Perspective

THE SCIENCE OF CONNECTIVENESS

PART II: MAPPING BEYOND SPACE-TIME

w. C. Gough & R. L. Shacklett

ABSTRACT
This is the second in a series of three articles that will outline a proposed scientific model with
the goal of stimulating a new vision toward resolving the Mind-matter question and acknowl­
edging an underlying connectiveness in the universe. Scientific is understood to mean that the
"parts" or links already exist as useful concepts in the scientific community. The model being
proposed assumes that everyday reality is not simply "out there" nor is it "within." Rather, it
is suggested that everyday reality is a "perception" we construct from aspects of the "unity"
within which we are immersed. Parr I presented the basic assumptions of the model and
introduced the model by exploring aspects of a reality that extends beyond our limited concepts
of three dimensional space plus time. 1 •2 The power of symbolic patterns in the physical for
serving the role of mediator between the happenings in the physical (or outer reality) and the
menral (or inner reality) was emphasized.

Part II, Mapping Beyond Space- Time, discusses a process of interfacing between Mind and matter
consistenr with the concepts of quantum physics. Emphasis is placed upon the quantum feature
of non-locality and upon twistor theory. The issues of causality and reproducibility in science
are discussed. The article concludes with a description of the dynamics of the process-how
the interplay takes place and works. This includes an outline of other symbolic tools of
mathematics such as chaos theory that permit extending out three dimensional thinking.

In Part III the authors will explore [he relationship of their model to human experience.

KEYWORDS: Causality, connecriveness, consciousness, maps, mathematics, metaphysics,

mind, non-local, physics, quantum, reality, symbol

Subtle Energies • Volume 4 • Number 2 • Page 99

PUTTING PHYSICS INTO PERSPECTIVE

B
efore we discuss "mapping beyond space-time," let us review the process
by which modern science describes or "maps" the physical reality within
space-time. Modern physics rests upon the foundation of mathematics,
a symbolic language. But, what is mathematics and why does it work? Indeed,
what is the foundation upon which this "magicar mathematics rests? If we
cannot answer these questions our scientific explanations, i.e.) our scientific
maps, of the universe are based ultimately upon things we do not understand. 3
These questions remain unanswered by modern science, yet are a key in the
quest to arrive at a deeper understanding of the universe. In Out model we
attempt to address these questions.

Symbols (including mathematical symbol systems) are defined as "meaningful"

patterns for an individual experiencing them. Since symbols are patterns that
are experienced and expressed in Out physical world, they occur in space-time.
In Part I, in agreement with Drs. Carl Jung and Wolf]gang Pauli, we have
defined the orderings beyond space-time as archetypes or archetypal patterns,
i.e., formless forms. The linkage in our physical world via which we access
and express archetypal knowledge is symbols. This process creates the
dynamism of the whole. The patterns of our bodies including our DNA and
the patterns in our brains are part of the feedback accesslreceive process.
Sometimes an individual's symbol system can not express or communicate an
experience of the realms of mind and spirit, i.e., the spaceless and timeless
realms of archetypal patterns, then the experience is considered ineffable.
However, these experiences may have a profound effect on a person's life.

We contend that our scientific symbol system known as mathematics, when it

is applied to the higher dimensional symmetry spaces, is in fact mapping charac­
teristics of the archetypal order beyond space-time. Thus, the abstract spaces
of mathematical physics are not really "abstract" but correspond to a reality
that we can experience via mind and spirit. A key goal of our model is to
demonstrate that a mathematical, and hence symbolic, basis already exists in
mainstream physics for unfolding the physical world of space-time from this
"reality" beyond space-time.

Subtle Energies • Volume 4 • Number 2 • Page 100

THE ROLE AND IMPORTANCE OF MODELS
We are attempting to present an all-encompassing picture of reality that goes
beyond the physical world of form and includes realms of experience that are
not normally thought to be directly related to the physical. This picture of
the realms beyond space-time specifically includes the realm of Mind. (The
reader is reminded that the upper case "M" denotes Universal Mind while the
lower case denotes individual mind.) The picture is holistic in that its
parts are interrelated and interdependent. But unlike a painting or photograph
where the intent of the artist can be grasped at once, we are limited to a verbal,
linear, sequential presentation which is rather typical of scientific discourse.

It needs to be emphasized that models serve as the primary means by which

all cultures, not JUSt our own Westernized version, understand their various
realities, with tradition being the mechanism cultures employ to maintain the
continuity of the models. The enormous inertia of social systems guarantees
a high degree of stability for models that "resonate" deeply with the human
experience. But ideas, philosophies, and explanations that are "ad hoc" tend
to have a much shorter half-life.

T
he tradition of science, with its built-in system of checks, balances, and
continual refinements, has demonstrated an unsurpassed ability to
provide our culture with highly pragmatic pictures and models of
physical reality that reach beyond our unaided senses. Although instruments
have extended the senses so that we can comprehend structures far removed
from our immediate perception, such instruments are themselves constructed
in accordance with the pictures of these deep realities. As we discussed in the
preceding section, mathematics is the symbol system through which the mind
probes these realities and gives them their structure and coherence. So it is
the combination of mathematical models and instrumentation that gradually
evolve the scientific worldview.

DESCENT TO THE BOTTOM OF SPACE-TIME

Our description of how the physical world connects to the mental realm begins
here in space-time with familiar structures like organisms and cells. These are

Subtle Energies • Volume 4 • Number 2 • Page 101

microscopic in size and require magnification in order to be seen. The simple
laws of geometrical optics allow one to make direct inferences about what is
observed through the microscope's eyepiece.

