I. Similarity with other work


There are also a number of other theories which lead to much the same conclusions, at least in that part which deals with the resonance of similar structures in space. very briefly these are as follows.

1. Duplication theory describes an ordering process, a system of increasing negative entropy. This is the opposite of quantum theory, which extracts order from disorder, and as Schrödinger described in his booklet “What is Life?” which is quoted in the introduction above.

2. Jung’s “Synchronicity: an acausal connecting principle” (1955) appears to support the implications of Duplication Theory, as does some work of Schopenhauer with his theme of transcendental speculation, and also Leibniz with his Monadology and its theme of pre-established harmony.

3. The Absorber Theory of Wheeler and Feynman already discussed above, whose conclusions seem to dovetail with those of Duplication theory very well.

4. A physicist, Bell, published a theorem in 1966, showed in mathematical terms, that there can be a connection between distant events in the absence of any intermediary force or signal, and that this action at a distance will be simultaneous. This bears out the view of quantum theory that apparently indicates that there are no such things as separate parts in reality, but instead only intimately related phenomena inseparably bound up with each other. The problem with quantum theory is understanding how force at a distance can operate, and this problem was first faced inconclusively in the paradox of Einstein,’ Rosen and Podolsky, published in 1935. Bell’s theorem was tested in the laboratory in 1974 by two Berkeley physicists, Freedman and Clauser, who managed to complete a successful correlation experiment on polarised photons, which vindicated Bell’s theorem as far as quantum interconnectivity is concerned. Alain Aspect’s experiments in France and those of others later gave the proof for the theorem.

5. Psychiatrist Ninian Marshall, in 1960, proposed a theory of ‘Resonance Phenomena’ as a physical explanation for precognition. This is summarised in Danah Zohar (1982) in her book ‘Through the time barrier’ as follows:

“The gist of Marshall’s theory was to make the leap from the proven ability of single neurons to respond to single quantum processes to hypothesising that there are: 1. A means whereby single quantum events (virtual transitions) can band together to build up a pattern and further: 2. A means whereby the brain could magnify these microscopic quantum patterns into microscopic perceptions. He called these pattern forming and magnifying processes ‘resonance phenomena’, and he likened them to the kind of resonance effects which exist between oscillating objects such as tuning forks, or window panes vibrating in harmony with rattling railway lines. phrasing his theory in terms of a Law of Resonance, he stated, ‘Any two structures exert an influence on each other which tends to make them become more alike. The strength of this influence increases with the product of their complexity, and decreases with the difference between their patterns.”

Thus if there is any similarity between pattern formations in the brain and patterns building up in the virtual transitions of quantum phenomena, the increasing tendency towards a pattern amongst the virtual transitions (the theory holds) is going to create an increasing similarity in the patterns being built up in the brain’s reverberating circuits. This concept is similar in may ways to Jung’s synchronistic notion that ‘like attracts like.’ An event (subatomic in this case) is thought to act like a magnet drawing others into its own ‘vibes’ and thus building up a pattern which mirrors itself….. Thus Marshall proposes a physical theory of recognition based on the brain’s supposed ability to tune into the probability states of quantum virtual transitions and to experience, through resonance, a pattern formation which could mirror at a level accessible to consciousness any pattern formations amongst probab­ilistic events – if these exist.”

6. There are a number of the so called ‘observation theories’ which are usually highly technical, and the mathematics of which are therefore impossible for the non mathematician (especially the writer) to understand, but the central theme would appear to be as follows. The wave function of a quantum event has the potential to materialise into reality at any location, but other than to say it is chance, it is not known what actually precipitates the wave into an event into at one place rather than another. it is suggested that it is the act of observation that brings this about. Evan Harris Walker in his paper ‘Consciousness and Quantum Theory’ (1974) proposed that the conscious act of foreseeing a future event has the effect of retroactively creating the very event that was foreseen, so that consciousness has the power through backwards causation, to collapse the wave function to order.

