Click here to order from Amazon.com

Universe or Multiverse?, edited by Bernard Carr. Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Despite the growing popularity of the multiverse proposal, it must be admitted that many physicists remain deeply uncomfortable with it. The reason is clear: the idea is highly speculative and, from both a cosmological and a particle physics perspective, the reality of a multiverse is currently untestable.…

For these reasons, some physicists do not regard these ideas as coming under the purvey of science at all. Since our confidence in them is based on faith and aesthetic considerations (for example mathematical beauty) rather than experimental data, they regard them as having more in common with religion than science.… Indeed, Paul Davies regards the concept of a multiverse as just as metaphysical as that of a Creator who fine-tuned a single universe for our existence. (14)

To the hard-line physicist, the multiverse may not be entirely respectable, but it is a least preferable to invoking a Creator. Indeed anthropically inclined physicists like Susskind and Weinberg are attracted to the multiverse precisely because it seems to dispense with God as the explanation of cosmic design.… Indeed, Neil Manson has described the multiverse as ‘the last resort for the desperate atheist.’ … On the other hand, science itself cannot deal with such issues, and it seems unlikely that — even in the extended form required to accommodate the multiverse — science will ever prove or disprove the existence of God. (16)

Convictions about God’s existence must surely come from ‘inside’ rather than ‘outside’ and even those eminent physicists who are mystically inclined do not usually base their faith on scientific revelations. (17)

Multiverses may be useful in explanatory terms, but arguments for their existence are ultimately of a philosophical nature. (25)

Many people have promoted the multiverse hypothesis as the atheistic alternative to a theistic explanation of the fine-tuning of the cosmos for the existence of life. (27)

Thus, life appears to depend upon delicate coincidences that we have not been able to explain.… The happy coincidences between life’s requirements and nature’s choices of parameter values might just be a series of flukes, but one could be forgiven for beginning to suspect that something deeper is at work. That suspicion is the first deep root of anthropic reasoning. (45)

Let us be philosophical for a moment. Anthropic arguments and invocations of the multiverse can sometimes border on being non-scientific. You cannot test for the existence of other domains in the Universe outside the one visible to us — nor can you find a direct test of the Anthropic Principle. This leads some physicists to reject anthropic and multiverse ideas as being outside of the body of scientific thought. (241)

Although their ultimate purpose is to account for (and even predict) events, i.e. things that actually happen, physical (and other) theories are mainly concerned with what I shall refer to as eventualities, meaning things that may or may not actually happen. (286)

In discussions of their different opinions about what is appropriate in cosmological contexts, authors such as Hawking and Vilenkin tend to use the definite article for what they call ‘the’ state of the universe, but the reasoning I am developing here would suggest that such definiteness is unjustifiable, and that the most that is reasonable would be to propose ‘an’ a priori probability operator. (296)

This is in conformity with the precept that questions of ontology are of a theological nature that is beyond the scope of ordinary science (whose modest ambition is to account for appearances, and not for ultimate reality, whatever that may mean). (300)

The only eventualities about whose reality we can be sure are the conscious perceptions in our own minds (of which some, namely those occurring in dreams, are evidently uncorrelated with anything outside).… It seems reasonable to postulate the validity of Page’s principle, according to which conscious perceptions are the only eventualities that can be considered actually to happen. (304)

The set of such perceptions (not just yours and mine, but also those of everyone else) can be described as objective, and it is the only thing in the theory that can be considered to be real. (306)

This is the question of the nature of what I have referred to as a perceptor, whose actual perceptions are the only entities within the model that are considered to be real (which is not to deny the reality, in some theological sense, of other entities beyond the scope of the model).…

Is the perceptor unique? The notion that all anthropic observers might just be avatars of a single perceptor will not seem strange to anyone familiar with oriental (Hindu or Buddhist) religious tradition.… The obvious Wheelerian epithet for the succinct encapsulation of this idea — namely that we all share the same abstract identity — is solipsism without solipsism.…

Nevertheless, in the framework of the occidental (Judaeo-Christian-Islamic) religious tradition, it might seem more natural to suppose that there are many distinct perceptors. (308)