D
escending to the next level of smallness, we encounter molecules and
atoms. These can be made visible if the wavelength of the illumi­
nating radiation is comparable to the size of the object being observed.
This requires special instruments like the electron microscope and modifica­
tion of the simple classical rules of optics to include quantum effects. Even
though the magnification required may approach 100 million times in order
to resolve an individual atom, there is still a one-to-one correspondence between
the displayed image and the inferred shape.

It is when we leave this level that our pictures of small objects can no longer
be obtained through magnification. This is because the rules for observation
are drastically altered-quantum mechanics (QM) takes over the model
building process. The concepts of particle, location, indeed, measurement itself
lose the preciseness they enjoy in the large-scale, classical world.

It is important that readers have some familiarity with quantum concepts, since
they figure in our model in a crucial way. For this reason we will digress briefly
and mention four of the main implications of quantum theory that are relevant
to the model:

1. The physical world operates according to probabilities rather than as

clockwork. Once a physical system is described in accordance with the
QM rules, the mathematics generates a "wave function" (expressed in
terms of space-time variables) which contains all the information that
can be obtained by a "measurement" on the system. Bur rather than
predicting a specific result of a measurement the wave function only
yields the probabilities for a whole spectrum of possible results.

2. Matter is mostly empty space. For an atom, the size of its nucleus
would be like a flea in the center of the vast space of the New Orleans
Astrodome. The electron cloud surrounding the atomic nucleus strongly
resists compression; thus atoms take up space even though the constituent
particles of the atom are no larger than mathematical points. This
example of the vast difference bet\veen the ordinary experience of percep-

Subtle Energies • Volume 4 • Number 2 • Page 102

 tion and the picture provided by mathematics brings into sharper focus
the problem of what is meant by the term "real."

3. Exact simultaneous measurement of certain pairs of variables of a

physical system is impossible. This is the conclusion represented in
Heisenberg's famous "uncertainty principle." Specifically, the principle
refers to pairs like position and momentum, or energy and time. The
impossibility is not merely a result of an inherent "clumsiness" in the
measurement process but is built into the system in such a way that a
choice made to determine one quantity with precision automatically
reduces the precision in the measurement of the other.

4. A physical system, once separated, retains a "connectedness" through

the quantum wave function. This is, perhaps, the most bizarre and
controversial of the predictions of quantum mechanics since it implies
linkages that transcend space, time, and the conventional interactions of
the four basic force fields. But considerable experimental effort has
confirmed that "local" connections are inadequate to explain reality; this
justifies incorporating "non-locality" into our model. A more
comprehensive discussion of non-locality appears below in connection
with the detailed description of the model.

T
his descent into the world of the ultimately small was quantitatively
illustrated in Part I, Figure 2. The journey takes us past the level of
elementary particles another 18 orders of magnitude to the Planck
length of 10-33 centimeters, the bottom of space-time, where the concepts of
measure, length, and location lose their scientific meaning due to quantum
uncertainty and fluctuation. Between elementary particles and the Planck
length lies the "quantum vacuum" a sea of essentially infinite energy that
underlies our physical world of form. Figure 1 is a pictorial representation of
this journey that illustrates archetypes as a further extension of the descent.
Right now our main purpose is not to study the scenery, only to reinforce the
idea that the journey takes place completely in the mind. The objects encoun­
tered on the way are as real as the mathematics which gives them their existence
and the models which reveal their "shapes."

As suggested above, the durability and persistence of a model depend on how

deeply it resonates with the human experience. In science and mathematics
models survive through experimental testing combined with the complex

Subtle r.n;'r<JlP' • Volume 4 • Number 2 • Page 103

 Physical
G I
! \
\

~
World '~o,,,,\
o 0 '\j\~\'o\e
,0
I '
\
I \

Subatomic
World
~~eo~
~vo~\\C.

., \
\

"

Physical
Realm
Knowledge
Realm

Figure 1. Pictorial representtltion of the descent into the world of the ultimtltely small
and beyond. From the spaceless-timeless "knowledge realm" of archetypal patterns. the
physical world of three dimensional space and time begins to manifest at the Planck length.

Subtle Energies • Volume 4 • Number 2 • Page 104

sociological process of scientific debate. The batrle over "cold fusion" illustrates
just how complex (and rancorous) this process can become. Fortunately, nature
eventually setrles the arguments-ifwe are clever enough to ask her the right
questions.

EXTENDING THE MODEL

What happens when technology is unable to build an instrument that can
probe into a realm that the mind asserts is then~ For example, the high energy
physics community would like to build a Superconducting Super Collider to
study particles and processes that are important in developing the "Theory of
Everything." Unfortunately, while the technology is available, Congress says
the money isn't. As another example, consider the question of life in other
parts of the universe. Again, technology can't get us there. However, science
fiction, with its warp drives and rime machines, proves that the mind can still
"boldly go where no one has gone before." In other words, the absence of
hard data does not preclude the creation of models, only that they become
more difficult to defend when they are challenged.

O
ur model is a case in point. The existence of Mind as a realm having
properties rather different from those of physical matter is not a
difficult concept. After all, this is the basis of the famous "Cartesian
split," now over three centuries old, which serves as the core belief for objective
science-the belief that there are no observer complications in experiments.
What may be difficult to comprehend is the idea that the contents of Mind
have a connection to the world of matter; i.e., the Cartesian split is only an
approximation, not an absolute truth. Therefore, the issue that must be
addressed is what is the nature of this connection between the contents of Mind
which are spaceless and timeless and objects in the physical world which are
space-time limited?