7. An article ‘Is ESP possible’ by J: R: Smythies (1967) included in ‘Science and ESP’ (1967) edited by Smythies, briefly suggests ‘a complexity field’ as possible explanation for ESP, since the brain is the most complex structure in the universe, as far as is known.

“…..One could postulate a complexity field. that is to say that, whenever physical events are conjoined in a dense accumulation of extreme and diverse complexity such as the brain, then a new field is set up by means of which information can be transmitted using this field. In that case a computer approaching the human brain in complexity would also be expected to demonstrate ESP. ‘Complexity’ here could be defined in terms of bits of information the machine could deal with per unit space in unit time.”

8. In his book, ‘Wholeness and the implicate Order’, (1980) physicist David Bohm develops his ideas and his central theme of the unbroken wholeness of the totality of existence as an undivided flowing movement without borders. He examines a number of the same subjects as are analysed by duplication theory, and in particular, the concept of order, and he arrives at some conclusions which are remarkably similar to those of duplication theory, especially with regard to consciousness, life and cosmology, mechanistic order, the ordinary concept of order which we are familiar, he contrasts with his new concept implicate order where “everything is enfolded into everything”.

9. A mathematical proof for the quantum interconnection of similar structures with special reference to psi exists in a paper by laser physicist Arthur Chester in the little read Journal of Psychoenergetics (1981). He retired in 2002 as chief technical officer at Hughes Electronics and president of HRL Laboratories in Malibu, California. The published paper of 22 pages is a condensation of a much longer paper of 700 pages which took its author 7 years to complete working on his own, separate from his career as a physicist working on lasers in industry. His work indicates mathematically that positive psi effects will diminish with tightened control; “otherwise, the results would become sufficiently convincing to change the belief patterns of critics of psi.”

He rationalises the Sheep Goats effect very effectively, and he also develops what he calls ‘the inertia of beliefs’, in his original paper, ‘Similarity, A physical theory of psychic phenomena’ (1979) finished in October 1978, in the following manner:

“That is, if the outcome of an experiment will affect the spatial patterns of matter anywhere, through its effect on people’s thought patterns, on their actions, or upon the physical movements of other matter, then a bias will be introduced into the probabilities of the experiment’s possible outcomes. Experiments and other events will tend to turn out in such a way that they do not ‘change the world’ (i.e. alter its patterns). More specifically for this example, events will conspire so that people’s belief patterns will not tend to change very rapidly. This may be described as an ‘inertia’ or constancy in beliefs. the events whose outcomes are thus affected may be almost of any kind of process…… psi experiments, magic rituals, or physical measurements of quantities.”

10. Jon Taylor published in the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, a paper titled Information Transfer in space-time in which he shows how the problem of the intervention paradox in precognition might be overcome, and is implemented by a mechanism of resonance of thoughts patterns through time.

11. Perhaps the most strikingly similar, or at least the most widely read of recently published works, to support duplication theory is Rupert Sheldrake’s ‘New Science of Life’ (1981), now produced in paperback. For anybody who has read Sheldrake’s books, and in particular his first “A New Science of Life” will recognise that there are some very similar conclusions he makes to the above,

“The hypothesis put forward in this book is based on the idea that morphogenetic fields do indeed have measurable physical effects. It proposes that specific morphogenetic fields are responsible for the characteristic form and organisation of systems at all level of complexity, not only in the realm of biology, but also in the realms of chemistry and physics. These fields order the systems with which they are associated by affecting events which, from an energetic point of view, appear to be indeterminate or probabilistic; they impose patterned restrictions on the energetically possible outcomes of physical processes.