Whether — as in the oriental version of the anthropic interpretation — there is a unique perceptor, or whether — as in the occidental version — the number of perceptors is large (even compared with the number of anthropic observers) — is an issue that belongs to the realm of theology rather than science. (309)

One thereby obtains an interpretation of quantum mechanics that is compatible with Einstein’s desideratum that ‘God does not play dice’, in the sense that uncertainty is no longer involved at an objective global level, but arises only at the subjective level of particular perceptions. It could therefore be said that we play dice, but God does not! (317)

I have felt for many years about how otherwise sensible people, some of whom are among the scientists I most respect and admire, espouse an approach to cosmological problems — the Anthropic Principle (AP) — that is easily seen to be unscientific. By calling it unscientific I mean something very specific, which is that it lacks a property necessary for any scientific hypothesis — that it be falsifiable. (323)

I will discuss this in some detail below, but — put briefly — there is a vast logical difference between taking into account a known fact (e.g. that most of the galaxy is empty space) and arguing from a speculative and unproven premise (e.g. that there is a large ensemble of unseen universes).… To the extent that they are causally disjoint, we have no ability to make observations in universes other than our own. (324)

Thus, so long as we prefer a science based on what can be rationally argued from shared evidence, there is an ethical imperative to examine only hypotheses that lead to falsifiable theories.  (326)

It is not surprising that some theologians and scientists take the complexity problem as evidence that our universe was created by a benevolent God. They argue that if the best efforts of science lead to an understanding of the laws of nature within which there is choice, and if the choices that lead to a universe with intelligent life are extremely improbable, the very fact that such an improbable choice was made is evidence for intention. (338)

An important point is that, in order for an ensemble with varied properties to explain fine-tuning, it must be an actually existing ensemble and not a potential or hypothetical one. This is essential for any such anthropic argument. (389)

The implication is that the supposed existence of true multiverses can only be a metaphysical assumption. It cannot be a part of science, because science involves experimental or observational tests to enable correction of wrong theories. However, no such tests are possible here because there is no relevant causal link.

A belief that is justified by faith, unsupported by direct or indirect evidence, should be clearly identified as such, so that one knows precisely what one is being asked to support. I suggest the claim that properly disjoint multiverses exist is a metaphysical one, which by its very nature, can never become a scientific one. (400)

Gardner puts it this way: “There is not the slightest shred of reliable evidence that there is any universe other than the one we are in. No multiverse theory has so far provided a prediction that can be tested. As far as we can tell, universes are not even as plentiful as two blackberries.” The existence of multiverses is neither established nor scientifically establishable. The concept is justified by philosophy rather than science. They have explanatory power, but the philosophical nature of their justification must be appreciated. (407)

Though there has been much discussion of the Anthropic Principle (AP) over the last 35 years or so, it is still a very tantalizing and controversial subject, on the boundary between scientific cosmology and philosophy. (445)

It is important in this regard to note that there is a general consensus that the acceptability of any appeal to multiverses depends on there being a testable theory which independently predicts their existence. This requirement is crucial and must be kept in mind in evaluating these theories and in contemplating their use in anthropic arguments. (450)

If we have a final theory that still allows some ‘play’ in the laws of nature, then a theological answer in terms of intentional action by a divine agent or Creator is certainly acceptable, as long as we are allowing ourselves to go beyond the natural sciences and admit a theological or metaphysical frame of reference. Science can neither support nor exclude such a conclusion. It cannot even adjudicate the question. (456)

However, in wider-ranging philosophical discussions of the multiverse hypothesis — as found in various books on the topic — the issue arises as to what is the relation between the multiverse hypothesis and much larger philosophical issues, particularly whether reality is ultimately impersonal or personal in nature. In such contexts, the multiverse hypothesis is often presented as the atheistic alternative to a theistic explanation — such as that offered by John Polkinghorne — of the purported fine-tuning of the cosmos for intelligent life. (459)