In dealing with this and other related philosophical matters, we have chosen
to construct our model from concepts as close to the scientific mainstream as
possible. The reasons for this choice should be readily apparent to anyone who
has tried to present new ideas to audiences grounded in western paradigmatic
thinking. Not only are we interested in communicating clearly with as wide

Subtle Energies • Volume 4 • Number 2 • Page 105

an audience as possible, we would hope that these ideas resonate strongly with
people who appreciate the scientific process and its complexity. Our model
takes scientific concepts beyond the point where direct experimental testing
through physics is possible. Nevertheless, we believe that sufficient hard data
are available from other areas of human experience to make a strong case for
the mind-matter connection.

ALTERNATIVE ApPROACHES

O
ver the years there have been numerous models proposed that embrace
a scientific base which address the mind-matter interface and the role
of consciousness. Some of these models invoke spaceless-timeless
realms, others do not. A review of consciousness models for the years 1975­
1990 was published as a two part series in The Journal ofMind and Behavior. 4
The review covers the work of David Bohm, Robert John and Brenda Dunn,
].C Eccles, Henry Stapp, A. Goswami, Saul-Paul Sirag, R.W Sperry, G. Bate­
son, and others. Two related models outside the scope of the review are the
work of William Tiller on a lattice model of space 5 and an interpretation by
Thomas Bearden of an expanded version of electromagnetic theory that relies
upon the "scalar waves" of Nicola Tesla. 6

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Before getting into the details of our model, it is useful to list several
phenomena that present severe challenges to the accepted scientific paradigm.
It is our belief that these and related phenomena should be comprehended by
an expanded view of reality.

1. Non-local connections.

2. Healing and other such beneficial person to person effects that transcend
distance.

3. Phenomena commonly known as psi, i.e., psychokinesis, telepathy,

clairvoyance or remote viewing, and precognition.

Subtle Energies • Volume 4 • Number 2 • Page 106

 4. Information storage in physical materials as manifested in psychometry,
homeopathic remedies, crystals, and sacred relics.

5. The sporadic, inconsistent, and often irreproducible nature of these kinds

of phenomena.

DETAILS OF THE MODEL

IMPLICATIONS OF NON-LOCALITY

Erwin Schroedinger, one of the principle architects of quantum mechanics,

called non-locality "quantum theory's most distinctive feature, the place where
it differs most from classical expectations." Unlike all conventional interac­
tions which drop off with distance and cannot travel faster than light, the
quantum linkage due to non-locality is as strong at a million miles as at a
millimeter, and its changes are transmitted instantaneously-considerably faster
than the speed of Iight.7

I
n 1964 John Stewart Bell proposed a crucial test between the predictions
in quantum theory of non-locality and those of any theory based on the
concept of local reality. This test, known as Bell's Theorem, did not
propose an experimental situation in which non-local interactions are directly
observed. Instead, Bell invented a simple argument that could be tested
experimentally that would indirectly demonstrate the necessary existence of non­
local connections. 8

Local reality means that effects that are strong within a given region of space
fall off outside, so that it makes sense to divide the world into separate, self­
contained systems that interact by forces and signals that fall off rapidly with
distance. Thus, the idea of non-locality is shocking, because for hundreds of
years scientists have said that if anything moved it was because something else
acted on it. Non-locality suggests that distant systems can be connected in a
totally new way-a way in which distance no longer seems to matter.

The experimental results are now in, and most physicists are well satisfied that
quantum theory has been confirmed and local reality ruled out. The tests of

Subtle Energies • Volume 4 • Number 2 • Page 107

Bell's theorem demonstrate that the quantum linkage is real and provide the key
evidence in physics pointing ro a connection beyond space-time. Whether we
like it or not, nature has chosen to include this instantaneous linkage into her
creation of reality'? These careful experiments were carried out by Alain Aspect
and others and have shown that quantum systems are correlated in ways that
defy explanation in terms of any connections, interactions, fields, pushes, or
pulls that would have any meaning in conventional physics. 9- 11 Today, the only
possibility for continuing ro believe in a local-reality theory is to suppose that
the Bell correlations are somehow the result of a physical interaction or signal
that passes between the detectors at a speed that is faster than light. 12 This
would be in direct violation of the theory of relativity.

I
t is interesting to note that most physicists accept non-locality as a confir­
mation of quantum theory. However, it still remains a black sheep of the
quantum family, and physicists avoid drawing too much attention to its
bizarre implications. Most prefer to assume that non-local influences occur only
at the particle level, although quantum physics itself provides no rationale for
this assumption. In fact, quantum physics is now being successfully applied,
not only to the particle level, but to atoms, to bacteria, and even at the
cosmological level. 13.14 We have, therefore, taken the position that non-locality
pervades all phenomena and that the world could be filled with innumerable
non-local influences even at the macroscopic level of human experience.

Non-locality forces physics to deal with a troublesome dilemma. On the one

hand is the undisputed success of quantum theory, based on fundamental
interactions that propagate with the speed of light. On the other hand are the
Bell correlations that are instantaneous and which could stretch undiminished
across the galaxy. Clearly, the grab-bag of conventional explanations does not
contain the material for modeling this strange behavior of nature. The theory
must be capable of representing particles in space-time while simultaneously
manifesting non-local features. The connection between our space-time world
and the mental realm must be a one-step process in any model of reality.

