The High Price of Visibility



In the brain, there is no evidence of a ‘screen’ on which, or within which, the original image is displayed for mental viewing. There is no hint in your brain as to how you see the words you are now reading. We know how the inputs of the scene…are mapped in the organs of the brain. It’s the replay that confounds us.1 (emphasis added)



Practically the entire musculature of the body is built to overcome the constant weight of the world as it acts upon us.


Now, do you understand what I am saying here? I’m saying you do not weigh your selves when you step on the scale. I’m saying that weight is simply one of the ways – actually, the principal way – we feel a universe “out there” as it acts upon us.


You don’t see reality. You see a time consuming reproduction of reality as it is filtered, transformed and ‘dumbed-down’ by the very process of vision itself.


It’s best to think of your senses (transducers) as the different ways to feel the universe (have you never felt someone was watching you?).


And it’s best to think of your sensations – that which makes its way into the brain – as the different ways our universe acts upon us.


If you do this, something wonderful happens; you will actually begin to understand nature and universe and the difference between them; the former being about appearances borne stealthily from the latter, which is about substance.


There is an incredible construct in the retina of the eye called a photo-receptor that, by some miraculous coincidence, precisely matches the quantum of charge, or light quantum – as if they were somehow designed for each other.*


But I do not believe in such miraculous coincidences. Especially when an answer presents itself that should, upon reflection, be patently obvious: the photon must be created there! Just as all other so-called quantum particles must be. The absorption is the final stage of its creation. The final step in the entire spectrum of the wave to particle transformation takes place in the medium of observation and/or measurement.


According to Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg (in reference to the uncertainty principle), “an electron or photon materializes in a given spot only when it is measured”2. So they are vindicated. But we now know that the ‘given spot’ is not ‘out there’ but in the photo-receptor right inside the retina. Or artificially, on the photographic plate or the spectrum analyzer. Quantum theory is not about ‘out there’ at all; it’s about information that makes its way ‘in here’. For its quanta is realized only within the medium measuring or observing it.


The visible world is a virtual reality; it exists entirely 'in effect, not necessarily in fact'. It is a time consuming “replay” of events, and not a direct reflection of actuality.


Quantum reality is about visibility, whether in the eyes or any of its technological extensions. It is by far the most accurate and prolific prediction and measuring machine ever produced. But it only serves the reality which created it; the virtual reality of appearances. And it is entirely about that which exists in effect, but not necessarily in fact. For, it’s about “the replay which confounds us”. Moreover, and here comes the bombshell, it’s about creating a finite reality from that which apparently is not finite.


It’s about substance under the duress of the appearance it creates; about universal process confronting the observational process. And both are but different occurrences of transduction, the transformation of energy and/or information. It’s about universal process confronting the universal purpose of self awareness. Period.


In the mid-20s, physics was confronted with a concept that not only stretched the limits of incredulity, but actually challenged its reason to be. For, it called into question the sanctity of both size and duration, the essence of “the finite realm” and thus, finitism itself.


For, there exists a “fractional density” that spreads-out over time and space. This is the result of the evolution of Schrödinger’s ‘wave-function’, the path a quantum entity travels when not observed. But The Copenhagen trio – Max Born, Werner Heisenberg and Niels Bohr – said, in effect, that “we cannot observe or measure a quantum particle that spreads with time, therefore it cannot exist in our theory”. So, to the chagrin of Schrödinger, Einstein, Planck, de Broglie and others, “the conjuring rod of quantum theory”3 was born along with the separate realities of substance and appearance we must now live in.


The entire history of “the new physics” seems to be about the discovery and subsequent cover up, of the radical relativity of size. In fact there can be no standard of size or time. What is it? Where is it? Who is it? This is nature’s great secret. The fact that we claim this distinction for ourselves is the very meaning of the cosmic joke.


Consider this statement from Sir Arthur Eddington that was made concerning what practitioners of the physical sciences actually do:


Leaving out all esthetic, ethical, or spiritual aspects of our environment, we are faced with qualities such as massiveness, substantiality, extension, duration, which are supposed to belong to the domain of physics.  In a sense they do belong; but physics is not in a position to handle them directly.  The essence of their nature is inscrutable; we may use mental pictures to aid calculations, but no image in the mind can be a replica of that which is not in the mind.


