and read him some more.

I think I managed to get halfway through.

Ebert: That far! Thank you.

Either that or, you know, time cube:

http://www.timecube.com/

Ebert: A remarkable document.

"Began in 1997, and not 1 penny support." Just remarkable.

"discussing it permits others to assume I have gone mad."

Oh, Ebert. We already know you went mad a long time ago.

Psssst...I'd love to take a look at the directions if you've got 'em.

As always, thanks for the wonderful post.

I really don't know what to say. I suppose I could best begin by apologizing to the entire world for the YouTube video that combined Tesla, conspiracy theories, and gross misinterpretations of Einstein, Schroedinger, etc. It would have been funny (it started out that way) had they not been so adamant.

I don't know where to begin with R.A.W. There's simply too much to say...too much to comment on.

Yes, quantum tunneling is a phenomenon that obtains in the everyday world. It is essential in the function of many modern electronic technologies. No, the tunneling of an entire person, or any object of macroscopic scale, is not a reasonably probable event. The probabilities are vanishingly small. It would, for all intents and purposes, qualify as a miracle as much in a religious context as it would in the scientific context, although, given a suitable level of understanding (one far beyond us now and for a long long LONG time to come), a quantum physicist could tell you how many times you'd have to run into a brick wall before you'd pass through it.

No, Star Trek style teleportation will never happen. The math won't allow it. (I know no one asked, but I bet someone was wondering. I used to, at least.)

Thanks, Ebert, for hosting. It has been a good time. I know you realize the blog was all in good fun. I hope others do, as well. I hope you'll forgive me my somewhat serious commenting. Physics is an oft-misunderstood and oft-abused field. I just wanted to speak up for her.

And some "crude" entertainment:
http://www.funnyharhar.com/img4/1196539615059.jpg

I look forward to the next blog, fearless leader!

I'd say wikipedia is good enough insofar it is used just to quench an immediate curiosity.

for more reliable content, though, once the wikipedia entry has given an overview of the subject, books are the only way to go.

There are some brilliant, mindboggling books out there Roger about quantum physics that are written specifically for us the uninitiated.
Greene for string theory (strongly suggested, very very well written in layterms), obviously Hawkings for astrophysics ecc.

I am afraid, in general terms, that our standard way of thinking cannot deal with quantum physics' findings. meaning that trying to include the latter in a broader, philosophical theory is wrong by definition. In a Kantian way: our thought's "a priori" prevent us from really "owning" quantum reality ontologically. It is my understanding that to really deal with quantum physics' reality one has to leave behind any other prior "thought", or "knowledge", or "experience" of the universe and accept new coordinates. very counterintuitive ones.

hence - forgive me for being so long, it is difficult to articulate what i want to say in general and in english it becomes even harder - i'd say that mixing "life, subjectivity,reincarnation" with "changing reality by observing it and particle behaviour" is a no go, just because you're mixing standard categories (cause and effect, time and space) with a nonstandard discourse (quantum stuff)

this said, i'll give you that your article was very suggestive, regardless of its scientific, or philosophical, applicability. I really enjoyed it.

Quantum theory: highly interesting (and a little frightening) to think about, but an infuriatingly impractical set of principles by which to live our day-to-day lives.

Nonetheless, isn't it interesting how right, how true, a phrase like “look for me in the weather reports” can feel, despite the absence of any tangible rational reason for its feeling that way?

Ebert: Full credit for Saul Bellow for that one, from Herzog. Herzog's brother says he wants to be cremated, and then...

I'm not sure if it's the "quantum theory" aspect or the "reincarnation" aspect of this post that scared away the usual commentators.

I'm under the impression that Plank length is more applicable to zero-dimensional particles than one-dimension strings. I don't think that zero-dimension is nothing, it just is something that doesn't have any dimensions. Strings would be giant in comparison. Mind you, everything I know about this topic I learned when I was eight years old from Madeleine L'Engle's A Wrinkle in Time. Great book.

I wonder, though, why limit yourself to saying reincarnation is possible? With this argument, just about anything is possible, including immortality, which may be just another word for reincarnation.

"Perception is reality."

I've strenuously resisted this idea, preferring to believe that reality is reality (my maxim: cogito ergo um, or, I think, therefore ... I'm not sure. Then I read this and the conclusion at the quantum level is not only that perception is reality but also that perception creates reality.

So we are all God.

And now before my head 'splodes I'm going to do what I really came for and that is to comment in the Steak and Shake section. Thank you for your time.

Ebert: Steak n Shake has the universe covered:

In Sight, It Must Be Right.

There is a nice passage near the end of "The Amber Spyglass," the final book in Philip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" trilogy, in which one character talks about this sort of reincarnation (and their reunification, in the case of the book's universe, with their daemon). I like the idea of that sort of reincarnation - from Buddhism to Sufi Mysticism to Humanist Secularism, mankind's understanding of nature, and the concept of "life-in-the-wake-of-death," has been really rather astounding, hasn't it? Since, in death, the self disappears, it really doesn't matter whether it will go to upstairs or downstairs. It's much more comforting to know that we will remain, all of us, within the cycle.

Ebert: Fat lot of good it will do us.

Do you believe in fate, or free will? Is it possible to live a life governed by both?

Imagine this scenario. A soul, preparing to begin its next life, measures the quantum particles that will comprise its body. Being entirely ether (dark matter?), the soul has a clarity of thought and vision our limited senses cannot fathom; let's just assume it's there, for the sake of argument.

The initial measurement sets off a chain reaction. Once a single variable in the equation is given a value, other values fall into place by default. By creating the present the soul has also created the future.

When the soul begins its life, it is a life it chose for itself. But once it is born, that path has been set, the equation calculated, and it cannot be altered. Fate, chosen of one's own free will.

I like this thought. It gives a sense of ownership over one's past and future without having to write off tragedy to the incomprehensible mind of a deity.

Why would anyone suffer in life? Well, if the choices are made by a soul between stages of reincarnation, a soul who knows that each life is temporary, a soul that has lived many lives and is ready for a new experience, then suffering starts to make more sense. It is not a lesson taught by God, it is a lesson taught by ourselves.

To me, God is the universe in its entirety. If you take all that is measurable and unmeasurable, that is God. There is nothing that is not God; indeed, "nothing" is also part of God.

So if you look at yourself, you are made up entirely of God. You are 100% God, as am I. The earth, the sun, the distant quasar...everything has equal divinity. 100%.

Ebert: Works for me.

If you really want to ponder something crazy, look up Quantum Immortality. Assuming Multiple Worlds, no matter how long the odds or dire the situation, there is always at least one world in which you (however "you" is defined) live another day.

This might seem take some of the tension out of stories, but some SF authors, Greg Egan comes to mind, have done interesting things with Multiple Worlds.

Ebert: And then, in that world, that you lives another day? Barbershop mirrors.

This certainly kick-started my brain on an obnoxiously bright Monday morning. Thanks for that. I keep up with physics as much as someone who sucks at maths can. I also have been known to cast a spell or two. Not many people would have thought the two anything but mutually exclusive, I suspect. It's a strange thing to start reading someone else's musings and find they mirror your own. Strange and wonderful.

Here is a review of Arthur C Clarke's "The Songs of Distant Earth" from when it first came out, which is kind of apt to the discussion we are having today.

"Readers who are informed on this subject will have already stopped reading. Some may have been seized by helpless laughter."

I am rather uninformed on this subject, but I still laughed. Not the "with you" kind of laughter either.

Ebert: Let me guess. At me?

One of the best things about The Matrix was that it made Plato's allegory of the cave, the brain-in-a-vat scenario, simulism, etc., all accessible to everyday people (or at least, everyday moviegoers).

With that idea in mind, I think quantum mechanics is fun and interesting, like a good movie. But only just that.

I don't know enough about quantum mechanics to evaluate or understand this entry, but I'll go off on a tangent and note that people's lack of understanding of the subtleties of the theory is very frequently used to peddle all kids of nonsense, ranging from Deepak Chopra's (a fairly mainstream name) "quantum healing" to the ludicrous -- this hilarious self-help site called Quantum Jumping. (I highly suggest browsing through that site. It's a good way to entertain yourself on a boring Monday morning.)

1. We do not exist. The world does not exist. God exists.

2. "My body is a Cage" - Arcade Fire

4. "It's a Strange World" - Kyle Mclaughlin Blue Velvet

I could go on about noting how science and the perennial philosophy seem to be coming to agreement, but I'd rather praise you for keeping Robert Anton Wilson in the forefront! All this heavy pondering needs a sense of humor and irreverence -- if David Deutsch had enlisted RAW's help on "The Fabric of Reality," amusement and giggles might have brought more readers through to the end of the book. Thanks for another wonderful, thoughtful essay.

Fascinating. Please feel free to free-range on this subject in future. You inject just a bit of philosophy into the quantum subject, which I welcome.

Separately, have you ever heard of Heim Theory? I won't get into it much here, except to say that there are some reasons, some emerging evidence to suggest that it may be valid. (For instance, the math generated by Heim Theory is the only way to calculate the mass of a subatomic particle if you know it's trajectory and velocity. Nothing in quantum physics or the standard model comes close to the same accuracy.)

Anyway, Heim Theory posits 4 dimensions in addition to the 4 that we're familiar with. And it posits that the electro-magnetic force can serve as a bridge between the two sets of dimensions. It also posits that spacetime (our 4 dimensions) is granular, ie, it comes in discrete packets somewhat larger than the Planck length. In fact, there is now some evidence to support this aspect of Heim Theory. The world's most sensitive scientific device (known as the Geo 600--there's an entry in Wikipedia), which was devised to detect gravity waves from distant exploding stars, instead has picked up a background frequency that, curiously, coincides with the frequency one would expect if spacetime were, indeed, granular.

Now, this background frequency may instead simply be interference from earthly sources. So it will take another few months for scientists to sort things out. But it certainly bears watching because if spacetime granularity is confirmed, it will surpass all other human discoveries, in my humble but possibly overexcited opinion.

Anyway, back to my speculation. If Heim Theory is confirmed, this in turn will point to something popularly (or maybe obscurely) known as the holographic universe. What in heaven's name would that be? Think of a black hole formed by a burned-out, collapsed star. Around the hole is something called an event horizon. This is the invisible threshold at which anything approaching or passing by the black hole will be captured by its powerful gravitational field. But, it turns out (as physicist Stephen Hawking recently conceded), all the "information" that had previously been thought to be lost with the collapse of the star is instead retained--albeit in quantum chaotic form--in the event horizon, which fluctuates on a quantum scale along the literally 2-dimensional spherical surface that is the horizon.

Our universe, as we perceive it, is similar. The 4-dimensional world we live in is a holographic projection of a quantum granular 2-dimensional "event horizon" that surrounds it. This event horizon, being literally 2 dimensional, lacks time. In other words, it is immortal. We, our lives, everything that has happened or will happen is contained there. Forever. Nothing is lost. (So instead of the Hindu-like reincarnation you describe, a Nietzschean "repetition of the same" may be more in order.)

That's all fine and good. But there are also practical applications. If Heim Theory is correct, it not only would quite neatly serve as the unifying theory long sought by physicists and cosmologists but it would also render interstellar space travel practical. Using the electro-magnetic force to bridge the gap between the two sets of 4 dimensions, we could traverse the light years between our sun and the next star in 80 days or less. Mars would be an overnight trip, and you could eat lunch hear on Earth and reach the Moon by dinnertime. (The greater the distance to be covered, the greater the advantage to be had trekking in a Heim spaceship.)

The funny thing is, for somewhere between $1 billion and $2 billion, Heim Theory could be tested and proved or disproved. One wonders why it hasn't. Or has it? The U.S. alone has--what?--about a $30 billion annual "black" budget. I'd be surprised if we, and perhaps others, haven't already checked it out. Could explain some UFO sightings, don't you think?

Ebert: What fascinates me is the problem--often considered in science fiction--of how you control your precise destination in space.

Primer.

Ebert: The movie?

Quantum physics seems to be the area of scientific progress that might finally begin to validate some spiritual notions rather than just outdate or humiliate them. I've always found this subject interesting and profound on whatever level I could claim to understand it; even if much of your insight comes from a Wikipedia surface, I must say you have a great handle on discussing this stuff and its proposed implications Mr.Ebert, great entry.

Here in Regina, Saskatchewan, one of the most passionate authors and experts on this subject is Rob Bryanton. He has an incredible ability to explain and relay its oddities to just about anyone through his writings, animations and personal interest; just check out this layman's simplification video he created of imagining all ten dimensions (that is, a remarkable seven beyond the three we know and understand in our everyday lives), made when faced with the theoretical 10 (maybe 11) dimensions that are thought to exist (according to string theory's most ambitious equations on our universe):

http://www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php

That multiverse idea is a whole other thing that wiggles around in my mind. The first time I learned of the concept as it applies to this discussion was from an episode of Star Trek:TNG called "Parallels" where we learn from the android commander about a theory in quantum physics where "all possibilities that can happen do happen." So ever since, as every vehicle from oncoming traffic has avoided hitting me head-on, I just count myself among the lucky ones from all the other "me"s in alternate realities that weren't.

Ebert: Not to mention all the universes in which you have never existed.

Rene Descartes told us, "I think, therefore I am." Now the problem is, what am I? And the questions that surround that are all difficult to answer? Is consciousness divisible? Can the brain be replaced? Considering the amazing odds, including the great numbers of sperm and egg in a single act of conception and the general vastness of time, how is it that I have managed to exist at all, and why now? And are there several people, each their own potential self, who have not been born at all? Is it possible that I could have never existed? In what sense do I really exist anyway? Am I just my own computer, which creates an illusion of self? Is all self really one thing? What is my life force, and what will happen to it when I die? I don't want to cease to be.

That's what's driving philosophers, and now you, to try to figure out what life is: we so need reassurance that we will not simply cease to be. And some say that it is because we are so tied to consumption: if we die, we won't enjoy any more life, experience no inventions, see new movies, collect and amass information.

We're using philosophy as a way to cheat death, because we don't want to give in to the possibility that it can't be cheated. Socrates said that if death leads to absolute nothingness, then all of eternity will be like one long night's sleep. But it doesn't seem that way when we think about it. We cannot imagine the absence of thought, because imagining is a thought process, so we imagine eternity in a state of sensory deprivation, left to the singular thought of how lonely we are.

Can we accept the idea of our own demise? Maybe some of us can't. You say you have, but I don't think you really have. You're still looking to philosophy for a way to escape it. Maybe we have to do what Nathaniel Branden says: find something we can accept and then work our way down. If we cannot accept the idea of our own death, we should accept our unwillingness to accept it.

Once again, the words of Rosencrantz, in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead.

I wouldn't think about it, if I were you. You'd only get depressed. Eternity is a terrible thought. I mean, where's it going to end?

Ebert: It is neither good nor bad, but thinking makes it so.

Primer.

Ebert: The movie?

Yes sir. Your entry this morning made sense to me. Like the film Primer made sense. I think I know what is being said. But I'm not absolutely certain. I think I believe it too. But why? Because it's something I've always felt myself. I believe that my dead parents are somewhere, everywhere. And I know that I couldn't be trusted to do only the right thing if I traveled in time.

I should preface this by saying that I'm interested (and knowledgeable) in quantum physics the same way you are, Roger. By that I mean it piques my curiosity and I will often wikipedia certain things but my true understanding of it is elementary, at best (no offense, Roger).

I think studying or learning (or attempting to learn about) quantum physics is important not because of what end goal it will give us as much as for how it can shape how our thought processes work. There's no direct practical purpose for learning quantum physics (at least at the level for which I am) but my hope is that by stretching my thought process to try to grasp it it will afford me the ability to better understand other non-quantum ideas/theories/issues. I look at it like weight-lifting for my noodle.

For example, look at one's study of geometry in high school. It offers no practical purpose for our day-to-day lives but the exercise of learning about congruent angles and theorems does help provide a wider, sturdier foundation for the way our brains work and may help in tackling other, more practical, issues that we will directly encounter ... if that makes any sense.

I just so happened to watch a pretty good PBS documentary last night entitled "The Atom Smashers" about the Tevatron collider at the Fermilab, just outside of Chicago. While I still have no idea what the Higgs Boson is (my apologies to the filmmakers), I do feel like I could, with some accuracy, now answer the question "What is a collider?" Baby steps.

That documentary is available to watch instantly on Netflix.com, if you're interested and have the time.

After reading this article I decided to post saying that you had conveyed what I had thought and it is nice to hear another voice, once again, clarify my own thoughts. But, after scrolling down far enough to make a comment and glimpsing at the other comments I forgot even what you said. Not really forgot in terms of memory but a more sublime understanding forgot.

It really is a baffling subject to try and think about. I watched the double split experiment video and it gave me a headache, and I tend to fancy myself quite astute.

I feel that the brain did not evolve to contemplate such things and so the true workings of the universe are arbitrarily out of our understanding. Though, pray the future prove me wrong as it seems to be a quasi-solipsistic position to hold.

Whoa, your entry today made everything between my ears hurt. Upon a bit of reflection, I think, first, of Ryonen's Death Poem:

Sixty-six times have these eyes beheld the
changing scene of autumn.
I have said enough about moonlight,
Ask no more.
Only listen to the voice of pines and cedars
when no wind stirs.

Then, to mind comes a favorite Zen saying:

If you are trying to aim for it,
you are turning away from it.

Finally, Roger, when you finished noodling a caption for the October 2, 2006, cartoon contest, did you read the article on string theory in The New Yorker? It's online at

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/10/02/061002crat_atlarge

I plan to take another crack at understanding that one in a future incarnation.

Roger:

Quantum mechanics! What'll you think of next? Here's what Einstein said about quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg principle: "God does not play dice with the universe."

I love that you are so fascinated with quantum theory and mechanics, with science and the philosophical questions that arise. Your reviews and journal writings about "Knowing" and "Watchmen" come to mind, too.

I've recently been discussing the more recent discoveries suggesting black holes beget other universes, based on the same governing principles of our own. The notion that each universe operates on the same principles, and thus leads to certain basic same creations like stars -- from which we come, we are all "star dust" as you know -- means that each new universe will in turn spawn black holes that act as singularities to birth new universes. Our own universe may of course (probably was?) the result of such a process in some other universe. This means that we might consider the possibility that universes exist for the "purpose" of spawning more universes, always the same principles leading to stars that lead to black holes that birth new universes.

We are part of it all, born at the heart of stars and spewed across the universe as it carries out its process of building stars only to break them down here and there, to give rise to singularities that will burst forth in a new act of cosmic creation with a new universe where the process will forever repeat. And during that process, the stuff of more life will exist and -- if probability tells us anything -- almost surely give birth to new life over and over. Within each universe, life will arise and learn and grow until it achieves the ability to look out into the stars and comprehend this amazing endless phenomenon, as part of the endless cycle that gave rise to that very life now observing the universe around it.

Life is the means by which the universe becomes capable of seeing itself, of comprehending itself, and of grasping the singular "purpose" of itself -- to replicate, to give rise to another that will follow the rules and build more stars and tear them down and build again in a new universe. It's a process sure to breed more life just as it breeds more universes. Life that will gaze and wonder and study and understand.

We are, in this natural way, the cosmic consciousness of the universe, so to speak. We are how it becomes self-aware, understands its own "purpose", which in turn perhaps is our own "purpose" -- to act as the eyes and mind of the universe, not just us but also all other life out there in our own universe and in every other universe. We are endless, timeless, for even the stars that collapse into singularities are fed by the cosmic food of our own universe in order to then reach out into a new universe. We are indeed everywhere, comprised of the dust and rules born at the moment of the Big Bang, and when we die we will return to it all once more, never destroyed but merely transformed into an eternal part of this dance.

Look up at the sky at night, and you see history. Stars long dead, only their echo of light telling an ancient story, while new existing stars have yet to reach us with their own light. The life of the stars today will play out millions of years from now as a history when their light finally reaches our eyes or the eyes of some other life forms far away from us. What we see in the night sky is our own past, the past from which we were born long ago, and when the newer light reaches down as another long-lost history, we will have already returned to it as a history ourselves.

This is the true beauty of nature and science, that we are at the pinnacle of understanding this small glimpse into the workings of reality, of perhaps a new and natural, science-based sort of "spirituality" that sees our real place as part of all of existence in an endless process building universes while the side-effect of life takes form and allows this wonderful natural creation to see its own splendor and to finally grasp its own "purpose."

Quantum theory and the intricate workings of a science that seems like magic, where all time is a single instant and also endless, where a point of existence depends on an observer, where some scientists wonder if perhaps we are actually just a sort of naturally occurring "hologram", or any number of other concepts so mind-bending, makes me smile. I love the intricacy, the chaos from which so much meaning and understanding can be derived. I don't need a God or religion, when I have something as beautiful and magical and at once devoid of human notions of "purpose" while seeming compelled by nothing short of the grandest singular purpose imaginable.

Ebert: Life apparently finds it easy to exist, but at present we are the only life form we know about that seems to know it exists.

Or can a dog or ape be said have that knowledge? And to what degree?

E=m2?

argh, i've been doing it wrong all this time!

Some of your readers (and I think you yourself) confuse reincarnation with recycling. Reincarnation involves the (supposed) rebirth of a soul; recycling merely takes the ingredients and reuses them for something else. When we die, we all go into the recycling bin. We are not reborn, we are dissembled and scattered, never to be seen again. The life defined by will accomplishes nothing. Few are so honest.

Though I find the possibility of reincarnation seductive, especially in its broader conceptions like the one you articulated, I can't help but feel it is, beyond all the quantum mechanical mysticism, an atheist's final attempt to salvage some promise of immortality.

With your larger point one can't help but agree. I, we, us, will return to a cosmic ether only to be re-instantiated as a turtle shell or the lips of a beautiful woman. The problem is that these shells and lips won't be "us" or "I" in any meaningful sense. So to foist the term "reincarnation," which literally means the resumption of a body (presumably my own), upon what is more accurately a re-materialization seems disingenuous. My identity can't reside in a tangle of quantum strings. After all, and as you said, at the quantum level notions of identity are discarded outright, replaced by fields of probabilities and energetic flux. I don't take this evacuation of identity at the quantum level to mean, however, that the existence of identity is altogether forfeited, or that what I consider "I" is simply a macroscopic misperception of a microscopic reality. Such a belief mistakenly assumes that the very very small is the privileged realm of truth, and that us more massive beings are mere illusions, byproducts of our brains inability to perceive the subatomic underpinnings of the universe.

My questions is, why should the infinitesimal and unimaginable be the window through which I attempt to understand myself? The obvious answer is: "because it is, literally, what you are made of. If you want to understand a building, you better figure out what it's built out of." I can agree with this to an extent. If I want to understand how a building stands up, or how much it weighs, or its exact height, then yes, a careful analysis of its component parts would be necessary. On the other hand, if I would prefer to understand the building's style, or its aesthetics, or the emotions it tends to generate in its occupants, then I only stray further from the truth the closer to it I get. By the same token, to consider the nature of a human by her baseline quantum nature seems to miss the point. By that standard, we are nothing more than waves of electrical activity along the folds of the spongy mass that is our brains. We're Neo in the first Matrix, entrapped in a bio-mechanical womb and induced by alien forces to dream up worlds.

To an extent I'm playing the devil's advocate here. Clearly there is a benefit to pondering the grandeur that is the subatomic universe. This benefit is as varied and indescribable as the benefits of stargazing, or listening to good music. I guess my basic point is: lets not go and relinquish our selves, in all our unique and clunky particularity, to the status of fictional constructs or macroscopic myths. Even if it is reassuring to at times remind ourselves that we're particles in a vast cosmic soup, it's more frequently reassuring to actually eat a good bowl of soup.

Problem is that in truth, quantum mechanics is quite un-visualizable. Richard Feynman always warned his students about this. Whenever we try to visualize events at the quantum level, we end up inventing some kind of metaphorical scheme, that can lead us, will we or nil we, into the Magical Mystical Land of Quantum Twaddle (yes, I'm referring to The Secret). That's why physicists developed all that scary looking math -- because it's the only adequate way to describe it without getting wacky. And I confess I never got into physics because I totally panicked over learning calculus; so I'm a Science Fan, but not a Scientist. However, Feynman himself admitted that even though he had a Nobel Prize and worked on it all the time even he couldn't say he really understood quantum mechanics.

This is probably why Einstein had such a problem with quantum mechanics. He was a visualizer more than a mathematician. If he could design a thought experiment which he could "see to himself" he could deal with the concept. But no matter how many times the quantum guys showed him the math, and no matter how many times the mathematical predictions were verified in experiment, he just couldn't accept it. At heart he was as much a classical physicist as Newton, and the randomness at the subatomic level was more than he could take. He didn't really say, "God does not play dice." He said, "You will never convince me that God plays dice." That's a very different thing.

Feynman did make a heroic effort at explaining Quantum Electrodynamics with a minimum of math in a series of lectures at the University of Auckland (NZ) in the '70s, which he later reworked into the book QED: the strange theory of light and matter. You can watch video streams of the lectures (Feynman in his prime) here:

http://www.vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8

Victor Stenger is another physicist who has written about people who over-extrapolate from particle physics into mysticism. His most recent book is called Quantum Gods.

Since I'm a teacher, I feel validated in telling my kids to use Wikipedia as a source, since a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist uses it. I just have to remind them to make citations.

Actually, there's an updated version:

"God plays dice with the universe, but quantum fluctuations that happen in Vegas stay in Vegas."

I'm working on a theory. When Roger finds a topic he would rather discuss than movies.... that topic would make a great movie.

I'm thinking about how much I liked Good Will Hunting. A math genius works as a night janitor at MIT, because he suffered greatly at the hands of his father, a mean drunk.

Matt Damon was big-boned and sensitive at the same time.... same qualities that made Jason Bourne believable.

So, there are two uber-geeks like Will Hunting. They have developed different theories for the quantum nature of the universe. Heim, string, maybe something else.

They both have to deliver papers at an international conference, and the best paper will probably win the Nobel Prize in physics. Maybe one's a girl. Maybe both are girls. Maybe one grew up in Bombay. Their life stories make Good Will Hunting's look like Daddy Warbucks.

One makes a fatal mistake. He presents his theory using 3-D... ok, maybe not.

This article started talking about science (verifiable claims) and then descnded rapidly into what could only be considered rambling. The ether as described by medieval magicians is a poor platform then to launch an argument. The connection between what has been observed by Einstein (warping of space-time due to gravity) and the medieval "ether" is dubious.

Straying from the evidence is one way to get all the pseudo-spiritualists out of the wood work, and seems to have worked remarkably well here.

Ebert: I thought it would do the trick.

This post isn't listed on the main page of rogerebert.suntimes.com. It's as if you have a web presence in two parallel universes, one where you wrote this post, one where you didn't...

Ebert: The universes just collided.

I love it. Finally definitive proof that you can gain all world knowledge by going to the movies...and visiting Wikipedia!

Ebert: I think you're rushing to a conclusion.

I admire your blog post on BlogHer, the women blogger convention. And the one on Chicago. Downtown and the lakefront are beautiful, and your hotel is right on the River Walk. But there are other delights: Greek Town, Chinatown, Devon Avenue (Indians), Hyde Park, Evanston...

