The Explicate, Implicate, and Super-Implicate Order

There are a number of physicists who lately have been championing a new view of reality that not only attempts to accommodate things on the large scale as described by general relativity, and things on the very small scale as described by quantum physics, but also attempts to accommodate less tangible things like consciousness, thought, even spirit.

I am most intrigued by Jack Sarfatti and some of the things he has had to say about the explicate order, that which we can see, touch, taste, the implicate, that which underlies it on the smallest scale, things that exist at the quantum level, and now what he is labeling as the super-implicate, the realm of thought and consciousness.

He has a mathematical model for all of this, unfortunately, math is not my strong suite and I don’t pretend to understand his model, nor most of the math involved in quantum physics. I never made it past my first quarter of calculus and have forgotten most of that.  Today I have to strain to do simple algebraic manipulations.  As a consequence, I can’t offer any comment or criticisms of his mathematical model.

It’s not the math or the mathematical proofs I am interested in, it’s the ideas and the experimental proofs, and their applications, and what they mean to our lives.  While Jack Sarfatti is primarily building on ideas of David Bohm, some of the ramifications of his theory, that it’s possible for the future to influence the past, in something he refers to as retro-closed causality loops, resonates with some of my own experiences.

The idea of closed retro-causality loops also resonates with something I thought of when I heard Richard Feynman state that anti-matter is equivalent to matter moving backwards in time.

The idea that it might not be equivalent but actually “IS” matter going backwards in time opened up a whole bizarre scenario in my mind where I imagined that there might actually be very few particles in the whole universe, that actually a particles ability to go backwards and forwards in time might in fact make one particle look like an infinite number of particles, A single particle being “recycled” as it switches directions.

When I heard Feynman make the statement that anti-matter is equivalent to matter traveling backwards in time, I though, “what if it IS matter traveling backwards in time? ” That lead me to think of how a particle could reverse it’s time-direction.  Which lead me to think about particle annihilation. When a positron meets an electron, when any matter particle meets it’s anti-particle, they annihilate one another and two photons of the energy necessary to carry away their mass, result, traveling in opposite directions.

Our consciousness travels forward through time, from the past, to the future, owing to the biological nature of our brains. That places a bias in us that makes us want to see the entire universe that way, as traveling from the past to the future.  If we step outside of that frame of mind, and view time as another dimension in which things exist, then the whole perception on the real nature of the universe changes.  We can stop thinking about when things began and when they will end, and start thinking about how they exist and are shaped in space-time.

Looking at it from this perspective, the whole “traveling in time” thing goes away, instead particles take on a shape in space-time that is not linear, but instead a zigzag line that reflects in time from events involving a photon. A particle becomes a line in space-time shaped a certain way. Where it interacts with a photon a certain way.

A particle, via these interactions with a photon or photons (I’m thinking “a” photon is reversing in time also even though from their perspective they’re not traveling through it), this particle is then reflected back in time, it’s not “annihilating” with it’s anti-particle, it’s reversing time and it IS it’s anti-particle and somehow there is the energy involved in it interacting as the photon, and from our traveling through time perspective that mass is being released as energy, but through an outside time perspective it’s all the same thing, and one particle and one photon can, through this interaction, appear to be many.

We see it as two photons emerging because our consciousness is moving forward in time, sees the photon which is really coming to the even from the future as leaving the event because our own time motion.  We also see the same photon leaving the event into the future; so to us, it looks like two photons leaving the event in opposite directions, actually it’s the same photon.

I am not even sure that the particle and photon are separate entities, that they aren’t in fact different aspects of the same thing seen from different perspectives. What is clear is that the universe is connected through space and time and that physical mechanisms exist for information to travel from the future to the past.

Let’s take a hypothetical example.  Let’s hypothesize that these “greys”, little humanoid beings hypothesized to be aliens, that crashed at Roswell New Mexico, aren’t really alien at all.  They are in fact us from the future so distant that the Earth is becoming inhospitable to life.  The sun has reddened and expanded, the oceans are evaporating and much hydrogen is being lost into space so water is becoming increasingly scarce.  Photosynthesis has evolved to work with more stages using the now more plentiful infrared photons but it is becoming increasingly less efficient.  We too have adapted.  Food shortages have favored a smaller more energy efficient body.  Since most light is now in the near infrared and there is very little ultraviolet or blue, or pigments have evolved to be selective in the infrared spectrum, in the former visible spectrum we now appear “grey”.  Our eyes have evolved to take in more light and see in the infrared.

Between food shortages, water shortages, and a planet that is becoming too hot for us, we decide that we’ve got to bail, but where to go to continue our race?  Well, it turns out we’ve got a better grasp on time travel in the distant future than in space, so we decide to go back to a time when conditions were more hospitable.  And, because our existence returning to the past was not part of our own real ancestors experience, by doing so, we’re creating a new timeline, a new universe, which was the same as our universe up to the event of our arriving in the past and altering it.  This is an example of a non-closed retro-causality event.

If, on the other hand, if our history had included our future selves having come back into our own past, then doing so would not change the past, as it was already part of our own history, and in this case another timeline would not be created, and this would be an example of a closed retro-causality loop.