I take the theistic hypothesis to be the claim that an omnipotent and omniscient being is ultimately responsible for the existence of the Universe. The concept of God I will assume is the standard so-called Anselmian one, according to which God is defined as the greatest possible being, but this is not essential to my argument. It is often claimed that this conception of God is central to all of the world’s theistic religious traditions — Islam, Judaism, Christianity and theistic versions of Hinduism. (459–60)

I will argue not only that theism is compatible with the universe-generator version of the multiverse hypothesis, but also that theists might even have reasons for preferring a multiverse over a single universe. Since within the world’s theistic traditions, God is considered infinite and infinitely creative, it makes sense that creation would reflect these attributes, and hence that physical reality might be much larger than one universe. Further, it makes sense that an infinitely creative God might create these many universes via some sort of universe-generator, since arguably this would be somewhat more elegant and ingenious than just creating them ex nihilo. (460)

Indeed, the fact that the multiverse scenario fits well with an idea of an infinitely creative God, and that so many factors in contemporary cosmology and particle physics conspire together to make an inflationary multiverse scenario viable, should give theists good reason to consider a theistic version of it. (461)

Fine-tuning has been widely claimed to provide evidence of, or at least suggest, some sort of divine design of the Universe.… Using what could be called the ‘surprise principle’, it follows that the existence of intelligent-life-permitting values for the constants provides evidence in favour of theism over the non-design, non multiverse hypothesis. (462)

Essentially, the argument is that if God is good — an assumption that is part of classical theism — then it is not surprising that God would create a world with intelligent beings, because the existence of such beings has positive value, at least under the theistic hypothesis.… I think that at minimum one has to admit that it is in no way arbitrary or ad hoc to hold that God has the desire to bring about states of goodness and beauty. (463)

In sum, even if an inflationary multiverse-generator exists, it must involve just the right combination of laws, principles and fields for the production of life-permitting universes; if one of the components were missing or different … it is unlikely that any life-permitting universes could be produced.… Thus, it does not seem that one can completely escape the suggestion of design merely by hypothesizing some sort of multiverse-generator. (466)

Many scientists feel very uncomfortable, if not hostile, to linking science and religion. As many leading historians have pointed out, however, natural theology and religion were closely linked with scientific practice, and indeed provided much of the inspiration for scientific work, until the late nineteenth century.

This unease with a science/religion dialogue extends to an unease with publicly discussing anything metaphysical at all in relation to science, including such topics as the anthropic principle and the multiverse hypothesis. On careful analysis of the overall purpose of doing science, however, I think it becomes clear that scientists should be talking about these issues, and doing so in dialogue with other thinkers, such as philosophers and theologians. (476–77)

I hope this chapter provides some understanding of why a theist might not only be sympathetic to the multiverse hypothesis, but might even see some of the findings of physics and cosmology as supportive of theism. (478)

In this section, I shall argue that, in a certain mathematical sense, the most general multiverse model (e.g. Tegmark’s Level 4 version) are ontologically equivalent to naïve deism, by which I mean the existence of a Cosmic Designer/Selector who judiciously picks a single real universe from an infinite shopping list of possible but unreal universes. Indeed, I suspect the general multiverse explanation is simply naïve deism dressed up in scientific language. Both appeal to an infinite unknown, invisible and unknowable system.… If I am right, then the multiverse is scarcely an improvement on naïve deism as an explanation for the physical universe. It is basically just a religious conviction rather than a scientific argument. (495)

Taken to its logical extreme, the multiverse explanation is a convincing argument for the existence of (a rather old-fashioned form of) God! This is certainly ironical, since it was partly to do away with such a God that the multiverse was originally invoked. (496)

My point is that to follow the multiverse theory to its logical extreme means effectively abandoning the notion of a rationally ordered real world altogether, in favour of an infinitely complex charade, where the very notion of ‘explanation’ is meaningless. (497)

In previous ages such a statement would be considered blasphemous, or at least most fantastic and highly improbable. The world then was ruled by firm laws of physics for some, and yet for others the world was ruled by a firm hand of God. Religions and science have determined the scopes, reaches and boundaries of the world and everything else within — including human existence and our right to live, breath, see, to hope, even to dream — was interpreted through the resulting worldviews. Fearful, we too have helped create such a limiting world around us.