If morphogenetic fields are responsible for the organisation and form of material systems, they must themselves have characteristic structures. So where do these field-structures come from? The answer suggested is that they are derived from the morphogenetic fields associated with previous systems: the morphogenetic fields of all past systems become present to any subsequent similar systems by a cumulative influence which acts across both space and time. According to this hypothesis, systems are organised in the way they are because similar systems were organised that way in the past. for example, the molecules of a complex organic chemical crystallise in a characteristic pattern because the same substance crystallised that way before; a plant takes up the form characteristic of its species because past member of the species took up that form; and an animal acts instinctively in a particular manner because similar animals behaved like that previously. This hypothesis is concerned with the repetition of forms and patterns of organisation; the question of the origin of these forms and patterns lies outside its scope. This question can be answered in several different ways, but all of them seem to be equally compatible with the suggested means of repetition.”

The first draft of Duplication Theory was written in 1979, at about the same time that Rupert Sheldrake was writing ‘A New Science of Life’, although there was no communication between the two authors until early 1983. Sheldrake is a biologist and he postulates that similar cell structures in living organisms resonate through time and space, to produce development in similar ways. Duplication theory postulates that not only do similar structures resonate through time but also similar actions resonate simultaneously through space, and explains this interaction in general principles of physics. Sheldrake’s books explain in detail a number of physical applications of morphic resonance, all of which I endorse but do not investigate in any detail on this website. In order to give an impression of the formality of the presentation of his proposals, and to define the problem he tackles, I quote below:

“At present, the orthodox approach to biology is given by the mechanistic theory of life: living organisms are regarded as physico-chemical machines, and all the phenomena of life are con­sidered to be explicable in principle in terms of physics and chemistry. This mechanistic paradigm is by no means new; it has been dominant for over a century. The fact that this approach has resulted in spectacular successes such as the ‘cracking of the genetic code’ is a strong argument in its favour. Nevertheless, critics have put forward what seem to be good reasons for doubting that all phenomena of life, including human behaviour, can ever by explained entirely mechanistically. (Russell 1945; Elasser 1958; Polanyi 1958; Beloff 1962; Koestler 1967; Lenartowicz 1975; Popper and Eccles 1977; Thorpe 1978) The simplest way in which the mechanist theory could be modified would be to suppose that the phenomena of life depend on a new type of causal factor, unknown to physical sciences, which interacts with physico-chemical processes within living organisms. several versions of this vitalist theory have been proposed during the present century, (Driesch 1908; Bergson 1911 a, b; Sheldrake 1980 a); but none has succeeded in making predictions that can be tested, or in suggesting new experiments. The reasons for this failure are illustrated most clearly in the areas of biology where the organismic philosophy has been most ­influential, namely embryology and developmental biology. The most important organismic concept put forward so far is that of morphogenetic fields (Weiss 1939). these fields are supposed to help account for, or describe, the coming-into-being of the characteristic forms of embryos and other developing systems…… The concept of morphogenetic fields can be of practical scientific value only if it leads to testable predictions which differ from those of the convent­ional mechanistic theory and such predictions cannot be made unless morphogenetic fields are considered to have measurable effects.”

In summarising his hypothesis, Sheldrake goes on to point out that:

“The hypothesis of formative causation accounts for the repetition of forms but does not explain how the first example of any given forms originally came into being. This unique event can be ascribed to chance or to a creativity inherent in matter, or to a transcendent creative agency. A decision between these alternatives can be made only on metaphysical grounds and lies outside the scope of this hypothesis……….. The most frequent type of previous form makes the greatest contribution by morphic resonance, the least frequent, the least morphogenetic fields are not precisely defined but are represented by probability structures which depend on the statistical distribution of previous similar forms. The probability distributions of electronic orbitals described by the solutions of the Schrödinger equation are examples of such probability structures, and are similar in kind to the probability structures of the morphogenetic fields of morphic units at higher levels.”