Berkeley tried to prove the god exists through observance.He said there must be a god for it is because there is a god that there is such a thing as reality independent of our own observance.For god sees all therefore it exists.

try heidegger...
if you're a theist try aquinas...
if you're not try dennett.

I suppose we could attempt from the undeniables and go with a Cartesian approach.

You exceed your command as a revered film critic..don't spoil us with these blogs... we're not worthy..

on second thought.. keep'em coming.

J.C.

Oh man! My two favorite topics from Mr. Ebert in one article: theology and quantum physics! I'm just starting college and I cant wait to take classes on these.
You usually reference wikipedia when talking of quantum physics, on which other sites do you read about it?

Ebert: I just surf round. This entry was in the nature of, dare I say it, wit.

Hi Roger,

Speaking of bits. Here are some bits of comedy that are surely funny in some other dimension, though maybe not this one.

That pirate was so dumb, that he walked one Planck length along a plank and he still got lost.

Dadam-tishhh...

The defendant claimed that he's not guilty of murder because the victim is still alive in every other dimension. So, the judge told him sentenced him to freedom in all those other dimensions.

And the closer...

I was trying remember to buy a carton of milk, so I tied a quantum string around my finger. Bad move.

HIYYOOOOOOOO....

Sorry.

Omer M

This post has me wishing for a copy of "Waking Life."

I love reading your posts about these sorts of topics, since it's pretty much all I ever think about.

Are you familiar with the "quantum suicide" thought experiment? Basically, it proposes that we can never perceive our own death because we will only be conscious of the universes in which we are alive. Sometimes I think to myself how weird it is that even though other people die, I never die. Seems silly, but I think there's a disturbing sort of half-logic to it that I like.

Ebert: If we remain alive in other universes, precious lot of good that does us in this one.

I noticed a few typos during the most interesting part of your article. You must have really flown into an artist's rage of creating wild and maybe illogical arguments. Good for you, Mr. Ebert. I love mad geniuses.

Darnedest thing, Rodge, I just got off the phone from an hours long conversation with a novelist, half of it on reincarnational tales. Then I went to look at Dr. Charles Tart's site, which is devoted to this kind of thing. He's a long time "psi" researcher, new book out, THE END OF MATERIALISM. Found a lady stranger there who'd had a dream about me. Dreams would be like the quarks of the mind, using your analogy here.

PS the "ether" was a postulation by 19th C. physicists. It's not all that bad an idea; it'll probably come back in a workable form some day.

I'd make a ruling to keep this blog funner -- you already did all the 'splainin'. Your 'splainin' was a lot more entertainin' than the rest of this 'splainin' so far. Good for a round of beers, I'd say.

That leaves reincarnational stories. I'm willing to bet that Marie Haws, let loose, would have some darned good ones.

Of course we make 'em up. That doesn't mean they're not true. Quantumly speaking, even Peter Pan is true, and so are all the variations, and they all exist at once. Oops, sorry, I'm 'splainin'.

Let's see here. The trouble is picking a good one.

Well, I was a snake-handler once, is that a good one? This was back in ancient Egypt. I ... oh, wait, here's a good one. It makes a point.

I was a pyramid crew chief before that. Yup. We moved those some-ton blocks up a ramp by hand; it was fun to do and we were darned proud of it. We'd chant ourselves into a trance, see, and whooop, up the some-tons block would go just like that trick where a little group of people move a table or pick somebody up with their fingertips.

Well, one day after the job I was strolling around the big center one, all alabaster with a big marble canopy at the front entrance. I inadvertantly kicked a dried hand that was sticking out of the sand.

Oh yeh, I thought, that's one of the people who requested to be buried in the sand around the pyramid. Lots of people did. They thought it was a great honor to be buried in the sand and let their bodies turn into the ground around the pyramids. Some of my aunts and uncles were in the ground that way, I recalled. They were all around the pyramids.

Wellsir, back to the quantum here and now. A couple years after dreaming that, I picked up a copy of Atlantic Monthly. It said archaeologists had made a new discovery after all these generations -- there are bodies buried in the sand all around the pyramids.

They didn't understand what all those bodies were doing there. They decided that evil slave drivers just worked them to death and left the bodies where they lay.

I like my story a lot better, don't you? I mean, you can't just work people to death and expect to have a long civilization. Take Nazi Germany for a recent example.

Ebert: The vision of those dead hands sticking up out of the sand is surrealistic.

Although the Walt Whitman reference by Mr. MacKnight was lovely, the quote that came to my mind while reading this was Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young:

We are stardust, we are golden,
We are billion year old carbon,
And we got to get ourselves back to the garden.

Before stars existed, the only elements in the universe were hydrogen, helium, and a little bit of lithium. All the heavier elements came later; created in nuclear fire in stars that subsequently died and released their contents upon the galaxy. These chemicals, 90 percent of you by mass, and 37 percent of all the atoms in your body, are literally stardust.

(63 percent of the atoms in your body are hydrogen atoms, but because they are so light, they only make up 10 percent of your mass; hence the disconnect in the numbers.)

There's a mighty interesting documentary about Hugh Everett and his multiverse theory that ran on PBS Nova last fall -- http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/manyworlds/. The inquiry into Hugh's interpretation -- which is gaining acceptance among physicists like David Deutsch -- is led by his son, Mark Everett, leader of the rock band The Eels. Somehow the multiverses and the music and the sad search for an elusive father come together in a way that has a larger impact than the parts would suggest.

Fascinating stuff -- thanks for a nice respite from the hum-drum on an otherwise dull Monday...

A few things that made themselves known to me during the 53 year up-to-NOW journey called "my life" are:
1) Life is a process, not a destination (That one goes well with "There is no 'there' there");
2) People would rather be right than happy (I think the movie "Groundhog Day" was an "A-ha!" on grokking that one years ago);
3) The only reason to do anything is for the joy (I forget that one often, usually when I find my "self" locked in some sort of judgment loop);
and the final one... 4) I understand that I don't understand (and from "this" vantage point, never will.) But I'm working on making that OK!
Since this is all entangled in the quantum soup, #4 really comes in handy and makes #3 a very "attractive" point to recall as often as I can.

Ebert: If we remain alive in other universes, precious lot of good that does us in this one.

The importance of a theory, philosophy, belief system/religion is to the extent it effects us and the quality of life. I briefly dabbled with pure maths(I have a masters degree), practised electrical engineering and recent ten years teaching pre- modern physics. Having long since stopped being rivetted to science beyond a healthy enjoyment of the old physics I do. The fascination of science is less in the stupefying things it tells us but in the joy of using one's mind, in exercising ones faculties. as in any other fine art, like reviewing. The eureka joy is short lived compared to the preceding process.

So far as our life is concerned the earth might as well be flat and the sun go around the earth. In fact it is unless you are flying or internetting.

" Galileo, who held a scientific truth of great importance, abjured it with the greatest ease as soon as it endangered his life. In a certain sense, he did right. That truth was not worth the stake. Whether the earth or the sun revolves around the other is a matter of profound indifference. To tell the truth, it is a futile question. On the other hand, I see many people die because they judge that life is not worth living."...Camus

The question of reincarnation---rather the question of the nature of life and it's natural corollary, death----important questions because they bother us no end----is beyond the scope of present science and may remain so because science deals with observables.

Ebert: Yes, but don't physicists believe they can observe the quantum level, not with their eyes but with their minds, or their math?

The concept of quantum suicide is wondrous, fascinating, intriguing and raised all sorts of questions in my mind, right up until it dawned on me that of all the low probability ways in which I might survive unscathed in one universe while be killed in most others, there are vastly more scenarios wherein I survive, horribly maimed and disfigured and escape death into eternity at the cost of continuous maiming and disintegration until I exist one step above dust, while retaining some measure of consciousness.

I think that, whatever ones opinion about death and aging, a fate reminiscent of Tithonus is not something to hope for.

You have inspired me to commit poetry.

Copenhagen may be correct
In explaining cause and effect
Now Roger says we
Could anywhere be
But for organized intellect

I didn't say it was GOOD poetry. And remember it's your fault.

Ebert: A Haitian who went on vacation
Experienced a certain elation
When he saw a plantation
As a reincarnation
In a never-before-visited location.

If reincarnation is the case, and there are finite "incarnations", or "souls", then everyone will, over a sufficient length of time, have sex with everyone else; and this is assuming that animals don't have souls, and that, if they do, these souls can't reincarnate as humans. In my opinion, sexuality is complicated enough without reincarnation turning space-time into a massive orgy.

Ebert: It becomes a great relief to reflect that not all life forms have sex.

I dig that your blog dips into science topics so much, roger... very interesting. i am a bit of a science geek myself, and on the topic of reincarnation, i have to keep an open mind due to personal experience.

for many years growing up, i would have recurring dreams of three or four places i had never been to. each time i was at one of these "dream locales", it was very different than a typical dream (which i would describe as nebulous and slightly surreal). in these dreams, every image was highly detailed and very specific, as if i closed my eyes right now and tried to see my living room. this went on until i was in my early 30s(i'm in my mid-40s now). I should add i have never had recurring dreams except for these.

a couple of years ago, i went into a very old run-down YMCA downtown, and inside i found a very similar place to one of the locales i dreamed about (although not the same one). I had never been there or anywhere like it before. How could I have dreamed about it over and over for decades? I don't know. I have no explanation for these things... other than the remote possibility of reincarnation.

it's not scientific, but there it is anyway.

i also think that's why stewie the baby on "family guy" sounds like a 55 year-old british guy much of the time. he's still remembering his past life.

You ain't mad. You just craaazy!!

It's happened again, Roger, and I think it may be proof of parallel universes. You supposedly posted this essay at Saturday noon. I swear it did not appear on this site until Monday evening here in South Florida. If we are not in separate universes, alternately drifting together and then apart, where do they hide your blog when I cannot access it on the Sun-Times site? I still don't get it.

The model you describe sounds like classical solipsism, does it not? You posit that all of this, including me, is a product created by the transient coalescence of your mind, and that it all disappears when you dissipate into the primordial chaos.

One might think a good way to test your hypothesis would be to compare the extant world with your recollections of it after undergoing general anaesthesia. If you were not there to control it, how did it change, through random events or cause and effect? It should not change one iota if it were a product of your consciousness. The reason this test fails is that we could well be creating what we think are our memories from moment to moment. You'd have no idea how revisionist your memories are after waking up from anaesthesia. Personally, I must say general anaesthesia is very disconcerting in that one experiences not the slightest perception of anything, including the passage of time, during its effects (like you would during sleep). There is no "experience" of non-existence. You simply go from lights out to lights back on in an instant. It's like the universe itself ceased to exist during your personal time out. If that's any clue, personal death is the end of everything. There's not even a silent black void.

The concept of Planck length is certainly critical to understanding quantum physics and the "many worlds" interpretation given to it. The other major hypothesis is the "Copenhagen interpretation" formulated by Neil Bohr and Werner Heisenberg which posits that the act of observation "collapses the quantum wave" and determines reality. (Of course, the crux of the matter centers on just who is the "observer?" Your solipsistic self, some omniscience writ much larger, or a ground sentience inherent as a property of all space-time?) The science journal Nature dedicated an issue to this dichotomy two summers ago and reported that the preponderance of the scientific evidence (such as it is) and scientific consensus seems to mainly support the "many worlds" or multiverse model of reality.

The concept of Planck time is equally critical to understanding quantum physics (or at least to the delusion that one understands quantum physics). Not only the space in space-time is chunky (quantized into discrete particles, thus resulting in a smallest possible distance), but so is the time. Time also is broken down into discrete intervals below which one cannot go. Since you're a movie critic, this should be easy for you. Think of Planck time as a single frame in a movie. What might exist in between or outside of Planck time is impossible to say. It is simply the smallest moment of existence. Maybe non-existence lies outside Planck time (best guess), maybe some other kind of existence does...but we'll never know.

Maybe the moments of Planck time exist in some orderly sequence (like that film loop) and the cause and effect relationships we think we perceive represent some natural first principle, but maybe they don't. Maybe order is imposed by some emergent principle, like consciousness. We are just discovering all the pieces to this game and hardly yet know the rules.

In any case, all components of the universe, all the quanta of matter and energy--which are really just different ways of folding local bits of space-time, the "ether" or (to use a simpler metaphor) a sheet or other fabric within its putative 10 or 11 dimensions--are completely static or frozen within a given moment of Planck time. As that moment jumps or gives way to the next or to another moment of Planck time the configurations may change. In essence, the universe is completely re-created in each Planck time moment. In a perfectly deterministic universe, these changes would be utterly predictable and flow strictly from cause and effect. In our quantum universe, they are not. Rather, they are probabilistic. That is, anything can happen, but certain outcomes will be more frequent than others. Particle X in close proximity to particle Y may end up within a Planck length away from it (in any direction within the 11 dimensions!), it may not move a whit, it may move a mile, or it may suddenly reappear on the other side of the universe! Basically, the infinite (?) number of quanta in the universe may make an infinite number of moves between leaps in Planck time. This leads to an infinite number of possible outcomes. Hence, anything can happen and anything that can happen (given an infinite amount of time) will happen.

The most conventional way to think of the passage of time is, in fact, in a linear sequence. And so, the most common metaphor for understanding the "many worlds" hypothesis is to think of the universe bifurcating at the level of every quantum at the passage of each moment of Planck time. This quickly translates into a model subsuming an infinite number of universes, some differing in the position of but a single photon or sub-atomic particle, others being more different than you can possibly imagine. Any given universe will quickly blossom into an immensity of multiverses...and the process will never stop.

I know I portrayed the passage of time as sequential and orderly, which was done simply to help fathom the phenomenon. It is certainly plausible (as I think you mentioned in your essay, Roger) that all these moments in Planck time exist "concomitantly" and in some non-ordered orientation rather than sequentially. I know the word "concomitantly" presents a problem too, because it would place Planck time events in a higher order time frame. How else to suggest that timed events may exist together outside of time? If Occam's Razor has any predictive power at such levels of reality, I would prefer to think that Planck time moments are ordered in a linear sequential relationship with indeterminate bifurcations at each transition. But that could just be wishful thinking and an artifact of this existence.

There are, of course, another umpteen ways from Sunday to look at all this, and they are all a lot more fun than reciting the Baltimore Catechism.

Ebert: I posted it in the holding area Saturday, but did not publish(i.e., display) it on the top blog page until Sunday. And because of my oversight, it wasn't displayed in the right-hand column of my home page until Monday evening. So it was always in the same universe.

You end with the question,
"What reality does Everything have, apart from my thinking of it?"

Perhaps we should not be so arrogant to assume that we willfuly control and direct every moment of our thinking. The question might be more aptly phrased,
"From where do these thoughts come, that think the reality which everything has?"

And if the thought had been different, another identity, reality, another multiverse?

Hmmm.... now i need to read "Bhagavad Gita" to clear my intangible doubts

Ebert: It's the tangible doubts that get to me.

Thanks for the article, it gave me a few giggles. "The smallest known distance" doesn't sound very scientific indeed. Heck, why don't we call "The largest known distance" the Ebert length? Has a ring to it...

Ebert: Can the "longest known distance" be known? Just askin'.

I've always hoped for reincarnation. Whenever I think about what it would be like to die, I can't figure it out. If we're in ourselves, and then ourselves ceases to be us, then what happens to the "us" of us?

Mr Ebert,

I have a theory. The reason you wrote this article was to declare your sinful love for Meryl Streep and in case your wife starts asking "Why would you want to think of Meryl Streep?" you could say: "But love, there is a little bit of you and me in Meryl Streep. Didn't you read my article?".

You are so clever. :

Jim, Greece

Ebert: And to think you posted all the way from Greece with that!

Sorry, Roger. I think there's a Harrison Ford movie on TV.

Or something.

"Readers who are informed on this subject will have already stopped reading"

WOW, you were only off by one sentence! Seriously though, I do have a metaphysical view that you managed to offend

If I told you unicorns exist, but they're invisible and don't interact with any matter in any way, we have absolutely no way of detecting said unicorns because all our measurement methods rely on matter interacting with matter (such as photon on the retina or inferring the existence of a planet by the gravitational wobble it induces on a neighboring body). So the existence of non-detectable unicorns is indistinguishable from a reality in which unicorns do not exist, and the two claims are equivalent. In the same sense, saying reincarnation exists, but in a way we cannot detect, is a vacuous statement. In a related issue, you have to adopt a very liberal interpretation of "self" to argue it returns, or persists, or whatever it does, and I cannot see a difference between your argument and the idea that our constituent atoms are not destroyed but recycled back into the universe. Is this what you're spinning as reincarnation?

...and thus I've invalidated my opening

Ebert: Does everything exist somewhere, or are unicorns impossible everywhere? In a way, I'm asking if the Theory of Evolution applies in the multiverse.

If you want to see fear in the eyes of a quantum physicist, mention the word "measurement." -- Folk saying

Hell yes that's an old folk saying. This here's anuther one my ol'grandaddy larned me: "The science of astronomy is a fizzle orbited by excuses." Then 'e sucked up the last swig o' corn squeezin's, went off to his job at the observatory, tripped an' fell off a catwalk, bonked his venerable old grey head on the tellyscope an' died seein' stars.

S.M. Rana speaks truly. Still, he seems subtly to be objecting to Roger's remark, fat lot of good it does you to have all these other existences if you just wind up dying in this one.

Damn straight is what I say. Your inner core can't just be a fizzle surrounded by excuses. "Oh, I'll just go be somebody else." Bang, plop. For every Kurdt Cobain who does that, there's a Courtney left behind screeching at him all the way into the next parallel universe over. (Somebody who knew him said it's spelled "Kurdt.")

I'll add an incredulous yet true first hand observation: hard-core scientists are the most gullible individuals I've met in person when they start playing with these things. I once had chinese dinner with an astrophysicist who told me a rousing tale about how he managed to circumvent a witch's curse. Dead-eyed serious.

That's probably why so many of them are so vehement that ideas like reincarnation and such are ca-raaaaazy. That way lies madness -- for them. As Socrates said, "if you think something is, then it is." For you and anyone else who thinks something is like you do.

"Oh I DO believe in ghosts I DO believe in ghosts I DO I DO I DO believe in ghosts" (The book of Oz, Chap 6 verse 23)

Sometimes, there is trouble.

So? Where's some more reincarnation stories? I'm drumming my fingers waiting for Marie Haws to tell us a reincarnation story. I want to hear Marie's reincarnation story. I know she has more than one. Don't force me to make one up for you, Marie. I've got an imagination, and I'll use it. Many have gone their way scratching their heads.

Congratulations, Roger, you understand.

That was probably better written than I could ever do, but it summarizes my thoughts pretty well.

"I'll fly a starship across the Universe divide
And when I reach the other side
I'll find a place to rest my spirit if I can
Perhaps I may become a highwayman again
Or I may simply be a single drop of rain
But I will remain
And I'll be back again, and again and again and again and again..."

- The Highwayman, Jimmy Webb

Roger,

You either have too much time on your hands or not enough.

Ebert: That's the problem with quantum reality.

when you get right down to the bottom--under the turtles--

But, Ebert, it's turtles all the way down!

Ebert: That's what they want you to think.

I love your current blog entry about living in Paris and then Chicago.

This is what happens when you believe in matter; you need THEORIES to try and prove it. How is that not as silly as a Mormon? Otherwise you say, "Oh no, I prove it when my hand slaps the table." To which I say, you cannot validate your own parking, i.e., your hand belongs to the same order of phenomena as the table, which is therefore only a kind of circular self-reference and no proof at all.

All of nature, including human beings and the mind, is a continuous flow of transformations, and no element in this flow can really be separated from the whole. Therefore, there is actually no "Roger Ebert" as such. It is a story, the fabrication of an entity apart from other entities who are also fabrications. These are nothing more than ripples in the current, never stable and concrete for even a moment.

So the question of what happens to something that does not exist after it ceases to exist never arises for any serious consideration.

Ebert: I don't know why, but somehow your comment inspired this thought:

The difference between the posts on blog and the posts on unmoderated blogs is that this thread passes the Turing Test.

Ebert: Yes, but don't physicists believe they can observe the quantum level, not with their eyes but with their minds, or their math?

Einstein was a scientist whose only instruments were the chewed pencil stub and paper---maths is all of this variety, pure castles of the mind," caverns measureless to man down to a sunless sea". Quantum Theory, or the negligible bits of it I know, involves measurements and observations, with limits to accuracy, and is down to earth and results in objects of everyday use like electronics.

Did you hear of the notorious Fermat's Last Theorem, which defied 400 years of effort? And Go:dels Theorem which says there may be unprovable truths?

I dont know when Science is going to answer the question of death, if it regards it as a question at all....

When proselytizing the Quantum
Have Mercy on folks; do not daunt em
With thoughts of cessation;
Such anti-elation
May give em the Willies, and haunt em.

I'm just sayin'.

Ebert: Willie, a theoretical physicist,
Found himself seriously pissed.
Girls found that his quantum
Theories would daunt 'em
And poor Willie had never been kissed.

An important question is, "Why should manifested life at different stages of evolution emerge out of the Absolute Reality which is infinite?" The answer is that manifested life arises out of the impetus in the Absolute to become conscious of itself.

- Meher Baba

Paraphrasing the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, upon which all quantum mechanics is based: At the quantum level you can measure a particles position exactly or its momentum exactly, but you cannot measure both simultaneously.
I have my own personal Uncertainty Principle based on my observation of people: You can know who you are, or you can know where you're going, but you cannot know both.

Which is my way of saying self awareness and ambition are usually mutually exclusive.

'Reincarnation' is a word that is used in terms of people, not particles.

Recycle would be a closer word while talking about quantum mechanics I think. Reincarnation through quantum mechanics is a meaningless question.

Also, Ether was a lazy attempt to explain the propagation of light in space, because Aristotle thought it required a medium. The Michelson-Morley experiment debunked Ether and that paved way for the large scale acceptance of Einstein's Relativity.

"Once a measurement is done, the measured system becomes entangled with both the physicist who measured it and a huge number of other particles, some of which are photons flying away towards the other end of the universe; in order to prove that the wave function did not collapse one would have to bring all these particles back and measure them again, together with the system that was measured originally. This is completely impractical, but even if one could theoretically do this, it would destroy any evidence that the original measurement took place (including the physicist's memory)."

This is a vague dig at the method behind measurement. In almost all kinds of measurement, the margin of error for human mistakes and random fluctuations is taken into account.

Robert Anton Wilson has a point when he says science is as much a study of how the human mind works as it is about the universe. But if that is followed by throwing your hands up in the air and saying the universe is fundamentally beyond our understanding, then that would be no better than theology or religion.

Humans have built remarkable technologies and many of them, including the light switch we throw on every day casually, came through theory first. The edifice of science is not merely a perception. It actually exists.

Three comments:

(1) Regarding the Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young lyrics referenced above, the song Woodstock was actually written by Joni Mitchell.

(2) By your theory, we can be and have been reincarnated into anything at all: suns, moons, rain, or a lockwasher in a toilet in San Bernadino. But that charming idea won't prevent people from continuing to insist that they are reincarnated from an ancient warrior king or nubian princess. Funny how nobody was ever the lockwasher.

(3) Woody Allen's greatest fear about reincarnation: "Does that mean I have to sit through the Ice Capades again?"

A student once came to the Buddha asking for the secrets of the origin and nature of the universe - things that quantum mechanics and string theory are attempting to discern, and that man used to look to religion and the priests to explain.

The Buddha's response was to angrily chastise the student. He told him not to bother, that such concerns were unproductive and only caused the formation of more attachments, and that following his path and ending his own suffering was all that mattered.

Your posting brought this story to mind, but I'm not sure why.

Ebert: It becomes a great relief to reflect that not all life forms have sex.

So you know my wife, Roger?

Ebert wrote: Can the "longest known distance" be known? Just askin'.

I think it's the distance between "here" and "are we there yet?" as asked by impatience from the back seat of the family car. :)

And I have a question for you:

What would you do next, if you had the answer to life's mysteries?

Ebert: Write an entry. It might be very short.

My only comment is to provide you with two book recommendations, both brilliantly written for the curious layman:

(1) "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene, theoretical physicist and string theorist at Columbia University. This book provides an overview of classical physics, Einstein's theory of general relativity, and quantum physics, and the essential problem of reconciling the deterministic physics of the macroscopic world with the probabilistic physics of the quantum world, proposing string theory as a solution. What makes this book so enjoyable is the simple but brilliant analogies Greene uses to make the world of physics astonishingly accessible.

(2) "I Am A Strange Loop" by Douglas Hofstadter, College of Arts and Sciences Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science at Indiana University in Bloomington and Pulitzer Prize-winning author. This book focuses and refines the ideas of Hofstadter's more famous and prize-winning "Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid", and explains how consciousness and cognition can arise from complex self-referential systems - in essence, how a "self" can arise from something so "selfless" as a collection of neurons. The analogies used by Hofstadter in making his arguments are among the best and most illuminating I have ever read.

Both of these books will intrigue those curious about the nature of reality, not only the reality in which we live but also the reality through which we perceive reality itself.

You discuss quantum physics in relation to the concept of reincarnation. I also have recently discussed a naturalistic notion of immortality or at least reincarnation, assuming one theory of the ultimate fate of the universe is true. My thoughts on this matter I will reprint here.

I've been in a cosmic mood lately and one thing that has been on my mind is the ultimate fate of both the universe at large and our own planet. What is to become of the both of them many eons into the future? As expected, when I tried reading up on preliminary sources dealing with the 'end' of the universe (if there even is an end), I see that there are speculated theories of what might happen, rather than concrete conclusions. In contrast with the origin of the universe, on which the whole idea of the 'Big Bang' is, despite a handful of unresolved technical details, pretty much scientific orthodoxy.

Regarding the universe at large, I see there's a few main ideas of what will happen, listed conveniently at the Wikipedia entry. One is an ultimate heat death, where eventually the continued expansion results in a universe too cold, and relatedly where entropy reaches a maximum. According to that page, heat death apparently is the most commonly accepted fate of the universe in the scientific community (no citation for that.) Nevertheless, even this idea depends on a couple of important details--the nature of dark energy, and what exactly the geometry of the cosmos is. And, at present, we haven't completely figured out either of those, have we?

There's also the concept of the 'big crunch,' a reverse big bang where the universe collapses on itself. If the big crunch was true, there's the associated idea of the oscillating universe with endless repetitions of big bangs and big crunches, basically a reset-button to the universe every set billions of years. But what if there's just one cycle? What if there was one big bang, and there will only be one big crunch, and then it's all over? What data is there to suggest one or the other, if the big crunch theory turned out to be true? However, as the above page notes, apparently the universe is not a closed system, so this idea is not taken so seriously. But is that still, or will it remain with new discoveries, the consensus?

And then there's the idea of the multiverse. This concept still leaves me confused and apparently there might possibly be indications of this possibility from quantum physics/string theory/whatever else that is not yet fully understood, but at this point is nothing more than pure speculation, even more so than the other concepts.

I guess it's not prudent to ask which one is most likely, since it appears that we don't really know yet, but hopefully we will in the future when our understanding of dark energy, quantum mechanics, gravity, etc. is more complete.

However, what about the ultimate fate of our home planet, Earth? Is there at least a more solid theory for what will happen to it?