But something strange has happened just over a century ago. Astounding insights by remarkable men in modern physics, confirmed by numerous experiments, have revealed us a wholly different stage of the reality theatre we’re all playing on. Humanity has made a gigantic leap: from the simplistic, deterministic reality of the pre-20th century world, through the relativistic world of the early– and mid-20th century, into the quantum world of today. We rightfully call it a quantum leap.

Quantum leap profoundly changes our perspectives, and anything we knew (or at least we thought we knew) must now be revalued, realigned, repositioned. Any modern metaphysics that tries to embrace the totality of human existence, its possibilities and the experience of it, must as well embrace the quantum view of reality. Anything falling short of that is not even worth considering as a candidate for a serious, comprehensive worldview.

How this considers you, or me? To paraphrase a modern physicist, our knowledge of a situation changes the situation instantly. By becoming aware, we alter the outcome of the situation. In following paragraphs I’ll continue my previous article (Stubbornly persistent illusion) and scatter some remarkable insights of modern physicists and philosophers of science. I’ll use them as reference points in my forthcoming essays as well, where I’ll reflect upon them in further exploration of different subjects.

To express the scope of quantum physic in one page is impossible, of course, hence I encourage you to explore books and online material to your best ability. Now you know it, you’ve been warned, and let’s see how it will change your reality.

The observer and observer’s universe

Atom?
When it comes to atoms, language can be used only as in poetry. The poet, too, is not nearly so concerned with describing facts as with creating images.
– Niels Bohr, physicist, Nobel prize laureate and one of the pioneers of quantum physics

Physicist?
A physicist is just an atom’s way of looking at itself.
– Niels Bohr

A tendency to exist
The probability wave meant a tendency for something. It was a quantitative version of the old concept of “potentia” in Aristotelian philosophy. It introduces something standing in the middle between the idea of an event and the actual event, a strange kind of physical reality in the middle of possibility and reality.
– Werner Heisenberg, physicist, author of the uncertainty principle in quantum physics

Fold, unfold, fold again .. unfold again
Classical physics says that reality is actually little particles that separate the world into its independent elements. Now I’m proposing the reverse, that the fundamental reality is the enfoldment and unfoldment, and these particles are abstractions from that. We could picture the electron not as a particle that exists continuously but as something coming in and going out and then coming in again. If these various condensations are close together, they approximate a track. The electron itself can never be separated from the whole of space, which is its ground.
– David Bohm, physicist, venerable contributor to philosophy and neuropsychology too

State of flux
The quantum theory shows that the attempt to describe and follow an atomic particle in precise detail has little meaning. The notion of an atomic path has only a limited domain of applicability. In a more detailed description the atom is, in many ways, seen to behave as much like a wave as a particle. It can perhaps best be regarded as a poorly defined cloud, dependent for its particular form on the particular environment, including the observing instrument. Thus, one can no longer maintain the division between the observer and the observed (which is implicit in the atomistic view that regards each of these as separate aggregates of atoms). Rather, both observer and observed are merging and interpenetrating aspects of one whole reality, which is indivisible and unanalysable.

In this totality, the atomistic form of insight is a simplification and an abstraction, valid only in some limited context. The new form of insight can perhaps best be called Undivided Wholeness in Flowing Movement.
– David Bohm

When you look at it, and when you don’t look at it

In quantum physics there is something called a “wave”, an intangible, irreducible field of probability, from which all physical matter and energy arise. The “waves” of quantum physics are ways of thinking. They’re not what’s going on in the physical world. Particles — that’s real in the real world. Waves are convenience; they’re a way of thinking. Waves of possibility. Waves of probability. When you aren’t looking it’s like a wave. When you are looking, it’s like a particle.
– Fred Alan Wolf, physicist and author of many books on nature of consciousness and quantum theory

Reality
Reality is not just the physical world; it’s the relationship of the mind with the physical world that creates the perception of reality. There is no reality without a perception of reality. Would you be here, exist in a physical form, if no one observed you? In a real sense, the answer is no.
– Fred Alan Wolf

Observer
Mere observation is enough to alter the history of anything or anyone, even a whole country. By observing, each observer separates into a self and a thing. Often that thing is one’s own face, body, or personality/belief structure.
– Fred Alan Wolf

The observer effect
The observer effect says that there is no reality until that reality is perceived. This profound insight tells us that we alter every object in the world simply by paying attention to it. In this alteration, both the object of our attention and the mind of the observer change. Because we usually don’t pay attention to ourselves in the perception process, our immediate experience usually won’t seem to indicate that our actions of perception changed anything. However, if we construct a careful history of our perceptions, they often show us that our way of perceiving indeed changes the course of our personal histories.