THE PENROSE TWISTOR

Bell's theorem and the necessity of non-local reality have not had nearly the
impact on physics that one might imagine, given the startling implications of

Subtle Energies • Volume 4 • Number 2 • Page 108

the theorem and its experimental tests. Ballentine has charted more than two
decades of citations to Bell's landmark paper showing a gradual rise to about
33 per year. I '5 This "ho-hum" response is easily explained by realizing that to
the great bulk of practicing physicists quantum mechanics is a calculational
tool that works exceedingly well for certain kinds of problems, but as a guide
for the formation of a philosophy or worldview it may be subject to too many
differing interprerations. 16

Nevertheless, to those having philosophy as a passion and who see quantum

mechanics as the window to the basic structute of the universe, Bell's theorem
may indeed be "the most profound discovery of science."l? Those working in
this area, in particular those concerned with developing some kind of "theory
of everything" or TOE as it is called by physicists, must somehow resolve the
dilemma mentioned above. We note in passing that "theory of everything" is
a "tongue in cheek" phrase in physics and should not be interpreted too literally.
However, the search for the TOE is taking science into new territory and has
helped contribute to our supply of ideas for this model.

T
here are three principal approaches being undertaken to the TOE which
are potentially capable of providing mathematical pictures of "the other
side" of space-time and of how our physical world unfolds or is "created"
from beyond space-time. They are called superstring theory, knot theory, and
twistor theory. The theory we wish to elaborate upon in connection with our
model is twistor theory, a creation of Roger Penrose, mathematician and
theoretical physicist at Oxford and author of the highly acclaimed book The
Emperor's New Mind. IS

It may be only coincidence that Roger Penrose was developing the beginnings
of twisror theory about the same time that Bell published his famous theorem.
But over the three decades since that time nvistors have received even less public
notice than has Bell. For example, Barrow's 1991 book makes no mention of
twistors while giving considerable coverage to superstrings. 19 This apparent
neglect could be attributed to the somewhat radical approach that Penrose and
his colleagues have taken as well as the difficult mathematics that must be
mastered in order to deal with twistor space.20 The latter problem may be
responsible for the dearth of literature on nvistor theory for physicists who
want to explore its features without roo many mathematical accouterments.

Subtle Energies • Volume 4 • Number 2 • Page 109

Fortunately, Peat21 has helped fill part of this gap with a non-mathematical
survey of twistors, and we have relied heavily on his work in order to provide
this brief description of how they relate to the non-locality issue.

T
Wistors are inherently non-local in their structure. This is because they
are designed not to embody space-like dimensional qualities; instead
they combine quantum mechanical angular momentum (spin) and
relativistic linear momentum (speed of light). As a result twistor space, which
is made up of these objects, has the property of defining direction but not
separation or distance. Non-locality is therefore an intrinsic and natural
property of twistor space.

However, space-time is where we live, and it is also the abode of the conven­
tional fields and formulas of physics. In order to take advantage of the power
of the twistor formalism, the physics of space-rime can be taken over into
twistor space (and vice versa) by means of a set of mathematical rules called
the Pentose transform. 2o When the transform is applied to the space-time
manifold it turns out that a "null line" or ray of light in this manifold
corresponds to a point in twistor space. In other words, the points of twistor
space can be thought of as encoding global or large-scale knowledge about
space-time. Bell's quantum connection, therefore, finds a natural home in
twistor space. The deeper structures of reality do indeed lie outside of space-time.

To resolve the "dilemma" on how to represent the physical world of space-time

while simultaneously manifesting non-local effects our model utilizes two rather
specialized subjects in physics which we have not needed to discuss up to now.
The following two points will help set the stage:

1. Alfred N orrh Whitehead (1861-1947), philosopher and mathematician,

has proposed a "process" model of the world which is regarded as one
of the major philosophical works of modern times. 22 Srapp23 has argued
thar this model provides a natural rheoretical setting for quantum theory.
"The basic elements of the model are events that actualize, or bring into
existence, certain definite relationships from among a realm of possibil­
ities or potentialities inherent in the set of prior events." The Whitehead
model is also in accord with the idea that "actualization" is brought
about by mind or consciousness as part of a feedback loop.

Subtle Energies • Volume 4 • Number 2 • Page 110

 2. The Unification Program for the forces of physics is driven by the belief
that the forces are "gauge fields" and have their roots in an underlying
"gauge symmetry" in abstract mathematical spaces 19 (which our model
places in realms beyond space-time). These forces have an interesting
commonality, in that they each obey a universal speed limit-the velocity
of light. We propose that this common feature can be attributed to an
origin for these forces of physics in an archetypal pattern beyond space­
time.

Combining these two points leads to a picture of the physical world continu­
ously "unfolding" or evolving out of the non-local knowledge realm of
archetypal patterns at the finite rate of the speed of light. (This picture is not
unlike that proposed by David Bohm 24 ,25 with his implicate and explicate
orders.) Thus quantum connectedness, which is intrinsic to the realm beyond
space-time, is compatible with the realm of matter with its universal speed limit.

A
n analogy may help illuminate this picture. Consider a loom which
has a human operator watching the pattern unfold. The machinery
of the loom runs at a fixed speed, but the operator has the ability to
change the pattern at any time so that it conforms better to what she has in
mind. Thus, there is continuous feedback between what is unfolding and what
has already been created. The weaving ofthe fobric ofreality im/olves this contin­
uous back and forth exchange between space-time and the higher realms.

ADDITIONAL MATHEMATICAL CONNECTIONS

There is one more link in the chain that needs to be discussed in connection
with the details of the model. This remaining link bridges the gap between
twistor space and still higher dimensional spaces. The needed connection is
provided by fiber bundle theory. This is a branch of pure mathematics called
differential geometry. Bergman 26 provides this description of these geometri­
cal structures:

Given a manifold, such as space-time, called the base manifold, one

attaches new manifolds to each point. These attached manifolds,
all identicaL are the fibers. They may have any dimensionality, not
necessarily that of the base manifold. Each fiber can be subjected

Subtle Energies • Volume 4 • Number 2 • Page 111

 to mappings, or transformations on itself, which maintain the tiber's
essential properties. .. Given a fiber and its permitted self­
mappings, one may introduce a connection that establishes
'corresponding' points on fibers at nearby points.