From what I see, there are I suppose two main ideas floating. One is that when the sun expands and dies out as it inevitably will in the distant future, it will swallow up the planet. However, other measurements seem to indicate the orbit of the planet will escape being engulfed by the sun. If that's the case, then the planet will ultimately just be a cold rock flaoting along in space forever? But then yet again, I read elsewhere that the planet's orbit will decay with the continuing story of the sun's lifetime, so maybe it won't escape being devoured. Yet again, no concrete idea of what will actually be the planet's ultimate fate. Even so, eventually the fate of the planet is tied with that of the universe. For instance, if it turns out there will be a Big Crunch after all, then the planet would have ended up in the cosmic smash anyway.

So, in the absence of an absolsute, definitive cold-facts-science answer to the question, maybe I'll address the value angle: which fate would you personally like to have happen?

Well, it's not like it will matter to any of us in any way. We will be gone long, long before the universe and Earth ends up doing whatever it is going to do. But I'm personally amused by the idea of an osciallting universe--a cosmos that cycles through itself, over and over again into infinity. Does that mean that *all possible combinations* of atoms and planets and galaxies and lifeforms and everything in between would be played out on the stage of reality? If the universe resets and assumes a new form each and every time, and will do that cycle forever and ever, why not? Could it be that you and I sitting here right now, will be in the same place again, perhaps after a few more billions of new universe cycles? We were perhaps also sitting where we are right now many versions of the universe ago? If this combination of matter occurred once, in this iteration of the universe, maybe it can occur again, if the cosmos is a neverending story of its own. In "Unweaving the Rainbow," Richard Dawkins laments for the countless number of possible human beings who will never be born. In an oscillating universe, perhaps they, too, will eventually see the light of day? Well, even if it's not really true, it's a cool idea at least.

Ah yes, the double slit experiment. That experiment reminds me of the play "Copenhagen," by Michael Frayn, which is about the meeting between Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg during WWII. It uses Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (the more sure you are about one physical attribute of a microscopic particle, like its velocity, the less sure you can be about another property, like its position--thanks, Wikipedia!), as a parallel to Heisenberg and Bohr's uncertainty about what it was that they talked about at that meeting. At the time, Heisenberg was trying to construct the atomic bomb for Germany, so many people think that is what they talked about, but no one is sure. By being at the center of their universes, however, it becomes impossible for either scientist to observe themselves during that meeting, though the play chronicles their attempts to know what, in fact, is impossible to know with any certainty. Again, being certain of one part of Heisenberg's visit to Bohr makes them less certain about another part, and trying to observe their former selves changes their views on what the purpose of the visit was (much like the electron changes its behavior when going through the two slits, depending on whether or not its position in space is observed). It's a great play, which I would recommend anyone to see, even if you don't care for quantum mechanics.

As for reincarnation, your blog reminded me of something I saw on TV once, where a scientist said (and I'm quoting from memory), "We are all connected to each other on a biological level, to the earth on a geological level, and to the universe on an atomic level. All of the atoms that make up our bodies came from stardust." Therefore, we are all things at all times, and are connected to all things at all times, which I think is what lies at the core of quantum mechanics, and what makes it difficult (if not impossible) to measure results in that discipline, for how does one measure infinity and eternity?

I don't know which makes me cringe more, a quantum video that is just hand-waving malarky, or one that is so close to being accurate but then gets subtly misleading. *SIGH*

I don't want to contribute to the popular misunderstanding of quantum, but physicists can now actually detect things in the "other worlds". That's right, we can detect things not as they are but as they might have been. Don't get too excited, it hasn't gone beyond very small systems.

As for reincarnation, when I was in college I used to have a little harmless fun with people who believed in such things. When one friend said he was the reincarnation of a Roman general, I pointed out that there are more people alive today than have ever been alive before, so maybe I was one of the new ones. (Later I learned that I was mistaken, there have been more people than there are now, but the point still stands.) Another friend thought she had been some ancient egyptian woman, I suggested that maybe I had been that very same ancient egyptian woman too, but my friend thought that was silly. But why couldn't a soul go backward in what we think of as time? Why couldn't I be the reincarnation of some future scientist? Or dolphin? Or nebula? Or theorem? I mean if there's no evidence involved, why stick to stodgy old prejudices?

Ebert: Why have so few people been wretched insignificant beings?

I like the thought of everything being made of irreducibly small Lego bits which assemble and reassemble madly. Why not?

I also like what the Buddha said once to somebody who asked him what happens to the individual after death. He said "Picture the shadow cast by a palm tree in the sun. Now cut down the palm tree. And cut it into logs. And split the logs into kindling. And burn the kindling to ashes. And lastly, scatter the ashes in the wind. Now -- where is the shadow of the palm tree?" Sounds about right.

(switching gears to a different perspective on mortality)

I know you liked the Hurt Locker. I didn't, because I thought (in addition to some crucial false notes on a storytelling level, which I won't go into here) it was basically a fluff job for war -- y'know, the "rewards" of combat (brotherhood in arms), the "home" that killing provides for those who live off the adrenaline rush. Yawn. Seen that a gazillion times. But what about war from the perspective of the Iraqi war victims described below? I don't think Kathryn Bigelow could get hollywood money for that film, even though it would be 20x as vital, and the part about how the war continues at home, just against different targets, would really expand the frame of reference into the territory of "interesting". Tarantino can get money for a film that shows Nazi-scalpin' and Nazi baseball-battin' ... because that's a well-worn groove of good and bad (us = good, nazis = bad). But could he get money to show modern-day Americans acting like this? It's his level of bloody imagery exactly.

http://firedoglake.com/2009/07/27/you-came-too-close-we-lit-you-up-%E2%80%93-the-lethal-warriors-come-home/

One of the things I found most fascinating in physics is the impossibility of detecting uniform motion---if you are inside an airliner moving steadily(uniform speed) there is no way absolutely, known or unknown to tell whether it is moving or not. In the words of relativity, laws of nature are the same in all inertial frames.

A commentator beautifully expressed this as follows: it is as though there is a conspiracy of nature to prevent us from detecting uniform motion. In a brilliant leap of insight Einstein concluded that a conspiracy of nature is a law of nature.

Just talkin' through the hat , I sometimes thought perhaps there is a conspiracy( aka law) to prevent science from discovering the nature of death....yet a question of great importance in a practical sense....perhaps we have undiscovered, untapped reservoirs of the mind...

I thought I had something to say, but when I analyzed it, it was gone.

Ebert: I nominate that as a caption for New Yorker contest #202.

Niels Bohr once remarked the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth. Here are two examples.

L. Ron Hubbard states "it has been in scientology that the mechanics of death have been thoroughly understood. The Thetan(spirit) finds itself floating free after the body dies, So kinda like Azazel in "Fallen," thetans "will hang around people" -pregnant women specifically. When she delivers, they slip into the newborn once it takes its first breath.

Dr. Gene Ray, the renown time cube theorist, notes "there is absolute proof that You are a personified pyramid."

So take that you thetanistic King Tut.

Ok, longest known distance. I realize that that comment came from a place of humor, but there is a simple answer to the longest known distance. Its really not the longest "known" distance, but the longest "possible" distance. The longest possible distance is the distance that light could have travelled since the beginning of time at the Big Bang. The Big Bang occured 13.7 billion years ago, so light could have travelled 13.7 billion light-years in that time. Thus, the longest possible distance is 13.7 billion light-years.

Now, this part may rock your world. Point in a single direction, in that direction is a part of the Universe that you can see that is 13.7 billion light-years away. If you point in exactly the opposite direction in the sky, there is also a point 13.7 billion light years away that you can see. Call these points A and B. While WE can see each point A and point B, points A and B cannot see or detect each other since they are 27.4 billion light years away from each other, and light cannot have traveled that far yet. Pretty neat, huh? We can see parts of the Universe that cannot see each other!

Well, thats all for now,

Your friend in Astronomy,

Miles Blanton
Department of Physics & Astronomy
Bowling Green State University

Ebert: So...the longest possible distance is 27.4 billion light years?

I'm not sure how accurate it is, but, regardless, I discovered this video about a year ago and found it awfully fascinating. From what I understand, it's from a picture book explaining string theory for children. Go figure.

Enjoy.

http://www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php

So basically...

Dust to dust,
All in a moment had.

Except...who really has that moment? Within what parameters, concepts, does a moment exist? Can anything really exist? And who really cares? By caring are we existing? Or do we exist to be able to care? (and why are you making me think about this while writing a memo? Thanks)

One more thing,

Marie Haws: What would you do next, if you had the answer to life's mysteries?

Ebert: Write an entry. It might be very short.

Let me guess...a Planck length short?

Ebert: Longer than that. I'm too wordy.

Is it possible you just like "The Watchmen" too much, Roger, and this article came from your wanting to believe that we could actually become quantum supermen? I admit, The instant teleportation element of quantum theory thrills me, too.

I prefer to think of these matters thusly: If you are traveling down the road in your car one day and suddenly you see a flash of shadow on the road from a bird flying overhead then you experienced an event your life. Now this particular event can either be the most meanlingless event in your life or the most meaningful event in your life. To someone with an understanding of Zen or quantum mechanics it can be both.

Fifteen or so years ago, a real physicist, Frank J. Tipler, wrote a book titled "The Physics of Immortality," in which he combined a now discredited cosmological supposition (a "closed" universe) with a lot a circular reasoning and a love for really really really big numbers to prove that we would all be resurrected in the far future by future beings because they had unlimited energy to work with and because they >>could

I guess the ultimate question (a philosophical one) is: If someone who isn't you >>thinks

Fun to speculate, but quantum physics is like immunology (or investing the stock market): the more you read about it, the less you know.

Mr Ebert,

I have a theory. The reason you wrote this article was to declare your sinful love for Meryl Streep and in case your wife starts asking "Why would you want to think of Meryl Streep?" you could say: "But love, there is a little bit of you and me in Meryl Streep. Didn't you read my article?".

You are so clever. :

Jim, Greece

Ebert: And to think you posted all the way from Greece with that!

...If only there could be a little Meryl Streep in all of us!

Best comment so far.

Ebert: Why have so few people been wretched insignificant beings?

Because that's only recently become popular, Roger. Everybody was pretty much fine until some started reincarnating as critics.

?

Perception doesn't hold our bits together, to dissipate once perception ceases. Our bits coming together is what creates perception in the first place, and their gradual re-dissolution is what ends it.

Well, hell, this post didn't show up on my computer until Tuesday! I obviously live in a slacker universe that refuses to fill its potential and sits around watching "Quark Split--The ULITMATE Reality Show!!!!!" all day. Stupid fat lazy universe!

Many books floated to mind while reading this post: As She Climbed Across The Table, Sophie's World, and Bill Bryson's A Brief History Of Almost Everything. I've actually been re-re-reading that one and am constantly fascinated by the notion that my atoms were stars, than this, than that, now me, and then what?

I also thought of the Book of Job, to which my mind returns constantly when dealing with the Inablility To Comprehend It All. God's statement to Job, essentially--that it all makes perfect sense, you just will never be able to comprehend it--I find oddly comforting for some reason. Not that you shouldn't try, just quit thinking that because you are utterly unique in creation, that somehow affords you unique privelege of understanding.

It all so tantalizingly, hypnotically, spellbindingly almost makes sense--if only I were a mathamatician or physicist or....and than it slips away again, it can't hold its postion and display its properties.

“I am convinced of the afterlife, independent of theology. If the world is rationally constructed, there must be an afterlife."..Kurt Go:del, Austrian American logician

Me: When proselytizing the Quantum
Have Mercy on folks; do not daunt em
With thoughts of cessation;
Such anti-elation
May give em the Willies, and haunt em.

Ebert: Willie, a theoretical physicist,
Found himself seriously pissed.
Girls found that his quantum
Theories would daunt 'em
And poor Willie had never been kissed.

Me again:

Now, Physics, so often subversy,
And labrynthine, and discursy,
Saw Willie unfetter
His cherry--he's better
Now that, at long last, he's had Mercy.

Her full name is Mercy FuQuesne Uff-Needinerds. She is one Hot Quantumama!

Ebert: Mercy FuQuesne Uff-Needinerds
And Willie eventually had words
And came to blows
When she stomped on his toes
And vowed she was off to love Kurds.

There's one thing I know and that is that the world has a rhythm of 145 beats per minute. That has got to yield something. If we had eyes all over the universe and notice all these things happening at exactly the same time, we should get a better idea of this giant mechanism. I'm telling you the world has an exact rhythm or beat. Animals breathe on beat, lightning strikes on beat, even thunder sounds on beat. I saw a beautiful flying star yesterday that I bet revealed itself right on that beat. The world works according to the great drum. Everything does not sit still. It always is moving and movement starts from an exact rhythm. I mean everything. The world is moving as if it were a great drum; the world performs its function--the world, like a drum boom, boom, booms--on every beat--a function; at 145 beats per minute the world is shaking about one time a second. So, to me the questioning goes:

Why does everything move--everything--at exactly the same time?

To give an example of this: I'm not sure the rate at which stars die, but let's say a million stars die per day. When things happen at the same time, I mean that when one star dies a thousand others die at EXACTLY the same time. The big bang started on this beat, and when I said world's are shaking about once a second--if you this 145 beats a minute beat--things were being created as if on a drum beat at that time. And this goes to the small stuff too, when a sunspot forms, a thousand sunspot form at exactly the same time with other stars. Even smaller: when a dog barks, a thousand dogs are barking at exactly the same time. We're a part of a great drum. We, seemingly were all part of one small little singularity, which seems to be having less and less significance with every new beat of that drum--around once a second--yet, things must move, it appears. Movement on an exact rhythm is the one thing that MUST happen. If the world must die in fire and ice there will always be a flicker of the flame or a crackling of the ice happening at an exact time singing together in defiance. Space must move and it moves together.

Imagine--since space moves together--what it must look like: one small sphere--enough to hold all we see--that moves in sync in spheres. It releases one sphere and another and another seemingly until eternity and they all move together but keep adding another sphere. Each new sphere seems to be further than the next one, but all moving together. I think the world may be an elaborate game of back and forth. As Newton said, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I don't know, but maybe where the quantum physics comes in is that it makes sure everything falls into place. It is connected to everything to make sure that no matter what we do, the universe keeps talking to itself and doing what it needs to do. So, this quantum physics could be our little janitor. When we do something so small and insignificant it goes around and tells everyone else to adjust, and then maybe one day it happens all over again. Maybe the janitor does most of its work down here on earth where free will and randomness are king.

Sonja: Judgment of any system, or a priori relationship or phenomenon exists in an irrational, or metaphysical, or at least epistemological contradiction to an abstract empirical concept such as being, or to be, or to occur in the thing itself, or of the thing itself.

Boris: Yes, I've said that many times.

From "Love and Death", Woody Allen

Although I generally agree with your metaphysical musings (I share many of your views) I think your conclusions here are inherently flawed. Like those who believed that the universe revolved around the earth, or that mankind is the "reason" for evolution, you've fallen prey to the "human-centric" fallacy. You say, "You assemble your bits, I assemble mine." So long as we continue to see human beings as the center of the equation, I think we are looking at the problem from the wrong direction. It would be more correct to say, "our bits assembled in such a way that they resulted in consciousness (caused not, I might add, by any larger intent, but by millions of small "intents" on the part of DNA)." I wouldn't for a minute claim that my in vitro soul "assembled" the parts of my body with any particular result in mind. Rather, my consciousness is the result (one of many possibilities) of the long line of causality that led to my existence. To quote Richard Dawkins in "Unweaving the Rainbow":

"We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds, it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here. . . . We privileged few who won the lottery of birth against all odds, how dare we whine at our inevitable return to that prior state from which the vast majority have never stirred?"

There are numerous books written on the subject of quantum physics and Eastern religion. Two that I remember reading are "Tao of Physics" and "Dancing Wu Li Masters." Your essay reminds me of them.

Our understanding of reality at this level is at best incomplete. Sub-atomic particles are observed and proven to exist, but at this point things like branes, superstrings, and the multiverse are no more than self-consistent mathematical exercises. The abstract, mysterious gaps in our knowledge about the physical world encourage all sorts of half-baked dorm-room philosophy.

But it is true that when I die, my atoms will spread out over the world and eventually be incorporated into many different things: dirt, plants, animals, the air, the oceans. And if that's not spiritual I don't know what is.

Descartes, Heisenberg and Ebert walk into a bar and order drinks.

After they empty their glasses, the bartender comes over and asks them if they would like another round. Descartes ponders this for a moment and replies "I think not"-- then disappears.

The bartender, obviously shocked, turns to Heisenberg and says, "Did you see that???"

Heisenberg pauses to consider, then replies, "I'm uncertain."

Ebert, having done a quantum of research recently on Wikipedia, turns to Heisenberg and whispers, "He's only a Plank's length away, and is rather Cartesian about his expense account. Not to worry." Then he says to the bartender, "This round's on me!"

At this point they all see and hear Decartes again saying, "On second thought..."

Echoing Andrew above, "E=m2?" WTF?!? Perhaps you'd care to change that to E=mc², Roger...

Interesting, your comments about time.

Time, I have concluded, is nothing at all as we see it. It twists and coils back upon itself like a snake. I think that was what Chagall was trying to tell us in his painting, "Time is a River Without Banks..."

A couple of people have mentioned stories about the Buddha. Here's one I heard from an astronomy professor:

The Buddha appeared before a teacher and his students, saying that he was so pleased by the students' wisdom and virtue that he would answer a single question. The students conferred, then one of them spoke for all.

"O great Buddha, where does the world end?"

The Buddha sat silently. The students waited patiently all day, but the Buddha did not stir nor speak. Days passed, and one by one the students rose and walked away, some dejected and some thoughtful. When the last of the students had departed, the Buddha turned to the teacher.

"I didn't want to admit it in front of your pupils, but I don't know where the world ends."

Roger,I love you.I realize I don't tell you often enough so just catching up.May we please have a journal post about when we were young ..I just had dinner with a best friend from grade school and her granddaughter..I need memories of my yout..as mentioned above..I love you Roger.

Miles Blanton: "The longest possible distance is the distance that light could have travelled since the beginning of time at the Big Bang."

So you don't subscribe to the theory of inflation? What you describe is the farthest we can see right now, but there could be things much farther away. There could be an astronomer there who can see just as far in the other direction, and maybe another...

I've never been entirely clear on the reasons for the theory, but it's made some predictions that have been verified, and from what I hear it's pretty well accepted.

While I was reading, for some reason, the "Force" and even the idea of "The Matrix" came to mind, even though they arent really related to what youre talking about. lol.

When talking about reincarnation, of course relgious/spiritual beliefs can arise, as well as the scientific theories and truths. Everything is made up of something (matter, i guess). When a person or animal dies...they become "dust" and particles of matter again. They return to the air that originally created them and the woman that birthed them. It's a cycle. recycling matter, but now with new material so to speak. Oh, how scary it is that Im possibly breathing in particles of a dead body...

Our physcial selves, when we die, decay and return to the Earth, from which life of this planet, originated on. However, this planet, like everything else in space, was created and is consisted of the particles that helped build us, even though we can't see them. As for our "self", the personality that is created, that might be a whole spiritual, dimensional existance, not from this planet. I say "this" planet, as I mean Earth shouldn't be the main focus of this discussion.

We are talking about our physcial self, our bodies, and our spiritual selfs, who we are as a person. Our spiritual self possibly returns to space and into the realm, from which that was created. Is there spiritual matter/particles? Does that return to the air on Earth, as well as the physcial aspects of us?

For example, I was on a trip, recently and I got to see a man that looked and sounded, pretty damn much EXACTLY like John Denver. It was scary to see, because he couldve been John Denver re-incarnated or a long, lost twin for all I know. Now, here's a question...how much of US, physcially and spiritually return to the air, from which we were created in? Is it possible that reincarnation is not the supposed embodied personality of a "self" onto another living, breathing human being? How much of us are born with someone else inside us, basically and how much of US is just us and nothing recycled? We are all part of a system. our reality Matrix. Everything has its reasons and purpose. Everything is everywhere.

When someone brilliant, like Einstein dies...is he really gone or is he scattered around for others to enhale his brilliance? Was Einstein composed of briliance from others, before he was born? The matter floating around us, apparently is not really all the same...we "enhale" all sorts of matter and it meshes to create a hybrid of sorts. Maybe there is no unique individual, in that we are collages of others. When we die...do we leave this planet or even, dimension, at all?

It makes you wonder about what makes us, physically and spiritually, could apply to other beings on other, far away planets and possible, dimensions. Whose not to say that Earth is just a start of a journey that could continue for an infinity into time and space.

Ebert: My opinion: When we die, what we think of as ourselves is gone for good.

I feel dumb, dumb, dumb. Why would you do this, Roger, why? I'm 23, and after reading this blog post of yours (twice), I feel I've already lost too much time in life to begin to grapple with its awesomely sublime mystery.

Ebert: Just so you think it's awesomely sublime, that's all I ask.

chris supplied a quote from the book that was cited:

"We privileged few who won the lottery of birth against all odds, how dare we whine at our inevitable return to that prior state from which the vast majority have never stirred?"

Dawkins is right about our beating the odds, but I think he misses the point about our fears of death. Maybe we have stirred from that oblivion and all those who will never be born will not have that chance. But since they will forever remain in that oblivion, they have never, nor will they ever know what it's like to be alive and be forcibly confronted with the inevitability of our demise. For not only must we endure the deaths of those around us, we will ultimately fall to the same fate. Programmed as we our by evolution to flee all threats to our live and to cling ever so strongly to the continuation of life, it's only natural our common reaction to the concept of death. This is a compassion that Dawkins seems to lack.

"Off to love Kurds"?! No Whey!

:o)

Thanks for the fun. I concede.

Roger,
Thank you for dragging my mind out of the mundane.

These are all original:

A lay reader took models quite literally
When Greene explained that stuff may be
Strings, he thought “cotton”
And if wet why all oughtn’t
shrink ‘stead of grow, universally

How does a particle know
Which of its faces to show
Like one slit when tested
Like two unmolested
I guess we just go with the flow

The multiverse theory’s a hook
To explain in less than a book
Why a blip is so smart and all
To be wave and a particle
And to weirdly pick sides when we look

Ebert: Nice.

So, mon ami Gaël, how did you have UPenn friends? Did you go there before your year's stay in Chicago, or did you just happen to find some UPenn alumni in Chicago? Went there myself, W '85, thus the curiosity...

How I rationalize the Planck length:

"A crumb is a great thing: If you break a crumb in half you don't get two half-crumbs, you get two crumbs. Doesn't that violate some law of physics?"

-George Carlin

Roger, would you like to toss around a baseball this afternoon? It's perfectly symmetrical and can be in two places at once.

"The boy didn't know if he understood or not. The old man went on to say that the hunter was a different thing than men supposed. He said that men believe the blood of the slain to be of no consequence but that the wolf knows better. He said that the wolf is a being of great order and that it knows what men do not: that there is no order in the word save that which death has put there. Finally he said that if men drink the blood of God yet do not understand the seriousness of what they do. He said that men wish to be serious but they do not understand how to be so. Between their acts and their ceremonies lies the world and in this world the storms blow and the trees twist in the wind and all the animals that God has made go to and fro yet this world men do not see. They see the acts of their own hands or they see that which they name and call out to one another but the world between is invisible to them."

Cormac McCarthy - 1994 - "The Crossing"

I suppose I agree that reincarnation is scientifically possible, but as you mentioned, it doesn't do us much good. I think I'd rather not have to deal with the loss of self in the first place, but I don't think the universe bothered to ask me. The thought that I didn't ever really exist as a separate entity to begin with beyond our perception of reality isn't much of a comfort either. It may be a mere perception of self, but it's all I've got.

This talk of reincarnation reminds me of a long-standing gripe of mine: that those who truly believe in reincarnation never seem to have been anything less than epic in past lives. Always noble knights, courtesans, Greek philosophers, goodly (!) pirates with a robin-hood streak....When was the last time you heard someone say he was a one-legged cobbler or an embezzling banker or a guy with down syndrome in a former life?

Hi Roger.

Wow. My mind is blown. In a good way, of course. Fascinating.

On the other hand, I'm feeling particularly solid and three-dimensional today. Am I deluded?

Randy

Well, to respond to your response about the longest possible distance. Technically any length is a "possible" length, I guess I meant the longest meaningful length. Since the points A and B of my example cannot possibly observe one another or have communicated at anytime during the history of the Universe, they are farther apart than any meaningful distance. However, the longest meaningful distance is then 13.7 billion light-years that I mentioned in the first part of my comment. That, of course, is only theoretically meaningful since we can only actually see to 13.7 billion light-years and no farther, yet. As time goes on the size of that visible horizon will get bigger, so at the end of our lives the visible horizon will not be 13,700,000,000 light-years but about 13,700,000,100 light-years.

Any questions :)

Miles Blanton

?

Okay, I got it.

I only think I am, who I am, because I am, a step closer to Meryl Streep.

Also, take for example that fourteen inch length of oak trim.
It is 2" x 14". I need to cut off a 4 inch piece. So I cut it,so now I have a 10 inch piece,and a 4inch piece.
Well what the hell is that pile of sawdust left from the cutting? Where did that come from?

A very sweet note from your friend Karin, Roger. Wouldn't a journal of memories from 1878 be even more nostalgic, though?

There's a school of thought that says famous people have lived a whole lot of really ordinary lives; how else could they relate to so many ordinary people in one big career if they hadn't?

S.M. Rana is certainly providing some wonderful comments. Einstein and his pencil stub. I have noticed that those brought up Hindu don't talk much about reincarnation, however, compared to their American counterparts who blab -- not even about having been a king, either. What's up with that, S.M. Rana? And you will remember Xeno's paradox?

I tried Descartes' experiment once. I found a lightless soundless closet in the theater at my college. "I guess I can think that, too," was my only contribution to his research. Yet it may become important to know in the 24th C, if we're going to have one of those.

The universe a mere 24.7 billion light years from center to edge? I'm claustrophobic already. Not nearly enough space to spend eternity. I've been 23.92837B light years and have already used up my frequent flyer miles.

Dawkins speaks wisdom, we're lucky he won't be around forever.

Keith, I thought the World Beat was 120 bpm. It's hard to dance to 145, except like the pogo.

Marie, I was only a court pissboy in those days, and I am sorry about the wig. Our love was not only ill-starred, it was dangerous to my career. Count DuRapier was more your type anyhow (Sorry to spill the beans, Keith. I knew your arguing had something more in the background than just men dominating everything).

Anyway. Dr. Charles T. Tart. Not like I'm shilling for him, but his anthology of essays on consciousness, which I read 35 years ago, and his latest book, attempting to make bridges between spirituality and science, is someone worth knowing about:

http://blog.paradigm-sys.com/archives/category/why

I have no memory, therefore I am reborn. ;) Wouldn't this be the parallel universe of "I think, therefore I am"?

"Ebert: So...the longest possible distance is 27.4 billion light years?"

I think Professor Blanton erred in his assertion that 13.7 billion light years is the longest POSSIBLE distance, though his reasoning is to the point. The 13.7 BLY figure is the longest REALISED distance light could have traveled since the Big Bang. Expansion of the universe continues, so this number is ever increasing. There seems no limit on the longest POSSIBLE distance, as long as the universe keeps expanding, which the astrophysicists now say is the preferred model.