Thus the world is really not as it seems. It certainly seems to be “out there” independent of us, independent of the choices we might make. Yet quantum physics destroys that idea. What is “out there” depends on what we choose to look for.
– Fred Alan Wolf

Observables and observation
Observables are the consequences of our actions. We “do” to observe. We must bring out or cause something to occur in order to observe anything at all. Observation or measurement implies an observer with intelligence, a mind capable of discerning and thereby getting an impression or a perception of things. And that is what makes something go from anything possible to something actual. In other words, observation must be the creator of reality. This popularised the idea “you create your own reality” and that quantum physics and consciousness are related. This gets spiritual when you consider who or what the ultimate observer can be.
– Fred Alan Wolf

Recorded seeing
We don’t see what we see; we see what we remember we see. And you can replace this phrase with “smell”, “taste”, “hear”, “sense”, and perhaps even think. When we see objects “out there”, we not only see them, we replay all the previous information connected to them through past information “recordings”.
– Fred Alan Wolf

Consciousness can alter reality
With all the new medicines coming out, and the new insights we’re gathering about what constitutes health, quantum physics may just be what we need to really grasp how ancient spiritual views of the body and modern scientific views prove that consciousness can alter the reality, and so all illness (both physical and social we can add) may become as outdated as smallpox is today.
– Fred Alan Wolf

The power of illusion
The notion that all these fragments are separately existent is evidently an illusion, and this illusion cannot do other than lead to endless conflict and confusion. Indeed, the attempt to live according to the notion that the fragments are really separate is, in essence, what has led to the growing series of extremely urgent crises that is confronting us today. Thus, as is now well known, this way of life has brought about pollution, destruction of the balance of nature, over-population, world-wide economic and political disorder and the creation of an overall environment that is neither physically nor mentally healthy for most of the people who live in it. Individually there has developed a widespread feeling of helplessness and despair, in the face of what seems to be an overwhelming mass of disparate social forces, going beyond the control and even the comprehension of the human beings who are caught up in it.
– David Bohm

Both past and future are not certain
Physicists Albert Einstein and Richard Tolman showed that if quantum mechanics describes events, then even the past is as uncertain as the future.
– Fred Alan Wolf

Afterthoughts

We create past, and change past, same as we create future and change future. Sounds impossible, because we ‘know’ that past is gone, and is, well, behind us. However, the logical proof of this notion above is quite simple: if the past is gone, and determined, how can such a deterministic set called ‘past’ be a cause for the indeterministic future? Or to put it in parable: if we had apples only in our kitchen yesterday, how we can make an apple, cherry and pear pie today? How we can have more possibilities now than we had them in the past? That past is gone and determined is thus an illusion, but we choose to believe it because our memory is selective and attention span usually short. We obviously didn’t see we have cherries and pears on the shelf somewhere and believed there were none.

To paraphrase Fred Alan Wolf, the past is within vast fields and windmills of our mind. Every day we discover something new about our past, and that in effect changes the course of our future. Thus past indeed is undetermined because it will appear differently as we observe it differently. And vice versa — we imagine some future possibilities that reflect in us some memories from the past, which then cast a new light on a thought, “Ah, I should have done it this way …”. And we do it. We do it now. In one go we change both past and change the course of future.

Nothing is determined.