F
iber bundles fit into twistor theory in an essential way. Ward and Wells
provide an extensive review of the mathematics that connects fiber
bundles to rwistor space. 20 Twistor space by itself is adequate for certain
of the internal symmetries of elementary particles but not general enough to
handle the quantum forces that operate berween the particles. Fiber connec­
tions introduced at each point of nvistor space, give it a much richer geomet­
rical structure. Figure 2 schematically illustrates this model. It shows how
mathematical links serve as connectors berween the knowledg;: realm which
includes mind and the physical realm of matter. Note that the association of
mathematical hyperspaces with Mind is unique to this model and would not
be regarded as orthodox science. However, we believe that the evidence and
arguments arrayed in these articles uphold this hypothesis.

BEYOND THE EDGES OF THE MAP

Mathematics has taken us in a step by step fashion from the familiar structures
of space-time to the sub-levels of Mind. It is tempting to push the process
even further. Mathematics, being the study of pure patterns, is ideally suited
for exploring and mapping these deeper aspects of nature. The branch called
group theory is particularly suited for describing ordinary processes like rotation
as well as the abstract symmetries involved in elementary particle interactions.
Because group theory has this ability to span structures and relationships from
the simple to the infinitely complex, it may well be the mathematics for
representing the basic archetypes that shape the physical world.

Maps made in this fashion can provide guidelines for thinking as well as for
human experience. However, there is a problem in this upward projection to
more encompassing realms of the hierarchical structure of nature. We believe
that the most such maps can do is to provide us with aspects of that reality
since we are exploring a reality from which space-time emerges as a projection.

Subtle Energies • Volume 4 • Number 2 • Page 112

 Figure 2. Schematic illustration of the model for the connection between the realms
Mind and matter (mind/brain). From the physical world of space-time. we can use
mathematical symbol systems (Penrose tTrlnsforms. twistors. and fiber bundles) to
understand our linkage to the spaceless-timeless "knowledge realm. .. yet ri/ways with a loss
of its foil beaut)'.

A simple illustration points up the difficulty inherent in this process. Given

a set of blueprints for a house it is possible for one experienced in interior
design to imagine what any given room would look like when completed, even
to the point of describing the furniture in the room. But the architect and

Subtle Energies • Volume 4 • Number 2 • Page 113

home owner may have completely different views of this level of detail. In
other words, the shape of the structure does not necessarily determine its contents.

ISSUES RELATED TO THE MODEL

CAUSALITI

ause and effect are the heart and soul of scientific explanation. You

C kick the ball and it moves; or you listen to TV advertisements day in

and day out, and they cause a change in your beliefs and actions. If
other conditions are identical, the principle of causality states that the same
cause always produces the same effect. In modern science causality has
traditionally been used as a litmus test to judge whether an explanation or
model is "scientific." However, quantum effects at the microscopic level, partic­
ularly non-locality, have raised serious questions about the universality of this
limited concept of causality.

To understand how our model treats causality we will need to review the history
of the concept of causality. The earliest and most systematic codification of
the meaning of causality in the West was the teaching of Aristotle who elaborat­
ed upon the scattered ideas of Plato. In the Aristotelian teaching of causes
there were four causes. Two causes of "being": 1) the material cause that
provides the passive receptacle upon which the other causes act, and 2) the
formal cause that contributes the essence, idea, or quality of the thing concerned.
Then there were two causes of "becoming": 3) efficient cause which represented
the external compulsion that bodies had to obey, and 4) the final cause that
represented the goal to which everything strove and which everything served.
After the Renaissance there was a major shift in the thinking about causality
due to the emergence of science. Science only considered the efficient cause
since it was mathematically expressible in the science of the time and could
lead to the harnessing of nature. Science took the material cause for granted
in connection with all natural happenings and ignored the formal and final
causes because they were considered beyond the reach of physical experiment. 27

In our model we expand the current scientific understanding of causality and

reinstate the four causes of Aristotle. The first two causes of being are consid-

Subtle Energies • Volume 4 • Number 2 • Page 114

ered to originate beyond space-time. The material cause represents the reality
beyond space-time to which everything in the physical is linked. The formal
cause corresponds to the archetypes which provide the essence behind the
patterns and symbols of the physical world. The two causes of becoming in
our model represent effects within space-time. The efficient cause corresponds
to traditional science but is expanded to include effects due to causes originating
in the mental. The final cause refers to the effects of a "higher ordering
principle" originating beyond space-time that establishes the interconnective­
ness in the physical reality. This involves the concepts of love, compassion,
and appreciation and will be discussed in Part III of this series.

REPRODUCIBILITY

Consistent reproducibility is treated by modern science as if it were an absolute

law of nature. Nowhere is this felt more keenly than in the field of parapsy­
chology. The following observation was published by three researchers in the
field:

Perhaps the most frequent (and valid) criticism of parapsychology

is that significant experimental results are not repeatable upon
demand. Indeed, many observers of parapsychology, both within
and outside the field, claim that the repeatable parapsychological
experiment simply does not exist. This criticism is not unique to
parapsychology, of course; the lack of replicable experiments IS
ubiquitous to virtually all the social and behavioral sciences. 28

W
e suggest that reproducibility is an artifact that appears in the so­
called "hard sciences" because of the simplifYing assumption that
space-time forms a closed manifold. 29 Under our expanded science,
"real" effects that could originate beyond space-time may not be consistently
reproducible. For example, religious miracles and medical "spontaneous"
remissions would need to be evaluated on this broader scientific basis. We
postulate that experiments involving significant components originating beyond
space-time require a closed manifold that extends beyond space-time to be
consistently reproducible. Since we are now dealing with the realms of mind
and spirit, this appears to require changes in belief systems plus a degree of

Subtle Energies • Volume 4 • Number 2 • Page 115

mental and emotional management that most individuals do not possess.
However, there is ample evidence over history that "unexplainable" reproducible
effects in the physical may be possible.