Furthermore, let me state that Professor Blanton's 13.7 BLY figure represents the longest realised distance that could (in theory if not practice) be KNOWN (with the two ends in communication), while your figure of 27.4 BLY is the longest realised distance that could be predicted (with the two ends communicating with the center, but not each other). This is so because all communication is constrained by the speed of light, as the professor made clear.

I realise a lot of this is semantics.

By Jen S. on July 28, 2009 12:37 PM

Many books floated to mind while reading this post: As She Climbed Across The Table,...

Now that's why I keep coming back! Where else can I get allusions to Jonathan Lethem titles (although I prefer Gun, with Occasional Music, Motherless Brooklyn and Fortress of Solitude myself).

I love your definition of "self" as a sort of quantum organizing principle: Intelligence choreographing chaos into delightful dancing patterns. As others have mentioned, very little of the actual matter that makes up our bodies has been a part of us since we were born. The individual particles cycle in and out - it's only the pattern that endures as anything recognizable.

Of course, even the pattern itself is suspect: You float a bit of your "Roger" pattern on the internet ether almost every day. It bumps into thousands of other patterns, breaking chunks off of some, which then bounce around and maybe even make their way back to you in unexpected ways, until all the patterns are a bit different than they were before. I don’t know about you but sometimes I wonder how much of my urge to write stems from the same endless fascination I’ve had since childhood – that of throwing rocks in the pond just to see what the ripples might do.

All of these intersecting ripples with their wave/particle interference patterns make this whole "self” idea seem as slippery and Uncertain (Big U) to me as any quantum particle. Every time we meet an old friend or look through a photo album we see just how fungible it is. Makes me wonder just how much "quantum reincarnation" is already going on inside me, right this very minute.

Several years back there was a Broadway musical adaptation of the Tom Hanks movie "Big". I wasn’t really impressed by the show generally (I definitely prefer the movie - it's one of those sneaky ones like "Groundhog Day" where you don't realize until later that the candy was actually good for you too), however there's this one song (sung by the character of Josh's mom) that stuck with me. By halfway through your post it was already running through my head:

Stop, Time

Two months old, he looks up at you
How his smile melts your heart
You want to say, "Stop, time"
Don't move on
Even as you watch that look is gone
Then he's two, such a little man
So alive and so smart
Again you say, "Stop, time"
Stay just this way
But the future comes and he can't stay
Nobody warns you of this parent's paradox
You want your kid to change and grow
But when he does, another child you've just begun to know
Leaves forever
Birthdays fly - 7, 8, 9, 10
Every kid he becomes you clutch and say "Stop, time"
Hold this one fast
But it's not supposed to last
And that time has come and passed
For he's growing
And he has to go
If I had only stopped the clock four weeks ago
Somehow had frozen time right there
He'd still be here, I'd see his face
I'd hold him in my arms
Safe forever
It can't be that he's reached thirteen
Now the real changes start
But he's not here
"Stop, time"
Don't rush life so
Bring him back
And then I'll let him go

It seems I'm going to have to pull 'ol Walt Whitman down off the shelf as well. He's received some serious play here prior to this post, specifically this bit:

"Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes."

Sounds like Walt would be down with the reincarnated quantum self (perhaps he had to sing "The Body Electric" only because he lacked the requisite vocabulary of modern physics). When I think of the motley assortment of gate-crashers who call themselves "me", it's a list that includes not just who I was before I was born or who I might be after I die (tantalizing as the prospect of those acquaintances might be) but all of the different people I've been in between. Perhaps I’m already living as part of an eternal continuum where every present moment is a delicious microcosmic sandwich with a slice of birth on bottom, a slice of death on top, and (if I’m lucky) some tasty and satisfying life piled up in the middle.

I'm sure for some people this idea of selves in constant flux seems like an anxiety attack waiting to happen (if not one already in progress). Surely it's the familiarity of the pattern (and not the actual atoms) that we miss when a loved one is away. If every beloved pattern is continuously leaving, it's not hard to understand why loneliness stalks so many of us even when we're in the company of others. If each of our patterns is as ephemeral as a moonbeam, is it any wonder why so many folks cling desperately to any sense of stability, however unsatisfying or wretched? Should we be surprised when so many folks have violent, visceral reactions to any sign of change? Is this why the old fear the young, and why healthy people in comfortable circumstances still spend long dark nights awake, paralyzed by the thought of their own physical mortality? Surely the thought of losing favorite patterns altogether (our own or other's) is what we truly fear when we say we fear death.

(Wow... small existential angst fart there. Sorry. Not sure where that came from, but that’s not at all where I'd like to leave it. Let me see if I can clear the air…)

On the bright side (the side I'd like to think I'm on), it's not hard to see these dozens of daily deaths as contrapuntal preludes to corresponding resurrections. These countless rebirths can make us like Mirthridates - we build up an immunity to the poison of (Big D) Death by willingly partaking of it a little every moment, until embracing the Uncertainty lets us step over that fine line between fear and excitement.

It’s The Wisdom of Solomon - "This too shall pass". Grasping (as best we can) that fleeting Uncertainty helps us value the good stuff while we have it (not just when it's gone), and endure the bad stuff because it won't be around long. In one fell swoop it frees us from worrying so much about the dubious temporal trinity of past, present, and future. Life becomes the difference between live music and a recording - It won't be quite what we expect, but the fact that our eardrums will never vibrate quite that way again, makes it worth our urgent and rapt attention (even if we have all the albums at home and have heard them a thousand times before).

Did you ever know one of those kids who'd make a cool picture on his Etch-a-Sketch, and then want to frame the thing? You know the kid - the one who went into a panic whenever anybody even looked like they might touch it? Tragic, really… To take a perfectly awesome, engaging, interactive toy, and turn it into a dead thing, just lying there, that you can do nothing but look at. To paraphrase Yogi Berra, "Good Shaking makes Good Twiddling, and vice versa".

What?

Huh?

If there is reincarnation, please please please don't let me sit through Audrey Rose or The Reincarnation of Peter Proud again.

Reading your posting was a little overwhelming. It made me feel like I do after a day at an amusement park - my head is spinning, I’m kind of queasy and I think I can still smell those itty-bitty donuts.

As my knowledge of Quantum Physics and String Theory is less than stellar, I am unable to provide any valuable insights on your chosen topic. ( Note: I do have a “Silly String Theory”, but it’s completely unscientific and unrelated to your posting). However, I do have a few questions.

If there are many universes and everything exists in all of them:

a) Can I sleep in and still get to work on time?
b) Do my odds of having a bad hair day increase exponentially?
c) Is that why people eat Chinese food and get hungry an hour later?
d) Would all movies be considered remakes?
e) Does that explain how I have trouble finding things that end up being right in front of me?

Ebert: Yes, yes, no, yes, yes, yes.

People do not in fact get hungry an hour after eating Chinese food.

When I first encountered Quantum Mechanics some 5 years ago in an undergrad course on Modern Physics, it was suggested by mentors and faculty that the best way to get through the following 4 months was to "put more effort into doing the quantum mechanics and less into understanding it." For me, that statement at the time had two underlying messages: one was that the further you delve into the material, the clearer and more understandable it becomes, the other, that QM is ultimately so confusing that experts cannot put basic QM into layman's terms without misguiding the listener, so why bother. Four courses and two degrees later, what I found out is that, inevitably, one can be more true than the other at a given time. The idea is that there is clarity in the confusion, and in that sense, QM is in fact a form of abstract art.

I've always seen it that way ever since, and it became especially apparent in my graduate course on Quantum Field Theory. QFT is a course that, at first glance, makes outrageous assumptions in a conventional sense - multiple dimensions used as a convenience to the math, the interaction of quantum particles reduced to lines and waves in Feynman Diagrams before they are expanded again into rows upon rows of malleable, workable equations. You learn to go with it. In fact, QFT considers String Theory problematic often because its equations diverge to different kinds of infinities when attempting to explain simple quantum phenomena. Particle in a box - string theory can't handle it.

I got an A in the course, yet don't ask me to recall most of what I have supposedly learned; I'll need my textbook and a bottle of Jack Daniels, and I don't even drink. The fact is that the material is so abstract that experts are still trying to make sense of it. This is how they know they're on the cutting edge of something significant, but it could be years before anybody knows what.

This recollection of abstractness is the reason why I simultaneously admire and disagree with your post in terms of the fate of the particles that make up who/what we are. I admire its scope and ambition, but your sense of explanation seems tailored to fit your overall opinion, which is what this blog is intended to do, of course. But if you're arguing that reincarnation is scientifically possible, that particles of one being from another were once entangled and will be again, then you also argue that such events can be observed and measured. As a Physicist, the only event I can imagine in which all beings were of one existence was the moment of the Big Bang. And given that the universe has been observed to be expanding at an accelerated rate, I don't think we'll ever come together again in nature.

For me, my money's on my existence becoming a part of Dark Matter and Dark Energy, the culprits responsible for the "accelerating" part of the expansion of the universe. I invite you to Wiki them.

And before I go, in the spirit of relating science to art, consciousness, and the meaning behind meaning, I also invite you to have a look at a piece of non-fiction "Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid." My University's book club had it going for a summer where each chapter was discussed weekly, and it wasn't long before it became one of the most enlightening experiences of my academic career in terms of both the reading material and the discussions it provoked.

To die, to sleep, perchance dream...

The bard is the greatest rationalist and the soliloquoy as far as rationality alone has yet ta'en us yet.

A song about dyin' by the one 'n' only Marian Anderson:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDMdNXut8Yc

A lot of that went right over my head... not so much because I didn't understand it, but more so because as I was reading it, I was reminded of something my friend and I would do to mess with customers while we were working at Kinkos.

If we saw a customer approaching the counter (male or female.. though women usually had the more interesting reactions), we'd pretend we were having an engaging and thoughtful conversation in the vein of your blog post. As the customer stepped up to the counter one of us would 'end' the conversation by saying, "I'm sorry man, but the implications of quantum physics and the claims made by those who study it are completely without merit." (To the customer) "Can I help you?"

Opinions apart what can be said with certainty about dyin' is: We just don' know nothin' and there ain't nothin' we need to know 'bout badlier.

Roger,

The Heisenberg Uncertinty Principle of quantum physics, essentially:

The closer you look at something, the more it will elude you.

If you were to dig into the human mind looking for the human soul, you might end up seeing a single electron. But if you dig into a single atom looking for a single electron, you might go crazy ...

Personally, I feel that the human soul is that part of an "oversoul" (thank you Ralph Waldo) that we pinch off temporarily and hold briefly until the time of "death" when we release that pinch back to join the Oversoul mothership.

The human brain and mind are, in fact, not part of the soul at all, but rather a filter that allows our mind to comprehend what is going on inside of this briefly, isolated soul.

So, by filtering out the excess "bright light" that would blind our frail human bodies and burn us to a cinder if we were to look directly at it. (This comes from kabbalistic teachings of the ancient "rebbes").

God, (the Oversoul, Allah, etc. etc.) they say, was not lonely. Rather, He discovered, that he could pinch off parts of Himself, kind of like an Amoeba. (that's us, the baby amoebas). And then, He (or she) could test himself, by testing us, with this wonderful little laboratory (the world) that he constructed expressly for the purpose of running these little tests.

By the way, you, Roger, are an example of what wonderful things can be accomplished with our brief time on this earth. You continue to be an example of this excellence in all that you do that touches other people's lives. (wonderful works, like this Blog, and your show with Gene Siskel). That's what we are all here for.

So, no, there is no reincarnation of the same "soul" or consciousness. Why should there be? But yes, there is need for these continued tests. God will continue to run them, I suppose, until he runs out of things to test, until He's tried every single combination of trial and tribulation that such a world could possibly muster.

And even in the light of adversity of illness and brevity of time, we still shine on doing good deeds even when it no longer makes sense to do so. Good deeds excite God, add Energy to the overall health of the Oversoul. Bad stuff, "evil" war, etc, I think, drains God, makes Him bored. Do you think God ever gets too bored with these little tests?

I think not.

I love discussions like this. Hope it's OK to post a second time. I happened to think of E E Cummings' terrific (IMO) poem that dances around these many threads:

pity this busy monster, manunkind,

not. Progress is a comfortable disease:
your victim (death and life safely beyond)

plays with the bigness of his littleness
--- electrons deify one razorblade
into a mountainrange; lenses extend
unwish through curving wherewhen till unwish
returns on its unself.
A world of made
is not a world of born --- pity poor flesh

and trees, poor stars and stones, but never this
fine specimen of hypermagical

ultraomnipotence. We doctors know

a hopeless case if --- listen: there's a hell
of a good universe next door; let's go

It seems to me that there's a subtler form of reincarnation, maybe less about particles and more about connections between humans in the present and those in the future. I wrote about this in my first novel, where a teenage girl is grappling with the death of her best friend, and how unfair it is that her friend has died, because he would have touched a lot of peoples' lives. And her aunt tells her, "Jimmy touched your life, and the people you meet will know Jimmy through you, because you'll touch their lives."

Even if we don't realize it, maybe we're making connections to those not even on this planet yet. This type of "reincarnation" is a bit easier for me to wrap my mind around, although I find everything on this blog fascinating (even if I don't understand all of it!)

A "Dolce Vita" blog entry ... I think.

It would go very well at a dinner party, probably during the main course, but possibly just after the entree. It depends on how much wine has been drunk.

At a party, I would use it later on when I've said 'hello' to everyone I know (as well as all those I have to). By time (I hope) I would have drunk enough wine to know I am actually as intelligent as everyone else in the house. I would retire to a corner where all the unclubbable have collected and say ... "I was reading Roger Ebert the other day on quantum metaphysics..."

I once told a friend that "Terminator Salvation" doesn't exist. He said he was glad that I could easily ignore a movie I've seen. I replied that, no, the actual movie no longer exists. At a basic level everything are made of particles that are most likely not where they were when we saw them being projected. It's very comforting to me that every copy of "Terminator Salvation" that ever existed technically no longer exists in any form.

He replied that means the good movies don't exist either. Well, to me, it's very heartening that they did exist and they still exist in a form that is, to us, indistinguishable from the original.

I was then told to shut up. I think he just didn't understand my version of quantum theory.

I haven't slept today, so the conclusion to my last comment I know didn't make sense.

But I wanted to comment on the double slit experiment, which I'm sure has been suggested somewhere, but I've not seen any. And simply, it is that the camera interferes with the wave activity. We all know from Einstein's theory of relativity that matter curves the space around it, and they use the example of a bowling ball on a mattress. So, when the particles go flying, in the experiment, they are folding the space around them the way a bowling ball folds in a mattress when dropped onto it. But the camera or observing device is much heavier than a particle, so imagine that something much heavier is on the bed before the bowling ball got there: the bowling ball wouldn't really make a difference on the folding in of the mattress. What I'm saying is that the camera or measuring device is interfering with the curvature of space somehow by simply being there IN SPACE'S WAY. I'd think of they put the measuring device very far away, that this would not happen, possibly, unless space can be very sensitive to the power of the camera being pointed at it, to which you may have to use a series of mirrors or something that deflected the path of the camera a series of times that may make its impact neglible in terms of space's sensitive detection of the measuring instruments. Basically, I think you need a measuring device that somehow can record the particle activity without getting in its way or the space around the particle: the camera itself or the waves coming from the camera interfere with the experiment, I'm saying and maybe mirrors can lessen the impact or maybe you might have to record the data's indirect effects.

The main reason I believe in reincarnation is that we're here. An infinity of nothingness is a long time, especially compared to a hundred years (at most) of existence. Odds are that we should not be existing right now - we should be somewhere in our infinity (minus 100 years) of nothingness. Yet here we are.

Of course, if we weren't here, we wouldn't know it. So it could be millions of years before each of our personal consciousnesses resurfaces, but we wouldn't have noticed the passage of time.

But as you say, even if reincarnation does exist, what does that mean, if we're never going to be our original selves again? What does it mean for MY consciousness to be in someone new, if *I* don't even remember that I'm me? That's not my consciousness anymore, that's just *a* consciousness.

So yes, I believe in reincarnation. It's happening every time someone is born. Reincarnation just means that someone, somewhere, exists and is self-aware. Maybe.

Ebert: When people tell me who they used to be in an earlier life, I want to ask them, "What are you going to do with that?

Dr. Ebert, I have a problem: Ever since about the age of ten, I have been, from time to time, momentarily seized by the notion of an eternal existence. The terror of stagnant time, whether it be consciously felt, cosmically conjoined, or absolute absence within absence, is overwhelming.

So arresting is this particular sensation, I find that I must physically distract my mind from losing its bearings. I gasp, clap my hands, whistle, thrash my head--whatever it takes to vanquish the dreadful notion that some "forever" dimension is out there, sinking and rising, extending and looming, blooming and imploding, with nothing but time.

Ironically, your entry did not trigger the sensation. It simply enabled me to vocalize it with some semblance of clarity. Up until this moment, I was linguistically paralyzed in my efforts to relate this panic flash. For what it's worth, I thank you.

Ebert: Earlier in this thread there is a discussion about how many billions of light years we can see into the universe. Billions of light years. Don't even think about it.

Wow Roger, I had no idea. I've read you forever but now I read a piece by you that would be right at home in my zine The Monthly Aspectarian that I've published here in Chicago since '79.

Come at it from a rationalist scientific starting point and end up with ether and spells and the whole time this is what the Judeo/Christian thing has always been about as well, a conscious shaping of the life force.

But if you're still reading consider this. You seem to express as if you are still identifying with mind. As brilliant as yours is it is only mind it is not who you really are. Now if you're still with me please try this. Observe your mind for a bit, just watch it. This brings you to the realization I Am watching my mind, therefore I am not that mind. I Am that which functions through that mind. From that I Am observer self place gently silence the mind. One can start by finding a brief gap between thoughts and expanding it. Turn one second of silence into two and so on. And what you find is that when the mind is silent, awareness remains. The mind is silent but you remain. That is who we are. Identify with the awareness that remains in the silence, solidify the sense of self above the level of mind.

And if you're still with me, here is where we get back to your piece. This is how the J/C system really works. There is the ether, the life force, god, whatever you want to call it. And we do shape it into what we experience as our lives by, spells if one wants, the action of our consciousness such as it may be. Go in silence before the father knowing that what you ask for you will receive, etc, is just a formula for making use of what you've just very well described.

Ebert: When people tell me who they used to be in an earlier life, I want to ask them, "What are you going to do with that?"

So? Ask.

The RAW Video above comes from the documentary film Maybe Logic: The Life & Times Of Robert Anton Wilson

The man changed my life.

A physicist once known as Heisinger
Was known to ask once or twice: "Whysinger?"
In vast contemplation
There was no explanation.
So he smoked all his dope and got highsinger.

Miles Blanton Post: "Call these points A and B. While WE can see each point A and point B, points A and B cannot see or detect each other since they are 27.4 billion light years away from each other, and light cannot have traveled that far yet. Pretty neat, huh? We can see parts of the Universe that cannot see each other!"

That is truly neat. This may be an ignorant question, but I am desperately curious to read more from you: Does your post mean to say that WE are the center of the universe and that it really does revolve around me? I have some friends I would like to inform of that fact.

Thanks!

Quote...Roger;We bring ourselves into being. Our consciousness is the gravitation. We came from whirling nothing, we return to whirling nothing. The dust we came from and the dust to which we return are not really there, but thinking makes it so...................But the puzzle is, what reality does Everything have, apart from my thinking of it?

Dr. Manhattan still haunting you? Me too.
The gravitational pull of our consciousness is an appropriate turn of phrase. Gravity being the weakest of the four fundemental forces. We - as we know ourselves to be - are not eternal flames, but sparks in the night. Against all probability we are here to comprehend why we are here, but...

A man said to the universe:
"Sir I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."

The people I've met who believe they have past lives all seem to have been someone famous in the past, or at least in the household of someone famous (like a hand-maiden of Cleopatra, for example). So far, I haven't met a past-lifer who talks about being an ordinary person who lived a quiet and unremarkable life.

The bard is the greatest rationalist and the soliloquoy as far as rationality alone has yet ta'en us yet.

Shakespeare wasn't a rationalist (in the sense that one is primarily something, ie seems to look at things a particular way, has a particular world view and ethical system). Shakespeare said everything, in every voice, but as William James noted (with dismay), Shakespeare has a frightening lack of anything like a moral tendency. Everyone knows every one of his plays, yet nobody knows anything about him. When it came to philosophy (and rationalism is just one more philosophy, or approach to it), Shakespeare knew all the words and all the arguments of his time (and many that have been made since his time), but didn't seem to care about any of it. The play was the thing. Shakespeare's one of the scarier-type souls in all literature. A big blank, not necessarily on the side of the angels, nor on anyone's side, and better with words and the expression of men's best ideas than were the men who actually lived and died with them.

Ebert: I am comforted that he had no answers. He so brilliantly phrased all the questions that don't have any.

Roger, pass the hookah,

I wonder if falling asleep is analogous to death since both involve loss of consciousness. If death permits reincarnation as you put it, could sleep as well?

Personally (and I think someone else mentioned Socrates' similar belief) I believe that death will feel like a deep sleep.

After all, consciousness is simply an anomaly in the entropic universe just like a whirlpool in a stream. It's the drive of our brains to perceive time in a linear fashion, as to benefit ourselves from creating order (negative entropy) from disorder (entropy). Without consciousness, without the need for linearity, perhaps you're right, we WILL be in every place at every time and experience the birth and death of the universe in the blink of an eye. Going along those lines, death may be less of a reincarnation in the traditional sense, but more of an omni-incarnation.

By anonymous on July 28, 2009 6:03 PM
Huh?

My vote for top comment.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/734688/end_of_the_world

I also have zero knowledge of Quantum Physics, and though I heard about String Theory about three years ago, it still doesn't make any sense to me. However, I'm quite fond of the idea that reincarnation is essentially a philosophical description of the Conservation of Energy. I'm less certain if the Conversation of Mass still applies, but in all it's nice to put ourselves in physical perspective. I'm quite intrigued that you wrote on the topic of reincarnation in terms of Quantum theory, and am curious as to how you came across this string of thought.

Ebert: I was just noodling. When i started it, I didn't know where the piece would lead. It's fun to put two notions together and see what they do with one another.

Ye Gods! Annihilate but space and time, And make to lovers happy.
-Alexander Pope

I just read a lovely book, Biocentrism by Robert Lanza and Bob Berman, I think you would enjoy it. I hope your world is awesome. Be well kind sir.

--Ben

p.s. Thanks for posting that clip of Bob...he was/is/forever beautiful.

Roger,

It's all very sublime isn't it? To think the matter we inhabit, the energy that makes us up has been here far longer than we can possibly understand and that through some system comes together to form us for just a moment. Even our thoughts and our views of the external world are chopped up, redone and given to us different than what they actually are. Now, with your layman's knowledge of Quantum Theory, can you explain Donnie Darko?

On a nerdy side note, in one of my theological philosophy courses in college, we were talking about the different perceptions of reality. The professor had locked the door to the classroom, so the late students had to knock on the door to get in. The professor stopped the lecture and stared intensely at the door, before saying "Damn realists, I suppose they think the door is actually there!"

Very interesting article Mr. Ebert. You may find Orson Scott Cards "Ender" series (specifically the Xenocide book in that series) interesting. He speaks of an "Aiua" which is in a place that has no sense of "place" and no distance. These Aiuas are "called" from their place to organize a group of lesser Aiuas into a sentient being controlled by the strongest Aiua.

I won't go into specifics but it's a fascinating perspective on what makes a sentient being and it seems to dovetail nicely with your article.

You can find out more at Mr. Cards web site, www.hatrack.com.

Ebert: When people tell me who they used to be in an earlier life, I want to ask them, "What are you going to do with that?

That's pretty simple. Reincarnation in no way implies knowledge of past lives(useless) or future one's. The essence of belief in life's eternity is how it reflects in one's attitude and behaviour in this one, essentially in one's attitude to the present moment. The present moment is what really matters. Nobody I think should be able to recall a past life. That way lies morbidity.

To Tom Dark

Thank you. As per Great Wiki, there are 8 Zeno paradoxes. I remember the one about the Tortoise, which was fascinating in school, and the other about an arrow, which was harder. Since belief in eternity is at root a belief, albeit a rational one, and advantageous to boot, one may call it a rational choice, since it leads to the greater good, or so I believe.

I'll try to talk about this in the spirit that it's given (although I'd hesitate even in an exploration like this to treat String Theory with the same trust that I would general quantum mechanics).

I don't think the aspects of our personality, our memories, our thoughts, are as easily reducible to the bits you speak of. Let's say a memory is made up of thousands of chemical compounds, all assembled properly in order to convey to its owner a similar experience to the one that created the memory in the first place.

When broken down and used for worm food, this memory desaturates and becomes its component self for use in other processes. The memory is the sum total of all of these chemicals working together. In order for it to exist again, structures at the atomic level must again reassemble itself to similar, if not the same, structure in order for the memory to resurface.

We are composed of countless memories, thoughts, drives, all intimately connected to the rest of our body, all organized at great complexity (which is what makes life so fragile; even if we survive a traumatic event, we are changed (two different points in a river are never the same)). Even memories degrade and change as we do our own changing. I look at children happily constructing their own worldview and I'm amazed that the world is still bright enough that they could have the same hope that I had when I was their age. I feel as though the world has changed, but really I've changed more.

We, then, are reincarnated by the very mechanism that the universe has for recycling matter, in that there's no net loss or gain of energy in the closed system. But the problem is in assuming that our complexity will last. Stardust to stardust.

The wonder is in realizing yourself, no matter where you're going, or where you've been.

It's part of science to say that while things are learnable, that we may not learn everything by the very nature of measurement (the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle you talk about). Those who think science ruins the mystery of the universe are just getting ahead of themselves about what mystery really is. It's one thing to find a safe spot and assume the mysteries of the universe have a specific form. It's another to gaze long and hard at the universe with all the tools available, and STILL not know what's going on. I think the latter is nobler, and more exciting.

Ebert: It must take a lot of courage to be an astronomer and spend all night peering into the immensity.

I like your current blog entry, "How to treat your computer like a Kindle."

I've always been terrified of the concept of death, but it wasn't until I was older that I connected death to the end of rational thought, or what we consider the self.

I always believed that we are defined by our memories and experiences, so yes any form of reincarnation is death, even if instead of particles we actually return in a human form. So then I became terrified of amnesia, which by all means meant death to me.

However, after Waking Life ( which I saw at very young age back when it came out, I am only 20) I was fascinated by the subject of lucid dreaming. It got to the point where I can enjoy my dreams and remember a bit after, but then I noticed a few things during these "experiences" that very much sound like quantum physics, or I think fit here.

I shall only mention two. One was a time where I was in a car with a friend, he was driving and I was sitting in the passenger seat. We kept talking about whatever it was we talked, and then I noticed we were driving next to a cliff that is actually by my house. As I talked to him, he lost control of his car and we crashed thru the rails and down we went. I remember watching the ground coming closer and realizing "this is where I die". The car actually crashed, and I was flung around. I didn't feel any pain, which must've been a great give away, but I was greatly distracted by the fact that the car was being crushed. As the car got smaller and smaller I woke up.