I have a personal example of where information seemingly from the future went back into the past that ultimately resulted in the future unfolding the way it did.  Actually, I have several, one was positive, one was extremely negative.  When I was younger, I frequently had dreams that were little snippets of the future.  Seldom lasting more than a few seconds, the longest perhaps a couple of minutes.  I could tell them from ordinary dreams because in ordinary dreams there are always logical incongruities.  If I stop and think about a particular point in time and ask myself how I got there, in ordinary dreams I can’t tell, I just got magically from one scene to another, objects morph from one thing to another.  But in these time snippet dreams, they are logically coherent, things don’t morph.

Near the time when I first started a BBS, back in 1982, I frequently had dreams of being in front of the computer and seeing full color full motion video and audio.  The computer back had only 16 lines of 64 text characters, a single font, only big black or white (no shades of grey even) block graphics, and too slow to come close to full motion video.  I also had dreams where I could connect to other computers from that computer.  At the time, no Internet, only store-and-forward networks and they were in their infancy.  It would be a decade before the Internet would become available to the public, and another decade before anything close to full motion video was practical, and it is only really now when the performance is good enough for full-motion full screen high resolution video and audio to be practical over the Internet.

These visions got me thinking about how it could become reality and I contributed to the unfolding of that reality in a number of ways over time.  Because this information was part of the reality unfolding as it did, from my perspective, it is a closed loop.  And therein lies an interesting point, whether it is closed or open is a matter of perspective.  Presumably, another slightly different reality would have unfolded if I had not seen those snippets of the future, and so if I could have experienced that reality, this would not seem closed.

Like anything interesting it’s confusing and boggling but fun to think about.  I wonder if our future selves won’t find ways to intentionally transmit information back in time and thus alter what our future would have been in hopefully positive ways.  I also wonder if some of the information being received various people on the Internet, those who claim to be channeling, or in contact with the Pleiades, or remote viewing, or natural psychics, I wonder if at least a small percentage of them might be getting real information sent back somehow from the future.  If I actually understood the math behind Jack Sarfattis’ theory, then I might be able to come up with some form of actual test but I don’t so I’ll have to leave it up to others.

Which brings me to another idea involved, and that is that the super-implicate order, which is an area of thought and consciousness influences the implicate order of quantum events, which in turn can effect the explicit order.  I’ve heard of some experimental evidence to support this.  There seems to be some evidence that the way this happens is by influence probabilities.  God does indeed play with dice but they’re loaded dice.  I’ve hard of experiments involving Quincunx probability machines. If you’ve ever been to the mathematics room at the Seattle Science Center (if it even still exists, they’ve gutted so much of it) they have (or had) one of these.

Basically, you drop balls in the top (or in the original incarnation, beans) and they hit a peg and have a 50-50 chance of bouncing to the left or right, where they will then hit another peg, again with a 50-50 probability of going either way, and they go through a whole series of these pegs and then at the bottom there are vertical columns they fall into.  The resulting level in each column forms a curve that approximates the normal bell distribution curve.

The experiments I’ve heard of involve having an individual attempt to influence the results by willing a particular outcome, and I’ve heard they’ve had some successes, some individuals being much more capable than others.  And as interesting as that is, it gets even more interesting.  There is computer software that you can get where you attempt to influence a random number generator.  The program divides the screen into two halves, one has a black-and-white image, the other a screen of random noise that is updated by random noise generated by the computers random number generator.  By thought alone, you attempt to form the random noise into the same image.  I haven’t personally seen this software but I’m told some people are good at it, some people incapable, and others in-between.

The random number generators in your typical home PC are not random, they are pseudo-random numbers generated from a seed using a mathematical algorithm.  For a given seed, the resulting sequence of numbers is completely predictable.  The seed itself is usually generated from an entropy source that might include time, keystrokes, and Ethernet packets.  The implication is that the only way you could cause the program to generate the correct random numbers is to somehow generate the correct seed value.  There is just no way one could consciously do that, yet by intent, some people seem to be able to.

While Jack Sarfatti mentions the closed causality loop, and indeed even suggests that the universe creates itself by sending information from the future back into the past (keep in mind that “creates” is a human through time perspective, an out of time perspective might say the universe shape is related in the dimension of time with the future affecting the past), there is another loop I can see and that is in the order of things.  Our consciousness is affected by the state of our brains, a physical piece of hardware out in the explicit order of things, that consciousness, which is part of the super-implicate order, can then effect the implicate order, which can come to affect our physical brains in the explicate order, there is another sort of causality loop.

What this all means to me is that the universe is a lot more malleable than most people realize, and that our interaction with the universe isn’t simple cause and effect, it’s a lot more holistic and intertwined. It’s not just what we do that affects the universe and other people, even what we think and feel and believe can affect the universe and those around us.  It’s a whole new level of personal power and responsibility.

There is no reason consciousness had to evolve if it wasn’t fundamental, animals could simply be state machines that evolve to respond in the way that is best suited to promoting their survival and propagation, they need not be aware of self or conscious in the sense of having an experiential self.  Indeed, I am convinced that some people I interact with are not conscious but that’s another topic entirely.  The point I’m trying to make here is that it would seem consciousness is fundamental, what we would call God, is fundamental, because it is what brings the implicate order into existence and structures it as it is, and somehow are consciousness is part of that.  I suspect we are neither as separate from the creator, or each other, as most of us believe.  In this sense, I believe the new-age folks are on to something even if they don’t understand it.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply