I've been trying to come up with a response to this chapter. I've struggled to understand this chapter in the past, and while I appreciate RAW's explanation of Bell's theorem, I never quite feel like I understand what he's getting at. That being said, please tell me if you disagree, as I might still be misunderstanding.
After having sat on it, RAW seems to be getting at the idea that particles in the Quantum Realm do not "contain" their function physically. In other words, a scientist cannot seem to physically find anything intrinsic or physical that points to a particle's purpose. Nonetheless, when we look at the Universe, since we can only perceive the Universe from the reality tunnel of humankind, the Universe appears to be generated for humankind. This can be used as evidence for the existence of a Creator, or can be evidence that our measuring instruments have a bias towards human understanding (having been made by humans).
I suppose this chapter can be that simple, but I still feel like I'm missing something. One of RAW's most famous aphorisms is that he doesn't believe anything but has some suspicions. I think this chapter really embodies that. He seems to present some theories about how Bell's theorem affects our understanding of the Universe, but then seemingly refutes those same understandings. His goal for the chapter seems to be that both a "Creator" of reality and a "Created" reality (by humans and their Understanding) can be equally valid points of view since we cannot prove one or the other.
Personally, I am happy to believe in a "Creator" since the amount of complexity in the Universe seems to be well beyond what I believe myself to be capable of processing (though I tend to hold the same opinion as that of Vodou, that if there "is" a Creator, the Creator "is" too far removed from the world to intervene).
It can be easy for me to fixate on the idea that everything we can understand "is" still solipsistic to some degree. It can be easy to assume that our instruments have forced us to conceptualize reality in a particular way (that comes with its own limitations) and that we cannot actually "know" the Universe. I think this can be seen as a basis for Nihilism, and even further, an entryway for Choronzon. I also think that this can be taken as a "Bad Faith" approach to the Universe that closes an individual off from the Hermetic virtues of Thauma & Eusebeia.
It can be easier for me to access Thauma and Eusebeia when I take the approach that a Creator "made" the Universe. This seems loosely related to Pronoia, or the suspicion that the Universe "is" secretly conspiring to help and support you (AKA the Good Faith approach to the Universe). Because there appears to be Order in the Universe, and that Order seems to be accessible by humankind, it could almost seem like the Universe was "made" for us to understand it. Since Bell's Theorem argues that there "is" no intrinsic instruction in any given thing, reality can be more multiple choice than we realize.
The piece that sticks out to me (that I don't feel I'm understanding properly) is when he talks about particles that have contacted each other being correlated and therefore connected to each other. Part of my confusion is that it seems like a given, since a significant correlation inherently means that there "is" a connection (though it doesn't mean causation). He likens it to Shamanic Magick while also saying that it "is not" like Shamanic Magick, since Shamanic Magick implies some kind of causation.
He makes the claim that this non-locality "is" weirder than Magick. I disagree. I'm not entirely sure what RAW wants to point to when he makes this claim. I disagree that Magick requires a causative principle. I also disagree with his claim that synchronicity "is" accepted by most Jungians and psychologists. Most of the Jungians I encounter like to hide from synchronicity (since it tends to be held as one Jung's crazier ideas that the hard sciences make fun of) and most psychologists will diagnose you with schizophrenia or apophenia (assuming they know the word apophenia) if you tell them about the synchronicities you experience.
What I think RAW tries to point to in this chapter "is" Chaos Theory. Chaos Theory argues that in a system that has achieved a certain level of complexity, the basic rules that the system initially followed no longer guarantee the outcomes that the rules once promised. Instead, when the system achieves this level of complexity, seemingly insignificant actions might have much more impact than anything that the rules try to enforce.
To use a basic example, let's say someone wants to start a music career. In the past, the "rules" of the music industry said that you start a band, write some songs, record a demo, play enough shows to get exposure, and then achieve a record contract that pays a professional salary. Since there are so many people trying to do this same thing at once (be a professional musician), these "rules" no longer create an obvious pathway towards that goal. Instead, something as simple as a Tik Tok post or telling the right person may lead a band to stardom, even if they suck and don't have the same level of investment that other bands do. A well timed, seemingly insignificant social media post held more weight in that scenario than following the traditional pipeline.
