13. Mind Matters

Thought is powerful.

Living in a materialistic society, this may not sound too convincing at first, but thanks to recent advances in science, technology and medicine even the most hard-nosed among us are starting to think about thinking more seriously.

Take health for example. What is the number one risk factor for sickness and death? Stress. And where does stress start? With thought, an ephemeral, non- physical concoction of the mind. From there, it hits the physical brain, then the hormones and then the immune system, causing a cascade of biochemical changes that ultimately spell the difference between wellness and disease for millions of people every day.

In fact an entire medical discipline, called psychoneuroimmunology, has grown up around this understanding in recent years, and there are even several medical (as well as alternative wellness) journals dedicated exclusively to understanding and managing health from the top down, mind first.

And lest one think that mind-based medicine is just for flakes, hypochondriacs and the like, the consensus of medical opinion today is that some 60 to 90 percent of all doctor’s visits are really mind- body problems, according to Prof. Herbert Benson, MD, founding president of Harvard University’s Mind/Body Medical Institute in Boston. For some the fix is counseling, for others, it’s spirituality, meditation or yoga. Not surprisingly, the biggest boosts in wellness often come from prayer, faith and religious observance, as documented in such resources as Oxford University’s Handbook of Religion and Medicine, a fat tome that rivals Gray’s Anatomy, both in weight and in authority.

The buzzword for all this is integrative medicine. The philosophy behind it is that when spirit, mind, emotions, and lifestyle are all in harmony, wellness is maximized. When any of these or unaligned, stress and dysfunction intrude, and mental and physical wellness are compromised.

But how new is all this really? For mainstream medicine, very; for Judaism, not at all. Maimonides, the renowned medieval rabbinic scholar and court doctor, writes in his Regime of Health that his outlook is based on “a healthy soul in a healthy body.” The integrative approach is fundamental to Chassidism specifically, as the following dialogue illustrates:

In the winter of 1902-1903, the fifth Lubavitcher Rebbe, known as the RaShaB, met in Vienna with Sigmund Freund who asked the RaShaB to define Chassidus, ie, the core teachings of the Chassidic movement.

The RaShaB explained to Freud that Chassidus requires that "the mind explains to the heart what the person should want, and that the heart implements in the person's life that which the brain understands."

Freud then asked, “How do you do this? Are not the head and heart two continents completely separated? Does not a great sea divide them?"

To this, the RaShaB replied, "The task is to build a bridge that will span these two continents, or at least to connect them with telephone lines and electric wires so that the light of the mind, the light of the brain, should reach the heart as well."

Similarly, about a century earlier, the first Chassidic text, the Tanya, established the integration of thought, speech and action in its mission statement. Emblazoned on the frontispiece is the Biblical verse (Deut. 30:14) that serves as the spiritual DNA for the work as a whole, “For this thing is very near to you, in your mouth and in your heart, to do it.”

In a world whose motto for centuries had been follow your heart, it is refreshing to find that the new focus on mindfulness and health is but another example of scientific wisdom converging to the timeless truths of Torah. And that gives pause for thought.

Rebbe Rayyatz - Likkutei Dibburim, Vol. 1

12. Global Ark: Who's at the Helm?

UN Statistics Showing Number of Natural Disasters in the World per Decade.

Hurricanes, tsunamis, floods and fires. Are environmental disasters really on the rise or is it just hype? According to a century of United Nations statistics, natural catastrophes of all kinds are whalloping us at an ever-increasing rate. And climbing fastest are disasters related to global climate change.

What can be done? And who is actually responsible for the future of the global ecosystem? Is it the heads of state? Legislators? Scientists? Consumers? Investors? Ecological accountability does not depend on knowledge or power. It doesn't depend on economics, politics or pragmatics. It depends on values. And for many people, values are a relative affair.

Every motive to conserve the environment can be compromised by some form of rational argument or another, except for one: that it is our Divinely ordained mandate to care for this planet and its inhabitants. This is the reasoned conclusion of Rutgers Professor of Ecology, David Ehrenfeld, a pioneer and world leader in environmental conservation.

And yet, the origin of this notion in Western society is not scientific, but in fact Biblical. The father of environmental conservation was Noah, and there are a number of parallels between our situation and his, as discussed by the classic rabbinic commentators cited in the Torah Anthology, a Moznaim Press translation of the Me'Am Lo'ez compiled by Rabbi Yakov Culi.

First, according to tradition, the Noahide flood itself was hot water, indicating a climatic component to the event. Second, the global flood was preceded by several periods of coastal flooding over a number of decades. Third, the flood was accompanied by widespread social ills, especially violence and corruption.

The sages illustrated the ethical roots of global environmental risk with the following archetypal incident that happened shortly before the flood some 4,100 years ago. In a market town, a small fruit vendor sued his regular "clients" for bankrupting him. They had come by daily, sampling this and that, buying nothing, and then returning later for more "tastes". The court did not convict because "it was just a little bit and everyone was doing it."