INTER-SYSTEM COUPLING AND INTENTION

N
on-locality is closely related to the issue of reproducibility. We agree
with John Stewart Bell, Nick Herbert, and others who state that non­
local linkages underlie everyday reality.s Thus, we may ask: if a
quantum connection of some kind is estahlished by every interaction, then
why aren't all human beings experiencing this unity? One reason for this
apparent absence of unity might he that, although the strength of the quantum
correlations does not diminish with distance, there appears to he a form of
"coupling coefficient" associated with each connection. The coupling coeffi­
cient represents a measure of the degree to which one system influences
another.

We believe that this coupling coefficient can be affected by human intention

in several ways. It can be strengthened by repeated interactions or diluted by
irrelevant interactions. Clarity and sharpness of focus as well as the removal
of negative outside influences would tend to improve the coupling. One could
also speculate that any intense emotional process would initiate a persistent
quantum linkage between people.

Furthermore, in metaphysical traditions some of the admonitions in the

practices have greater meaning if we assume that they involve quantum
linkages, i.e., linkages to the spaceless-timeless reality of Mind. For example,
the stressing of secrecy in the ancient traditions could reflect a recognition
that the effectiveness of the process would be diluted by irrelevant or hostile
mental interactions at the mental and emotional level. The emphasis on daily
meditative practice could follow from the recognition of the need to maintain
and strengthen the quantum linkage. Finally, at the foundation of many great
religions is the practice of sincere heart-felt love and compassion. In Part III
we will suggest a scientific rational for why love provides an enhancement of
coupling coefficient to permit increased feedback of holistic knowledge from
the connectiveness inherent in the realms beyond space-time.

Subtle Energies • Volume 4 • Number 2 • Page 116

THE DYNAMICS OF FORM
Our model proposes a reality from which form in space-time emerges as a
dynamic projection-a creative holomovement in the words of Dr. David
Bohm. In this concluding section we bring up several topics that show how
certain mathematical symbol systems embody process as well as form. This
should help emphasize the point that our minds engage us in a complex,
dynamical "dance" back and forth between the two sides of the permeable
space-time boundary. In fact, the word "dance" is an apt metaphor for what
we are trying to express, where form, process, and meaning are so closely
intertwined.

Another illustration provides a supportive perspective. "Sprinkle sand over the

surface of a metal plate; draw a violin bow carefully along the plate boundary.
The sand particles will toss about in a rapid dance, swarming and forming a
characteristic pattern on the plate surface. This pattern is at once both form
and process."30

The features that are present in these two examples span a range from static
form at one extreme to kinetic-dynamic process at the other extreme. These
features or aspects arise out of a whole that is being generated and sustained
by a motivating "energy/intelligence" that is of a different quality than the
features themselves.

DISTINCTION AND SELF-REFERENCE-THE CREATION OF FORM

M
athematicians have been exploring the fabric of form based upon a
formless space beyond dualities, before any distinction has been
drawn. Thus, both "the unmanifest" and a creative process from
which form arises can be symbolically described. The approach is as follows.
In order for any universe to come ro observe itself and therefore learn, even
through intuition, it must somehow split itself into that which is seen and that
which sees. This process involves both distinction and self-reference-two
inseparable and hence conceptually identical ideas. The starting point for this
process is "the unmanifest" called the "Void" in metaphysics. The Void is the
opposite of (and hence the support for) Everything That Is, and hence it can

Subtle Energies • Volume 4 • Number 2 • Page 117

also be called the All. Mathematicians conceptualize this "empty set" by first
framing nothing and then throwing away the frame! 31

A
n entire universe of forms comes into being with the making of one
distinction. It is this simplicity of distinction that underlies the
dynamics of nature, life and movement-the binary choice of yes-no,
true-false, over-under, inside-outside, etc. What the mathematicians are saying
is that this simplicity boils up from the realm of the Void/All via archetypal
patterns into the complexity of the geometry and topology of the perceived
world. They have demonstrated "how a rich world of periodicities, waveforms
and interference phenomena is inherent in the simple act of distinction."3o All
from framing nothing!

Distinction, therefore, implies the more complex and dynamical processes of self­
reference, feedback, and learning. Since our model assumes an interconnected
unity in a hierarchy of levels, it then represents a cosmos that is learning through
a multiplicity of feedback paths, both in nature and in human beings. The
mathematical subjects discussed below supply further clues as to how the dynamics
of the feedback process between Mind and matter might be taking place.

WAVES

In the example of the sand particles on the metal plate, we note that the static
form of a pattern and the kinetic-dynamic process are being generated and
sustained by an essential periodic vibration. In science once a phenomenon
can be recognized as "wave-like," then a great deal about that phenomenon can
be predicted even though the mechanism by which the waves are generated is
not clearly understood. By the use of mathematical "transforms" it is possible
to symbolically span beyond space-time.

