Approved For Release 2003109/10
242 J. GRINBERG-ZYLBERBAUM
thought of the mind. In fact, the central processor is tfi@eobserver of the mind.
It is not affected by thought, emotion, pleasure or fat lbecause it is part of its
nin s _1v
nature to be able to testify all these changes in r d a 'ity without changing
or losing its capacity o observe them.
e
sorv
h
e
t
m
bei@
n' with the
identi
Ifi
e
t
i
When a human ie's himself with the elf, he transcends every
s
m
e
'f
h
s
a
c' *it@
c
h
a
s
n
e
n
m
i
and all relative and 'e!@Nralf@hanges in mind acti ity and becomes part of a
n
d
a
g
q
e
r
0
e
kind of unchangeable si e e rom whence experi ces appear and are seen as
m
w
h
c
e
n
e
x
eri ce
p
0'f
n
In
0
t
fr
0
miraculous happenings sta ing out from a gro d of empty fullness, and at
m
a
r
0 d0
g
g
0
the same time forming part an immense an all-encompassing pattern of
a
n
in
e
m
n
s
ea
all-el
n
n
Ia
relationships. To the question out the indivi ual or collective nature of the
0
u
t
th
e
ndiv
I
ual or
central processor, nobody can gi a final ans er, but intuition feels that the
can glafinal ans er' bu
observer in each one of us is the e @Observ r, the self in each one of us the
is the0eObser_v r, the sj
One Self and the central proci o in ea one of us the One Central
processo In eahone
Processor.
To conclude, it is possible to postulat t at the central processor does not
'le to postulattat the cer
@'oral and belon to a non
abide in any space, is atemporal and belon to a non physical reality and has
no shape or form.
References
Aurobindo, S., La Vida Divina, Editorial Kier, tuenos A'
Beiser, A., Conceptos de Fisica Moderna, M re"
,::G _'v @' id
ill, @dri
Borges, J.L., El Aleph, EMECE, Buenos Ai@ej,,01970@y' W
Caulfield, H.J., Lu Sun, The Application, grp iley Inters 'ence, U.S.A., 1970.
'nc
e '
s
O'U *S'A '9'
Capra, F., The Tao of Physics, Fontana, U.S. ., 1976.
"U*S'
Epstein, P., Kabbalah, Doubleday, New Yor , 1978.
wYor
va'f
Grinberg-Zylberbaum, J., The retrieval f learned information. A europhysiological
A _ur-phys'ol'
a/
convergence-divergence theory. J. eoret, BioL, 56, 95-110, 1976.
j-Teo
1976.
Gr-inberg-Zylbcrbaum, J., El Espaci .o y la onciencia, Editorial Trillas M6xic .1981
M
la on I' @'s '.ic 198 1.
Grinberg-Zylberbaum, J., Psychophysiolo ical correlates of communication, avitation and
.10 -ca c'
t..' a"
1-7_ 56,I
unity. J. Psychophys. Sys., 4, 227- 6, 1982.
Grinberg-Zylberbaum, J., Ex1raocular vis' n. J. Psychophys. Sys,, 5, 141-158, 19 3.
n _8' 3
19
1411
"s Pre
Jenny, H., Cymatics, Basil us Pre 1974.
ills P
'.e Bas
17
Maharishi, R., Talks with Sli RZICrsn"', aharishi, Sri Ramanasramam Tiruvannam i, India,
ar" Tiu am
ah a. a i, I
1972.
Vivekananda, S,, Raya Yoga, Kier, Bue os Aires, 1963, 1975.
sAir
Wilson, C., Lo Oculto, Editorial Nogu Barcelona, 1974.
Ba'c'
Approved For Release 2003109/11
792ROO0400010002-1
Psychoenergetics, 1983, VoL 5, pp. 243-252
0278-6060/83/0503-0243 $18.50/0
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 r q@earch 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 Schr6dinger 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
- in all other circumstances, it behaves like an orthodox class-(i)
measure
system. Thus, a polarizer is a class-(ii) system when it interacts with photons
belongidg to a properly positioned incidentbeam, but its behaviourin 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
CIA-R6ffiW60r92#MM%6WQMZjear were more likely to become actors than
243
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 C1
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 Schr6dinger 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 instr-ument-plus-measured-system combination is of a
special type not governed by the Schr6dinger 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 dilservAlf, s
( acrwi
Approve For e e se /09/10
6-00792ROO0400010002-1
RESEARCI I NUVES 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, 198 1) 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 seelli@ to be
criticising Walker and myself for even trying. The issue is stilt -6pen and we
shall see!
References
Lawden, D.F. Separability of psychophysical systems J. Psychophys. Sys., 4, 1-10, 198 1.
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.
P96-00792ROO0400010002-1