Quantum mechanics is fascinating, at least the parts that I was able to understand. My study of quantum mechanics never went beyond reading a few books on the subject; however, certain experiments did stand out as they related to other subjects that I was interested in, most particularly those concerning reality as we experience it.
Experiments such as the double-slit experiment suggested that particles exhibit a wave nature and vice versa. This is called wave-particle duality in quantum mechanics. It also suggested that the act of observing or measuring a quantum system causes what is known as wave-function collapse where waves of energy appear as a particle.
This experiment suggests that an object that we experience as being physical is actually not a physical “thing” until it is observed. This would suggest that there is an underlying non-physical system that manifests into physical reality when observed and ultimately experienced.
One way of visualizing the non-physical nature of reality would be to consider the act of watching television.
When you watch television, you are watching the rapid sequencing of separate individual frames, or images (pictures), that give the impression of motion which is synchronized with sound to deliver an immersive experience that you can see and hear.
Everything you are seeing and hearing on the television comes from non-physical information which is transmitted from satellites and/or over cable lines. You, as the entity watching the television, act as the observer of this reality represented by moving pictures and sounds as they are decoded and ultimately displayed by the television.
In this configuration, you can consider the non-physical information broadcast as reality, the cable box decoding and transmuting this information as your sensory organs, the television rendering the final picture as your brain, and finally you (as an observer) watching television as consciousness or awareness.
Let us take a look at what happens when we “see” with our eyes and “hear” with our ears.
Light and sound exist as waves and, like the cable box decoding a waveform broadcast, our eyes and ears transmute waves into bio-electric signals that map to specific portions of the brain.
When we “see” something and “hear” something, that seeing and hearing is happening inside of our brain. The brain creates a picture with sound to be experienced, and that experience is then perceived by consciousness.
Waveform as Code and Reality as a Program
I studied computer science and software engineering from the age of 14 onward. Around the age of 20, I set out to apply all that I had learned and create my own software-based 3D graphics engine.
Using techniques developed by legends such as Michael Abrash, James D. Foley, Andries van Dam, Steven K. Feiner and John F. Hughes, I wrote an X Windows viewer for 3D Studio Max files (.3DS) on my laptop that was running Solaris 8. I wrote everything from scratch using a combination of C++ and Assembly Language and without the use of any third-party libraries. I learned quite a bit.
This knowledge would eventually help me to visualize reality as being something similar to a software program with waveforms potentially functioning as something similar to a programming language.
I extended my 3D program with a scripting language, which is a programming language that executes at runtime, that would allow me to dynamically create objects and light sources, move them around the scene and modify their appearance, and even implement code that represented the behavior of an object. I began to ask myself: are we dynamically scripted objects with certain behaviors executing as code?
There are theories that support this concept. One such theory is called Simulation Theory which fits perfectly in combination with how I was visualizing it coupled with my understanding of quantum mechanics.
Genetics could be considered an example of this. DNA itself is similar to a programming language, and like everything else, DNA begins its life as a quantum waveform.
In object-oriented programming languages, a base class can have characteristics and behavior that can be shared by any class derived from that base class. There are characteristics and behavior that are common to us that exist within us and are passed through DNA replication. Some of this behavior is so common as to be shared across different species.
For example, consider how animals eat food to survive. This is a common behavior. We can consider a base class called “animal” from which we would derive types of animals such as a dog and a cat who also eat food to survive.
The procedures required for this behavior would be implemented in the “animal” base class, which would be “inherited” and potentially extended by those classes that are derived from that base class (not all animals eat exactly the same way, nor the same kinds of foods). When you view genetics as programs, this analogy fits perfectly.
As the creator of my 3D engine, there were certain things I neglected to add such as any code representing physics. Because of this, there were no rules such as those that would dictate what would happen when two “solid” objects would come into “contact” with each other. Like ghosts, objects could freely pass through each other simply because there was not any code to check for collisions.
It is interesting to consider that, were I to create a “physics engine”, I would be creating what would be the equivalent of the “laws of physics” expressed as rules and parameters dictated by the code. This is another concept that fits nicely with “Simulation Theory” as physics are just the confines of the simulation and only “laws” so far as they were created to be. One could ask: Is the speed of light the fastest anything can travel, or is it simply one of the parameters, or a constraint, to be experienced per this particular simulation?
Intelligent Design vs. Random Interaction
As I mentioned before, quantum mechanics and my software engineering experience allowed me to view reality in a different way. This ultimately led me to embrace what is called “Intelligent Design” over the Darwinian approach to our existence.
I have always personally had a problem with Darwin’s theory of evolution due to a lack of transitional fossils in the fossil record making a theory that is already impossible to prove by observation even more improbable in the absence of evidence.
I absolutely believe that the concept of us being able to experience anything as being the sum total result of random interaction on a giant rock spinning across the expanse of a universe that originated from a gigantic explosion is more about manipulating perceptions and human behavior than it is about trying to understand why we are here.
Promoting the concept that we evolved from monkeys seems to make an excuse for animal like behavior (“survival of the fittest” or dog-eat-dog) rather than promote a more harmonious interaction by way of an understanding that we were created for the purposes of learning through experience. That, somehow, our only means to survive is to step over one another rather than work together, and that this action is justified because of an evolutionary theory that we are simply told exists without us being able to observe it or confirm it in any way.
We truly are indoctrinated to believe that this is the only way to survive and that this aggressive and competitive approach to life is the only way. It is given a convenient animalistic backstory as promotion called the theory of evolution, ultimately an entire way of being that is built upon a theory that cannot even be proven.
Intelligent design, on the other hand, has more harmonious implications. If something was intelligently designed it was probably done so with a purpose and that purpose would lean toward an expression of harmony rather than disharmony.
Harmony is constructive where disharmony is destructive. It wouldn’t serve any rational purpose to create something that would ultimately intentionally destroy itself through the expression of disharmony. How can any reality be experienced if it destroys itself?
Consider that Intelligent Design is a theory just as much as Darwin’s theory of evolution, yet it is completely neglected to be taught in education, even if it is rationally more probable to be true just by the nature of harmony being a means of growth and sustainability due to its implied constructive nature.