Quantum Entanglement: What Would Seth Say?

Halfway through composing this entry, by an amazing synchronicity I glanced at the cover of this week's New Scientist magazine and noticed the feature article:



Part of me is surprised that science hasn't figured this out yet. Could it be that this is the reason we don't yet have flying cars and Spacely's Sprockets?

Probably. Despite years of wrangling over the conundrum of quantum entanglement, or "spooky action at a distance," science cannot make the big leap to a complete embrace of quantum theory because quantum entanglement violates causality.  Classic science still rules.

Yet, it was the easily observable fact that strict causality not only can be violated, but often is, that launched my interest into metaphysics. I was quite a serious science student in my youth, so when I began keeping a dream journal and documenting clear examples of precognition, I knew immediately that science was "wrong." And still is: "Specifically, precognition would violate the principle that an effect cannot occur before its cause." (Hyman, Ray: "Evaluating Parapsychological Claims" as cited in Wikipedia).

In other words, precognition breaks strict causality. And strict causality cannot be broken, because it not only informs our entire understanding of the universe, but also violates a significant part of our religious and social canon. How can you be punished for your sins when there is no cause-and-effect?

Yet, on a weekly basis in my mid-teens, I documented personal examples of precognition that defied causality. The reality of my experience contradicted the dogma of official science.  And still does, in fact... My precognitive hunches are reliable and consistent enough to function as a sixth sense. I personally could not function--would not want to function--in the material world without them.

Fortunately, Seth stepped into the breach fifty or so years ago (in our terms), halfway through "The Early Sessions" (Volume Two):

If cause and effect were an absolute law, then continuity would also have to be an absolute law, and all or any evidences of clairvoyance, or viewing the future, would be absolutely impossible, even in your universe, and this simply is not so. It is only because there is basically no cause and effect, but merely apparent cause and effect, and no past, present and future, that clairvoyance is possible in your universe.

And while awareness of clairvoyance is fairly rare, it does exist; and though watered down in most instances, is a natural method of warning individuals of happenings with which their own outer senses would not be familiar. It is a natural method of protecting the individual by giving him an inner knowledge of events. Without constant clairvoyance on the part of every man and woman, existence on your plane would involve such inner, psychological insecurity that it would be completely unbearable.

I've devoted quite a bit of camouflage time pondering the conundrum of causality versus free will because I think that unraveling this mystery will open up access to other dimensions of experience. The answer is there, somewhere--and I hope to find it. After all, science hasn't, yet, though it appears to be headed in the right direction (although my hunches tell me that a New Scientist writer would not want to be cited in a metaphysical blog of this nature):

We live in space-time, and experience causal order within it, yet causal order is not apparently fundamental to quantum theory. If we accept quantum theory as the most fundamental description of reality that we have, it means that space-time itself is not fundamental, but emerges from a deeper, currently inscrutable quantum reality. (Michael Brooks, New Scientist, August 3, 2013)