CIA-RDP96-00792R000400010002-1

Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000400010002-1
242
J. GRINBERG-ZYLBERBAUM
thought of the mind. In fact, the central processor is the observer of the mind.
It is not affected by thought, emotion, pleasure or pain because it is part of its
nature to be able to testify all these changes in mind's activity without changing
or losing its capacity to observe them.
When a human being identifies himself with the Self, he transcends every
and all relative and temporal changes in mind activity and becomes part of a
kind of unchangeable silence from whence experiences appear and are seen as
miraculous happenings standing out from a ground of empty fullness, and at
the same time forming part of an immense and all-encompassing pattern of
relationships. To the question about the individual or collective nature of the
central processor, nobody can give a final answer, but intuition feels that the
observer in each one of us is the One Observer, the self in each one of us the
One Self and the central processor in each one of us the One Central
Processor.
To conclude, it is possible to postulate that the central processor does not
abide in any space, is atemporal and belongs to a non physical reality and has
no shape or form.
References
Aurobindo, S., La Vida Divina, Editorial Kier, Buenos Aires, 1971.
Beiser, A., Conceptos de Fisica Moderna, McGraw Hill, Madrid, 1968.
Borges, J.L., El Aleph, EMECE, Buenos Aires, 1970.
Caulfield, H.J., Lu Sun, The Application of Holography, Wiley Interscience, U.S.A., 1970.
Capra, F., The Tao of Physics, Fontana, U.S.A., 1976.
Epstein, P., Kabbalah, Doubleday, New York, 1978.
Grinberg-Zylberbaum, J., The retrieval of learned information. A \neurophysiological
convergence-divergence theory. J. Theoret. Biol., 56, 95-110, 1976.
Grinberg-Zylberbaum, J., El Espacio y la Conciencia, Editorial Trillas México, 1981.
Grinberg-Zylberbaum, J., Psychophysiological correlates of communication, gravitation and
unity. J. Psychophys. Sys., 4, 227-256, 1982.
Grinberg-Zylberbaum, J., Extraocular vision. J. Psychophys. Sys., 5, 141-158, 1983.
Jenny, H., Cymatics, Basilius Presse Basel, 1974.
Maharishi, R., Talks with Sri Ramana Maharishi, Sri Ramanasramam Tiruvannamalai, India,
1972.
Vivekananda, S., Raya Yoga, Kier, Buenos Aires, 1963, 1975.
Wilson, C., Lo Oculto, Editorial Noguer, Barcelona, 1974.
Psychoenergetics, 1983, Vol. 5, pp. 243-252
0278-6060/83/0503-0243 $18.50/0
@ Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, Inc., 1983
Printed in the United Kingdom
Research notes and comments
Scientific explanation of wave vector
collapse
D.F. LAWDEN
In his reply (Villars, 1983) to my research note (Lawden, 1983) on the role of
observing instruments in quantum theory, Villars does little more than argue
that his approach to the problem of wave vector collapse is logically con-
sistent. He fails to meet my criticism that he has no scientific explanation for
the phenomenon.
Thus, to meet my charge that he fails to provide a principle by which an
observing instrument can be distinguished from all other physical systems, he
states that such an instrument is recognizable by the circumstance that it
functions as required of such an instrument by the axioms of quantum theory.
According to his interpretation of the theory, then, there are two classes of
physical system, (i) a larger class comprising the generality of physical systems
to which the Schrodinger evolution law applies, and (ii) a much smaller class
of observing instruments whose behaviour is governed by other laws. He
admits that he is unable to separate these classes by appeal to any physical
criterion and falls back on the definition that an observing instrument is a
physical system which behaves as an observing instrument. However, such an
instrument only behaves in this manner in very special circumstances, viz.
when it interacts with the specific type of class-(i) system it is designed to
measure - in all other circumstances, it behaves like an orthodox class-(i)
system. Thus, a polarizer is a class-(ii) system when it interacts with photons
belonging to a properly positioned incident beam, but its behaviour in all other
circumstances (e.g. when it is heated) is that of a class-(ii) system. Very
mysterious!