Sheldrake quotes from an experiment performed by W. McDougal in Harvard in 1920, and then a follow up experiment by W.E. Agar at Melbourne, on generations of trained rats, in 1954, the results of which support the existence of morphic resonance very clearly. He investigates further different aspects of morphogenesis, and subjects such as dominance, family resemblances, and inheritance of acquired characteristics, the evolution of biological forms, instinct and learning, with a clarity which is most convincing to the lay reader, possessing no specialist knowledge of biology. The parallels between morphic resonance and duplication theory are obvious, and indeed, it was a close run thing as to whether the latter might have been referred to as resonance theory instead of duplication theory. The latter choice prevailed since it seemed that resonance occurred as a result of the duplication of intervals in space and time, and therefore might be regarded as a more fundamental description. However, the phrase ‘morphic resonance’ is so concise and so much more elegant than the equivalent ‘space duplication effect’, that I wish I had invented the term myself, but have not adopted it lest I appear guilty of plagiarism.

Duplication theory offers an explanation for the mechanism of morphic resonance, and it also considers conversely the effect of resonance of structures in time as well as space, subjects not likely to be easily covered by the specialist approach of the biologist. Duplication theory obviously suffers from the lack of specialist know­ledge of any one subject in particular, whereas Sheldrake is able to marshal his arguments in support of the theory in a masterly fashion, with a maximum of clarity. On the other hand, Duplication theory postulates how this Morphic resonance effect(similar structures resonating through time) is the exact corollary of the transmission of electromagnetic action, into which subject Sheldrake does not venture.

12. There is also an increasing amount of theoretical research being done on the nature of inertia. Astrophysicist Bernard Haisch of Palo Alto, and quantum theorist Hal Puthoff of Austin Texas, and others are developing the Zero Point Field Theory which presents a very different picture of the subject. They argue that inertial mass is inextricably connected with gravitational mass. This is done by using the concept of vacuum energy in space, and it draws from the earlier work of there late Russian physicist Andrei Sakharov. Interestingly Hal Puthoff wrote a book in 1977 called “Mind-Reach” on the subject of experiments carried out on distant viewing and Clairvoyance.

13. Emeritus Professor Basil Hiley of Birkbeck College, London university continues on with research along lines of Bohm’s work on the ‘Wholeness and the Implicate Order’

14. Sir Roger Penrose, emeritus professor of mathematics at Oxford University, has written controversial books on the connection between fundamental physics and human consciousness. In ‘The Emperor’s New Mind’ (1989), he argues that known laws of physics are inadequate to explain the phenomenon of human consciousness. Penrose hints at the characteristics this new physics may have and specifies the requirements for a bridge between classical and quantum mechanics (what he terms correct quantum gravity CQG).

15. The No Cloning Theorem of Wooters Zurek and Diek from 1982 stated that it is impossible to create an identical copy of an arbitrary unknown quantum state and this has profound implications in quantum computing and other related fields. Apparently the theorem was prompted by a proposal of Nick Herbert for a superluminal communication device using quantum entanglement. The no cloning theorem would appear to be a direct embodiment of the mechanism behind Duplication theory as explain above in section B.

16. There is also the work of Anton Zeilinger, professor of physics at Vienna University, working on and producing practical applications for quantum entanglement. Zeilinger’s group is developing a quantum cryptography prototype in collaboration with industry, and has demonstrated quantum communication over large distances is not only possible but has been achieved. His explanations of the practical applications of quantum entanglement emphasise strongly the role of randomicity in the process. It is a fact that information can now be transferred over large distance simultaneously, (faster than light speed) but that this cannot take place without the system operating in an entirely random manner.

Further progress on this subject would appear to be very relevant to duplication theory, although it is early days yet, but see section C 1.7 above for striking similarities in the work of Zeilinger to explain quantum entanglement and the singularity state of perfect randomicity described in this paper. The role of randomicty and its connection with Bell’s inequality theorem is explained in Zeilinger’s book: “The Dance of the Photons.” This research is apparently being well funded by banks since the information transferred by this process is not only simultaneous but also undecryptable.