Primary Considerations

HAZRAT TAJUDDIN BABA represents the principle of the psycho-physical *parallelism* insofar as it refers properly to the description of the actual observer as an actor *and* a spectator. This ENS CAUSA SUI is then completed by MEHER BABA and SAI BABA, representing the measuring instruments and the actually observed system *on the phenomenal level* of the higher ontological worlds.

Niels Bohr: "In the drama of existence, we ourselves are both actors and spectators."

COGITO ERGO SUM is inherently a phenomenological statement, and RES COGITANS and RES EXTENSA inherently refer to the third and fourth phases of the *experience* of the phenomenological reduction, which is the experience of COSMIC CONSCIOUSNESS.

However, this whole Ansatz projects onto the ontological system of worlds, where COGITO ERGO SUM now refers to the psycho-physical *reduction*, which von Neumann employs to establish his abstract "ego" (actually "ego sum") as the basis for the first intervention in quantum theory, known as the state reduction. COSMIC CONSCIOUSNESS thereby becomes the attenuated STREAM OF CONSCIOUSNESS.

The RES COGITANS and RES EXTENSA, as projected onto the ontological system of worlds, are also, when further projected onto the physical world, the backdrop for the psycho-physical reduction (of mental, emotional, and physical worlds to corresponding physical sub-worlds).

In other words, the attributes, RES COGITANS and RES EXTENSA, are derivative, phenomenologically speaking, but pre-existent in the ontological sense, with respect to COGITO ERGO SUM.

The decisive step now is to recognize EXPLICATION as the emergent reality based upon RES EXTENSA. The projective reality that is then the synthesis between EXPLICATION and RES COGITANS is the EXPLICATE ORDER. The SAI BABA noumenal quantum formalism constitutes EXPLICATION, while the SAI BABA phenomenal quantum formalism constitutes the EXPLICATE ORDER.

Keeping the STREAM OF CONSCIOUSNESS and the SAI BABA quantum formalisms, we now replace RES EXTENSA and RES COGITANS and COGITO ERGO SUM with DENSITE DE PRESENCE and ETRE POUR-SOI-EN-SOI, respectively. In that way we pass from EXPLICATION and the EXPLICATE ORDER to IMPLICATION and the IMPLICATE ORDER.

So, the passage from the EXPLICATE to the IMPLICATE does not change the quantum formalisms, per se, but only changes the ontological framework in which they are contextualized.

Niels Bohr, from "Atomic Theory and the Description of Nature", p. 98: "In particular, the apparent contrast between the continuous outward flow of associative thinking [STREAM OF CONSCIOUSNESS] and the preservation of the unity of personality [DENSITE DE PRESENCE] exhibits a suggestive analogy with the relation between the wave description of the motions of material particles [SAI BABA (noumenal) quantum formalism], governed by the superposition principle, and their indestructible individuality [ETRE POUR-SOI-EN-SOI]."

So, the quantum formalism can have a number of different contextualizations. In the first place, it can refer to the categories of the phenomenal experience of an observer who is an ENS CAUSA SUI. In the second place it can follow from the projection of primary phenomenological reality onto an ontological framework, and in the third place it becomes fully ontologized in relation to the unity of personality of the observer and the indestructible individuality of the observed. We might label these contextualizations as the Aristotelian, the Cartesian, and the Sartrean.

The fact that the latter two contextualizations do not involve an alteration of the quantum formalism suggests that von Neumann's state reduction is equivalent to Bohr's imputation of unity of personality and indestructible individuality to the observer and the observed, respectively. Since this latter act may be regarded as subjective, it may be the legitimate basis for the claims of Everett, which would then turn out to be the authentic version of the Copenhagen Interpretation.

Albert Einstein: "What I dislike in this kind of argumentation is the basic positivistic attitude, which from my view is untenable, and which seems to me to come to the same thing as Berkeley's principle, ESSE EST PERCIPI."

This view of Einstein's would be true only from the perspective of his unique requirements, namely that we should have an *objective* description that reaches the whole long way (ganzer langer Weg) from the observed to the observer.

Niels Bohr: "In our description of nature the purpose is not to disclose the real essence of phenomena but only to track down as far as possible relations between the multifold aspects of our experience."

This means that although "the wave description of the motions of material particles" ostensibly refers to the "SAI BABA (noumenal) quantum formalism" there is, in the Copenhagen Interpretation, *no* explicit noumenal quantum formalism. On the noumenal level, the state vector description cannot penetrate the "indestructible individuality" of material particles. One cannot assign a proper set of basis states or a representation on the noumenal level. On the noumenal level, the quantum formalism is merely a formality, a possibility for description that must be realized on the phenomenal level through some representation of the entire noumenal reality on the phenomenal level.

This representation can and must take into account the boundary conditions between the noumenal level and the phenomenal level, and these metaphysical boundary conditions are essential to Bohr's EPR argument.

The representation takes a form involving Becoming, Duration, underlying Function, and Enduring Object, as well as the Kantian categories of Relativity, Sensibility, and Understanding, culminating in Wisdom, which constitutes the State Vector description as it is represented on the phenomenal level.

In other words, although we do not have a purely noumenal or physical world description, as in von Neumann's approach, we do have a description, in terms of *dialectical* materialism, of the processes of nature. This dialectical description involves a materializing of the spiritual aspect of matter (in the fourth or etheric world) and a spiritualizing of the material aspect of matter (in the first or physical world). The synthesis involves the materializing of the reconstruction of the entire noumenal reality within the phenomenal realm (in the sixth or causal world).

So, it is not that there is no noumenal content to our phenomenal description, which would of course be absurd, because it would then be disconnected altogether from the noumenal reality, but rather that our description is only of the real dialectical process in nature by which nature discloses itself to us. This is the meaning of the well known statement by Bohr on EPR.

Bohr, Physical Review, 48, 696-702 (1935): "Of course there is in a case like that considered no question of a mechanical disturbance of the system under investigation during the last critical stage of the measuring procedure. But even at this stage there is essentially the question of an influence on the very conditions that define the possible types of predictions regarding future behavior of the system. Since these conditions constitute an inherent element of the description of any phenomenon to which the term 'physical reality' can be properly attached we see that the argumentation of the mentioned authors does not justify their conclusion that the quantum mechanical description is incomplete."

Peter Joseph Mutnick 1949 - 2000