Does this sound familiar? Today, we see the same factors at work. A little wasteful emission, a little warmer, a little more melting, the waters rise.. ..A little violence, a little robbery, the earth shakes, people die. One need not be overtly religious to recognize that "what goes around, comes around." Indeed it is widely accepted among experts, as Ehrenfeld writes, that "most of today's really intractable problems of radioactive wastes, energy and pesticides are not technical but ethical and social."

Noah, with his compassion and integrity, did his small part and tipped the balance towards survival for the world's folk and fauna. Acting alone, he was a prime example of an environmental activist with a motto of "Act local and think global." Some 825 years ago, this concept was codified in Jewish law by Maimonides who stated that each individual must view himself and the entire world as delicately balanced such that his very next act will tip the scales either to world destruction or global salvation.

Historically, such an approach was taken on faith alone. In previous generations, no one could really see or understand how this vast world could possibly respond to the small local deeds of a single person.

It is really only in our generation that this principle has become a practical and evident reality in our daily lives. Planet earth has become one global village where the part can easily and instantly affect the whole. Already chaos theory has developed models that demonstrate how a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil can initiate a tornado in Texas. And since good and evil are but two sides of one moral coin, positive impacts are at least as far reaching as negative ones.

In our time, philosophy and fact have fused to demonstrate that in all one's actions, words and thoughts, one is free to choose among alternative paths leading either to personal failures and ecological disaster or to personal integrity and global remedy.

Every creature has its niche. Ours is an ethical one, based on the unity of G-d, man and the environment. Let's stick to it.

For good.

Ehrenfeld, David W. (1985). The Arrogance of Humanism. Oxford University Press.
Culi, Yakov. (1730). Me'Am Lo'ez. Parshat Noach. Aryeh Kaplan transl. (1977) Moznaim Press. NY
Maimonides, Laws of Repentance, Ch.3, Par.4

11. Beyond Description - Part 2

So why do leaves change color? Is it chlorophyll breakdown or Divine artistry?

Science addresses the question of leaf color by breaking the leaf down into its component parts and processes.

The first level of analysis seeks to explain leaf color in terms of chlorophyll. Essentially we want to say that a leaf is green because chlorophyll is green. But all this does is transfer the question from the leaf to the chlorophyll. To explain chlorophyll’s coloration, we study what it does: photosynthesis. We want to say that chlorophyll is green because of how light is used in the manufacture of sugar by plants. When the chlorophyll breaks down and other pigments take over, the green fades and other colors get reflected.

Problem solved. Or is it? After all, one may yet ask why photosynthesis uses some colors and not others. The plant physiologist will acknowledge the validity of the question, but will tell you that the answer is not found in physiology but in the branch of science which underlies it – biochemistry, the study of how complex molecules carry out life’s processes.

Many volumes have been published on the molecular intricacies of photosynthesis. It is among the best documented of chemical processes. The mechanism is also quite well agreed upon by the experts. Thus it is reasonable to expect that here we could find out why leaves are green. But with all the details of the hundreds of different molecules and their chain reactions, biochemistry has still not explained one whit why only those wavelengths are usable, and therefore we have not yet answered the question of why chlorophyll is green or why leaves are green. If we can’t understand one color, two is surely beyond us, so we still do not have an explanation of why leaves change color either.

In addition to all this, there remains the mystery of visual perception altogether, which leaves unanswered how vision takes place in a light tight box of a skull where light neither penetrates nor is generated.

Another major question emerges form this whole story. The entire biochemical system involved in photosynthesis is an incredibly ordered process. Hundreds of chemical types, each comprised of a multitude of atoms, are matched and linked together with remarkable precision, and all these parts continually interact in a marvelously integrated fashion. Far from random, the entire ‘machinery’ is geared toward a single function – the transformation of light energy into chemical energy in the form of sugar.

The question is: What is organizing this system? What is keeping all these parts working together? Is it sugar? Obviously not. Is it light? Impossible.

It is unreasonable to think that any single part of the system can organize the behavior of all the other parts. For a while, many scientists thought to explain the control of cells and organs in terms of DNA. However, this view too has become passe as leading biologists continue to discover more basic life processes that are quite beyond the control of the cell nucleus.

The chemical components are by nature independent, without power over each other, and quite unaware of their role in manufacturing sugar. Hence, it must be that the controlling factor is outside the chemical system and more powerful than any of its parts, since it guides the behavior of each part. The greatness of the “mystery factor” controlling photosynthesis is emphasized when one considers that the chemistry of photosynthesis in a leaf is just one aspect of a much larger, integrated picture. The behavior of these molecules is thoroughly interwoven with the rest of the plant as well as with sunlight, air, water, soil, other plants, animals and people. After all, photosynthesis provides food for virtually all life on this planet.

From the Torah perspective the identity of the “mystery factor” is obvious. There is only one factor that can be beyond every system and yet control all the parts. But the hard-nosed reductionist keeps searching, hoping that maybe, when we take those molecules apart, the explanations to all these questions will surface. But alas, they do not.