COMPLEX NUMBERS

Complex numbers, a branch of mathematics, illustrates another transformation

process and provides a glimpse of an additional possible dynamic relationship
benveen Mind and matter. The complex number system with its "imaginary"

Subtle Energies • Volume 4 • Number 2 • Page 118

square root of I was invented to accommodate the needs of mathematicians
but soon found a host of applications in physics and engineering. Imaginary
numbers serve as a kind of "rotator" which moves a quantity into another
"realm." The very names for the two kinds of numbers ("real" and "imaginary")
suggest this sort of action. Thus, in relativity theory, time is wedded to space
by making it imaginary. Also in applications involving time-varying quanti­
ties, such as electromagnetic theory, fluid mechanics, aerodynamics, and waves,
complex numbers playa major role in simplifYing the mathematics.

But for our purposes the most interesting feature is shown by Kauffman 32 to
be the fact that the self-reference process is precisely mirrored by the formalism
of complex numbers. It should be no surprise, therefore, that quantum
mechanics, the only branch of physics that incorporates the observer as an
integral part of the system, can not be formulated correctly without complex
numbers.

COMPLEXITY AND CHAOS THEORY

mathematical symbolic representation of the process for the manifes­

A tation of 3D-form (information) in space-time may be the new science

of complexity that includes chaos theory as a subset. 33 Our model
would suggest that microscopic fluctuations at the edge of the quantum vacuum
eventually appear as a macroscopic expression in the physical-that the system
effectively acts like a "pump" that brings microscopic fluctuations up ro a
macroscopic expression. In deterministic chaos theory there is great sensitivity
to initial conditions. Hence, our model might explain why decisions/choices
that originate beyond space-time in the knowledge realm could produce a
"power of mind over matter."

The unpredictability inherent in chaos theory is due to these initial

choices/decisions which set the constraints upon the process. Nevertheless,
behavior does appear to settle into a particular "chaotic" pattern. This pattern
is known as a "strange attracror" since although the same combination of varia­
bles never occurs twice the system behaves as though attracted by some strange
influence. In fict, we could postulate that a higher dimensional attractor might
correspond to an archetype. Such an archetype might tap the infinite reservoir

Subtle Energies • Volume 4 • Number 2 • Page 119

of energy in the quantum vacuum and thereby constitute a model for the "life"
process.

FRACTALS AND SCALING

The strange attractor is a fractal. 34 Feedback and self-reference are related to

fractals which can be expressed as mathematical recursive forms. 32 The unimag­
inably detailed structures created by fractal geometry have been found to
succinctly describe complex natural objects and processes. 35 Even a landscape
with all its complexity can be generated with fractal mathematics.

F
ractals exhibit "scaling properties" which result in self-similarity among
scales. This means, for example, that one can take a section of coastline
(a fractal) and magnify it, obtaining a result that is equally plausible as
a stretch of coastline. Hence, for patterns in the physical world that can be
represented as fractals, their coupling to the archetypal counterparts in the
spaceless-timeless realm would appear to be independent of their physical size.
In other words, for feedback from an appropriate archetype, it makes no differ­
ence if the physical pattern is on the scale of the solar system, a mountain
range, a tree, a crystal, the DNA molecule, or the spin structure of an atomic
nucleus. An important characteristic of fractals is that a small change in the
generating form creates a corresponding change in the fractal pattern
everywhere, and at every scale. Thus, the mathematics of self-similar fractals
could be representing a key organizing principle in nature-one that creates a
type of "holographic" universe.

INTERPRETATION

This discussion of the dynamics of the Mind-matter linkage has focussed on

several kinds of mathematical ideas. Since we have described the linkage itself
in terms of the symbolic systems of mathematics, it is natural to describe other
aspects of the process in more or less the same way. However, we are not able
to be very specific on how these other mathematical processes might integrate
into the general dynamical picture. At the present time the best we can do is
obtain hints and glimpses about what may be going on. However, the various

Subtle Energies • Volume 4 • Number 2 • Page 120

kinds of mathematics described do have a common feature. They are self­
rderential with the inherent power of transformation to realms beyond space­
time. Perhaps this feedback mirroring process via mathematical symbols is
bringing us into contact with some more encompassing archetypal pattern that
is behind the emergence of the physical out of these higher realms.

We wish to emphasize an important point about symbols. When the symbols

associated with any form of language including mathematics are discussed, they,
of necessity, consist of patterns in Out physical world. Hence, a symbol represents
a pattern within our three-dimensional space. As discussed in Part 1,36 symbols
serve the role of mediator between the happenings in the physical or outer reality
and the spaceless-timeless or inner reality. Therefore, we have used the terms
archetypes or archetypal patterns to define the order and symmetries beyond
space-time.

In Part III we will integrate the key concepts from Parts I & II and address
their implication for human experience and energy medicine.

• • •
CORRESPONDENCE: William C. Gough • Foundation for Mind-Being Research • 442
Knoll Drive· Los Altos, CA 94024 • Voice & Fax: (415) 941-7462 • Robert L. Shacklett
• Post Otllce Box 2128 • Apros, CA 95001 • Voice: (408) 722-6021.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: The authors wish to thank Robert Bourdeaux (8510 Brink Rd.,
Gaithersburg, MD 20882) for his artistic contribution ro rhe creation of Figures 1 and 2 of
this paper. A summary of the concepts presented in this series was first published in The
Journal of Religion and P~ychical Research. Although this second ISSSEEM article represents a
major update, it does contain portions of the copyrighted JRPR second article that are being
published with the kind permission of The Academy of Religion and Psychical Research,
Bloomfield, CT.