At the time I believed I was going to die, but it didn't really happen. Still it is a memory, the moment I woke up, it became a memory that was no more or less valid than any other memory before it. I can safely call that the worst experience of my life so far, because I remember it. I can also call it the best because I technically woke up, I have a memory of cheating death ( I am quite sure the character in the movie wishes he was so lucky).

I felt that one fit in because of all this talk of reality and consciousness. But the second experience is a bit weirder. I remember having a dream where I was someone else. I had no recollection of who I was in real life, or even that there was real life. Yet I was alive. So basically, in my dream I was suffering amnesia and I was still alive.

After this I've had to rethink my position of how important memories really are, or how misleading. Yes they are how we interpret things, but they are not life. Of course we are still quantumly screwed since death is extreme brain damage.

Or are we? ( not brain damaged, but screwed)
Are we really doomed?
If quantum physics speak of an ever expansive universe, and time being relative. Does this mean there could be an expansive consciousness? Infinite?

What I mean is. We can't possibly experience death, we have no equivalent to it. Even when we sleep, we are still conscious.

So what does it mean to cease to be? What happens? even a poof isn't appropriate because we just didn't cease to be, we never existed, or better yet there is no existence. So is it possible that at the last moment, as a defense mechanism, our consciousness slows down time to infinity?

And we just dream?

Is it possible for our brains to destroy the laws of physics and go into a quantum state, where there is no time, and we never experience non-existence?

Because, lets be honest, non-existence can't exist.

I know I have broken every rule, and made a mockery of quantum physics, but it would be a nice thing to hope, or at the very least be a better movie concept than transformers 2.

Ebert: I, too, have had dreams that were as real as life. The most significant thing my father ever told me came in a dream, and was no less useful and "real" for having done so. One of my most evocative dreams of my childhood home involved a home that never was. Even now I can call up these dreams as vividly as any "real" memories. What are memories, anyway, but narratives we tell ourselves?

Sounds like you just read "Ananthem" by Neal Stephenson... and if you didn't, maybe you should. It deals with (among many other things) the Many Worlds theory. And it's fairly entertaining.

What the Bleep do we know?

Glad to have found this blog by Ebert. But where did the graphics come from?

Ebert: I googled "quantum" followed by various words like "physics" and "string" and asked for images. You find neat stuff when you google blind. Like this:

http://online.physics.uiuc.edu/courses/phys223/spring05/quantum.gif

Epistemology, ontology, anthropology, soteriology: (1) how we can be certain that we know anything with certainty; (2) to understand the source of our being; (3) to grasp what it means to be human, homo sapiens; (4) the study of, and seeking after a form of salvation.

When one is grasping after any of the above, one comes to a moment of realization of one's puniness amidst the stretches of "billions of light years." Nihilism expressed by Koheleth (all is vanity) is a real option; so is hedonism, or some other worship of the instincts.

The mind/body - intelligence choreographing chaos into delightful dancing patterns - which sounds delightful when Liv Ullman, John Heard, and Sam Waterston are talking about it on Mont St Michel, is perceived quite differently when the doctor shrugs his/her shoulders and says there's nothing more s/he can do other than suggest Hospice care.

I'm not suggesting the return to a Earth-centered view of the cosmos with humanity as the pinnacle of Creation.

Rather, I'm asking: who are you going to trust for all four of the areas of inquiry (above)? The basic question is, who are you going to trust? If the answer does not contain hope, a modicum of faith, or love (a relationship of unmerited, unconditional self-donation), the answer is not good enough. For me, at least. Cheers

Trippy article, Roger. My mind immediately flew to Pynchon's Aether-filled gasbag of a book "Against the Day", where it's Tesla vs. "the powers that be" and Vectors vs. Quaternions, and karma and re-incarnation are major components of the mix. There's an institute of higher learning working out the R & D for time travel machines, with a junkyard full of:

. . . the picked-over hulks of failed time machines—Chronoclipses, Asimov Transeculars, Tempomorph Q98s-broken, defective, scorched by catastrophic flares of misrouted energy, corroded often beyond recognition by unintended immersion in the terrible Flow over which they lad been designed and built, so hopefully, to prevail. ... A strewn field of conecture, superstition, blind faith, and bad engineering, expressed in sheetaluminum, vulcanite, Heusler's alloy, bonzoline, electrum, lignum vitae, platinoid, magnalium, and packfong silver, much of it stripped away by scavengers over the years. Where was the safe harbor in Time their pilots might lave found, so allowing their craft to avoid such ignominious fates?

Against the Day, page 409

Ebert: They must have a ball taking inventory.

Hi Roger,

Two questions for you, on the same concept:

HAL9050 on July 28, 2009 5:24 PM said:

Expansion of the universe continues...

Expanding into what?

Keith Carrizosa on July 28, 2009 1:05 PM said:

Imagine--since space moves together--what it must look like

Space moves through what?

This is the question (quantum or not) that baffles me: what is the Universe contained in? Nothingness? What are the boundaries of that nothingness?

Maybe that's been answered before. Maybe it's unanswerable. Maybe it's even a silly question, though I think not.

A little help, anyone?

Randy

Ebert: It has been explained to me that it doesn't precisely expand into anything, since space is curved. Miles Blanton, our resident astronomer, knows all about these things. There's always someone in the room with the answer.

Your thoughts remind me of Ray Kurzweil, the noted futurist and singularitarian, who has written on this topic:

My own philosophy is that of a "patternist"... In my view, the fundamental reality in the world is not stuff, but patterns.

If I ask the question, 'Who am I?' I could conclude that, perhaps I am this stuff here, i.e., the ordered and chaotic collection of molecules that comprise my body and brain.

However, the specific set of particles that comprise my body and brain are completely different from the atoms and molecules than comprised me only a short while (on the order of weeks) ago. We know that most of our cells are turned over in a matter of weeks. Even those that persist longer (e.g., neurons) nonetheless change their component molecules in a matter of weeks.

So I am a completely different set of stuff than I was a month ago. All that persists is the pattern of organization of that stuff. The pattern changes also, but slowly and in a continuum from my past self. From this perspective I am rather like the pattern that water makes in a stream as it rushes past the rocks in its path. The actual molecules (of water) change every millisecond, but the pattern persists for hours or even years.

He also elaborated on this sentiment in the context of copying/reincarnation in this essay.

it's like my washing machine makes all these weird noises but when i open it to find out what's going on it just stops. then a half hour later my clothes are hanging out to dry and they're all clean.

don't know what made me think of that.

Ebert: That's what the universe needs. Fabric softener.

a deer is hit by a car and wanders into a field to die. its body decomposes, breaking into carbon, nitrogen, etc. and falling to the ground. a heavy rain helps those elements seep into the soil. roots from nearby grasses soak up those elements, using them to build leaves and grass blades. another deer strolls by, snacking on the plants that now contain the elements of its departed cousin. those elements are now secretly joined with and within the physical structure of this animal.

imagine the same sequence but with earlier humans. instead of a car, it was a mammoth that stomped the human, but the parallels are evident. i wouldn't call that reincarnation, but it's about as close as anyone is going to get.

it's a fun thought, like time travel. it makes fun movies and discussions over a case of beer or bottle(s) of wine, preferably red. it surfaces when something reminds us of our mortality, like when a friend is stricken with an illness from which recovery is uncertain. it's one of those metaphysical concepts, like heaven or hell, that we'll never know until it's actually time to know. and when it's time to know, will we still be who we are? will we be able to know that it's "us" who is knowing? or will we already be someone else, unable to know the "us" who was there a minute ago?

that's when it's time to watch heaven can wait, where julie christie's eyes twinkle no less than the brightest star in the night sky. ((sigh))

Keith Carrizosa: "[In the double slit experiment maybe] the camera or measuring device is interfering with the curvature of space somehow by simply being there IN SPACE'S WAY."

No dice. If you turn the sensor off, the fringe pattern reappears. It's not that the sensor disturbs the flow with its presence as an object, a hunk of matter that exerts gravity and blocks things, it's the observation itself that changes things.

Want a real mind-bender? Here's one that can be done if you're very, very fastidious. It uses memory devices that in principle can be big things like photographic film, but are much easier with small things like photons or atoms. Run the experiment, have the sensor on but recording to a local memory device. Record the pattern you get on the screen, but keep it sequestered for now, like undeveloped film or a sealed envelope. No peeking. Shut down the particle gun, dismantle the slits, go have lunch. Now either delete the sensor memory or don't, and then develope the film and see what arrived at the screen. If you deleted the sensor record, there were fringes on the screen, if you didn't then there weren't.

This is sometimes called "spooky action at a distance", but that's kind of a misnomer.

if i were guaranteed a truthful answer, but only a short answer with no follow-up questions, which would i submit?

1. are we reincarnated?

2. do ufo's visit earth?

3. is there a supreme being who started this mess?

4. is there an afterlife?

5. do ghosts/spirits exist around us?

6. who killed kennedy?

i think i'd go with #6 because it's something i can deal with and wouldn't keep me up at night wondering if someone else was in the room watching me. especially when - you know...

Dear Roger,

I feel terrible. I really do, because I am about to criticize someone for whom I have had nothing but great respect so far. I've been a fan for many years and I greatly respect you for many things, but this time I am deeply disappointed. I know next to nothing about a large number of subjects, but I do know something about physics, having been a theoretical particle physicist and a physics teacher for over 20 years.

I am disappointed that you chose to speak publicly about something you don't know enough to speak meaningfully about, but I am even more disappointed that you did not consider the impact of your words. I would imagine that you must be aware that your words carry some weight and respect. If you aren't, you should be. The popularity of your online journal makes it rather obvious.

I was particularly distraught by this paragraph:

Readers who are informed on this subject will have already stopped reading. Some may have been seized by helpless laughter. Disregard them. They're gone. I am writing for the rest of us. Experts have had decades to make this clear. Now it's up to us to do the heavy lifting.

As a former physics teacher, I can tell you that one of the hardest jobs is to dispel the nonsense that gets thrown around because of quantum physics. It's all too easy to find a multitude of web sites "explaining" a lot of new age concepts using quantum mechanics, from spirits to reincarnation, not to mention the "explanations" that appear in movies (I'm reminded of Frequency, where the time-disturbing aurora is "explained" as the result of string theory).

In a society that is already severely limited in its understanding of basic science, I think it is downright irresponsible for someone who commands a degree of public respect to play scientist when he or she isn't knowledgeable in the subject. The risk of spreading misconception is far too great. And, yes, reading wikipedia doesn't make anyone knowledgeable enough.

I'm sorry to say it, and to do so in such a blunt manner, but much of what you wrote is just nonsense, and several statements are simply wrong. Case in point:

These disturbances sound something like the gravitational effect by which quantum particles are said to make their presence known.

No physicist worth his or her salt says any such thing. Quantum particles don't make their presence known by their gravitational effects. Gravity is the weakest of the four known interactions (electromagnetism, weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force, and gravity), by a very long shot.

You also speak of quantum strings. String theory has become the de facto explanation for everything in the minds of the general population, thanks to the media efforts of Brian Greene, but it is really "just a theory." There is not a single shred of experimental data that validates string theory.

I have written elsewhere (I'm the one posting under the name RoKlimber) a more detailed criticism of string theory, but I'll reproduce here just a few paragraphs:

String theory is nothing more than a mathematical model, with almost no basis on experimental data and with little predictive power. All its predictions concern an energy scale far larger than anything we can achieve in a laboratory today, even with accelerators such as the Large Hadron Collider. Even in a century we'll probably not be able to achieve the kind of energy required to test string theory.

My biggest peeve with string theory is that it's become a media phenomenon, thanks to Brian Greene, when it's no more successful than other, competing theories. In fact, by established scientific standards (the scientific method), it should be considered less successful than other alternate theories, because it has no testable predictions.

As a result, a lot of graduate students entering research in theoretical particle physics today tend to want to do research on string theory, resulting on (a) an starvation of alternate, potentially more fruitful, ideas and (b) the expenditure of large amounts of effort on one class of theories (strings, superstrings, branes) that may ultimately be completely wrong.

...

String theory, on the other hand, cannot be tested by the LHC. It's very much like trying to test quantum mechanics by looking at the collision of two automobiles. It's just not possible, because the scales involved in the theory and in the experiment are totally different.

There is a huge energy gap between our current understanding of matter (the Standard Model) and the realm of string theory. The February 2008 issue of Scientific American has two excellent articles on the Large Hadron Collider, one of which contains a diagram showing how large that gap really is.

And then there are the video clips you selected to post along with your essay. Robert Anton Wilson is not a physicist and, frankly, from perusing the wikipedia article on him, I firmly believe he has no business talking about physics. The quantum tunneling one is accurate, but it's only one in four. The clip on Tesla and the Philadelphia Experiment is laughable and I stopped watching it within seconds. Since you're so fond of wikipedia (no shame in that - I am too), perhaps you should read its entry about the Philadelphia Experiment. Tesla was a misunderstood genius, yes, but all the nonsense that gets thrown around on his behalf is surely making the remains of his body spin in his grave.

Finally, there is the much talked about What The Bleep Do We Know movie. It's a real shame, because the animation is really well done, but the physics is wrong. Actually, the physics in that clip is correct up to the 3 minutes and 12 seconds mark. Then, it's totally wrong. An electron doesn't "leave as a particle", doesn't "become a wave of potential", doesn't split then recombine as the animation suggests, to "get to the wall like a particle." Not for sure, that is. And the electron doesn't "decide to act differently, as if it's aware that it's being watched."

The whole point of quantum physics is that we do not know what the electron does. We don't know whether it leaves as a particle or as a wave. We don't know whether it splits and recombines, we don't know whether it goes through one or both slits. What we do know, the only thing we do know for sure, is that we get an interference pattern at the end (in the absence on an intermediary observation). Our mathematical formalism and our previous understanding of macroscopic physics in terms of particles and waves are barely adequate to provide an intuitive understanding of what an electron is and what it does, despite being sufficient to provide accurate predictions. And that's really what the whole measurement idea is all about. Forget what a quantum particle is or what it is trying to do. We simply don't know, and it doesn't really matter because, all things said and done, we have only the end result - the measurement.

Anyway, I've digressed far enough. My main point is that I am fearful that your essay may have helped to spread and perpetuate several common misconceptions about quantum physics, along with the ideas that (a) quantum physics explains paranormal claims and (b) string theory is the scientifically accepted model of the universe. Neither claim is correct at this point in our history.

You may have done the heavy lifting that the experts have been unable to do for decades, but whatever it is you think you lifted will some day come down crashing on unsuspecting readers. Please leave the theorizing and the explanation of physics to those who can do it better and more accurately than you.

Ebert: The entry was written in a spirit of ironic satire, and was intended to be taken playfully.

I smile as I read your journal on a regular basis. It feels like you are writing the way you really wanted to when we were back at the DI offices soo many years ago. As a freshman reporter when you were the editor, the discussions were addicting, the arguments were ambrosia for an Irish-Catholic miss like me, and the time one of learning and fun. So here I am soo many years later, enjoying insights, thoughts, perplexities, humor, and challenges once more from you.

Quantum Physics...I love it.

Keep the thoughts flowing!

Ebert: I was inspired by some of our DI columnists, like Bill Nack, Paul Tyner and The Walrus Says.

ben,

do i have to shut down the particle gun, or can i just click "hibernate"?

The quantum strings are the notes, the "self" is the music, so to speak.

I like Richard Voza's narrative of the reincarnation of the deer through decomposition and had an interesting thought. I completely agree with the track of the elements from one living being to another, that the cycle continues through natural process. But, since humans beings are primarily buried in coffins, then that precludes most humans from re-distributing their elements for a very long time because they are trapped within the coffin. I hope for our own sake and after-death sanities that this redistribution is not vital to the after-death experience!

Just a thought, still stewing on the astronomy related comments.

Ebert: That's why cremation makes sense to me. Look for me in the weather reports.

Miles Blanton

Hmm...in college I happened to be enrolled in a quantum mechanics course and an eastern religion course at the same time. I had a book written in late 1890s by a Hindi philosopher that sounded so much like my quantum mechanics text it was eerie.

When Einstein said "God doesn't play dice" he demonstrated a misunderstanding of quantum mechanics...."God invented dice to help us play backgammon" is a better analogy....apparent randomness in a moment-by-moment view, yet structured into patterns by repeated application of "interaction" or "measurement" or whatever you want to call it.

Thank you S M Rana.

Excuse me, S.M. Rana, I meant Xeno's paradox of the arrow. Logic shows eventually that there are an infinite number of points between the arrow and its destination, therefore, motion defies logic. It's the one commonly used in freshman philosophy classes here. I referred to one of your remarks about motion.

Science has taken on the rude practice of "debunking" ancient Greek reasoning, but that's like "debunking" a zen koan or poetry... or debunking the Ford Model "T" because we now have the Prius. Dumb idea.

Reincarnation: if so, so what? An understandable question, like for Zen Koans: so what? Roger has apparently not asked his friends what difference their reincarnational tales make, or what they plan to do with them. I expect he has replied "Uh huh?" and "Mm hm" and "huh!" and hoped for a change of subject.

What difference do movies make, and once we've seen one, what do we do about it?

Better yet, what has the movie done to us? We leave the theater with our hormones shifted all around. I'M going to be JUST LIKE Robocop or Luke Skywalker. I'm NOT going to be like Clarence Boddicker or Darth Vader (well, maybe). There are endless variations, we hope, but the point is, the story sticks in our minds and we use it.

We know from Roger's recent blog about Transformers 2 that the same stories won't do the same for all. "Past life" stories are unique to the "viewer" and custom-made in a way a movie can't be.

Our social methods of determining "past lives" are faulty enough to dismiss them most of the time -- the psychic or the hypnotist. They couldn't find any of the places Bridey Murphy described after all. And of course, why was everybody a king or a queen or a warrior or a priestess, and if they were, are they sure they're not just making up a compensational fantasy for feeling quite unkingly, etc., nowadays?

Even so, what's so bad about that? There are literal-minded people who think movies are dangerous the same way, but fiddle faddle to them too.

There is the problem of dreams to deal with. It's a problem now because historically, churches took all the fun out of them, then the Freudians and the Jungians more, then the totally material-oriented "evolutionary" scientists did.

Obviously, dreams exist. All of our ancient civilizations, the official authorities of the day, used them. So did certain Catholic popes. Lincoln told his dreams to his cabinet, same as most woodsy folk. Present, they're rarely considered in official, authoritative institutional inquiries to have any kind of a point. Some scientists have warned people it's dangerous to remember them, "the random garbage of the mind," and otherwise, when a psychologist considers a dream, it's usually to look for something "wrong" with the patient or the casual reader of pop columns.

Then we have tales of people who won the lottery, having dreamed the numbers. Or Robert Louis Stevenson, who said that all of his stories came from what he dreamed in the night.

Incidentally, I've tried that. I recorded a song I'd literally "dreamed up," and by jove it got on radio shows around the country and I hear it's been playing on the local radio station in Mendocino County every pot harvest season since 1991. The other day somebody wrote and asked me for the lyrics, after 20 years. Not too bad. It made me a little money, too. It's not about marijuana at all, by the way.

Maybe something to Stevenson's suggestion after all. Dreams are good tools for storytellers and other artists. I do know a number who use them that way... and a number of stories of other famous artists and inventors who wound up dreaming solutions and inspirations. Did not Edison wake up from a nap with the right combination for the filament for his first successful light bulb? Can't quite remember. One may notice I like Ambrose Bierce quips. He used his dreams for columns and stories himself. A few turned out prophetic, such as San Francisco becoming a place of "monstrous tall buildings" in the future. He died long before the skyscrapers happened. As a youth he dreamed of a massive bloodbath. He wound up being in one in the War Between the States.

What have dreams to do with reincarnation? What do they not have to do with reincarnation, what one might do about it, or what a dreamed story of a "past life" might do to them?

I told a little reincarnational dream-tale above here, where ancient egyptians requested to be buried in the sands around the pyramids. A couple years later Atlantic Monthly posted that same discovery. I've got lots of 'em. Another good one was dreams about a certain pre-Incan civilization, which specialized in pottery, which was located between Peru and Colombia, I think it was. Years later (spring 2006?) an archaeologist from Colombus Ohio discovered a pre-Incan civilization in that same area, recognizable by its distinct pottery. They're still digging around. I'll be interested.

I'm no more oo-ee-oo anomalously talented a nightly dreamer than anybody else. I just made a project of it years ago, and so, have been paying patient attention to them, like phenomenologically, for quite awhile. Reincarnation -- which does appear to go into the future as well as past -- and "sideways" as well (so-called "parallel universes") -- figures very prominently in anyone's nightly dreams... certainly anybody's I've ever talked to about their own. If this primitively-conceived concept, "reincarnation" isn't taken as an assumption, it may not be noticed... until one dreams of having been a warrior king, etc., etc., too prominent to forget on waking.

Those "reincarnational" dreams can be pretty darned handy. They're stories tailor-made for your own situation at hand. I started a little tale above, about having been a snake-handler in a "past" life. Well? I applied what I learned, or "remembered," to my guitar and fiddle playing -- you had to be mighty deft handling snakes; light-fingered. The improvement was pretty marvelous in practical terms, too. Standing ovations 7 nights a week.

Lots of stuff like that. Reincarnation, as it is called, represents a bank of psychological help, laid out in first-hand stories for one who draws them up in nightly dreams or legitimate private reveries.

They are strangely analogous to various basic ideas in Quantum theory. What is strange is that the quantumist thinks he is conscious, but what he is observing or postulating is not.

Just like the imaginary particles scientists propose, whole personalities are in more places than one at once. It's a matter of time-perception, which Einstein will tell you, is highly relative -- although he wasn't a quantumist, per se.

Here's a good one: a series of dreams of having been a Catholic priest in Danzig, who took a shining to the Nazis until a few timely discoveries. After which, he ("I" in the dreams) helped organize an underground escape route for jews. He organized this with a couple of old nuns. This was a series of dreams over the course of a few years.

5 years after the initial dream, I was working for the famous Recycler ad paper in southern CA. Every Wednesday I had to call in my stats to a young Jewish lady at the main office named Robin. Her sister ran the main office. Likable girls. We'd chat. One night I dreamed that the both of them were the old nuns I knew as that priest. I never mentioned that to her. Just watch and listen, don't skewer the experiment.

One Wednesday Robin told me she was having trouble with her boyfriend, so she was going to a psychic to get the psychic scoop on him.

"Ask her if you were ever a nun," I said. "Huh?" she replied. "Ask her if you were ever a nun." "Okay," she said uncertainly.

The following Wednesday I called in my stats to her. "Well, did you ask her if you were a nun?"

"Yes."

"In World War Two?"

"Yeah. She told me that my sister and I were nuns in Nazi Germany and we helped Jews escape. We were old by then. She told me we got caught and we died horribly. How did you know??"

She also mentioned that her older sister had always had the nickname "Mother Superior" around the office. Old habits die hard. Ew... bad joke, huh?

That the psychic came up with this, which matched my own series of reincarnational dreams, surprised me. I guess you can find an honest one now and then.

So, Roger, and anyone afraid to ask, there're a few things you can do about reincarnation. It can only come down to I'm either lyin' or I ain't. And I ain't. If I ain't, opinions need shut up and questions need asked. Otherwise, ignorance has been evoked as a form of defense.

As to turning this sort of thing into a going concern, religiously or in any other form of entrepeneurship, this paraphrase from the Devil's Dictionary:

Clairvoyant. n. one who determines for her client that which he can not determine for himself, namely, that he is a blockhead.

One might say the same of Richard Dawkins.

I, too, am a layman when it comes to physics, having probably read less than most of the commentators on here, but as with all sciences I find the subject fascinating and thought I might clarify the confusion regarding zero- and one-dimensional objects.

I would assume zero dimension to be similar to x^0 in algebra. Though it equates to 1, it's still a function of x, just taken to the zero power (or dimension). On a graph, it would represent a point. Likewise, something one-dimensional would be x^1, which is the equivalent of a line on a graph. This makes some sense with regard to physics if you're dealing with a string (line) opposed to a particle (point).

By jrdeaver on July 29, 2009 12:34 AM

The people I've met who believe they have past lives all seem to have been someone famous in the past, or at least in the household of someone famous (like a hand-maiden of Cleopatra, for example). So far, I haven't met a past-lifer who talks about being an ordinary person who lived a quiet and unremarkable life.

OPEN QUESTION TO ALL READERS: In which movie is this sentiment expressed by a character? I've been trying to remember since yesterday, I've Googled an approximation -- "Why is it that everyone was someone famous in a past life; no one was a janitor?" or something like that -- and come up empty.

I'm looking forward to a blog entry that consists of nothing but a dialogue of exchanged limericks.

Ebert: An excellent idea!

Wow. Mr. Ebert, I've been reading this blog (and your reviews) for quite some time now, but this is the first article that prompted me to write an answer. (Add another comment writer from Germany to your list.)

From a slightly higher vantage point than the quantum level, all we are is stardust - were it not for early supernovae, no elements heavier than iron would exist in the universe, since only supernovae generate the necessary energy for this kind of nuclear fusion. Also, without stellar explosions, the heavier elements (i.e.anything beyond helium) would be concentrated inside the stars. So yes, we are all, in a very literal sense, children of the stars - of stars, even, that were dead long before our solar system came into being. (Helium and hydrogen do not make for very exciting types of chemistry...)

Consider that a little over a hundred years ago, quite a few physicists thought that their field of study was essentially mapped out, and you gain a new appreciation for the revolution that Einstein and his contemporaries triggered.

And yes, I actually did read the entire blog entry. Quantum theory is complicated, true enough, but I'm fascinated by a lot of different subjects, and I like to believe that I can talk about most of them with an educated amateur's knowledge. I'd like to end this entry with a quote from one of my favorite computer games, Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri: "Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded."

Ebert: And the stakes are so high, you can't afford to buy into the game.

hi roger.
Interesting article. I understand some of it. Although I'm not really sure what parts.

I leave you alone for a few days and just look at this mess! Well, I'm not your maid; you're just going to have to clean up all these strings and slits and plancks yourself. And open a window; that ether is stinking up the joint.

Sorry. OK, so where were everyones? Oh yeah: quantum reincarnation. This is the kind of play that humans are very good at. Not self-consciousness--although my dog does not often seem to realize that his tail is his own--but the ability to hold contradictory ideas in the head simultaneously--and to believe both, simultaneously. Thanks to quantum physics, we are now realizing--well, at least theorizing with some pretty reliable math (and yes, proving experimentally, sort of)--the value of simultaneity of thought.

Of course, all religions and most art have always recognized the fundamental importance of simultaneity. Scriptural contradictions are not errors--intentional or otherwise--but Quantum Theology. Charles Dickens' plots would fly apart like a non-quantum-glued universe without the simultaneous presence of chance and well-laid plans. It's all "great expectations," like R.A.W.'s "reality tunnels"--"if we're willing to listen."

This should be a great relief to both film critics and the viewing public: Once I see "Orphan," it will either suck or be worth 3 1/2 stars. Or both. Or a little of each.