The most basic of the exact sciences is particle physics. In fact, it is not nearly so exact as it used to be. There was a time when matter was hard, when space and time were fixed, and when there were only three basic particles: protons, neutrons and electrons. But with our refined instrumentation and experiments, many strange results have shaken our materialistic view of nature.

Now matter is just a special form of energy, space is curved and time passes at different rates in different reference frames. Matter is now made up of a multitude of unknowable particles (or waves, depending on how you look at them), including leptons, muons, gluons, mesons and quarks, having odd properties like spin, flavor and charm. Even more surprising, these “particles,” which are the basis of everything physical, have the remarkable habit of continually disappearing and coming into existence at random locations and at random times.

Has particle physics answered why leaves are green or any of our other questions? No. Furthermore, we now have the new question of how atoms can be stable (and they do seem to be) while their parts are so ephemeral. Such problems led Paul Davies, a prominent physicist who is a self-avowed atheist, to remark in a New Scientist article that “the new physics. . . seems to demand some guiding influence located, as it were, above nature, sustaining all of existence.”

It is here that science and Torah really converge. There is no difference between what Davies is saying in the name of physics and what Jews have been saying since Abraham. . . There is a Divine Providence that continually sustains and orders the entire universe, and not just at the cosmic level, or on the grand general scale. Modern physics sees supernatural guidance operating at the most minuscule subatomic level. Moreover many physicists believe in the anthropic principle which maintains that human awareness is actually the goal and reason for creating an orderly universe in the first place.

But beyond this point physics cannot probe, because no science is able to address why this awareness was desired.

Faith can.

For example, when one sees the precisely timed emergence of beautiful colors in autumn leaves, and when one considers all the microscopic and submicroscopic levels and processes that underlie this display, and that all the parts and processes are meticulously organized and integrated, and that no team of scientists could duplicate one iota of any of it. . . all this adds to the realization of the greatness and power of the One who could create, sustain, and coordinate all those zillions of parts.

Still the complexity is finite. How much greater, then, is the Almighty G‑d, before whom supernovae and atoms are equally minuscule and governed with equal skill and care. This awareness enhances our awe and appreciation of the Creator.

Modern science and traditional faith are both leading us to a Creator who cares for His creation. But it is specifically the Torah that takes the next step and explains why we were created: To reveal G-dliness in the world through our well-chosen thoughts, words and deeds, that give purpose and meaning to our own lives and the world as a whole.

10. Beyond Description - Part 1

During an autumn stroll, a mother and her school-aged daughter were admiring the beautiful array of colored leaves. They were discussing what lay behind this quietly spectacular transformation.

“Mom, why do the leaves change color?”

“Well, dear, in the spring and summer, the leaves make food for the tree. Inside each leaf, there are millions of tiny green molecules called chlorophyll. The chlorophyll makes the food by collecting light from the sun, carbon dioxide from the air, and water from the ground. Then it puts them all together to make sugar and starch. In the autumn, the tree stops making food because it doesn’t need any in the winter. When that happens, the chlorophyll breaks down, and with it goes the green color. By that time, the other molecules in the leaf become more obvious and they give off the red, orange and yellow colors that we see today.”

“That’s not what Grandma says,” commented the little girl.

“No? What does she say?”

“She says G‑d paints them. . . one at a time.”

Whom should the child believe? Mom? Grandma? Both? Neither?

Those who side with Grandma are to be admired for their piety. Still, it is unfair to totally reject Mother out of hand. Is it not possible that the scientific explanation has some truth and some value? If so, it is unwise to reject it out of ignorance. It would amount to saying, “Religion, I know and like; but science, I don’t really understand. Therefore religion is better.”

Sometimes people reject a scientific explanation because it seems to conflict with the religious view. True, there is nothing wrong with accepting one view over another, but on what basis? Can one rule out an explanation based on direct observations and plain logic? After all, one trusts observations and sound reasoning in other areas of life; why not here? Faith is fine, but here is a problem with “blind faith” that ignores the observed facts and rational deductions of science.

Those who side with Mother are to be praised for their sophistication. Still there may be more to Grandma than meets the eye. One should at least know whether religion provides insights into the natural world, before rejecting it. It is unfair to say, “Science, I know and like; religion, I don’t really care to understand. Therefore science is better.”

Rejecting religion out of ignorance is no better than rejecting science out of ignorance. It’s like the story of the rabbi and the scientist who wound up seated together on an airplane.

“You must be a rabbi,” opened the scientist.
“Yes, I am,” confirmed his neighbor.
“I know all about Judaism,” quipped the scientist.
“Do you really?” the rabbi responded, a little piqued.
“Sure: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
“I see. And vhat, may I ask, is your occupation?”
“I am an astrophysicist.”
“Oh, really?” The rabbi paused a moment, then countered, “I know all about astronomy.”
“Come now, Rabbi. What do you know about astronomy?”
“Tvinkle, tvinkle little stah.”

