* Drawn from my book, Faith and Physics.

Of course, if by the term 'magic' you're thinking about flying around on the latest 'Nimbus 2000' like Harry Potter, then no, there's nothing in our current view of science that supports such possibilities. On the other hand, if you're prepared to accept that there may be intricacies to nature that have yet to be fully comprehended, and that these phenomena may be linked somehow to consciousness (which, as we shall see, is already proven with 100% certainty by Quantum Theory and supporting experimental evidence), then we do indeed live in a universe whose capabilities resemble what we currently think of as 'magical'.
 

Among the most historically pompous statements ever uttered is attributed to Lord William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907), who, in a 1900 address to an assemblage of physicists at the British Association for the Advancement of Science, stated that: "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement." An even earlier example of this arrogant windbag’s hubris is provided by his 1895 statement that: "heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible," followed by his 1896 statement: "I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning...."
 

Although somewhat more circumspect about their pronouncements, most members of the scientific mainstream share a similarly smug attitude. Although they admit that they do not have all of the answers, inwardly they are highly confident that they have all of the important ones, and that new discoveries will undoubtedly consist of greater and greater detail.
 

Fortunately, a few visionary individuals (such as Stephan Hawking, John Wheeler, J.S.Bell, David Bohem, and Hugh Everett III) have argued most convincingly that the experimentally proven characteristics of reality not only permit, but in most cases, demand the assumption of mechanisms that could result in what we currently label as ‘paranormal’ phenomena. (I would argue that, being part of nature, they are completely normal, simply not presently understood.)
 

To investigate this issue, I’ll start with the two most widely accepted theories of modern physics: Einstein’s theories of Relativity (Special and General), and Quantum Mechanics, both of which contain profound implications of a level of reality beyond that revealed by our physical senses. As we shall see, it is because of the discoveries of modern science that we are compelled to at least accept the reality of many such concepts. Hence, we’ll begin by examining some of the core concepts of these two essential theories.

The Experience of Time

If the likes of Albert Einstein, Louis DeBroglie, Stephan Hawking, and most other theoretical physicists are to be believed, the notion of time passing by us is illusory.
 

As Louis de Broglie, the physicist who discovered the wave nature of matter , wrote: "In space-time everything which for each of us constitutes the past, the present, and the future is given in block. . . . Each observer, as his time passes, discovers, so to speak, new slices of space-time which appear to him as successive aspects of the material world, though in reality the ensemble of events constituting space-time exist prior to his knowledge of them." [Louis de Brolgie.  "A General Survey of the Scientific Work of Albert Einstein," in Albert Einstein, Philosopher-Scientist, vol 1, Paul Schilpp (ed:), Harper Torchbooks, New York: Harper & Row, 1949, p114.]
 

Similarly, Gary Zukav writes: "If we could survey an entire span of time as we can survey an entire region of space, we would see that events do not unfold with the flow of time, but present themselves complete, like a finished painting on the fabric of space-time. . . . The illusion of events 'developing' in time is due to our particular type of awareness which allows us to see only narrow strips of the total space-time picture one at a time." [Zukav, The Dancing Wu Li Masters, New York, Bantam Books, 1980, p. 220.]
 

The scientific proofs for this model are many and persuasive, though many are more technical than we need to burden ourselves with now. The most obvious, and one with which I am personally familiar, involves experiments carried out with high-energy particle accelerators. If one tries to make sense of these experiments using pure Newtonian mechanics, the results are all wrong. If, however, we assume that time flows at a different rate for particles traveling near the speed of light (which is to say, we apply relativistic corrections), everything works out perfectly. Since this model of time is tightly bound up with the various other implications of Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, we are left with apodictic proposition that if we believe in the reality of the atom bomb, then we are compelled to accept this new model of time. [The word 'apodictic' comes from the field of formal logic. It refers to an assertion that is incontrovertibly or demonstrably true as a result of having been deduced systematically, in a stepwise manner, from incontestable foundational principles, in such a way that denying it leads to a contradiction.]

Marquis de Laplace, the nineteenth-century French scientist and mathematician, suggested that if we knew the position and velocities of all the particles in the universe at one time, the laws of physics would allow us to predict what the state of the universe for any other time in the past or future. In other words, everything that would ever happen was predetermined at the moment of creation, and free will was merely an illusion. As you might imagine, this resulted in considerable consternation amongst theologians and philosophers of the time.
Although the description of time propounded by Einstein, de Broglie, and Hawking appears to argue for an even more onerous degree of predestination, this is not the case. To zero in on the reason this is so, we must move from the realm of Einstein’s Relativity theories into the dizzying domain of quantum realty. Counterintuitive as some of these notions may seem, it must be understood that Quantum Mechanics is considered the most successful theory in the history of science. Thus far, it has been confirmed by every experiment, and there have been literarily millions of them.
 