Chaos Theory helps explain why no two people can follow the same exact orbit as they enact their True Will in the Universe. It does not matter if you believe your True Will to be identical to someone else’s. Your orbit will inherently follow a different path than those before since that path becomes more complex and refined with each pass.
It also helps explain why synchronicity can be a "real" thing. Chaos Theory does not argue that everything "is" chaos, but rather that what appears to be chaotic on the surface masks a hidden Order to things, an Order that no longer follows traditional rules to achieve your goal. Hence why people who follow the rules too much seem to miss the point of anything haha. Instead, if you can follow the "golden thread" of synchronicity, you can connect seemingly disconnected events that culminate in a seemingly random accomplishment when measured against the traditional rules of the system. This "is" a foundational idea of Chaos Magick.
To go back to RAW, I hesitate to find significance in his example of the person changing socks in one country and the other changing socks in another country at the same. Statistically speaking, changing socks "is" such a common action amongst the billions of people in the world that it seems statistically impossible for people not to change socks at the same time. This "is" where correlation does not mean causation. In all my psychology classes, they hammered that into my head. You can take any variables you want to test a connection between and attempt to statistically measure the significance of the correlation. Without plugging any data into statistics software, the socks example does not seem like a significant enough correlation to me that I would think it relevant (much less something we can generalize data from).
I also don't believe that what RAW says about Magick requiring a causative principle. Certainly, a magician would love to believe the illusion that by doing said ritual we cause the Universe to change and enact our Will. However, in the same way that the Universe can appear to be created by God or seemingly random, the number of variables in any given Magickal working makes me skeptical to claim that a Magickal ritual does in fact cause change. Instead, assuming we are referring to the purely physical causative side of Magick (and, if it’s possible, ignoring the mental aspects that can’t be measured) I think Magickal ritual can help us identify those golden threads of synchronicity that allow us to string together seemingly disconnected events into substantial changes. Whether one believes my theory or the theory that Magick causes change, the outcome "is" the same (the relative success of the working). When Magick "is" more successful, I believe we have successfully leveraged one of those points in the Chaotic system whose impact weighs more than any given cause or rule.
Given that magicians already believe that everything "is" hyper connected (beyond even our comprehension) and that the Universe can be likened to one giant body and/or mind (though he “is” not writing for that audience), it only makes sense that things couldn't be a domino effect. Instead, I prefer to look at it as a body achieving homeostasis. If one part of the overall body/mind changes, then the rest must change in order to find a new center of homeostasis (not unlike the Pantheists and the Panentheists).
In a simpler system, this might appear as one wave that causes change across the Divine Mind like the domino effect. But considering changes occur all over the Divine Mind all the time, this appears overly simplistic. Instead, I think that multiple waves occur all the time and depending on whether these waves harmonize with each other or not, the waves can become turbulent and stormy, or they can become modulated and rhythmic.
The level of Unity expressed by this Divine Mind seems to be a measurement of the relative turbulence Vs. rhythmic modulation at any given moment. When things appear more rhythmic and modulated, they appear more isomorphic and more easily predictable. The modulation creates a predictable structure that the human mind perceives as order.
Needless to say, I think what RAW brings up “are” non-issues. Perhaps this “is” why I’m not one of the scientists out there debating these things. I “am” reminded that Academics come up with all kinds of strange ramifications and justifications for any given Academic doctrine and/or dogma. Academics become just as blind to reality as the average Bible thumper, it’s just that Academia becomes an Academic’s Bible to thump. Perhaps RAW would’ve agreed with my perspective. Perhaps he would’ve laughed at my perspective. He most definitely would’ve responded to everything I’ve said with a big fat, “Maybe!”
Perhaps my reactions to this chapter are precisely what RAW wanted to trigger with his agnosticism hahaha I have no regrets if that "is" the case, since this forced me to write out a bunch of ideas in this essay of a response hahaha