Some would reject the religious view in the leaf color debate because they imagine G‑d to have human dimensions and features. They envision Him as an invisible, bearded baritone holding a nylon paintbrush, a tin of latex paint and a stopwatch to make sure all those leaves get done on time. Of course they reject the religious explanation of natural events as a childish fantasy. On those terms, who wouldn’t?

But what if “He” is an Absolutely Infinite Being using the brush of photoperiodically-induced cellular physiology dipped into pigments like chlorophyll and carotene? Surely if the Creator is capable of making something from nothing, He can also regulate existing chemicals and processes.

Neither science nor religion is as stiff and boxed-in as many people think. Science has room for the Creator, and religion has room for science. Individual scientist or theologians, or even whole sects of them, may be too biased or uninformed to recognize this, but authentic science and authentic religion are quite compatible and even complementary.

What is the basic difference between scientific and religious explanations of events? Followers of either system accept the validity of our sensory experiences. So too will they agree pretty much on what they observe in terms of temperature, weight, volume, brightness, duration, etc. They should also agree on the validity of sound, logical proofs and deductions. Where they differ is in the questions they answer.

Essentially science is concerned with how the world works, while religion addresses why the world works that way. Without knowing what for, what good is the what?

9. Sky Hooks

Ever feel overwhelmed?

And then some well-meaning soul comes over to you, reads your brow furrows, and sympathetically asks how you are doing? And then, after you mutter a perfunctory reply, gazes dolefully into your anxious eyes and adds, “Don’t worry. Think positive.”?

"Think positive!" you nearly blurt out, "You jerk. What will that help? If only you knew how miserable things were for me right now, you’d never..” but maybe, just maybe 'think positive' is more than just a trite expression.

Indeed that’s a view supported by the concensus of no less than 225 psychological studies analyzing attitude and outcomes for a whopping 275,000 people. Try to defend a bad mood in the face of those findings. The review paper, published in the Psychological Bulletin, analyzed the relationship between attitude and many measures of success in life and ascertained that it is generally happiness that brings success, rather than success bringing happiness.

Lead researcher, Sonja Lyubomirsky, Ph.D., of the University of California, Riverside, said “Happy individuals are more likely than their less happy peers to have fulfilling marriages and relationships, high incomes, superior work performance, community involvement, robust health and even a long life.”

This is but one more example of modern science catching up with timeless teachings. The Torah, the Talmud and the Chassidic Masters have all advocated serving the Creator with joy, promising worldly benefits for those who do. As the third Chabad Rebbe, Menachem Mendel of Lubavitch, put it: “Tracht goot, vet zayn goot. – Think good and it will be good.”

This approach to life is classic “bitachon”, the highest level of trust that G-d will take care of you. A basic level of faith is “emunah” where whatever G-d does is good in your eyes, since even if He punishes (G-d forbid!), it’s all for the best as He sees it. A higher level is the trust that He will do good in a revealed way, granting you all your needs as you see it.

But this seems very naïve! How can one trust he will merit overt goodness, when even great and saintly people were fearful of Divine retribution?

The answer lies in the littlest things, in the nature of the quantum. At this most basic level of physical reality, people count. Science used to teach that the world is “out there” with people being separate from nature, and insignificant overall. That whole picture has been overthrown by quantum physics which shows us how each individual can actualize his choice of the potentials that exist in the world. Thus positive attitudes actualize positive potentials.

To illustrate, there’s a story about a fellow who was always anxious and overwhelmed. He went to seek counsel with the Ba’al Shem Tov who sent him to observe the conduct of a certain innkeeper in a far away village. The innkeeper welcomed him warmly and they were speaking one morning when suddenly a gruff, burly lackey of the landlord burst in with a fist-pounding demand for the back rent that was owed, a monumental sum of 3,000 rubles, to be delivered to the landlord by 5:00pm. The innkeeper reassured him that he would take care of it and the servant left.

The visitor was still quaking in the wake of this rude home invasion, as he stammered a sympathetic query to the innkeeper about the requisite funds. But despite the fact that the innkeeper had barely a few rubles to his name and not the faintest inkling where he could find more, his demeanor was serene as he replied “G-d will provide,” and he set up refreshments for the visitor.

Again at 2:00 pm the servant burst in, slammed his fist on the innkeeper’s counter and bellowed, “Don’t forget. 5:00 pm. The whole rent. Don’t be late. . . or else!” By now the visitor was beside himself with fear, trembling over what grim future lay in store for the hapless innkeeper and his family. But the innkeeper kept his cool. “It’s all up to the One Above. Everything will work out fine,” he said, as he continued on with his work, humming away, apparently mindless of the impending deadline.