– Zvonimir Tosic

Space and time are so elementary to the average human’s everyday experience that the concept of space and time not being ‘fixed’ and ‘mutually separate’ is simply beyond our perception of things. Indeed, why else we have clocks that measure fixed time units, people may ask, and again, we can clearly see space is space, and time is time — even kids know that. For this reason most of us continue to relate to the old, in science often called ‘Newtonian model’ of the universe based on a fixed, experienceable 3D universe. Such a universe is made up of solid particles existing under a linear space-time continuum of events. Linear continuum says event A is followed by an event B, then B followed by C, etc. and through their occurrence in space we experience the concept of time. All this happens before our eyes despite the fact this theory was found to be substantially inadequate even in the early 20th century.

Albert Einstein, perhaps the most celebrated and recognized scientist/philosopher, said once, “People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.” Physicist Stephen Hawking used this quote in his books to further observe and underline this obdurate tendency in humans. It seems our mind is used to operate within this illusion (perhaps it even creates it) and it’s hard to break free. But what happens if we re-examine it? Let’s try.

Energy and matter are interchangeable

Firstly, our perception of matter change. Einstein’s theory of relativity postulated that energy and matter are interchangeable in accordance with his famous formula of E=mc². Matter could be considered as ‘slowed down’ or crystallised ‘energy’ and as such the human body, and the outside world as well, are nothing more than a complex ‘energy field’. To express this idea we rewrite the Einstein’s formula as m=E/c², suggesting that matter originates from energy and is ‘slowed down’ by the square of speed of light. According to science it’s the highest possible speed in the observable universe.

This insight provides a mindframe enabling us to begin to understand the older esoteric concepts which say that the observable universe (including the human body) is made up of multi-dimensional energy fields. It also provides a scientific setting to the notion of human energy field as well, in popular literature often called halos, or auras. It draws a better background to the widespread rediscovery and favourable acceptance of many new age concepts of a holistic worldview in which seemingly separate elements are interconnected, including our being, environment, minds and bodies of others and everything else.

Quantum physics

Quantum physics is at the cutting edge of Western science and in many regards goes far beyond Einstein’s theory of relativity. What’s gripping about quantum physics is that the original idea that ignited it — the pursuit of the elementary particles at a subatomic level — has become almost meaningless with the discovery that the universe appears to be an undivided whole in a constant state of dynamic flux.

Like Einstein’s theory of relativity, quantum physics discovers the universe to be a single, enormous field of energy in which what we call matter is just a ‘slowed down’ form of energy. Quantum physics has also discovered that matter/energy does not exist with any certainty in definite places (even a notion of ‘place’ loses its meaning in quantum physics), but rather shows ‘tendencies’ to exist. That’s a concept known as ‘uncertainty principle’, which is often stated this way: the measurement of position necessarily disturbs (a particle’s) momentum, and vice versa.

The most fascinating truth that comes out of these conclusions, from a multitude of experiments and especially from the uncertainty principle is the notion that the existence of an observer is fundamental to the existence of the universe. It’s a groundbreaking concept known as ‘the observer effect’. The observer effect says that there is no reality until that reality is perceived. In the uncertainty principle it’s the observer who measures the (particle’s) position and thus influences, disturbs its momentum. Unquestionably, all this would mean the universe is a consequence of consciousness, for it seems only through consciousness we’re able to experience the very concept of ourselves, measure the observable universe and our interaction with(in) it.

Physicist Barbara Brennan writes in her book ‘The Hands of Light’, “Through experiments over the past few decades physicists have discovered matter to be completely mutable into other particles or energy and vice-versa and on a subatomic level, matter does not exist with certainty in definite places, but rather shows ‘tendencies’ to exist. Quantum physics is beginning to realise that the universe appears to be a dynamic web of interconnected and inseparable energy patterns. If the universe is indeed composed of such a web, there is logically no such thing as a part. This implies we are not separated parts of a whole but rather we are the whole.”

Exchanging arguments with scientist who still believe in mechanistic order and dividing of the matter endlessly, (thus separating themselves from the results of their observation despite observer effect), quantum physicist Dr David Bohm states in his book ‘Wholeness and the Implicate Order’ that “primary physical laws cannot be discovered by a science that attempts to break the world into its parts. … Whatever part, element, or aspect we may abstract in thought, it still enfolds the whole and is therefore intrinsically related to the totality from which it has been abstracted.” These insightful conclusions bring forth overwhelming consequences.