Even though Villars may be able to establish that this interpretation is
logically unassailable, this is not the only requirement of a scientific theory. If
such a theory is to provide an acceptable explanation of the world, it must
eschew occult elements as far as possible. Thus, if it were established that all
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000400010002e year were more likely to become actors than
243

Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000400010002-1
244
RESEARCH NOTES AND COMMENTS
were babies born on other days, a theory which simply accepted this fact as an
axiom would not be acceptable as an explanation of this phenomenon and
science could not permit the matter to rest there. The unique behaviour of an
observing instrument when placed in a specific environment is completely
unexplained on Villars' interpretation of quantum theory and constitutes a
wholly mysterious or occult element. It cries out for explanation, but its author
declines to respond. Instead, he states his opinion that it is "quite possible that
an extended physical theory capable of explaining these events will never be
devised".
This is the nub of the controversy between us - can an explanation be
devised for the apparent differing behaviour patterns of an observing
instrument when it is in the process of measuring and those of the same
instrument in other circumstances or of all other physical systems? Walker
and I are attempting to devise such an explanation. We, also, separate physical
systems into two classes, (a) the generality of systems, including observing
instruments, to which the Schrödinger evolution law applies and (b) systems
generating a psychic field to which new laws (yet to be fully formulated!) are
applicable. A type-(b) system is easily distinguishable by virtue of its possess-
ing characteristics which are thoroughly familiar. If a theory of this type were
to be successful, it would clearly provide a truly scientific explanation of the
reduction of the wave vector effect by placing it in the context of a wider
variety of phenomena. It would not be a mere systematization of the facts, as
Villars' approach essentially is, but would point beyond the phenomenon to
relationships with apparently unconnected phenomena in other areas of
science - this is a feature which must be possessed by any theory aspiring to
the status of a scientific explanation. Thus, Kepler noted that the planets
moved in elliptical orbits and his three laws can be accepted as axioms for a
theory embracing all planetary systems. But how much superior is Newton's
theory of gravitation which provides a truly scientific explanation for the facts
established by Kepler. Villars would freeze us in the Kepler phase of the
phenomenon under discussion. Essentially, he is failing to discriminate
between a description of an effect and a scientific explanation of the effect.
Villars asserts that his view does not claim unique powers for observing
instruments. Nonetheless, it does require that there exist a unique relationship
between a given instrument and all the systems it can observe; it is only a
question of semantics whether we describe this as: "the instrument has unique
powers", or 'the instrument-system interaction is unique", or "the systems
respond to the instrument in a unique way", etc., etc. The fact is that the
behaviour of the instrument-plus-measured-system combination is of a
special type not governed by the Schrödinger equation and that this unique
type of interaction arises spontaneously, in an occult manner, at some point in
the assembly of the instrument in the presence of an observable system
RESEARCH NOTES AND COMMENTS
245
this cannot be accounted for by the switching on of any known physical field
(all of which are known to obey the evolution law). This, of course, is just one
of the consequences of the failure of the theory as a scientific explanation of
the phenomenon.
The suggestion that interference by a psychic field (already demanded on
other grounds - see Lawden, 1981) may account for the phenomenon of the
collapse of the wave vector can be criticised on the basis that it has not been
fully elaborated and it may even have to be extensively modified or even
abandoned in the light of experiment, but it is a serious attempt at an explana-
tion of the effect. The alternative road taken by Villars is the easy one of the
proliferation of hypotheses. Hiding behind an axiomatic facade, Villars offers
no explanation, opines that one will never be forthcoming and seems to be
criticising Walker and myself for even trying. The issue is still open and we
shall see!
References
Lawden, D.F. Separability of psychophysical systems J. Psychophys. Sys., 4, 1-10, 1981.
Lawden, D.F. Observing instruments and quantum theory. J. Psychophys. Sys., 5, 73-78, 1983.
Villars, C.N. Reply to Lawden, J. Psychophys. Sys., 5, 173-175, 1983.
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000400010002-1
/