Shortly before 5:00pm, the inkeeper picked himself up, took his leave and headed out the door emptyhanded, while the visitor looked on aghast. Part way to the mansion, he encountered a wagon which slowed and then stopped while the innkeeper apparently exchanged words with a passenger inside. After a moment the wagon and the innkeeper head off their separate ways, but only briefly because the wagon suddenly did an about face and headed back to meet up with the innkeeper. A longer conversation apparently ensued, and once again they resumed their respective journeys and a little while later the innkeeper disappeared through the gate to the landlord’s estate.

The poor visitor, fearing the worst, picked up a book of Psalms and started praying fervently, hoping against hope for a miracle. He was thus engaged when not long after the innkeeper returned and without fanfare returned to his work about the inn.

“What are you doing here!?” exclaimed the visitor. “How did you escape? What’s going to be now?”

“Calm down. Let me explain. Along the way I met a local businessman who asked me how much I want for this year’s grape harvest. Without a second thought I told him 3,000 roubles. He was shocked saying it’s ridiculously overpriced but I told him that’s my price and I’m not budging. We parted company with no deal, but a minute later he changed his mind, caught up with me, and paid me in full on the spot. As I told you, it’s all up to the One Above.”

What the Baal Shem Tov was trying to teach the visitor by sending him to the innkeeper was not how to rely on miracles, for who can rely on miracles? The lesson was in positive thinking. “Think good and it will be good.” When we trust in the One Above to take care of all our needs, without any second thoughts, then, as they say, what goes around comes around, and G-d responds in like manner, taking care of all our needs, without any second thoughts on His part.

The science of positive thinking shows the practical value of an optimistic attitude and how that works to improve your life. The ultimate art of positive thinking is “bitachon”, a trust in G-d so total, that you’ll hang in there fearlessly, without even a sky hook in sight.

- Shaarei Emunah, Ch.27

8. Delayed Choice

In the previous post, we discovered that how we look at things actually determines what they are. But does it also determine what they were?

One of the most incredible discoveries of all time, is actually a very little known, weird kind of fact. Almost quirky.

When electrons pass through a barrier with two slits, you can choose to observe them as waves, in which case they went through both slits, or as particles in which case they went through only one.

Let's get into this for a minute. One of the implications of this discovery is that once you observe the electron as a wave, it was a wave all the way back to when it was emitted from the electron gun. Similarly if you chose to observe it as a particle, it was a particle not only at the time of observation, but retroactively all the way back to its origin.

"Whoa!" Says the logical brain. "How can it be that an observation I make now is changing things earlier? It makes no sense. There must be some mistake here."

But there is no mistake. In 1978, physicist John Wheeler concocted a thought experiment to test this time-travel effect observers have on quantum systems, and lo-and-behold by 1984 it was proven in the lab and replicated dozens of times since. Today there is no doubt about it. Observer choices made now determine the history of particles in the past, whether it's nanoseconds, minutes, or millennia ago.

And it's not just a matter of proton here and a neutron there. The entire cosmos is made of this stuff, so it turns out that any observations and all observations share this remarkable property. We recreate all of history and even pre-history just by opening our eyes in the morning!

In Judaic terms it's not all that strange. Jews celebrate the renewal of the universe every day in their morning prayers, "hamechadesh b'tuvo b'chol yom tamid, maaseh b'raisheet" which speaks of the Creator's "daily, constant renewal of the work of Creation." And all of that is because of us, as the Mishna states that every individual is obliged to say, "bishvili nivra ha'olam – For my sake was the world created."

But this whole retroactive reality business has an even a deeper spiritual significance. It refers to the power of teshuvah, repentance, or more accurately return, restoration.

With the approach of the Jewish New Year, also known as the Day of Judgment, we all have some fixing up to do. But in this there are different levels. There's a kind of restoration that rights a wrong, repays a debt, gets us back to level ground. But then there's another, higher mode of teshuvah, where negatives get transformed to positives. A teshuvah where errors become assets, where even intentional sins become merits. Where darkness is transformed to light.

And here's where photons can illuminate our spiritual life as well. By choosing to return in the best possible way, we demonstrate to our Creator that we are in tune with the possibility of reinventing ourselves, of transcending sustainability, surpassing even tikkun olam, achieving a perfection within ourselves and the world.

It's all a matter of how you look at it.

Further reading:
Likutei Amarim – Tanya, Part 1, Ch.7

7. Quantum Judaism

syn·er·gy ('sin-&r-jE) n.

The interaction of two or more agents or forces so that their combined effect is greater than the sum of their individual effects.

There is an exquisite synergy between Torah and quantum physics. The bad news is that understanding it demands learning a little quantum physics. The good news is that it’s not so hard as it seems at first.

Quantum physics is the science of littlest bits -- anything atomic size or smaller. Examples are the smallest bit of electricity, an electron, and the smallest bit of light, which is a photon.

All subatomic particles may be seen either as waves or particles, but not both at once. For example, when ejected from a "gun", electrons travel fairly straight, forming a cluster of points on a detector screen. This shows their particle nature only (left diagram). However, when the electrons ejected are aimed through a narrow slit, they make a diffraction pattern, which shows their wave nature (right diagram).