REFERENCES AND NOTES

1. R. L. Shacklett & W. C. Gough, The Unification of Mind and Matter: A Proposed

Scientific Model, Dec. 29, 1991, Report of rhe Foundation for Mind-Being Research, 442
Knoll Drive. Los Altos, CA 94024.
2. W. C. Gough & R. L. Shacklett, Physics, Parapsychology and Religion~Part I: The
Reality Beyond Space-Time, Part II: The Quantum Linkage, Pan III: The Human
Implications, Journal of Religion and P~ychical Research 16, 2,3,4 (I993).

Subtle Energies • Volume 4 • Number 2 • Page 121

 3. J. D. Barrow, Pi in the Sky: Counting, Thillking, and Being (Claredon Press, Oxford,
1992), pp. 1-2.
4. ]. E. Burns, Contemporary Models of Consciousness: Parr I & Part II, The JournaL of
Afind and Behavior II, 2 (1990), pp. 153-172 & 12,3 (1991), pp. 407-420.
5. W. A. Tiller, A Lattice Model of Space, Phoenix: New Directions in the Study of Man II,
2 (1978), pp. 27-47. (This Journal is no longer operational, but copies of Tiller's
articles can be obtained from: Librarian, Fetzer Foundation, 9292 West KL Ave.,
Kalamazoo, MI 49009.)
6. T. E. Bearden, On Rotary Permanent Magnet Motors and 'Free' Energy, Raum und Zeit
1,3 (1989), pp. 43-53.
7. N. Herbert, Notes Toward 'A User's Guide to the Quantum Connection', Psychological
Perspectives 19, I (I988), pp. 56- 63.
8. N. Herbert, How Bell Proved Reality Cannot Be Local, PsychoLogical Perspectives 19, 2
(1988), pp. 313-319.
9. A. Aspect, P. Grangier & G. Roger, Experimental Tests of Realistic Local Theories via
Bell's Theorem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 47 (1981), pp. 460-463.
10. A. Aspect, P. Grangier & G. Roger, Experimemal Tests of Realization of Einstein­
Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm Gedankenexperiment: A New Violation of Bell's Inequality, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 49 (1982), pp. 91-94.
11. A. Aspect, ]. Dalibard & G. Roger, Experimental Tests of Bell's Inequalities Using
Time-varying Analyzers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49 (1982), pp. 1804-1807.
12. F. D. Peat, Einstein's Moon: Bell's Theorem and the Curious Quest for Quantum Reality
(Contemporary Books, Chicago, IL, 1990).
13. S. W. Hawking, A Brief History of Time (Bantam Books, New York, 1988).
14. M. Kafatos & R. Nadeau The Conscious Universe: Part and Whole in Modern Physical
Theory (Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, 1990), pp. 37-38, 83-84.
15. L. E. Ballentine, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics Since the Bell Inequalities,
American Journal of Physics 55, 9 (1987), pp. 785
16. N. Herbert, Quantum Reality: Beyond the New Physics (Doubleday, New York, NY, 1985).
17. H. P. Stapp, Bell's Theorem and World Process, Nuovo Cimento 29B (1975), p. 270.
18. R. Penrose, The Emperor's New Mind· Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of
Physics (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, NY, 1989).
19. J. D. Barrow, Theories of Everything: The Quest for Ultimate Explanation (Oxford
University Press, New York, NY, 1991).
20. R. S. Ward & R. O. Wells, Jr., Twistor Geometry and Field Theory (Cambridge
University Press, New York, 1990).
21. F. D. Pear, Superstrings and the Search for the Theory of Everything (Contemporary Books,
Chicago, It, 1988).
22. A N. Whitehead, Process and Reality (Macmillan, New York, NY, 1929).
23. H. P. Stapp, Whiteheadian Approach to Quanrum Theory and rhe Generalized Bell's
Theorem, Foundations of Physics 9, 112 (1979), p 1.
24. D. Bohm, WhoLeness and the Implicate Order (Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1980).
25. D. Bohm & B. ]. Hiley, The Undivided Universe: An OntologicaL Interpretation of
Quantum Theory (Routledge, London, 1993).
26. P. G. Bergmann, Unitary Field Theories, Physics Today 32, 3 (1979), p. 44.
27. M. Bunge, Causality and Modern Science: Third Revised Edition (Dover Publications,
New York, NY, 1979), pp. 31-33.

Subtle Energies • Volume 4 • Number 2 • Page 122

28. D. 1. Radin, E. C. May & M. ]. Thomson, Psi Experimems with Random Number
Generarors: Meta-Analysis Parr I, Research in Paraps;'Chology 1985 (1986), pp. 14-17.
29. W. C. Gough. Book Review-Too Hot ro Handle: The Race for Cold Fusion, Fusion
TechnoLogy 22 (Aug. 1992), pp. 188-191.
30. H. Jenny, Cymatics (Basilius Presse, Basel, 1974). [Quoted in Kauffman & Varela, p.
171), (following
31. L. H. Kauffman & F. J. Varela, Form Dynamics, journal of Social and Biological
Structures 3 (1980), pp. 171-206.
32. L. H. Kauffman, Self-Reference and Recursive Forms, journal of Social and BioLogical
Structures 10 (1987), pp. 53-72.
33. R. Lewin, Complexity: Lift at the Edge of Chaos (Macmillan, New York, NY, 1991). See
Figure 10, p. 189.
34. J. Gleick, Chaos: Making a New Science (Penguin Books, New York, NY. 1987), pp.
139-140.
35. H. Peitgen & D. Saupe, Eds. The Science of Fractal/mages (Springer-Verlag, New York,
NY, 1988).
36. W. C. Gough & R. L. Shacklett, The Science of Connectiveness Parr I: Modeling a
Greater Unity, Subtle 4, 1 (1993), pp. 57-76.

Subtle 1"""'V''',) • Volume 4 • Number 2 • Page J 23