In this interpretation Heitler accepts the modified Copenahgenist observer created reality, but adds that the act of observation dissolves the barrier between observer and the observed. The observer is a necessary part of the whole. Once observed, the object is now an inseparable part of the observer (Bleuler). Arntz addresses this bridge between the observer, the observer, and reality by asking "why aren't we magicians?"; indeed, if we create our reality and can change our reality simply through the act of how we perceive it, and how we choose to perceive it, we should be able shape our world and our place in our world. In Arntz' way, he is offering to the reader what so many self-help gurus have done -- put responsibility for one's reality in the hands of the person living that particular reality, and saying, 'here you go, you can change it.' Empowering, yes….but is it 'real'? Now, that is a rabbit hole.
The fourth quantum reality interpretation was developed by Hugh Everett at Princeton in 1957. His reality is called the 'many worlds interpretation' (Albert and Loewer). This interpretation is very popular and used in many science fiction novels and movies. In Everett's reality, every time a measurement is taken a myriad of universes is created. In his theory of reality for everything that can have multiple outcomes, there is a universe or alternate reality that fulfills one possibility. So, for every person in Everett's reality, there are trillions of universes that enact every possible outcome of our lives (Albert and Loewer). This is reminiscent of holding a mirror up to another mirror, and attempting to perceive the multiple views this creates. It is a difficult concept to comprehend, and ultimately not terribly helpful. For Arntz, the possibility explored in this concept is that for the person 'needing' a change, or attempting to accept a new paradigm, there is one out there for you.
The fifth quantum reality interpretation is called quantum logic. Quantum logic holds that the universe obeys a non-human kind of reasoning, posited in research by Birkhoff and Neuman in 1936, in an attempt to explain elements of Boolean logic. This concept states that replacing old concepts of reality with new ones will not work. We must completely forget our way of reasoning and use quantum logic. Logic is the most basic human function. Logic governs everything we do. But sometimes what is logical to us isn't true. We must think in a new way dubbed quantum logic that is yet to be developed. This interpretation says that as soon as we throw out classic physics and completely figure out everything about quantum reality we will be able to think quantum logically and therefore understand reality.
The sixth quantum reality is called Neorealism. This interpretation says that the universe is made of ordinary objects as opposed to quantum objects. An ordinary object can be described as an object that displays no quantum properties and posses attributes of its own that are independent of being observed. This view is the least accepted view of our universe by physicists because it throws out quantum reality altogether and states that are universe can be explained in terms of classical physics. Many physicists such as Bohr said this theory is like saying the world is flat and the sun revolves around the earth. The Neorealist's argue that the other interpretations just make things seem more complex than they really are.
The seventh quantum reality says that consciousness creates reality. This is a modified version of the observer created reality interpretation. It says those only entities that possess consciousness can create a reality. This interpretation is less accepted because it says that only living things that think can create reality. So before any living thinking being was around nothing existed. Most physicists such as Einstein, Bohr and Heitler argued that this cannot be considered as a full theory because it says something magical happened to create consciousness so there could be reality, but consciousness couldn't have been created first without reality. This interpretation is only embraced by a few physicists.
The eighth and final interpretation is The Duplex Universe of Heisenberg reality. This interpretation was conceived by Werner Heisenberg. It states that the universe is actually two universes, consisting of potentials and actualities. Heisenberg came up with this reality after accepting the observer created reality interpretation, but asked if the observer creates reality, then what does he create it from? To answer this question he came up with his duplex reality theory. According to Heisenberg, we live in the world of actuality, and reality is created when the observer creates it by observing it. This reality is created from the universe of possibility. In the universe of possibility every possible outcome is present and only one is pulled from the universe of possibility to the universe of actuality, and that is the reality we see.
The eight versions of reality proposed by the greatest minds of all time represent the human desire to understand everything around us. One could argue that humankind first began questioning the nature of what they saw and did not see, at the dawn of consciousness. From that time, with developing social groups, civilizations, and cultures, the rise of religion and its child, science, has brought us to this nascent period. Arntz capitalizes on this background, and provides a provocative line of thought that is not only enticing to explore, it can somewhat conceivably be regarded by some as irresistible.
Conclusion: Pseudoscience or Enlightenment?
What Arntz is asking us, fundamentally, is how certain can we be about science, and what kind of explanations can we use to define our existence through the tools that we have at our disposal, which include scientific inquiry and religion.
For centuries humankind has questioned the universe around it. This has given rise to a new faith, a faith known as Scientism, the unquestioning belief that science is correct in every matter and cannot be disproved. Yet, there are many things which cannot be explained by science and which science cannot deal with. Indeed, this is the religious view that so successfully opposes the attempts of science to explain the world. Arntz deals with this issue by pointing the reader to a new paradigm of science, theoretical physics. The danger of the book is that of falling into its own rabbit hole, that of pseudoscience and mysticism.
The main aim of a scientist is to come up with some principle or theory which can explain the behavior of a section of the universe, such as the behavior of a gas when it is heated. To do this a scientist must first formulate a hypothesis from observation of the universe, and then prove it to be true by carrying out experimentation in a controlled environment to create a theory. This must then independently verified by another scientist. This is known as the scientific method and it the fact that the method is systematic that makes people put such great faith in science. However, Arntz asks us how can we test the untestable, know the unknowable, and reach a definitive set of guiding principles about questioning the nature of our existence and that of the place/space/time we exist within?
The case for science is strengthened by the fact that there is independent verification and experimentation before a theory becomes accepted. Skilled scientists carry out both the verification and experimentation in carefully controlled conditions. Can Arntz carry out controlled experiments on revealing many worlds in his book? Only through wordsmithing, though some of the so-called experiments in the book have more than passing interest. It is obvious, that at some point there is a case to be made from the principles coming out of the book "What the Bleep Do We Know." Perhaps, the point is to support quantum mechanics, or quantum mysticism, or perhaps it is more simply to capture a segment of society that these ideas appeal to. Regardless, quantum physics is not pseudoscience, and it is fascinating to think about what the different interpretations of reality may reveal in the future.
However, because of the systematic method of science, which relies heavily on observation, it cannot answer questions regarding religion, morals or aesthetics, as these cannot be observed. Thus science is limited only to the parts of the world that exist to the eye; it cannot question that which only exists in the mind, the soul or outside this universe. Arntz takes that notion and turns it on its ear, with examples of the quantum brain. Even Schrodingers Cat tells us that science simply cannot be limited to the observable, in a theoretical sense (Schrodinger).
Can science prove that the universe exists? The philosopher Rene Descartes questioned the existence of the universe and whether or not what we know as the world is real. He concluded that if you are experiencing something, then you must exist in order to experience it, or as he put it…