So far so good. The problem is that waves and particles are opposites and have mutually exclusive properties. Nothing can act both as a wave and a particle at the same time.

Now which state is the quantum in before it is observed? Wave? Particle? Both? Or none? According to quantum physics, the pre-observation state has the potential of being either but is actually neither. Moreover it is the act of observation itself that brings the thing into being in one of its possible states.

How so? Picture an electron being fired at two slits. There are two ways to observe it. One way is to set up a detector that can check which one of the two slits it went through. This method invariably reveals the electron to be a particle that has passed through only one of the slits. The other way is to record the electron's passage as a diffraction pattern on a screen, which means it went through both slits and is a wave.

It seems impossible that the electron should go through only one of the two slits, and through both of them, at one and the same time. Yet this seems to be the case.

There is no resolution to this conundrum; it’s a paradox. Try as we might, we can’t wish away the fact that how you choose to look at things really makes them that way.

It may interest you to know that the sages of the Talmud (Yuma 21:1) described a similar paradox with regard to the location of the Ark in the inner sanctuary of the ancient temple in Jerusalem. The quote there is, “The place of the ark is dimensionless space.” What does this mean?

The ark measured 2.5 cubits and was placed in the middle of a room measuring 20 cubits. But strangely, from one end of the ark to the wall was 10 cubits, and from the other end of the ark to the opposite wall was also 10 cubits. Adding the ark itself gives 22.5 cubits. Yet, measuring from wall to wall, there were only 20 cubits. Thus, when you measured the ark itself, it took up space, whereas when you measured around it, it did not!

So what state was the ark in before it was observed? Spatial? Non-spatial? Both? Neither? According to Torah, the pre-observation state has the potential of being either but is actually neither. Moreover it is the act of observation itself that brings the thing into being in one of its possible states.

Now how about that? Quantum Judaism! But the parallels don’t really stop there. (More in next post)

6. The New Physics

The New Physics puts us face-to-face with the self-same mysteries that characterize Old-time religion – the existence of G-d, the soul, and the significance of human life in the grand scheme of things. For the next few issues, we will be exploring how this is so.

The good news is that you don’t need to be a physicist or a theologian to appreciate these things. The bad news is that even if you were both, you still wouldn’t understand it.

Quantum theory, the guts of the “New Physics,” is nearly a century old. Yet it can’t shake its popular label of newness. It is hands-down the best-substantiated model of atomic behavior in existence, but with all that, it is no less mind-boggling, counter-intuitive, and downright vexing as it was when it was first conceived.

Albert Einstein bucked it for decades, calling it “impressive” but “spooky”. Physics super-star Richard Feynman says, “I think it is safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.” Nobel Physicist Max Von Laue said, “If that turns out to be true, I’ll quit physics!” Even its co-founders were confounded. Erwin Schrodinger, author of its very equations said, “I do not like it and I’m sorry I had anything to do with it.” And the theory’s most famous expositor, Niels Bohr, said “Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it.”

What, you may ask, is driving all these clever scientists so bonkers? And why should a layman like me even bother to scratch the surface if these brave souls have plumbed its depths to no avail?

The answer to why is why not! Physics is fun, nature is interesting, paradoxes are intriguing, and more than all this, understanding creation is a means to understanding the Creator, and that is indeed a most noble avocation.

In 1926, eighty years ago, when quantum physics was still in its infancy, Niels Bohr came to the University of Toronto to explain his exciting theory at a seminar for professors and greaduate students in the physics department. The school newspaper reported that after 45 minutes, the only two attendees that were awake were the speaker and the journalist.

At that time science was a purely materialistic and rational enterprise and the last thing anyone expected a scientist to say was that science had spiritual implications.

Today, however, there are literally tens of thousands of books, articles, lectures and movies, all dealing with the synergy of science and spirit. Some are academic, others popular. And while every branch of science has contributed to the spirituality revolution, the vanguard of them all seems to be quantum theory.

Next week we will start following the experimental trails that lead us into an enchanted world, our world, where mind matters more than matter does.

5. Are Scientists Evolving?

Science is evolving. Every living thing grows and changes with time and perhaps it is fair to view science, mankind’s collective awareness of how nature works, in the same way: as a dynamic, living system of knowledge, much more than a collection of brute facts.

The science of today is far advanced from what it was even just a few years ago, yet somehow, archaic notions still plague the minds of many supposed scientific experts. One of those lingering bugaboos rattling around in the skulls of academia’s ivory tower is that the notion of a Creator is irrelevant to science.

One need look no further than the daily news for the daily row over evolution and creationism, where the purported defenders of science come with the clarion call “Intelligent Design is not Science, it’s religion. As such, it’s irrelevant to science.”

This is not a new concept. It is rooted in the Age of Reason and the “Enlightenment” when European society rebelled against the church specifically and religion generally. However, it’s no longer the 18th Century or the 19th Century or even the 20th Century.