(Book recommendation: Theodore Zeldin's "Conversation: How Talk Can Change Our Lives." We're using it to jumpstart our common first-year course down here at Stephen Colbert's honorary alma mater. Humane, engaging comments to encourage us all to talk--and listen.)

Roger:

Two books that marry quantum physicis and Eastern religions: The Tao of Physics, and The Dancing Wu Li Masters. Very illuminating.

Okay, Roger, here's so more fodder to contemplate. As you say in Quantum physics, "time" does not exist, but is a construct of our egoic consciousness.

Therefore, reincarnations on a continuum would not exist either. Our "reincarnations" would actually be simultaneous, right? So we would be living all of these incarnations of consciousness at the same time.

And we would also be all of the other possibilities you mentioned such as suns, moons, stars, and rain and so on and so forth ad infinitum.

Going further with this then, since we are all of our incarnations at all times, and suns, moons, stars, rain and anything else that exists, would that not make us God?

Kinda weird to think that your neighbor who won't pick up his dog's poop is the Divine One, right?

Ebert: Cartoon: God walking dog.

Thought bubble over God's head:

Yes, but poop spelled backwards is poop.

To Wagner: Friend, almost everyone's ignorance (and I'll be Exhibit A) about elementary physics, I infer from your dismay, would stagger you to your knees. One valuable thing about this thread is someone knowledgeable (you) can step in and give us a closer look at elusive Truth.

How many people have a grasp of what 6 trillion-odd miles (a lightyear, right?) is? Earth to Sun is 93m miles. So if my arithmetic is right, and it often isn't, 6 tril miles is over 6 thousand times the distance from the Earth to the Sun. But ask a thousand people about just distance--which is just the numbers we learned how to use in grade school--and maybe a handful will have a picture of how big our galaxy is, distance to other galaxies, sixe of a galactic cluster, a supercluster, etc.

Most of us see the unwritten disclaimer FOR ENTERTAINMENT VALUE ONLY on threads like this. And for me, the real issue is Mortality, so I'm more than happy. This was a good springboard for that.

Looky here at me ontological argument - I am a product summarily of the universe, at a recent historic level of Hinduism and Buddhism, at a personal historic level the progeny of Sikhs, a remnant of anglican colonialism, therefore have also imbibed aspects of European philosophy, am broadly agnostic by choice, can be labelled as resistant to labelling but not entirely averse to it and believe in universal cultural and moral relativism (hehe me jests...somewhat) anyway I digress from me ontological argument -

Hindus essentially gave form to the notion of zero by alphabetising it and through endless ruminations upon it. The Chinese had a more rudimentary form of it prior to us Hindu descendants. I am no mathematician but as a hobbyist philosopher, the notion of zero is endlessly fascinating..think about it, zero denotes nothing, a null value but even nothingness has to have a value ascribed to it in a theoretical sense to assume that it is nothing; ergo it is simultaneously nothing and something i.e. the theoretical assumption that there is nothing and the fact that this ascribing value through assumption makes the nothing itself into something. This very fundamental understanding of the dual nature of the infinitely looped versions of reality which surely exist and do not, regardless of dimension, results in the rainbow of emotions from pathetic timidity to hurtful invective. Whoever says God does'nt exist is an idiot, whoever says He/She/It exists is also an idiot, whoever says there is such a thing as an idiot is.. well evidence that he/she simultaneously is an idiot and not too. The universe is at once transient and intransient, it is a semi-conscious paradox trying to solve itself and retain it's unsolvable elegance, the process itself is of course also paradoxical, the universe has a sense of humour methinks. I know I sound like a mongrel of those nitwit mystics and the quantum idiots, but are'nt they the mongrels of religious dogma and oppression, and scientific determinism and progress through efficiencies etc.? Why must there be battle to the death of a notion/all the various notions? Evolution and temporal relativism. Ideas have both tangible and intangible lives/existences of their own and the stronger ones always survive, only to be replaced by further mongrel ideas as they become more pertinent to the set as solution or hypothesis.

The horrific beauty of existence is that it exists simultaneously as tranquility and violence as non-substitutable parts; what other way would you have it? How would you ascribe any value to anything? That is exactly the cosmic deformity out of which our need for and fascination with our invention of god arises and so too our utter disgust with his 'mysterious ways' and predictable renunciation of 'Him' with a capital 'H' Elevated or hyper-consciousness is predestined to invent gods and destroy them. There is no god that has been known to humanity that has not stopped existing, is in the process of stopping existing or will stop existing in the future. Even if God with a capital 'G' existed as humanity has thus far known him/her/it, he/she/it would surely commit suicide if for nothing to cure us of our various fetishistic god constructs and here's the bit I love the best, if god could'nt commit suicide, god would simply not be god by any mainstream human definition. I know this much, I cannot truthfully claim to believe in something I know nought of, but ah, the subjectivity of truth or truths..thought has no other end but to loop back upon itself..or so it may seem..and so it may be..and it may not be........ I wish you all well and ill and hope that your joys and sorrows see no bounds (except you Roger, I wish you only well, you've troubles enough already).

I am 26 years old Roger & we have a saying in Hindi, which is awkward to translate but I'll give it a shot..literally - "I wish you get my age"; nuanced - "I wish I could give you the remainder of my years" and I sincerely wish that it could be so, because I know you're getting on in years and your cancer worries me A LOT!! I think that you are far more capable of doing much greater good for the world in this life, than I ever could in all possible reincarnations. I got to know you through your website some seven years ago and my life has been truly enriched. You sir, have contributed and continue to do so in the heartiest of spirits to humanity as best as you can and if half of us could do our work with as much gusto, love, insight and dedication as you do, the world would be a much nicer place to be in. I salute you, you are one of my few heroes.

Let me close with the words of men far superior than me in at least poetic might and at most everything else too -

"..all that we see or seem, is but a dream within a dream..
..is all that we see or seem, but a dream within a dream?"

Poe

Out of Hindu mythology, the universe is an idea that like an eye blinks, it is, it is'nt. I think Joseph Campbell referenced this somewhere. I like the idea, the execution..well..maybe not so much..too much collateral damage.

Signing off,
Indian idiot (H.W.).
P.S. Any comments or suggestions are welcome, might even lead to a change in worldview.

Ebert: I don't wish you my age. You have the words to make the best use of your own age yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buqtdpuZxvk

I feel like Mrs. Brown.

That double-slit video alone was worth the price of admission. I've always been vaguely irritated by post-newtonian physics, as if a bunch of people smarter than me are playing an elaborate practical joke.

(Which is probably the way the Church has also felt all the way back to Copernicus)

At some point, I don't think we're really mapping the universe any more, we're just mapping our own limitations in the way we experience the universe. My opinions about reincarnation are only slightly related to my ideas about quantum physics- death, like light, is somehow *supposed* to be mysterious. I'm less interested in how this mystery manifests, more interested why.

(actually, reincarnation scares me a lot, because it's hard enough just living this particular life right now. If there are more lives before and after this one, I don't think I'm big enough to contemplate them with any seriousness.)

In this category, I also clump the whole "missing mass" problem. John Dobson thinks the big bang theory is nonsense, and he's got the credentials to make me want to pay attention.

Another related thought that haunts me, is that if any kind of ESP is proved possible, it invalidates our entire theory of intellectual property. It's probably inevitable, but it won't be pretty.

Ultimately with questions like these, it's not imagination or intelligence that's in short supply, it's humility.

There is a quote that I think applies here:

"God does not play dice with the universe; He plays an ineffable game of His own devising, which might be compared, from the perspective of the players, (ie everybody), to being involved in an obscure and complex version of poker in a pitch-dark room, with blank cards, for infinite stakes, with a Dealer who won't tell you the rules, and who smiles all the time."
-Good Omens by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman

Ebert: The entry was written in a spirit of ironic satire, and was intended to be taken playfully.

In that case, please accept my sincere apologies. You fooled me well, Roger.

Ebert: No need to apologize for your wonderful post. Hardly anybody else got my playfulness, either. I neglected to insert enough Swiftian signals. Remind me to tell you about the time everyone thought I was a supporter of Creationism.

I was pleased to read Mr. Ebert's remark (in one of the comments), "This entry was in the nature of, dare I say it, wit."

That's what I thought as I was reading the essay. "Hey, I have to share this with my wife -- it's very funny!"

And, unlike another commenter, I was laughing with you!

Ebert: When I wrote it, I was hoping it was kinda witty.

Just a curiosity: Hugh Everett III, the physicist who posited the many worlds theorem, has a son Mark who's the frontman for The Eels, a rockband that has songs in all the Shrek movies.

Well, of course it may be true that after death the quantum particles of our being fly apart and become other things that do not contain an organizing sense of self, or indeed even self-awareness, but what is to keep our consciousness from creating another such self after the death of the one we know now? Perhaps consciousness is not subject to such a “death.” After all, we’re here now, and how did that happen? Perhaps consciousness is beyond quantum particles, or made up of something we don’t know about or that doesn’t die, or is otherwise somehow eternal.

Perhaps “karma,” then, is not so much that we are “assigned” reincarnations based on lessons we have or have not learned, but simply that we go forward to new incarnations from where we leave off. We are where we are, in terms of expertise in living, and in the next life pick up more ability or are stymied, and go on from there, and so on.

And if all this is the way it works, I wonder if we get to choose the circumstances of our next life, or do we somehow unconsciously attract them? (As a child, I always pictured a review of my life on a big movie screen, although then it was attached to the idea of God the father and involved judgment -- I went to Catholic schools).

As a tangential aside, NPR had a recent series about emerging fields in consciousness and spirituality studies:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=110997741

Similarly, Rick Strassman (author of DMT: The Spirit Molecule started up the Cottonwood Research Foundation in attempt to determine a method for studying consciousness.

thanks, miles.

when i explain that to my 7th grade class, i usually use a student who dies and breaks down into the grass. then the grass is eaten by a cow, and then another human eats a burger and wears a leather jacket and shoes from the cow. thus we're reincarnated in a more gross but fashionable way. they love it, except the two students i use in the story.

Ebert: Does everything exist somewhere, or are unicorns impossible everywhere? In a way, I'm asking if the Theory of Evolution applies in the multiverse.

Exactly. People say the multiverse mandates that all possibilities occur, but that's not really true, is it? Unless the infinite universes have infinite sets of rules.

Ebert: I'm going out on a limb here and flatly stating: The Law of Evolution applies in all universes, as adapted to local properties of time and matter.

Taking your observations into account, is it possible for one of my other selves to murder the self that is commenting on your blog? Would the other self be wrong to do so? According to whose standard?

String theory is clearly flawed, because it fails to explains such common phenomena as photon torpedoes, force fields, and simple teleportation. If indeed one-dimensional or no-dimensional objects existed, how could it be possible to dissolve Mr. Spock or Mr. Sulu at one location and reassemble them at some other location? The energy level required to perform the disassembly and then encode that information into a transporter beam increases exponentially as the size of an object's constituent components decreases, which means that the energy needed simply to transport Mr. Spock's ears would exceed the entire energy mass of the known universe.

Of course, the existence of time travel and its related paradoxes also clearly demonstrates that string theory in its present form cannot be valid. To someone with only a casual understanding of these matters, it might appear that string theory is actually validated by the recent events in which Mr. Spock set in motion a chain of events that altered his own past and the destiny of his Enterprise crewmates. You may be imagining that this paradox somehow confirms the existence of multiple parallel universes and therefore confirms the predictions of string theory. To someone like myself who understands these matters, however, this is merely popular rubbish and inconsistent with the underlying matrix transforms that even a beginning student of chaos theory would clearly understand. You owe us an apology for foisting your polluted magical thinking upon society. Rather than embarrass yourself further, you should leave math and science to those of us who understand it, and stick to your silly celluloid fantasies.

At long last, Mr. Ebert, have you no shame?

Ebert: Have you, Mr. Rampton, no sense of humor? Did you think I was utterly serious?

Your consciousness is not equal to the sum of its parts. Suggesting that smaller particles are microcosms of larger systems is one thing, but the bottom line is that without your nervous sytem in its entirety, you are no longer an individual. What's left of your corpse is recycled, not reincarnated! (notice how this is COMMON SENSE has nothing to do with quantum physics)

You did a terrific job of explaining the ancient Hindu philosophy of Advaita Vedanta! Nisargadatta Maharaj's "I AM THAT" takes a less scientific viewpoint in saying pretty much the same thing: all we are is consciousness inhabiting food-stuff. All the thinking that goes on is not who we are, but happens to this pychosomatic apparatus known as our body. That thinking process dies when the body dies, but what we truly are is neither created nor destroyed; thus we are all THAT.
For NOW, THAT is the best movie being made presently!

Can you explain what "Ironic Satire" is, and explain how it is different from "Satirical Irony." In both cases, the name sounds redundant, like "occasional irregularity."

Ebert: I was using the term ironically.

Ebert: I'm going out on a limb here and flatly stating: The Law of Evolution applies in all universes, as adapted to local properties of time and matter.

so then who pays the local property taxes?

i think the wit and/or lack of seriousness was evident because of the scattering of self-deprecating comments.

Ebert: At least I was right about one thing. It permitted people to assume I had gone mad.

By Nic Hautamaki on July 29, 2009 11:53 AM

I'm looking forward to a blog entry that consists of nothing but a dialogue of exchanged limericks.

Ebert: An excellent idea!

Bring it on, my bitches!!! I got Roger to cry "Uncle" like a little schoolgirl when I threw down "critic...syphilitic...hermaphroditic," so bring it on!

:D

I second the nomination for a blog full of limerick exchanges!(Everyone, get your rhyming dictionaries out, and no fair rhyming anything with "Nantucket.")

I say hurray for Wagner the teacher who brought in the intellectual hickory stick. Playful is best for reincarnation and things, bad for physics proper. You can't say "oops" when you're calculating a path to mars.

I refer you to Bishop Berkeley, who formulated the doctrine of subjectivism. Also to Jefferson Airplane: "I think, therefore I am. I think."

Ebert: "Life apparently finds it easy to exist, but at present we are the only life form we know about that seems to know it exists.
Or can a dog or ape be said have that knowledge? And to what degree?"

It depends on what we mean when we ask if primates "know" they exist. Certain primates (chimps, gorillas, orangutans, and bonobo chimps), elephants, dolphins, and magpies are the only non-human animals that have passed the so-called mirror test and are capable of recognizing that their reflection is indeed a reflection of their own being. This is a standard method of attempting to measure self-awareness in animals. Notably, human babies cannot pass this test until they are about a year and a half old. Dogs do not pass the test, either.

Certain non-human animals, such as primates and elephants, also exhibit behavior that suggests a strong awareness of their environment and of their relationship to that environment in certain forms. The great apes are probably the closest to exhibiting awareness of their own existence similar to that of basic human awareness of existence. So in terms of the simplest form of your question, certainly there are non-human animals that know they exist.

However, if you're talking about awareness of existence in a broader sense as it relates to a world outside of ourselves and our immediate environment, I doubt such deeper recognition and understanding of existence is part of the mental processes of non-human animals, although of course we can't be 100% sure.

Regarding whether there is more life in the universe that knows it exists, consider that there are 70 sextillion stars in the visible universe, 250 billion of them in our own galaxy. Even if 99.99% of those stars lack planets capable of sustaining life, that would still leave 25 million in our own galaxy capable of sustaining life. If again 99.99% of those still lacked any intelligent life, 2.5 thousand planets in our galaxy would have intelligent life. You could imagine the odds being ever more outlandish, and reduce the odds by three-fourths again, and you still have about 600 planets with intelligent life.

These are not literal numbers that are used, obviously, I'm merely demonstrating that even against overwhelming odds the sheer number of stars in the vast universe would result in a decent amount of intelligent life. Consider these sorts of numbers as they would apply to the entire universe, and you see how even 99.99999999% odds against life would still result in many planets with intelligent life.

On the other hand is the Fermi Paradox, which says that despite the seeming likelihood of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, there is a notable lack of any evidence whatsoever of such life. In light of the age of the universe, the expectation of numerous forms of intelligent life, and the principles we generally apply to intelligent organisms in terms of spreading and expanding to new territory for new resources etc, this paradox asks why there isn't a single shred of observational evidence -- not even a radio transmission -- to back up the claim that other intelligent life exists anywhere in the universe. And it's a pretty good question, but not one without several possible rational answers, the most obvious being that even with our modern technology the actual attempts by humans to locate any evidence is severely limited.

Ultimately, the rational arguments for why life should and could -- and, some would argue, the fact that it could and should in nature tends to mean it does -- exist elsewhere in the universe are pretty strong. Whether or not we ever locate it or even find evidence of it, I believe intelligent life exists elsewhere, and that it knows it exists -- even if neither of us may ever know that one another exist as well.

Ebert: That such an abundance of life exists here would seem to argue it is common. On the other hand, is it not true that we have all descended from an original living speck, and if it had not existed, would there be any lfie at all here?

Ebert: Remind me to tell you about the time everyone thought I was a supporter of Creationism.

No need. I followed that thread and I remember it well, and I never thought - even for a second - that you were a creationist. I knew you were joking. At the end of the day, evolution is really such a simple idea to grasp that you couldn't possibly be serious about questioning it.

This time, though, I couldn't tell that you were joking, partially because it's perfectly possible for a very educated, intelligent, and inquisitive mind such as yours to have misconceptions about quantum physics and also perhaps because I've been exposed to far too many people who have sincerely convinced themselves that quantum physics is the answer to all things spiritual.

If I may make a suggestion for you and any readers who happen upon this post, one of the best (meaning understandable by the lay person without sacrificing accuracy) popular explanations of topics in modern physics, such as relativity and quantum mechanics, is the book Mr. Tompkins in Wonderland, by one of the fathers of the big bang theory, George Gamow.

If you can find the original, 1946, edition, that would be great. Otherwise, the updated and expanded edition Mr Tompkins in Paperback, or even The New World of Mr Tompkins, is fine.

A more technically challenging book, though still readable by the lay person and immensely rewarding, also by Gamow, is Thirty Years that Shook Physics: The Story of Quantum Theory. This book will give you an understanding of quantum physics beyond the popular stuff, without requiring you to spend 4 years in college and another 5 or 6 in graduate school.

Ed Fugg : I say hurray for Wagner the teacher who brought in the intellectual hickory stick. Playful is best for reincarnation and things, bad for physics proper. You can't say "oops" when you're calculating a path to mars.

Although I appreciate the support and generally would agree with your conclusion, I have to say (in hindsight) that (a) Roger wasn't aiming towards Mars (or so I hope - Roger?), (b) NASA has in fact oopsed at one point when a probe orbiting Mars crashed because of human error, and (c) there is room for humor in physics (otherwise I couldn't have gone through years of being both a student and then a teacher).

I guess I should make a slight correction to my previous comment -- no solid or confirmed evidence of intelligent life has been locate, since there are at least two minor instances of potential evidence the substance of which has remained elusive thus far.

SETI (the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence project, which searches for transmissions from extraterrestrial sources) did locate a radio signal in 2003 (known as source SHGb02+14a) that was picked up three different times, from the same relative location and at the same frequency. The ability to replicate the observation made this a particularly noteworthy signal, and it is considered a candidate for possible extraterrestrial-life origin. Obviously, the source could also be from any number of other possible natural sources, and there is no further evidence to confirm the definite source.

Then there is the "Wow!" signal, from the late '70s. This signal was only located once, but was powerful and lasted for quite a while (relative to the observation by SETI instruments), bearing characteristics that made it fit very closely to what would be expected from a signal of alien origin. However, nobody was ever able to locate the signal again, so it is impossible to determine whether it was from intelligent life forms or not.

Being unable to prove that a signal is of alien origin doesn't negate the possibility, when the signals have qualities making them candidates for an alien broadcast. Therefore, since these two signals fit into that category and remain potentially alien in nature, it could be said that these represent at least some evidence of potential intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, and negate the claim in the Fermi Paradox that there is no observational evidence of other intelligent life.

Ebert: Did analysis of either signal discover any comprehensible content?

Ebert: I'm going out on a limb here and flatly stating: The Law of Evolution applies in all universes, as adapted to local properties of time and matter.

(If someone could please help me out with the terminology, I'm really scratching my brain here)

There's some computer law that states that given enough time, any program can run on any processor.

Since evolution is a logical system, though an inefficient one, it is reasonable to assume that it can be executed in any universe. Especially if the operation of a universe leans towards the holographic universe theory.

Also:
If you want to see fear in the eyes of a quantum physicist, mention the word "measurement." -- Folk saying

Haha, I normally say something like "my grandpa once told me." This is even better. Thanks.

Ebert: I thought that might tip off people that I wasn't entirely serious.

i believe a part of both sanity and maturity is an often bitter acceptance that the unknowable is just that-- destined to never be known. there is a point at which each person must evaluate these questions and choose whether to pursue them further or to move on with something else perhaps a tad more tangible. you seem to have made your choice with your surprising and endearing fascination with quantum physics, probing further and further into the unknown. perhaps i'm too cynical for a 19-year old, or maybe you have found some spark of motivation in the muted abyss of our times that i have yet to discover, but there is a certain futility in the asking of these questions, i think, as if the only answers you are bound to receive are mere echoes of the questions asked which ricochet and extend, only asking more and more questions. personally, i'm tired of the unanswerable. i don't know how you do it, ebert, but it's oddly moving to see someone in the pursuit of a passion. i'd never expect this type of conversation on a movie review site. however, i should know better. this is much more than a movie review site.

Ebert: The problem with quantum physics is that I am assured it is not unknowable.

"I'm drumming my fingers waiting for Marie Haws to tell us a reincarnation story. I want to hear Marie's reincarnation story. I know she has more than one. Don't force me to make one up for you, Marie. I've got an imagination, and I'll use it..." - Tom Dark

You want a story, Mr. Dark? Well I just happen to have the BEST story ever! In my subjective opinion. :)

It's hot. It's damned hot. It's a heatwave and the likes of which Vancouver hasn't seen since 1880, according to those who claim to know. It's currently 33C - feels like 38C and there's no real breeze save for what my fan can make here inside my apartment. And this past weekend a thunder & lighting storm swept over the landscape, raising humidity levels to beyond unbearable as you all but suffocated in the choking wetness of the air, which shuddered while pressing down upon the world and the sound of cracking booms reverberated and lighting forks lit up the sky. And when it was all over, the strangest sight of all - the sky itself had turned a bright red blood orange.

A friend on Pender Island just off the coast noted in her e-mail:

"If we were living in an earlier era like the 14th century it was a sky that would herald the end of times." - Diane, fellow artist

Here's a view of it seen from downtown Vancouver while folks were waiting - are you ready? - for the city's annual fireworks display...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22TJY61p1Yk

And from higher up in North Vancouver, showing how it all started:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSWK_crNHSg

The last time I saw a storm like that I was a child and on vacation with family in Quebec, where relatives own a cottage on the shores of a lake. I haven't been there since 1997, which is also how long it's been since I've gone swimming in a lake.

Until yesterday, and where my story really begins.

My brother and his two friends decided to go to a local Lake 25 minutes from where we all live. Needless to say I tagged along; desperate to cool off and longing to swim again after so many years. We went here: Buntzen Lake, I took this shot at the end of the day...

http://www3.telus.net/thiliasspace/Marie/jpegs/bunsenlake3.jpg

You wouldn't think to look at it, but it's surrounded by housing and real estate developments and shopping malls. Technically, it's a made-man reservoir around which lies a park, picnic grounds and trails. There's a hydro-dam at the far end on the other side. The lake is fed by natural underground springs and supports fish; I could see tiny minnows along the water's edge.

So there I am, finally in a lake again after 20 years. I swim out about 100 feet and close my eyes and float on my back, the heat no longer an issue, my thoughts clearing as I allow the stress to lift, no longer caring that I can't pay my rent on August 1st or any of my bills. I ignore thoughts of having to soon visit and yet again, a father with whom I don't get along and in order to beg for a loan - which there's a 50/50 chance he won't grant and if he doesn't, for him thinking that's how to toughen me up; as clearly and despite a prolonged heatwave during a recession in the dead of summer, I'm not trying hard enough and that's what you get for being a bum aka artist.

I let go of it all, beyond tired now for having to carry the weight of it for months. I even stop thinking about the cap I lost on a back tooth just before my birthday and couldn't afford to replace. I push aside the news that an American friend has scored a position with Sony in LA on Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland" - the holy grail for many. I just float and let the water take me where it will.

But then my face gets hot and so I have to turn myself over and float upright again. I dunk my head under briefly, eyes closed (I wear contacts) and once back up again with eyes open, I see a sight the likes of which I've seen never seen before and can barely find the words to describe - such was the profound cosmic irony of it.

I need to tell you this first though, as otherwise the irony won't resonate:

I hate spiders. Always have and since childhood. And the Gods of mischief, knowing this, have amused themselves at my expense and on occasions too numerous and bizarre to recount in here. Those who know me are well acquainted with them though - how they tend to find me, popping-up in the weirdness places and by the strangest ways and means. I've developed "spider radar" because of it. I see them before anyone else and notice them when no one else does.

And there dear Readers, trapped and dancing for its life, was a garden spider on the surface tension of the lake. My gaze level with it, a foot away.

He was trying to avoid going under while simultaneously striving to reach the shore. I watched him in utter amazement as a wave of empathy swept over me like Tsunami. I called to my brother who was snorkeling nearby to come take a look.

"What are the ODDS?! Of all the places to see a spider and after 20 years since being in a lake, no sooner do I jump in and what do I find?! A SPIDER!"

"OMG! You're right!" said my brother, just as astonished to see it.

"Can we save him? Let's save him! We could scoop him up in your goggle mask and take him to shore." I suggested, wanting to rescue a spider I was so afraid of, even then.

"Naw, just leave him; 'sides fish gotta eat too, right?" he replied.

True. I couldn't argue with that and more importantly, I had nothing to transport him with as my brother was using his goggles and didn't want to part with them. And so there I floated, watching as the breeze that made tiny waves carried him quickly out of sight - but still alive and on the surface when last I saw him, but no way of knowing what became of Mr. Spider in the end. There's the odd twig or leaf here and there, maybe he managed to hitch a ride? Poor little guy.

I felt sorry for myself too then, my thoughts drawing sad parallels. But despite his circumstances, he'd continued to persevere. He didn't give up - and so neither would I, dammit! I came here to enjoy myself, to cool off and forget my woes after two stress-filled months of job searching without success. And so as badly as I felt for the spider - who could be "me" in alternate reality appearing in this one and to hand me a cryptic message from the Gods and who may or may not be messing with my head (I've been told they work in mysteries ways) I turned and slowly swam away.

The rest of the day passed without inccident. I splashed and played and had fun and felt better than I had in a long, long time. I even avoided the sunburn I'd been fearing thanks to SPF 45 lotion and having scored a picnic table in the shade. And where I sat helping to clear and pack-up at the end of the day, when one of my brother's friends suddenly appeared with an object in his hand.

http://www3.telus.net/thiliasspace/Marie/jpegs/baby_bird.jpg

Someone had disturbed a nest above the door to the mens washroom he reported, and a baby bird had fallen out and onto the ground! I grabbed a plastic container which earlier had held strawberries and made a nest for him with Kleenex. We discussed what to do and in the end, he was handed over to the Park Rangers at the entrance to the lake; the baby bird was saved!