 And so in its actual procedure physics studies not these inscrutable qualities, but pointer readings which we can observe.  The readings, it is true, reflect the fluctuations of the world qualities; but our exact knowledge is of the readings, not of the qualities.  The former have as much resemblance to the latter as a telephone number has to a subscriber4 (emphasis in bold added).


He [Eddington] believed that a great part of physics simply reflected the interpretation that the scientist imposes on his data {"selective subjectivism"}. Encyclopaedia Britannica


Most people are convinced that he went off the deep end. Barry Parker


Who’s insane here?


It’s a sorry world when you live within true four-dimensionality and have to pretend that it’s only three. One wants to move on.


The Second Hand Clock

Picture a second hand clock. That is, a clock with only a second hand that has a little ball stuck on its tip. Looking from the front view, note the constant unchanging speed of the ball as it makes its way around the clock. It never varies.


Now turn the clock 90 degrees or walk around to see the ball on edge. The ball now travels only up and down; there’s a variance between opposite extremes, an “oscillation”. What was constant is now constantly changing; what was continuous is now ‘virtually’ discontinuous! What was linear, is now cyclical. The point of view has changed everything! A description of what’s happening ‘out there’ depends entirely on one’s relative point of view.


Note how slow it is at the peak and valley and how fast it accelerates toward the middle point at which it begins to slow down again. From the front, the ball (universe) seems to go on forever and ever, never changing. but from the side it is perpetually recycling itself; stopping at the top (and bottom) to redirect itself.


A continuous light wave gets only its peaks and valleys extracted as discontinuous particles; that is, as ‘parts’ of something more than just the peaks and valleys. This is how light and matter waves become light and matter particles – right inside the medium of observation and/or measurement. And there is always something left out during the process of transformation.


The point is simply this: there’s a whole world beyond the peaks and valleys that our processes of observation and measurement allow us to see.


And this must likewise be true of a quantum measurement; where there is much more than the ‘pointer readings’ which we can see.


Also it shows how we need both points of view, that is, of waves and of particles, to understand what is actually taking place in the separate realities we live and die in.


In sum, four-dimensional growth cannot possibly be seen with the eyes. The visual process is, in fact, cleverly designed by nature to overcome the fourth dimension by converting it to three dimensions. Consequently, only bits and pieces of information called quanta (one theory), or ‘slices’ of space-time (another theory), are allowed into the brain. Nothing continuous like a light wave or a sound wave can get into the brain through the senses; only pieces of it.

To see the fourth dimension in its entire magnificence, you must plug in the sensation you’ve been ignoring all your life. It’s called weight. And it’s not your weight, but the weight of the world that’s being enacted upon you. It’s as if we’ve hypnotized ourselves into believing that weight is something we intrinsically have “in here” instead of something that is ‘happening’ to us from “out there” like sight and sound.

Four-dimensional weight is something you have, something you experience, something you ‘feel’. Whereas, three-dimensional weight is something mysterious that has you, something you believe, through the authority of ‘experts’ to be an unsolvable enigma.

Isn’t it about time we woke-up from this nightmare called three-dimensional finitism? It’s as if our reality is “an institutionalized nightmare that everyone is having at once – everyone believes everyone else believes them.”5

So we need to move on. We need to accept the fact that what is actually ‘out there’ is growing beyond our ability to see it. A perpetually changing reality is growing up around an inert – static – visual field. This is “the answer” to the riddle of existence, the “top secret of the physical universe”: the panorama we see is not actual, but virtual – an effect of the timely process of transduction, the transformation of energy from one form (waves) to another (particles). And what an effect!



*See Opus III, “The Process of Observation”



1. Gerald L. Schroeder, The Hidden Face of God, pp. 115)

2. Eric Lerner, The Big Bang Never Happened

3. Erwin Schrödinger, What is Life, pp. 68

4. Quoted in J.W.N. Sullivan’s, The Limitations of Science, p. 143

5. Ken Wilber, The Spectrum of Consciousness