Considering the wholeness of experience at all levels of our perception of reality, in like manner we can postulate that when it comes to spirituality, primary spiritual laws cannot be discovered by religions and worldviews that attempt to break the existence in parts, namely: heavens and hells, below and above, God and man, spiritual and material, sin and virtue, reason and love, etc. We need a more comprehensive look on reality, enriched by all recent discoveries in science, or a complete re-interpretation from a novel standpoint.

Let’s explore what would all these marvelous ideas and insights mean if superimposed onto teachings and reality of our predecessors, who were not acquainted into knowledge we now posses. One thing is almost certain: we’ll enter into an exciting, strange at first sight, but immensely beautiful world of new possibilities … and an all new meaning.

– Zvonimir Tosic

It was a cold January morning, 7:51 am. He emerged from the metro at the L’Enfant plaza station Washington D.C. and positioned himself against a wall beside a trash basket. By most measures, he was nondescript: a youngish white man in jeans, a long-sleeved T-shirt and a Washington Nationals baseball cap. From a small case, he removed a violin. Placing the open case at his feet, he shrewdly threw in a few dollars and pocket change as seed money, swiveled it to face pedestrian traffic, and began to play.

He played six Bach pieces for about 45 minutes. During that time, since it was rush hour, it was calculated that thousands of people went through the station.

Almost all of them were on the way to work, which meant, for almost all of them, a government job. L’Enfant Plaza is at the nucleus of federal Washington, and these were mostly mid-level bureaucrats with those indeterminate, oddly fungible titles: policy analyst, project manager, budget officer, specialist, facilitator, consultant.

Three minutes went by and a middle aged man noticed there was musician playing. He slowed his pace and stopped for a few seconds and then hurried up to meet his schedule. A minute later, the violinist received his first dollar tip: a woman threw the money in the till and without stopping continued to walk. A few minutes later, someone leaned against the wall to listen to him, but the man looked at his watch and started to walk again. Clearly he was late for work.

The one who paid the most attention was a 3 year old boy. His mother tagged him along, hurried but the kid stopped to look at the violinist. Finally the mother pushed hard and the child continued to walk turning his head all the time. This action was repeated by several other children. All the parents, without exception, forced them to move on.

In the 45 minutes the musician played, only 6 people stopped and stayed for a while. About 20 gave him money but continued to walk their normal pace. He collected $32.17 — yes, some people gave pennies. When he finished playing and silence took over, no one noticed it. No one applauded, nor was there any recognition.

A public experiment on perception

As it happens, no one but just one one person recognised Joshua Bell, one of the top musicians in the world, and she didn’t arrive until near the very end. For Stacy Furukawa, a demographer at the Commerce Department, there was no doubt. She doesn’t know much about classical music, but she had been in the audience three weeks earlier, at Bell’s free concert at the Library of Congress. And here he was, the international virtuoso, sawing away, begging for money. She had no idea what was going on, but whatever it was, she wasn’t about to miss it.

Joshua Bell played one of the most intricate pieces ever written, with a Stradivari violin worth 3.5 million dollars. Two days before his playing in the subway, Joshua Bell sold out at a theater in Boston and the seats average $100.

Joshua Bell playing incognito in the metro station was organized by The Washington Post as part of a social experiment about perception, taste and priorities of people. The outlines were: in a commonplace environment at an inappropriate hour, do we perceive beauty? Do we stop to appreciate it? Do we recognize the talent in an unexpected context?

One of the possible conclusions from this experience could be: If we do not have a moment to stop and listen to one of the best musicians in the world playing the most beautiful music ever written, how many other things are we missing?

Journalist Gene Weingarten was awarded a Pulitzer Prize for Feature Writing for his outstanding and thought provoking analysis of the experiment. Weingarten discusses the ramifications of Bell’s subway experience. What role does context play in our perceptions? To what degree is our perception of beauty influenced by our mindset at the particular time we perceive it? He notes:

It’s an old epistemological debate, older, actually, than the koan about the tree in the forest. Plato weighed in on it, and philosophers for two millennia afterward: What is beauty? Is it a measurable fact (Gottfried Leibniz), or merely an opinion (David Hume), or is it a little of each, colored by the immediate state of mind of the observer (Immanuel Kant)?