What are the odds of those events all happening, and the ironic cosmic timing of them? The heat, the storm, the lake and me, the spider and the bird? Does it mean anything to have noticed that stuff? Does the spider represent the death of something and the bird, a rebirth? Or when I die, will I come back as a bird who eats spiders?! (Eeeew!)

Was it a message, does it mean anything, or just those mischeivious unseen forces again having a laugh at my expense?

At any rate, that's what I did yesterday. Now I'm off to bar-b-que some chicken on my balcony. Where I'll probably see a spider and a bird as I live right next to a glorified duck pond called "Willow Lake". :)

Damn, it's hot.

Ebert: That should satisfy Tom Dark. Meanwhile, Chicago is having its coolest July in history.

Mr. Ebert, do you ever think that if you had not been successful in film criticism you would have become a leader of a religious movement that would have indoctrinated scads of hollywood celebrities and used electronic measuring devices to improve your followers lives (and your pocketbook)? I don't think it's too late to start now!

(are you the reincarnation of Mr. Poe?)

Ebert: I am a sinner, and thus incline more toward politics.

So. We're like snowflakes and then melting and then going through the water cycle and then BOOM I'm Hitler.

In a rational sense indeed! Sometimes my logic means nothing in the face of my ignorance. :)

I feel I have missed out in not having found time to go through your blogs thoroughly for quite some time. I've been taking a CELTA course (Cambridge UK English Language Teacher Award) here in Boston. Please don't judge me by any of my grammar or sentence structures right now- I have spent four nights this month without a wink of sleep. Tonight may be my fifth. I have third conditionals and past perfects with gerunds and functional exponents sizzling atop my brain. This course depresses me- it teaches that there is a way to teach English, and that is the way, and any other way (e.g. using spontaneity or saying anything to students that doesn't involve your giving instructions for a task) takes away from a lesson. I always wonder how you would teach English to students of another language.

I was walking home as the sun was setting the other night, and saw that it looked disfigured. It was an amazing, blazing orange blob, so gigantic, and low to the ground, as if it had misplaced itself and was creeping between the city buildings to land and take a walk through the park. I have mentioned my Christian beliefs on here before, and discussed evolution a bit, but I have not studied it. And so, it was a very innocent, if stupid, thought that I had as I noticed that sun. If humans were to have come from whatever it is evolution says we came from, then where did that sun come from- and how did it know that we needed to see it during the day, and that we needed it in general? And the moon... so perfectly placed to light our paths in darkness. We've all seen those pictures of apes growing into humans, but we never see pictures of the sun and the moon, so distinct and awesome, so incomprehensible, growing out of a speck of near nothingness. The first thing I think of is God. You're one of the people I respect most, but every time I read this scientific pondering and research, it saddens me a little bit. Maybe it's because I don't feel God's loving "hand" in some of the scientific reasoning to life. It might be the same reason why
I know that some movies are very well made and "great" films, but I feel I'd live a much happier life watching only sweet films, like, I dunno... "A Walk To Remember." On that note, who's to say that those difficult, hard to take, great films are truth in life, and gentle and sweet films are lies? I always see your 4 star films, and they have changed my life, but I've noticed sometimes that they bring out feelings that I'd rather not feel. I used to live my life listening to gentle, inspirational music, and watching Disney films. I was happy. I became a man (this was about 15 years ago) and I appreciate that my understanding of the world has broadened with so much information. But with that appreciation is a different kind of sorrow, and fear, and traces of despair for this world and sometimes for myself. Of course, there is joy, too. I don't know-- do you ever just want a break from so much heaviness? Or does so much heaviness bring you joy? If it brings you joy, then maybe, for you, it's not heavy.

Ebert: If it's good, it brings me joy. Bergman, for example.

Not fair. I now see that this entry was "ironic satire." I skimmed it with one eye closed, and just commented on the idea of it, and I have a lesson to teach tomorrow that will be evaulated by 6 people and am delirious with exhaustion. I don't want to be classified as one of the people who thinks you've gone mad. I know you too well to be one of those people. Please, for the love of humanity.

Ebert: Not many readers got that, and this is smart bunch. As before, I failed to send up a bright enough signal. Poe's Law should be my instruction manual.

Nor was the entry entirely frivolous. I thought of it in jazz terms: An improvisation on two themes.

Upon perusing the latest comments, two seem to require a response.

The one by the physicist Wagner who berates you for discussing science without a license kind of bugs me. Even if it was pure whimsy on your part to speculate about reincarnation in the context of quantum physics (which I didn't bite on, I only discussed the science...and a little philosophy, separately), it seems the height of elitism to suggest you are not entitled to have a say because you might lead someone else astray.

How else are pitiful lay people expected to learn about science unless they read about it in accessible venues like Wikipedia and popularised books by authors like Dr. Brian Greene (who's only a full professor in physics at Columbia, with former positions at Oxford and Cornell) or (shudder) Stephen Hawking? How else can pitiful lay people ever know if they have a true understanding of the concepts unless they express them to others for purposes of discussion? If you are in the public arena and are wrong, the know-it-alls like Wagner will be sure to put you right. Where is the harm, as long as the "experts" are willing to do their part? Conversely, if you remain silent in your ignorance, you are guaranteed to learn nothing, as will all the curious people you might have engaged in discourse. (With respect to string theory which Wagner finds so objectionable, some of the greatest minds in physics, like Murray Gell-Mann, think it's ingenious and may well represent the true ultrastructure of reality, but, because it is currently untestable, should be relegated to the rubrics of philosophy rather than physics.)

Just keep the ideas coming, Roger, whether as a playful intellectual exercise or in dead seriousness.

The question by Randy Masters about what lies outside the universe (which is really the gist of his question when he asks what the universe is expanding into) is both profound and unanswerable. It goes deeper than the fact that space-time may curve back upon itself (although interpretation of the latest data says the universe is flat, not curved). What it hinges on is that empty space, nothingness and non-existence are not the same thing.

Empty space, or the quantum vacuum or the quantum field as physicists call it, is far from empty--even if we could remove every last atom. It is seething with vacuum energy which can spontaneously transform into subatomic particles, which can just as rapidly disappear back into the vacuum. It is a repository for massive quantities of dark matter and dark energy, which we cannot presently detect with current instrumentation (except indirectly through variance with predicted motions of visible objects in the universe). It is bent in the presence of matter, creating the gravity wells that determine the paths of other material objects moving through that space, such as the orbit of our Earth around the Sun, the rotation of our galaxy or our galaxy's dance with neighboring galaxies in a local super cluster. So, it is not "nothing."

What lies beyond or outside this "empty" space has never been observed. Could it be *perceptible* true "nothingness," i.e., a black void with no vacuum energy? I suppose, though I guess we'd contaminate it as we approached it and thus could never experience it in a pristine state. Could it be absolute non-existence, which we could, by definition, never *perceive,* because we would not exist in its milieu? (How could we exist in non-existence?) Could be.

What else might be possible? Some scientists say that if you could breach the "membrane" bounding our universe you would necessarily pop up in an alternate universe. It could be one very similar or very different from our own. It might be derived, or budded off, from our own. Or, it might have such very different basic physical constants that you or I could not exist in its environment. Indeed, jiggering one or more of the basic constants might make the very existence of atoms and molecules impossible.

So, very good question, Randy. I think you and every other lay person are entitled to kick the issue around to your heart's content.

Ebert: Have you, Mr. Rampton, no sense of humor? Did you think I was utterly serious?

I guess my own attempt at humor also went unrecognized as such. I would have thought my references to Star Trek technologies would have been a sufficient clue. I was just riffing on the scolding you got from Wagner and also remembering your review of the last Star Trek movie, in which you made a point of calling out its scientific absurdities.

I sincerely hope you didn't get the inspiration for this article after rewatching "What the Bleep Do We Know" (2004). You gave a jusitied 2 1/2-star review to that film, remember? Please don't tell me that you think Marlee Matlin dancing around to Robert Palmer while gobbles of green goo try to have intercourse with each other is brilliant filmmaking.

Jokes aside, this entry struck me as hopeful.

It can be read as an attempt at facing mortality, with the hope that there is something somewhere in the great beyond. Perhaps even some meaning, too. It is hopeful both in content and tone.

Combine this entry with the McNamara/Confession entry, then we have a man who feels that he is reaching that final doorway. He is looking at the world he is leaving behind, and wondering about the world ahead.

Combine these two entries with the New Yorker entries, then that man is looking at the unfinished businesses of his world, the unquenched thirsts. And, if we throw in the Independent Film entry, then that man, who has hope about the future, also has hope about the world he is in, and is perhaps leaving.

Anyways, I'm not claiming to have looked into Roger Ebert's soul. Perhaps I've revealed a bit of my own.

I hope all is well.

Omer M

Ebert: All is well.

Ebert, maybe it's time to come out of the buddhist closet..

Ebert: Not many readers got that, and this is smart bunch. As before, I failed to send up a bright enough signal. Poe's Law should be my instruction manual.
Nor was the entry entirely frivolous. I thought of it in jazz terms: An improvisation on two themes.

It is not necessary to read beyond the title of the post to see that RE is only intending to be funny and since the title makes the general drift obvious one could start commenting without reading everything(keeping pace with continuous humour of the sophisticated variety in sizeable dose can be as stressful as QM itself) and the commenter is left with the options of a) trying to be equally funny which in a hurry is difficult as well as risky and b) not try to be funny and say something passably sensible on the two unrelated topics and if humour appears as a by-product, good. After all the main objective of commenting is to comment as the main objective of dialogue is to dialogue (and blogging to blog).
One might do a blog on the Poe principle, or the hazards of online humour.

Ebert: I sort of did, after my unsuccessful foray into Creationist humor:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/09/this_is_the_dawning_of_the_age.html

http://www3.telus.net/thiliasspace/Marie/jpegs/skullflag.jpg

It's OK, it's still summer out there.
Grab a beer!

I know you're not a big follower of short films but reading your latest blogs about science, life, death, and humanism make me wish you'd visit a couple animated films by a guy named Don Hertzfeldt. He's an Oscar nominee and Sundance regular in case you're feeling cautious and need pedigree :)

His two latest (and longest) shorts are the first two parts of a trilogy. "Everything will be OK" and "I am so Proud of you" somehow juggle quantum musings, philosophy, and existentialism into a very human and genuinely moving story -- about a stick figure character who may have a terminal illness. Yeah, I already know what you're thinking and you're just gonna have to trust me on this one. They're funny and sad and just wonderful.

Seeing as though you're a fan of Wikipedia I'll leave you with some leads in case you're curious:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Hertzfeldt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_Will_Be_OK
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_am_so_proud_of_you

"Ebert: That such an abundance of life exists here would seem to argue it is common. On the other hand, is it not true that we have all descended from an original living speck, and if it had not existed, would there be any life at all here?"

The stock answer by evolutionary biologists used to be that life may have evolved from inorganic precursors many times on the early Earth, but only one lineage survived. All the others were out-competed and went extinct.

Now, with the torrent of DNA sequence data available, it would seem that distinct lineages with independent origins may have merged in symbiotic relationships to give rise to the universal common ancestor of us all. That common ancestor later gave rise to at least three independent lineages of life (the three Domains or Super-Kingdoms that survive to this day, maybe there were more that died out): the Archaea, the Bacteria and the Eukarya. The Eukarya (including ourselves) actually represent a later fusion of archaeons and bacteria. Such fusions happened repeatedly giving rise, for example, to the various lineages of algae, protozoans, plants, animals and fungi.

The first living (self-replicating) organic entities are thought to have been composed entirely of RNA--DNA and protein not having yet formed in the pre-biotic chemical milieu. Perhaps these RNA molecules were initially naked in their aqueous environment, but they were quickly sequestered within lipid membranes making possible the evolution of the cell.

However, it is postulated by some, that prior to self-replicating organic entities, there may have been self-replicating minerals, in the nature of minuscule clay particles. How would we recognise such proto-life on Mars, for example, if it didn't bite us in the ass?

See, most of the story lines on Star Trek:TNG had at least some tenuous basis in respectable scientific thought, you "ugly bag of mostly water."

"Ebert: The entry was written in a spirit of ironic satire, and was intended to be taken playfully."

So, you were doing to us what physicist Alan Sokal did to the postmodernists, as related below by Richard Dawkins:

"As is now rather well known, in 1996 Sokal submitted to the American journal Social Text a paper called 'Transgressing the Boundaries: towards a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity.' From start to finish the paper was nonsense. It was a carefully crafted parody of postmodern metatwaddle."

Well, I told you in my first comment that your ideas sounded like rehashed solipsism to me, though I did think you were being earnest. I'm asking for partial credit, like my students always did.

Do you know what, Marie? I woke up this morning soaked through and through from a gully washer of a thunderstorm and raced naked and shivering into the house to check again for your reincarnation story. And here it is. You have done more for me than I asked; Roger and the others now get a comeuppance about people claiming to have been kings and queens and warriors, for you have reincarnated into a spider-eating bird and I believe you.

Out here in the Great Southwest, my dread of spiders has given way to a more realistic dread of centipedes. We have black widows, brown recluses and tarantulas, but they'll leave you alone even while you study them in quiet horror, imagining all kinds of aggressive behavior they don't have, like waiting until you're asleep and gleefully jumping onto your face.

But centipedes. They can grow as large as a foot long out in the desert and I have seen two that big. But even little ones are an event Tim Burton might be loathe to depict. Their behavior is incorrigible, like a loan officer for the IMF.

I thought I had done a clever thing, raising our outdoor bed on aluminum fencing as I did, no legs for creepy crawlers to climb up, prowl through the sheets and locate our faces to do unspeakable things with all those skittery legs and wicked little mandibles. But I found one in our bed anyway, and now I don't know what to do, except not tell Catt. Besides the starry sky to fall asleep to, a compelling reason to sleep outside last summer was finding one of those horrid, indestructible little creatures in the house skittering around with abandon. It returned more than once, even with a stomp mark on a few of its many butts. I hope I don't have to reincarnate into a centipede for doing that.

Not to worry about missing the gig for "Alice in Wonderland." Catt used to do sound production for Sony and others, and by the sound of it, everyone there reincarnated from Nazi concentration camps for a concentration camp that pays more, but curtails your longevity just as surely. Lots of her old workmates have been escaping lately.

As to Roger being crazy, it's an opening to spread around my favorite quote heard in the 21st century so far. There was an African religious leader named Simeon Toko, on whom I did a story, and got phone calls from around the world from people thinking Christ had returned and gone. His followers thought so too, despite his denials. He said (up theme music):

I am crazy, you are crazy, but everybody else is even crazier.

Tell you what, any Christ that quotable has got my vote.

Ebert: If you were reincarnated from a centipede, would you walk any better?

I always enjoy these particular types of entries, ironic or not. I've noticed that your initial entry, itself, has progressed in knowledge since previous entries. And, of course, the commentors are amazing. I have little formal training in this field; I just muse. I would like to contribute, though, after my own fashion.

I noticed you and other commentors have mentioned multi-verses. To me there's a definition, pretty much like the Planc's distance definition. Universe means one, all together (one-turn). From elementary set theory, it is everything in the sets and also what isn't in the sets. If a black hole provided a portal to another-ness, then the black hole and the another-ness are part of the universe.

The other thing is that the void in-between the photons, quanta and even time, are part of the universe.

The greatest measureable distance was described by Professor Blanton as the distance between two opposite traveling photons. But, if the big bang was isotropically emanated, then a greater distance could be mapped along the 'great circle' connecting these two radial photons along the surface of the emanating sphere. That is, points on a globe are measured on the surface of the globe, not through the center. Then, of course, that distance could be incremented by one Planc's distance, just for good measure.

I liked the recycle aspect of reincarnation. An example I gave recently to my son-in-law used the water cycle. We are but water vapor, that cling to some particle in the atmosphere to become a rain drop. Our lives are the rain drops path, descent and use, as they return to the ocean. There, we no longer are drops of rain, but are of the ocean. From there we can become vapor again. It is possible to cling to the same particle to be the same rain drop, but time and place are different. The path is different, so the knowledge obtained is different. Not all rain drops make it back to the ocean. (I'm reminded of a Firesign Theatre ad for Bear Whiz Beer. It's in the water. That's why it's yellow.)

But what happens to the us-ness. Can't thoughts and dreams survive into immortality? The thoughts amassed here certainly have weight. What is said and done (and not said and not done) alters the lives of others. I'm not sure that is the immortality many seek. But, at the end of the day, the day ends.

Ebert: I very much like the term another-ness.

By Adam Zanzie on July 30, 2009 12:39 AM

...Marlee Matlin dancing around to Robert Palmer while gobbles of green goo try to have intercourse with each other...

Marlee Matlin (see my sig link) and horny green goo? I'm in!

Ebert: If you were reincarnated from a centipede, would you walk any better?

That is the darnedest thing, Roger. [My post mentioned the Africa-famous Simeon Toko.] His vates (church prophets) named me "Tomadiata."

"Tomadiata" means "He who walks the right way." So I may have already been a centipede.

It's a darned thing because your joke makes a coincidence with the other site where I told that same story (Dr. Charles Tart's website. Another plug for his new book, THE END OF MATERIALISM).

Unlike the spuriosity of "What the (bleep) Do We Know," which got dozens of angry reviews on IMdB, Tart's a real scientist.

By the way, 20-odd years ago a friend of mine went to see JZ Knight doing "Ramtha" in New Jersey. She went backstage and caught her rehearsing her act in a mirror. There isn't any "Ramtha" and all that spurious cosmic wisdom is pretty much plagiarized, badly at that. "20,000 year old warrior," my aching 100 tootsies.

Another friend invited Kevin Ryerson (recommended by Shirley Maclaine at $400/half hour back in the 80s) to his place in Arizona for a few days. He caught Ryerson sneaking off rehearsing his act, too -- the one where he sounds like the Lucky Charms leprechaun, which he used for guided "psychic" tours of Ireland.

The field of things psychic is infested with bullshit artists. So I too am glad to see Wagner here, and allow that physicists may have a sense of humor. But I too am not sure about "oops." One of my dog-walking partners at the U of AZ worked on the Mars probe that screwed up.

Nevertheless I wonder where Heisenberg got his ideas. I read his primary work years ago. Assuredly not from JZ Knight. Tho' they sound suspiciously dream-like to me, dressed up as math.

Hang in there, Warden. This discussion needs a guy like you.

Sheldon Rampton, I thought your entry was a scream. I also thought Roger was trying to out-deadpan yours, but irony sometimes doesn't make it through the teleporter intact.

Roger, I really enjoyed your article. I also like that you have taken the time to respond to so many of the comments.

I have my own unfounded theory of reincarnation as it relates to quantum theory. Recently there have been a number of articles regarding quantum teleportation, where the quantum state of photons can be transferred over distances (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/08/0818_040818_teleportation.html). Now imagine that when a person dies, the quantum state of a part of his or her brain is transferred to another person's brain. This could account for some of the characteristics of people who claim to have been reincarnated (past memories). However, it doesn't account for other features of reincarnation, such as the fact that most people who claim to have been reincarnated always believe that they were someone famous.

Given, the probability of such a quantum teleporation of even a tiny section of a person's brain is almost certainly prohibitively low. But in the end, isn't religion the belief that extermely improbable events can hapen due to the intervention of a higher power?

Anyways, thanks for the thought provoking read.

For some reason, reading this blog has given me an urge to re-read a few Vonnegut stories. We all have a little Billy Pilgim in us - in our dreams we come unstuck in time and float around the multiverse, imagining the possibilities.

I doubt our waking selves will ever understand what's under the bottom tutle. Like my dog sitting in front of the locked door - he won't ever find a way to open it.

You're far too focused on your particles, as opposed to your complete form.

When it comes down to it, all particles of the same type are interchangeable: one electron is the same as any other electron. So it hardly matters where they are or where they end up. Pretty much every atom in your body gets replaced eventually, and probably several times within your lifetime.

Ebert: Well, that pretty much puts paid to my theory.

Your thoughts remind me a lot of Italo Calvino's fictional accounts of the creation of matter in both Cosmicomics and T Zero. Are you familiar with his writing? I imagine you'd enjoy those books quite a bit.

Roger, if you ever feel like doing a post on the relativity of time, feel free. I have asked many many really smart people to explain it to me, and I still don't get it. I just don't get how time goes slower. How can that happen? Won't a clock just keep ticking at the same pace?

Between quantum physics and relativity, I feel like if I get both, I can finally try and give Sagan's 'Contact' another go. Awesomely sublime, indeed.

Kartik

Now i really understand why will smith shot that little girl(card board cutout) in mib

Oo. Pet topic. But I'm gonna spin off on that last paragraph of yours, where you talk about reality and our perception of it. Long post alert.

[Not read any of the prior posts, so apologies if I'm repeating something]

How do you define reality? Your experience of it or what "IS". What does what "IS" mean if you have not even heard of what "IS". Ergo, 'reality' is simply what you experience. Nothing independent, beyond, or outside of it. I'll address this in further detail at the end.

Experience is but a combination of external stimuli (reality) + your observation of the stimuli + your interpretation of it. The accuracy of your observation can be brought into question by the slightest flaws in your sensory organs, or further still, even the slightest kinks in the processing of those fluctuations by your brain. Then THIS mangled data is interpreted by your intelligence, which comes with its own distorting filters of past experience (which is never balanced enough to afford PERFECT judgement to anyone) and personal beliefs/prejudice.

[So whatever you're looking at is hogwash anyway. So why bother to know if it is 'real'? :)]

But, that was just the easy part, next comes the question of CHOICE. You can pick ANY one of a thousand choices/interpretations of whatever-you-observed, that are available to you. The range of such interpretations depends on past experience, but then, so does the choice. And if the choice is not an 'educated' one, then it is based - at the very least - on a 'gut feeling'. This 'gut feeling' is simply a biological device, something very obviously a result of chemical reactions stimulated by sub-conscious predictive processes in the big-grey upstairs. Some also like to call it intuition. :) Now, considering memory - of past experience - too is bio-electric/chemical in nature, ergo, the process of CHOICE (regardless of whether it was an educated one based on 'memory' or one based on 'feeling') was also a chemical one. So, what you perceived as free-will was simply a series of reactions no more 'free', than salt dissolving in water.

So, since we are subject to the same fundamental laws that affect all other matter (which was the point of your post), we will NOT ever be able to determine if the laws of physics - and thus, reality - stand up on their own. The clearest conclusion we may ever be able to get to, is that all the laws are internally consistent. We cannot PROVE any absolutes. Which is also the point of Quantum Physics (I guess :)).

Going off on a slight tangent, THAT is also the reason why trying to prove the existence of God USING science (like so many 'modern' priests - of all religions - try so hard to, in vain) is a waste of time. Since if God created the universe, he would be outside of it, not subject to the laws that science observes and studies. And our knowledge can extend only so far as the said laws, not outside of them. That would be like figuring out what is written on a giant (I'm talking thousands of miles large) sheet of paper WHILE standing IN it. It's just not possible. You simply have to choose to believe in the concept of God, or not. Which is ACTUALLY the point of most religion.

Quantum Physics and religion thus converge, unexpectedly, and together deny our physical existence, the validity (in 'absolute' terms) of our senses or indeed of our knowledge. At the end, they both force us to simply make a choice, to believe or not to believe. But considering we really don't have a choice..... :)

The only being that could come to the conclusion that there is a profund difference in self-awareness between myself and my 4-month old kitten is another human. I talk, my cat doesn't. He uses his tongue to clean his behind, I don't. He is elegant, graceful, and alert, and I am not. End of story. (Perhaps in one of these alternate universes, he gets control of the TV remote, and I have to watch what he chooses, as opposed to the deal we have running on this Earth.)

"If I die, remember to have me stuffed with crab meat"
- Woody Allen (paraphrased from WHAT'S UP TIGER LILY?)

Ooh! Ooh! Have I made too many postings? Let's find out:

By James on July 30, 2009 3:02 PM

For some reason, reading this blog has given me an urge to re-read a few Vonnegut stories. We all have a little Billy Pilgim in us - in our dreams we come unstuck in time and float around the multiverse, imagining the possibilities.

A quantum pneumatic tele-tube just sent me the message to make sure you re-read GOD BLESS YOU, MR. ROSEWATER.

Nice demonstration of the 'Double-Slit experiment.
Eureka! I finally understand quantum mechanics.

"If you think you understand it, that only shows you don't know the first thing about it." - Niels Bohr

What's the opposite of Eureka?

@ Ron Barth, Jr.:

It was Bull Durham. Crash to Annie, in the kitchen, in her bathrobe.

I think I'm kind of psychic. Anyone want to know who is going to die soon? Seriously, I kind of think I am...a little bit. The night before Billy Mays died I poked a bad comment here with him in mind.
Keith Carrizosa on June 27, 2009 10:37 PM

"(what do you think of when you think of those infomercial guys for instance?...non-stop shouting right?)"

I wrote that with Billy Mays in mind, and he died that night.

While Michael Jackson was dying, I was typing about a joke on how Transformers 2 was like one long defibrillation
resuscitation.
By Keith Carrizosa on June 25, 2009 3:43 PM
"...The movies sounds like one long defibrillator resuscitation."

Michael Jackson was dying of heart trouble at the time.

It's more of a curse because it feels like I had something to do with it. I wonder if there is a kind of "early death" marked on people's faces that we can see. I think there might be. Okay, I may be reading too much into this or maybe there should be a new show called "Murder He Wrote" starring me.

It was a message from the Gods! The unseen forces weren't messing with my head - they were speaking to me instead and using symbolic and ironic metaphors!

I am the spider and the bird!

Ie: I got the loan I asked for today. I'm solvent again. :)

The next time someone tells you money doesn't buy happiness, SMACK them hard and then steal their wallet.

And adding a cherry onto the cake of my good fortune, tomorrow, according to the weatherman, it's supposed to start cooling off a bit - hurray!

So Tom; you live in the Great American Southwest, eh?

Ever see David Attenborough's Life In The Undergrowth: the Giant Bat-Eating Centipede of South America? Over 13 inches long and with the muscular strength of a small snake. :)

Over on Vancouver Island, it's ground-zero for black window spiders. We have the brown recluse, too. Although where I live, it's basically the house and garden varieties. But still creepy.

"Not to worry about missing the gig for "Alice in Wonderland." Catt used to do sound production for Sony and others, and by the sound of it, everyone there reincarnated from Nazi concentration camps for a concentration camp that pays more, but curtails your longevity just as surely. Lots of her old workmates have been escaping lately." - Tom Dark

Of course it's a Nazi camp - it's corporate animation. :)

It's all corporate now. You work like a dog and have no life for the duration of your contract. BUT... those guys get to work on stuff that doesn't suck, and that's a rare day my friend. Most artists are hired guns who make a deal with the devil to avoid working in a bank.

Although I don't feel bad anymore; my fortune has changed and my mood with it. Hey, who knows? Maybe I'll win a dime, too!

Grin.

Ebert: You sent this as Anonymous but I took a wild guess and added your name.

Thank you Mr. Ebert. I enjoyed reading this very much. The subject of reincarnation has been on my mind lately. Wishful thinking I suppose given my options. Reincarnation seems more plausible without the taint of religion. Thanks for clearing that up!