For the rationalist, a godless science worked just fine because classical physics had built such a neat edifice on the foundation of purely materialistic assumptions. (Those assumptions are material realism, logical positivism, causal determinism, locality, and epiphenomenalism.) However, during the past century, modern science has turned full circle and disqualified each and every one of those materialistic assumptions.

And the result?

The new physics views consciousness as the underlying reality of nature. It sees time-space separations as illusory. It recognizes that paradoxes are integral to reality and will never “go away” when we learn more. It recognizes that classical rules of cause-and-effect break down entirely in every atom in the universe. It allows for a level of human significance in the cosmos never before imagined, except by the Jews. And it even envisions a continuous creation involving both a higher consciousness and human awareness which act together to bring all reality, including the past, from a potential to an actual state.

In short, modern science sees an enchanted universe, a holistic reality, subject to some ephemeral higher unity.

So how ironic it is, that the very same scientific community that cries, “No Way!” to Intelligent Design, simultaneously envisions a conscious universe, intimately personal, ultimately transcendent and beyond any rational comprehension. Does this sound like a science indifferent to G-d? I guess that depends on how you define “G-d.”

4. Faith In Science - Part 2

In the previous post, we showed how faith, rather than being opposite to science, is actually integral to it.

Authentic science is impervious to politics. Nature will yield her secrets to anyone willing to poke, prod, observe and think. And nobody can tell nature what to do.

So when repeatable experiments come up with results that are enigmatic, paradoxical, or even downright crazy, no matter! Nature doesn’t work for my brain and doesn’t need to conform to my sensibilities. Thus the annals of science are replete with examples of things which are entirely beyond our understanding, simply because experimental results force us to accept their existence.

This does not mean that we should not employ our intellects at all. There is a real and valid role for logical analysis and intellectual comprehension, both in dealing with worldly matters and in our spiritual life. Where people often delude themselves, however, is in believing that with reason they can solve all meaningful questions about nature and issues of lifestyle.

Even logic itself has come to recognize its own limitations. A revolutionary theorem proposed by the famous mathematician Godel essentially states that any system of logic is either incomplete or inconsistent. This means that there is always something beyond our rational mind that we have to come to in order to complete our knowledge of anything.

An example of the necessity of faith comes from IBM think-tank mathematician Joe Halpern, whose research into the synchronization of clocks led him to discover that even the simplest acts of communication require a leap of faith. He explains using the following illustration. Two generals have been planning a surprise two-front attack on their enemy. One general signals the other 'We attack at dawn.' Having sent his signal, is the general confident enough to strike at dawn? No, because he needs confirmation from the second general that his signal was received. Now let's say #2 sends his confirming signal. Are they now ready to roll? No, because #2 does not know that #1 received confirmation.

How many confirmations are actually necessary? Halpern determined that for any number of confirming steps, one can always devise a plausible situation in which one more step is actually necessary. Consequently there is no such thing as complete confirmation of a signal and all communication including everyday conversation is based on the unsubstantiated belief that the other party 'knows what we mean'. But do I know what you mean? I don't know - I just believe that I do.

The most brilliant minds of 30 years ago could not even dream of the wonders of science and technology today. Now, as we try to peer ahead into the new millennium, it's high time we internalized the lessons of last century’s science, including the following: The world is beyond our understanding and what we cannot grasp with reason may be accessible only through faith.

Faith and reason are not trains in collision. They are more like trains in series; one picks up where the other leaves off.

3. Faith In Science

How do we judge people with faith? Naive? Gullible? Brainwashed? Mindless? Indoctrinated? Out-of-touch with reality? Dangerous?

And how do we judge people who are rational? Normal? Sensible? Intelligent? Trustworthy? Reliable?

And where would we put the scientist on this spectrum? Most people would not hesitate to identify the scientist as a rational person. One must possess and use a lot of intelligence to pursue science.

What we don't often realize, however, is that science cannot exist without faith. By faith here, I do not necessarily mean religion. The faith required by science is rather that quality of human nature that assumes certain things and accepts them as true without having to prove them.

Everyone has his or her givens, including the scientist. The givens of science include definitions, assumptions, axioms, and the rules of inference. None of these types of ideas are known by reason, yet every scientist accepts them as true and valid. There has never been nor will there ever be, even one scientific conclusion without implicit faith in the givens of science.

For example, everyone believes in gravity even though practicing physicists will tell you that the force of gravity is absurd, totally contradicting the principles of classical physics. Moreover no one has ever seen or felt a wave or particle of gravity. The idea of gravitational force requires action at a distance with no intermediary, which is literally ~ impossible according to classical physics and human reason. And yet, we affirm gravity to be true, real and proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Science even presumes faith in the traditional sense, of belief in a Creator. All of science is built on the principle that everything that happens has a cause. This implies a chain of causation back to the First Cause, the Big Banger, if you will.