Joshua Bell started his one-hour set with “Chaconne” from Johann Sebastian Bach’s Partita No. 2 in D Minor. Bell calls it “not just one of the greatest pieces of music ever written, but one of the greatest achievements of any man in history. It’s a spiritually powerful piece, emotionally powerful, structurally perfect. Plus, it was written for a solo violin, so I won’t be cheating with some half-assed version.” If you think that sounds effusive, consider what other composer, Johannes Brahms, had to say about the same piece of music in his letter to Clara Schumann (Robert Schumann’s wife):

“On one stave, for a small instrument, the man writes a whole world of the deepest thoughts and most powerful feelings. If I imagined that I could have created, even conceived the piece, I am quite certain that the excess of excitement and earth-shattering experience would have driven me out of my mind.”

For Joshua Bell this was a tremendous experience. He noted:

“At a music hall, I’ll get upset if someone coughs or if someone’s cellphone goes off. But here, my expectations quickly diminished. I started to appreciate any acknowledgment, even a slight glance up. I was oddly grateful when someone threw in a dollar instead of change.” This is from a man whose talents can command $1,000 a minute.

“The awkward times,” he calls them. It’s what happens right after each piece ends: nothing. The music stops. The same people who hadn’t noticed him playing don’t notice that he has finished. No applause, no acknowledgment. So Bell just saws out a small, nervous chord — the embarrassed musician’s equivalent of, “Er, okay, moving right along …” — and begins the next piece.

Watching the video weeks later, Bell finds himself mystified by one thing only. He understands why he’s not drawing a crowd, in the rush of a morning workday. But: “I’m surprised at the number of people who don’t pay attention at all, as if I’m invisible. Because, you know what? I’m makin’ a lot of noise!”

Pre-conceptions in spiritual life

But was Joshua making too much noise? There’s a simpler explanation for his doubt — people were observing not Joshua ‘making noise’, but noise inside their own heads. Joshua was facing a fundamental truth of the reality we perceive: recorded seeing. As quantum physicist says, “We don’t see what we see; we see what we remember we see. And you can replace this phrase with smell, taste, hear, sense, and perhaps even think. When we see objects out there, we not only see them, we replay all the previous information connected to them through past information recordings.

People didn’t expect a world class virtuoso playing in the metro station in the cold morning, for in their minds that place next to rubbish bin was reserved for poor musicians playing for a few dollars. They’ve projected a pre-recorded impression in their minds and thus couldn’t reach new conclusions, admire beautiful performance and gain new insights.

For majority places for admiring art are galleries, museums, concert halls, not a metro station. Similarly, when it comes to spirituality people perceive analogous pre-recorded messages and follow clichés. Many see spirituality as attendance to Sunday mass or a temple program, Christmas festive and fasting before Easter, observing Sabbath or Janmastami, but not as a spontaneous expression of compassion, kindness and love in everyday environment. Or perhaps insights and inspiration beyond those recorded in scripture.

In the case of Radha-Krishna devotion, they’re taught to expect it to see in a certain Indian ambient. Many will want to have a guru who has lots of followers, who was born and/or resides in some Indian place of pilgrimage, rather than a westerner for example. Their mind will experience comfort when it gets framed into the pre-sketched landscape of secret mantras, strict daily routine and comprehensive set of rules to obey that will ‘set them free’. But their minds won’t be able to perceive a wider world of spontaneous, natural devotional expression available for free.

People in the street dancing dressed in saffron and saris will be perceived as devotees, but many will smirk upon someone in everyday jeans and shirt who say to be a devotee as well. Even if such an everyday person is perceived as a devotee, to many he or she will be of lesser degree and importance than a monk in dress, and people will adjust their behaviour accordingly.

Subjects outside the pre-recorded perceptual frame will be perceived similarly as Joshua Bell — as a poor musician begging for a few dollars to buy, perhaps, a hot soup in the cold January morning. An invisible nobody.