Yeah, Keith? Well a few years back my old pal Hendo and I were swapping letters about hi school football days. How Coach Juggie Hedd blamed me for costing us the game against Schalmont 'cuz I got penalized for holding. "Isn't that stupid son of a bitch dead yet?" I wrote back, full of nostalgia. 3 days later he sends me Coach Hedd's obituary. The old sportsman had a heart attack about the same time I'd inquired about his welfare. I thought the moral of the story was "don't MESS with me."

Yup, Marie, am here in the Great American Southwest. Just as I read yours, there was a big STOMP sound. I looked to my right and saw a large creature, head, mighty neck and muscular legs through the doorway I'd left open. I think he's a horse, but he thinks he's a one thousand pound somewhat spoiled young boy human. He was stomping to me about the big bag of black-oil sunflower seeds leaning inside the window, too complicated to reach for himself.

"The Hellstrom Chronicle" was enough centipedes for me, tho' Attenborough's documentary has surely whizzed by my eyes at some point. But yes, good things happen in quantum clusters, so expect some more. Are you good at film editing? If so look up Dr. Jay Carter's site and tell him I sentcha (you and you alone). It's an animated project and an intuitive thang.

Ebert: You sent this as Anonymous but I took a wild guess and added your name.

Wild guess..?

OH! Sarcasm.

Chuckle!

I clicked submit before I was ready! I forgot to sign my name and then it was on its way - and tried typing my name REAL FAST into the field - but it didn't work.

Thank-you for adding it. :)

"By Keith Carrizosa on July 30, 2009 9:10 PM
I think I'm kind of psychic. Anyone want to know who is going to die soon?"

As foreign as it should be to someone who is a professional scientist and strict empiricist, I believe you.

Why? Because I've repeatedly had the same experience myself. I'll spontaneously start thinking of some famous person for no good reason. Often it's someone long out of the spotlight. Detailed thoughts seem to impose themselves on my mind rather than by my choice. A short time later I will hear on the news that that person has died.

If you don't think that's creepy enough, several decades ago I had a vivid dream about the death of my still living grandmother. Shortly thereafter my grandfather (her husband) died. She died at his wake exactly as I had dreamed, with all the same people surrounding her, making the same comments, etc. Wait, it gets better. Before leaving her apartment for my grandfather's wake, I glanced at an old "Little Ben" wind-up clock she kept on an end table next to her favorite rocking chair. The thought passed through my mind that the clock would continue to run only as long as she lived to wind its spring. After that, it would run out of kinetic energy and stop, probably forever. After returning to her home after her death I glanced at the clock. It had STOPPED AT THE EXACT TIME OF HER DEATH. The exact time entered on her death certificate.

I've had a number of other spooky experiences like this which most people would characterise as "coincidences, " some of them so personal I can never discuss them in public. I could never establish them to be anything other than "mere" coincidence, even if I tried. However, one of the earliest students of quantum mechanics, Nobel laureate in physics Wolfgang Pauli, gave the apparent phenomenon another name. He called it "synchronicity" and believed that it represented that spooky action at a distance often associated with observed quantum effects. He believed that the transmission of information can at times actually by-pass the usual chain of causality. Strange but true, he died in hospital room 137, the reciprocal of the fine structure constant which had preoccupied him throughout his life.

I gotta get me some of them long black rubber gloves and a high-collared white jacket like the scientist in "Robot Chicken" uses....

Ebert: What do you mean by, "the reciprocal of the fine structure constant which had preoccupied him throughout his life?"

Ebert: The entry was written in a spirit of ironic satire, and was intended to be taken playfully.

I'm sorry, but I take the understanding of the world very seriously; I might be some kind of mad diabolical evil genius scientist in a past life...and who am I not to fulfill that destiny today with all the technology available? I guess some of us just aren't as grateful to our past lives and thus, out future lives. I'll make sure when the evil geniuses take over in the future to put a sign up front that says, "No Roger Eberts"...wait a minute:

Ebert: I am a sinner, and thus incline more toward politics.

I was wrong. I didn't realize who I was talking to. And there's no need to humiliate me before or after your morning castrations.

The first law of thermodynamics is often paraphrased as "you can neither create nor destroy matter". wouldn't this be a quicker way of saying

"So you and I temporarily consist of ourselves, and someday may well consist of other selves. We will be back, but a precious lot of good it will do us, because we won't know it. So, yes, reincarnation is possible from a rationalist, scientific point of view."

Of course it wouldn't be nearly as fun.

Enjoyed your article as always but my favorite part is the woman with Robert Anton Wilson. Ask what Quantum Physics is... then take a drink.

"We will never, however, be aware of it, and indeed "we," as we like to think of ourselves, will be completely out of the picture."

Tsk, tsk, Roger.
Don't be so doubtful.

The problem with scientists, naysayers, and those with no faith is that they all set their arguments from the same false basis:
that we know almost all there is to know about life on this planet.

The fact is, we know very little.

Reincarnation is a planetary law: if you are human, you reincarnate.
Thousands of times.

Most people don't remember their past lives, but they often bring ideas, attitudes, and phobias from them into their present lives.

And who can deny this? A story so compelling that even Fox News covered it. (ABC's 20/20 did a few years ago.)

http://www.fox8.com/wjw-reincarnation-txt,0,1190900.story

What will take all of us to the next level of knowledge on this planet will be the true discovery of the soul, and not just as an abstract idea.

www.share-international.org

Apparently more people than Tom and Marie are concerned about centipedes and where they may attempt to locate:

http://www.omgwallhack.org/media/img/dump/centipedes.jpg

All I can say is never click on anything that says "free PC check."

It's been a few years since I've had to dredge my brain for the quotations I employed in my master's thesis for philosophy, but the following quote (translated and paraphrased) from Martin Heidegger seems apt:

"Man (Da-Sein) in his essence is nothing less and nothing more than the clearing in the abundance of Being (Sein) in which Being comes to be aware of itself, and to know itself."

And from a very different source, namely the Tao Te Ching - 'it is not the pot itself but the empty space inside the pot that holds what you need.'

In other words, consciousness is emptiness.

Just thought I'd put that out there. Thanks, Roger.

Theory underlies everything.

The universe big banged into existence... but it adheres to seemingly pre-existing laws. Quantum mechanics and string theory reveal a level of reality incomprehensible to us, and yet which dictates the forces which dictate us (gravity, etc.). Every piece of matter and everything in existence arose from the same primal forces which birthed not only our universe, but reality itself... Reality which somehow, on Earth at least, moved single-celled organisms toward higher and higher levels of complexity and synchronicity with the environments around them, that we now have human beings with brains that are self-aware and capable of advanced problem-solving skills.

We think we are a collection of DNA and neurons flashing... which is partially true, but really, we are made of the same mysterious essence as the stars, the moon, the earth, the universe. And whatever unseen forces are compelling the universe are compelling each and every one of us as well. We are made of the same stuff as TIME ITSELF. Consider all the theoretically probable higher dimensions and you can begin to understand that there is much more to us than we can ever fathom. We are all a product of unknown, mysterious forces.

And yet... I don't think these forces are fully unknown. I think that the same essence which resides in these forces resides in everything. I think that on an ultimate level, there is no matter interacting with other matter, causing certain reactions, or what have you. I think that ultimately, there is no tangible moving THING. I think that the ultimate highest level of dictation exists purely theoretically, and yet from its essence MUST come what exists, like an equation dictating computer software functions; invisible, yet omnipotent. I think ultimately, Mind (the intangible, yet ruling essence) dictates everything else, and is therefore its master. And I think no part of not only our universe, but of reality itself, is separate or unaware of its essence.

The brain is said to light up, causing certain types of thoughts and/or behavior. But I think it's just channeling Mind through different parts of the brain... Specifically, the parts which our brains evolved to light up to help our survival. However... we are still greatly lacking in consciousness of higher or more fundamental aspects of reality. Aspects which we can get a glimpse of in math equations thanks to theoretical physics. But aspects which we cannot experience through the senses or through our natural intelligence... Mainly because, survival-wise, we have no reason to.

Cosmic consciousness is not inherent in the human brain. Ultimately, our brains, like organs of sense, are detecting what's already there: consciousness; Mind. But our brains did not create it. We are a product of it. And there are higher, mysterious levels of it which we cannot detect or comprehend.

In conclusion, the most basic of all questions, "what is reality?" is also the most awesome to consider. We are in it, and yet we have no idea what it is, even when we think we do. We are the most advanced species on the planet, and with that frame of reference, we may think we are finished products. But we, just like every plant and animal, are products of the Earth, and are quietly but constantly evolving. You are a body of synchronized parts, doing what its DNA has evolved to dictate. You know how to live on this Earth, but you are far from knowing anything about ultimate reality. Now isn't that sumthin?

Ebert: Will our control of our environment bring to a halt the natural evolution of our species, or will our destruction if our environment clear the way for advances--or regressions?

You are a materialist. You believe that only matter exists. Of course the "matter" of modern quantum physics can seem to be as physical as the number "three" or other pure concepts. But never the less these elementary strings lead up to common sense matter such as the rock that Dr. Johnson famously kicked to refute Bishop Berkeley.

You, and the many people who agree with you, might very well be right. But maybe not. The fly in the ointment is consciousness. Consciousness, whatever it is, is utterly unobservable either directly or indirectly. Everything I know about you--and can in principle know--would be true if you were no more conscious than my computer. I do not believe my computer is conscious even through it "thinks" well enough to beat me at chess. If I could observe every neuron of your brain and had perfect knowledge of how your brain worked, then I could predict what you were thinking and what you would think next (subject to the limitations of the uncertainty principle and chaos theory). But even then I would not have the slightest evidence that you were conscious in the same way that I know I am conscious. Neurologists have (at least at present) no hope of observing consciousness. They look for the brain correlates of consciousness. No one has any evidence than anyone else is conscious. We just assume other people are conscious because we are. It makes life easier. Unless someone perfects a Vulcan mind-meld, this is not going to change.

Materialists assume that consciousness somehow emerges from the material of the brain. Shakespeare was wrong: We are the stuff brains are made of. But maybe not. Personally, I cannot conceive of any way my being, my consciousness of self or the green leaves outside my window, is somehow only the effect of biochemical reactions. I acknowledge that my being unable to conceive of something is not very strong evidence, but I suggest you try to imagine your consciousness, if as I assume you have some, arising from neuron firing. If you can, then we are different.

If consciousness/mind does independently exist and is not just the result of a particularly complex arrangement of matter, then the door is open to the possibility of an immortal soul, God, and all things spiritual. I am not trying to make you believe in all these things. But I would like to convince you that they are plausible, or at least not entirely implausible.

Ebert: What do you mean by, "the reciprocal of the fine structure constant which had preoccupied him throughout his life?"

From Wikipedia: "In physics, the fine-structure constant (usually denoted α, the Greek letter alpha) is a fundamental physical constant, namely the coupling constant characterizing the strength of the electromagnetic interaction. The numerical value of α is the same in all systems of units, because α is a dimensionless quantity. As of 2007, the best determination of the value of the fine-structure constant is α = 7.297352570(5)×10−3 = 1/137.035999070(98). The standard error is enclosed in parentheses." I'm sure that is as clear as mud, but you can see the fine structure constant is essentially 1/137. Its reciprocal would, therefore, be 137. Pauli devoted much of his life to ascertaining the most exact value of the constant. The legend has it that Pauli himself thought his room number had some cosmic significance as he lay dying. Maybe the universe was telling him that he got it right?

So, I hear there's a call for reincarnational memories. Tom Dark calls for the "funner" ones -- Sorry, Tom, most of mine involve death, which I suppose means there's a deeper, stronger collection of particles created during these. So,

(1) memory of lying on a dirty rough wooden floor, my vision limited to the corner created by log walls. Distinct feeling of my breathe getting slower and shallower, and a lack of emotion at knowing my death is coming and it was at the hands of my husband.

(2) as wife of a little brown man, both of us wearing little cloth diapers, living in a hut on stilts over water. Emotion: none, life consists of attempting to live another day.

Gee, those weren't funner at all...

Neither are: an irishwoman in the hold of a ship, a slave during the Civil War, a camp follower of the Virgina militia during the Revolution (American), a Pueblo child, I did dream I was a nurse of Napoleon as he died. That was kinda interesting. Lots of strong particles there. Don't remember any non-human lives. No memories of falling from the sky to land in the ocean, though I have felt a kinship with dolphins.

The trick is to incorporate the other parts of us that actually learn something from these experiences/existences and put them to use in our here and now.

Dear what incorporates itself to be what is named Roger Ebert.
Thank you, thank you for finding the moment in time to manifest the ideal conditions to write this fabulous description as to probably what our existing condition "is".
These thoughts and rheuminations frequently cross my mind, and I always hit the usual dead-ends that our restricted and subjective, survival and sex driven monkey brains find themselves when engaging such world bending thoughts.
In one very obvious sense, there can be absolutely no dispute about your claim that all particles, which, for all things, will dissipate within the laws of entropy (which includes the act and fact of death).
As for the re-use of such particles in their transformed and post-entropic state, there can also be no doubt. This will continue until the Universe and all matter dissipates into its most degraded state.
Again, thanks for opening such a lively discussion!

I see the name Wolfgang Pauli has come up already. Every time I’m working in the lab and something malfunctions, I’m told not to feel so badly because Pauli was famous for doing that to equipment. That means being dangerous to electronics isn’t an indication of being a poor scientist (although it might mean you are a lousy lab tech).

Scientists are very cautious about the spooky stuff. We don’t like to talk about this stuff openly. So we have a kind of quiet way of doing so without doing so. I was having a really bad day in the lab. I’m a typical stressed out grad student. Lights were going on and off. Equipment was malfunctioning. A laptop belonging to another student who doesn’t like me very much shut down as I walked by, causing him to look at me and call me a bad name. After I explained all this to a member of my thesis committee - I was thinking about asking for a leave of absence from school - he suggested that I read up on quantum theory. I guess that is scientific code for “sh#t happens”.

He also joked that next time I’m stressed out it might be fun to walk past the chemistry lab down the hall and see what happens to their equipment.

Yay Chuck Veckert! "I refute Berkeley thus!" Johnson declaimed, and booted a rock out of the way. It was annoying for us Johnson fans to see that fine old story jumbled badly in that idiot movie that was just selling bleep.

I'll now update and adjust another favorite Johnson quote: "Reality, by way of ratiocination, may seem strange to some; yet testimony bears great weight, and thus casts the balance."

Yeah, that's the annoying thing about applying institutional scientific method to matters of reality perception. There's no such thing as "evolutionary law," Roger, but there's such a thing as empirical law, which must deal with the visible -- or at least, what can seem to be made visible by smashing smaller and smaller bits against each other to prove a prediction, repeatably.

Pal o' mine did the 2-slit experiment repeatedly and it didn't work, by the way. So he showed that on TV; what he found repeatedly was that it didn't work. Another guy I know said he had to do it for a "Star Wars" research project, and it cost a fortune to set it up so it would work, air, dust and room light all had to be controlled. So this makes me suspicious about what Thomas Young really did, in a dusty old house with a flickering candle.

Until further notice, institutionalized scientific method says there has to be some speck no matter how teensy-weensy (such as the proposed Higg's Boson, now under torture with the 3-billion dollar LHC in Switzerland) where everything started. It just can't be non-physical! That's agin' the law!

So, in concurrence with Chuck here, who may second my motion, I propose this more sensible law: Consciousness forms matter. Not the other way around.

Say, I thought it was Jung who coined the term "synchronicity." I don't like it, but didn't he coin it? With the story of the plum pudding, and the scarab beetle that flew into his office just as a patient was telling a dream about a scarab beetle?

Those are fun. Y'oughta do a blog on it and have a coincidence contest. Rules: 1. Don't lie, and 2. Remember not everybody is as wowed by your coincidences as you are.

Bravo Roger! I hope you'll continue to write on this subject. I find it thoroghly engrossing. Just now I'm reading the Dalai Lama's book- How to See Yourself as You Really Are- and it sails rather near quantum mechanics in many of it's lessons. Fascinating.
Many blessings of the...Universes upon you, Roger!

There have been now sufficiently negative commentary about my post that I feel I need to respond. My apologies for a very long post, which also includes commentary on comments by people who have not commented on my post.

By Gary in Phoenix, Arizona on July 29, 2009 12:54 PM
Most of us see the unwritten disclaimer FOR ENTERTAINMENT VALUE ONLY on threads like this.

I'd rather be entertained by correct statements than be entertained by incorrect ones, especially when it comes to science. In any case, the unwritten disclaimer must have been unwritten in a very small type, because I didn't see it. You did, good for you. I did not, a fact I already apologized to Roger for.

By HAL9051 on July 29, 2009 11:48 PM
it seems the height of elitism to suggest you are not entitled to have a say because you might lead someone else astray.

I never said Roger, or anyone else, is not entitled to have a say. If Roger had written an essay with the intention of discussing QM, to exchange thoughts on the subject with the intention of learning more about it and correcting any misconceptions he might have, rather than apply what he knows about it or learned through wikipedia to questionable non-scientific subjects, I would never have written the post I made. But that wasn't the case. Roger's essay, albeit in jest, made statements about QM that are simply wrong, as if they were right, and that is misleading.

How else can pitiful lay people ever know if they have a true understanding of the concepts unless they express them to others for purposes of discussion?

One doesn't find out if one has a true understanding of any scientific concept by applying it willy-nilly. As I said, if anyonone wants to discuss QM, let's discuss QM, rather than mix it with matters of faith or new age. In any case, I've posted elsewhere on this thread some concrete suggestions for anyone wishing to learn more about QM beyond what can be learned by reading wikipedia.

If you are in the public arena and are wrong, the know-it-alls like Wagner will be sure to put you right.

I resent the name-calling. On my behalf, I have years and years of study, practice, and teaching of physics, published research, and more than one degree in the subject.

if you remain silent in your ignorance, you are guaranteed to learn nothing, as will all the curious people you might have engaged in discourse.

As I said above, if anyone wants to discuss QM, let's discuss QM, but not apply what we think we know willy-nilly. Otherwise, it is not learning - it's bullshitting.

With respect to string theory which Wagner finds so objectionable

I'm not the only one. Don't make my objections to string theory an issue about me.

some of the greatest minds in physics, like Murray Gell-Mann, think it's ingenious and may well represent the true ultrastructure of reality, but, because it is currently untestable, should be relegated to the rubrics of philosophy rather than physics.

You just reiterated my central point about string theory.

---

I will take this opportunity to comment on a few other people's comments as well.

By Dev Kanchen on July 30, 2009 5:50 PM
We cannot PROVE any absolutes. Which is also the point of Quantum Physics (I guess :)).

I'm sorry, but you guessed incorrectly. The words "absolute" and "relative" are used rather cavalierly most of the time, but they have very well defined meanings in physics, and relativity (or absolutism) is not a "point" of quantum physics.

Since if God created the universe, he would be outside of it, not subject to the laws that science observes and studies.

And where would that "outside" be? Some other "universe". Let's call it a meta-universe, the region of whatever where god exists in. Now, who created that meta-universe? Certainly not god because he exists IN it and not even god can create that which needs to exist prior to his own existence. (This last statement isn't obvious - read it again) So, once more, who created that meta-universe? Some other god? Fine, let's go with that. By an identical argument, that other god must exist outside of the meta-universe. But, then, who created the meta-meta-universe where that other god exists in? Yet another god? Clearly, this goes on ad infinitum. So, if god created our universe, one must conclude that he is not the only god and not even the most powerful one. In fact, by this completely logical argument, there must be an infinite number of gods, each more powerful than the previous one. It's god-turtles all the way down. Or there is no god and the universe came about through a perfectly physical means that did not require the intervention of any such being.

That would be like figuring out what is written on a giant (I'm talking thousands of miles large) sheet of paper WHILE standing IN it. It's just not possible.

That's a fallacious argument. I'll give two related counter-examples, the second of which is at the core of our understanding of gravity.

The first is: how can you tell that the Earth is not flat without looking at it from space, that is, by making only local observations? I can mention at least 3 ways: (a) Erathosthenes' measurement of the radius of the Earth (read about it on wikipedia), though that might be considered cheating because it depended on an outside source (light from the Sun), (b) the fact that when a sailing ship moves away into the ocean, its mast is the last thing you see (as opposed to seeing the entire ship getting smaller and smaller), and (c) the fact that a very large triangle drawn on the surface of the Earth does not have the sum of its three angles equal to 180 degrees (consider that two longitude lines at 90 degrees to each other both meet the equator at 90 degrees each, thus forming a triangle whose angles sum to 270 degrees). Only triangles drawn on a flat surface have angles that sum to 180 degrees.

The second counter-example is: how can you tell that the space and time "manifold" we live in, the so-called space-time, is curved? Our 4-dimensional world (3 spatial dimentions plus 1 dimension of time) is not flat near any strong enough source of gravity, such as the Sun. How can we tell? By an argument similar to the triangle-on-the-Earth argument above. The paths of light from distant sources could (in principle) be used as the longitudinal and equatorial lines that make up an astronomically large triangle, and the angles could be measured and found not to add to 180 degrees. Thus, it's possible (in principle) to conclude that our 4-dimensional space-time is curved without stepping into the manifold that contains it (ie, without stepping out into any 5th dimension that might envelop our 4-dimensional world).

These are all examples of figuring out something outside of our local experience by making only local observations.

Quantum Physics and religion thus converge, unexpectedly, and together deny our physical existence, the validity (in 'absolute' terms) of our senses or indeed of our knowledge.

This is the kind of nonsense that gets me rattled. QP does no such thing as "deny our existence" and so on. It's the kind of nonsense that gets passed around when people indulge themselves on talking about scientific advances that they do not understand well enough to talk about.

And, to reiterate, I don't have a problem with people talking about science they don't understand, if the purpose is to improve their understanding. But I do have a problem with people talking about science they don't understand for the sake of "explaining" their metaphysical beliefs.

By HAL9054 on July 30, 2009 11:33 PM
Why? Because I've repeatedly had the same experience myself.

Since you claim that this is repeatable, you should apply to James Randi's million-dollar paranormal challenge.

The thought passed through my mind that the clock would continue to run only as long as she lived to wind its spring. After that, it would run out of kinetic energy and stop, probably forever. After returning to her home after her death I glanced at the clock. It had STOPPED AT THE EXACT TIME OF HER DEATH. The exact time entered on her death certificate.

Never mind that it's common practice, especially among older people, to stop pendular clocks when someone dies. Also, has it occurred to you that the reason why the time of death in the certificate is exactly the same as that from the clock because, when asked, someone looked at the clock?

However, one of the earliest students of quantum mechanics, Nobel laureate in physics Wolfgang Pauli, gave the apparent phenomenon another name. He called it "synchronicity" and believed that it represented that spooky action at a distance often associated with observed quantum effects. He believed that the transmission of information can at times actually by-pass the usual chain of causality.

I very much doubt that Pauli would think that the fantastically improbable chain of events needed for synchronicity to happen would happen often enough, or at all. Yes, Pauli had many unorthodox interests, but none of them were published - for a reason. Another peeve of mine is when people quote dead scientists as saying this or that, often misinterpreting what was really said or taking it out of context, to support their own beliefs.

Strange but true, he died in hospital room 137, the reciprocal of the fine structure constant which had preoccupied him throughout his life.

Never mind that the fine structure constant was not the only thing in physics that preocuppied him, nor the one that preocuppied him the most.

Ebert: What do you mean by, "the reciprocal of the fine structure constant which had preoccupied him throughout his life?"

The fine-structure constant is a combination of fundamental constants (the charge of an electron, Planck's constant, and the speed of light) that characterizes the strength of the electromagnetic interaction at ordinary energy scales. Its value is approximately 1/137. It has long been a mystery why it has this particular value, but that's true of any other fundamental constant, and an open question in physics research.

Ebert: I for one value your posts.

Tom Dark;

Dr. Jay Carter? The psychologist and self-help book author? Of the Nasty People series?

WTF?!

Chuckle!

Not that it matters, for although I do have an eye for editing, I've never worked with professional video equipment. So moot point. :)

As for Reincarnation...

I think everything is connected. Literally - but like Venice, in a paradoxical sort of way. This is Venice as seen from the air...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/38/Venice_as_seen_from_the_air_with_bridge_to_mainland.jpg/800px-Venice_as_seen_from_the_air_with_bridge_to_mainland.jpg

You can walk from one end to the other, in an hour. But it takes just 5 minutes to become hopelessly lost and trapped for most the day! It's as quiet as a church mouse. And as noisy as Times Square. It's very very old and very very new. It's both the yin and the yang of itself.

Venice is a microcosm of the Universe.

Ie: stuff can be in more than one place, at the same time. You can be simultaneously lost and found. You can be YOU - and what you once were. The bigger picture includes the past and we're all connected to it by threads we don't always feel or see. :)

Quantum physics is the art of thinking stuff to death! Whereas Metaphysics is the art of having fun with it instead...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PKdscZuR2Y

Grin.

I also didnt quite read the whole thing. I'm sorry! But three comments:

1. My field is particle physics. I work at Fermilab! It is underpinned by relativistic quantum mechanics, which is quantum mechanics at the level of light-speed. And, well, we are not afraid of measurement. To put it mildly. See: http://pdg.lbl.gov/2009/tables/contents_tables.html

2. If you like these ideas so much, why not study them? Like, for real study them, so you can understand the math and the science behind them? There must be community colleges teaching QM. I'm serious, if there exists a class that teaches QM without prerequisites, like how I learned about the double slit experiment in high school, it can't be that hard. From a good teacher, the math concepts are equally as beautiful as the physics.

3.I'm impressed by the cartoon video (the only one I watched). I heard What the Bleep do We Know? was a terrible Rapture-cult movie, but that was a pretty neat demonstration of scientific facts.

By Tom Dark on July 31, 2009 2:24 PM
So this makes me suspicious about what Thomas Young really did, in a dusty old house with a flickering candle.

Young's double-slit experiment is not the same as the double-slit experiment of quantum physics. Young's involves simply the interference of light waves, and is a fairly easy experiment to reproduce. Any 10-year-old can do it (really, I'm not kidding). The double-slit experiment of QP involves shooting one photon or one electron (or one of any other particle you might be interested in studying) at a time through slits that are not the big slits of Young's experiment. That's a whole new ball game, where you have to deal with things like figuring out how to produce and detect a single particle at a time.

Until further notice, institutionalized scientific method says there has to be some speck no matter how teensy-weensy (such as the proposed Higg's Boson, now under torture with the 3-billion dollar LHC in Switzerland) where everything started. It just can't be non-physical! That's agin' the law!

That's a bizarre misinterpretation of the scientific method. The theoretical existence of the Higgs is predicated on a ton of experimental results accumulated since the 1950s. If the Higgs doesn't exist, something very similar to it must take its place, because otherwise 60 years of experimental particle data will suddenly have to turn completely bogus. Physics is like a building. If there's a roof, you can be pretty sure that there is a foundation, or else the building wouldn't be standing.

So, in concurrence with Chuck here, who may second my motion, I propose this more sensible law: Consciousness forms matter. Not the other way around.