In the last few decades, science has come to an even greater dimension of faith than ever before. The most recent experimental advances in physics, and the latest conceptual advances, such as chaos, and superstring theories, have shown clearly that we must accept a view of reality that is totally beyond anything the human mind can begin to comprehend.

Faith is not anethema to science. On the contrary. It is it’s raison d’etre.

2. Why Ask Why?

In the previous post we presented 13 bold statements that together indicate a spiritual revolution well underway in the world of science. This week we clarify one of the limitations of the scientific method.

Scientism Myth: The laws of nature explain natural phenomena.
Science Fact: The laws of nature do not explain anything, they only describe.

Popular culture has this notion of “G-d of the gaps.” That is, wherever there is a gap in our knowledge of nature, that is where we need some explanation, call it G-d. Thus, as we learn more about nature, the scientists’ realm purportedly gets bigger and bigger while the ‘divine’ realm gets smaller and smaller. Eventually, the argument goes, science figures everything out and the religious are left with improtant questions like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. In otherwords G-d is an irrelevant crutch for feeble minded people that need some kind of explanation for things while scientists figure out what is really going on.

This is the view of popular culture, but popular culture does not reflect too deeply into the subject of natural law. For if it did, it may come up with another perspective entirely.

Students of science know what natural law is: A mathematic formulation that describes the relationships between phenomena. This is a very good thing. Without these equations that map out what’s going on in the world we would be without plastic and cars and phones and airplanes and ipods. We wouldn’t understand global warming or market trends or molecules or medicine.

But students of science also understand, or should in any case, what natural law does not do. It doesn’t explain why things are the way they are. It doesn’t explain why the grass is green or the sky is blue or why there are such things as sky and grass in the first place.

Ask a biologist why grass is green and s/he may describe for you at length the mechanisms of photosynthesis, the structure of chlorophyll, the energy states required for oxidative phosphorylation, the reflection of unusable wavelengths of light, the chemistry of retinal stimulation, and the neural pathways to the visual cortex. At the end you may even be satisfied, unless you happen to remember that the question was not how grass is green or even how we perceive it to be green but rather why grass is green.

Moreover, it’s not only that science has not discovered the answer yet but will in the future. Rather these are things that science can never know, because these are not the questions with which science deals.

Unfortunately, science education does not train the scientist in what he cannot know or anything else pertaining to the philosophy of science. It provides the tools and the current set of beliefs and says get to work, leaving questions of purpose, meaning and ultimate cause in the foggy background, always tantalizing and stimulating the scientfic quest without ever finding out at all.

As for where those answers lie, that’s another question.

1. Has Science Discovered Its Soul?

In this blog, we will track the trends in scientific discovery of G-d, the soul, and the significance of human life. If this doesn’t sound very scientific, that’s only because there’s so much going on in the world, that many people are simply unaware of the new discoveries and theories and their implications.

The fact is that science is in the midst of a spirituality revolution every bit as significant as the renaissance, the industrial revolution and the information age. The new developments touch not only a few disciplines but literally the entire spectrum of scientific endeavor, from astronomy to zoology and from psychology to physics.

These evolving trends in science are of two types: Discoveries that challenge commonly held anti- religious notions, and those that validate ideas previously thought to be exclusively religious or mystical.

Among the antiquated beliefs that still pass for science among the uninformed are the following, all dysfunctional relics of 19th Century thinking:

• The laws of nature explain natural phenomena;
• All meaningful questions have rational answers;
• The notions of Creator and soul are irrelevant to science;
• Material realism and causal determinism are upheld by science;
• Scientific objectivity is achievable in principle;
• The world and the cosmos must have existed for billions of years;
• The diversity of life has arisen by chance through mutation and natural selection;
• Planetary motion is necessarily heliocentric and not geocentric;
• Small local actions are insignificant in the grand scheme of things;
• Thoughts and feelings have no direct effect beyond the mind;
• Physical healing comes about only through physical means.

Instead of all this, current scientific wisdom includes new and numerous, unrefuted, peer-reviewed, published scientific studies that compel even secular researchers to draw such “mystical” and “unscientific” conclusions as:

• Laws of nature cannot explain anything;
• All logical systems are either inconsistent or incomplete;
• There exists an omniscient Creator;
• Creatio ex nihilo is ubiquitous and continuous;
• Man has a soul;
• Man has free will;
• Physical reality depends on the Creator’s dynamic relationship with man;
• Cosmology and Geology allow for a young world;
• Biblical Creation is no less plausible than Darwinian evolution of species;
• Geocentrism is as valid as heliocentrism;
• Small local actions can have immediate, far reaching and wide ranging impacts;
• Thoughts and feelings can impact external physical systems directly;
• Faith and prayer actually heal.

“This is new?” you might ask. Well yes and no. It’s new to science, but old to traditional faith. But the synergy works both ways because faith is enhanced by science as well. In future posts, we will document all these claims and provide an explanation for why all this is happening specifically now.