One key experiment is known as ‘Schrodinger's Cat’. Initially posed as a ‘thought experiment’ intended to illustrate a central enigma of quantum reality, it has since been experimentally proven, as we shall discuss shortly.
 

As originally described by Erwin Schrodinger, a cat is placed inside a box, along with a flask of deadly hydrocyanic acid. This is hooked up to a Geiger counter trained on a precisely measured quantity of radioactive material, such that in the space of one hour, the probability is 50/50 that a particle will have decayed and given off an alpha particle. If the apparatus registers that alpha particle, the poison is released, and the cat will die, otherwise it will survive.
 

In the macroscopic world of ‘common sense’, we surmise that after one hour, the cat is either alive or dead, with equal probability of either outcome. According to quantum theory, however, until one actually looks into the box, the cat exists in some indeterminate state of both alive and dead. Only the act of observation forces what is known as a wave equation collapse, which causes the cat to assume one state or the other (or so it appears from our perspectives).
 

In the January 2000 issue of the prestigious British Journal of Nature, physicists David Wineland and Chris Monroe reported successfully creating an experiment similar to that described by Schrödinger's Cat. They used a beryllium atom in a 1/2mm trap, and then excited it with laser beams in a precisely controlled way. As a result, they were able to create a situation in they could measure the two versions an atom for 10-4 (one one-thousandth) second. During that period (which is a relatively long time in subatomic terms), the experimenters were able to demonstrate that the two instances of the single atom were interfering with each other. If the particle had been exclusively in one place or the other, no such interference pattern would be possible. Analogous to the zombie cat, the particle was in both states simultaneously, thereby proving that ‘the cat is both alive and dead’.

One of the first to consider how such bizarre phenomena might occur was Dr. Hugh Everett, III. In 1957, Everett, at that time a Princeton University graduate student of the well-known American physicist John Wheeler, proposed the theory now widely known as “the many-world interpretation of quantum mechanics.” This theory may seem even more bizarre than those just discussed, but in fact, has much to recommend it. Everett proposed that time branches off into every possibility, each just as real as the single one that we happen to experience. His doctoral thesis on the subject has been considered a valid scientific theory ever since its publication, and has yet to be disproved. According to Everett's interpretation, the universe is split at every occasion where a quantum event has more than one outcome. We have one universe in which the cat is alive, and another where it is dead. The effect of our observation is to force us to experience one branch or the other.
Formally, this model is developed with a considerable degree of rigor using a branch of mathematics known as Hilbert Spaces. The resulting mathematical description of the universe is complex, but some physicists--Dr. Stephen Hawking among them--have successfully validated, and even expanded upon this model.
 

The upshot of the Everett-Hawking model is that everything that logically can happen, does happen, no matter how improbable. Both versions of the cat are equally instantiated in the space-time continuum. Our act of observation forces us to follow one world line or the other experientially, at which point the path not taken becomes inaccessible, even unimaginable, to us; however, it is still there!
 

This model should be somewhat comforting, since it saves us from the bleak prospect of predestination suggested by Einstein’s Special Relativity theory alone. Basically, everything is pre-determined, but it is predetermined in all of its possible outcomes. Our acts of conscious volition consist of choosing one eventuality over the others, and hence, we see only one world line. The others, however, are equally as real as the one we happen to experience!
 

When you stop to consider what Special Relativity says about time, this new interpretation makes perfect sense. We look at the world and we see it evolving over time into its current state, and forward into the future, but this is the heart of the illusion. The universe doesn’t become anything—it simply is. If time is created at the moment of the Big Bang, and if we can imagine a perspective from which we can 'see' the past, present, and future, then the 'beginning' and the 'end' of the universe are simply illusions, forced upon us by our viewpoint from 'inside' of time.

Physics and Spirit

The first question we are compelled to ask ourselves is whether there is any such thing as spirit at all, and if so, what can we deduce of its nature.
 

To begin with, we know with great certainty that time is intricately wrapped up with the material world. Time itself came into being, by most interpretations, at the moment of the Big Bang, and comes to an end inside black holes. Hence, we are compelled to hypothesize that if spirit exists, it does so outside of the material world, and hence, is unconstrained by time. In this light, it makes no sense to ask what was happening before the ‘Big Bang’, or what will be the ultimate fate of the universe; the plain fact is that the universe is what it is, and does not become anything.
 

This underscores a basic logical flaw in the theological doctrines that have a Deity first creating the heavens, then creating earth and its creatures, and finally, resting from the labor. Rather, if creation is the result of conscious volition, it is an instantaneous act. Thus, we can see how belief in evolution is in no way incompatible with ‘intelligent design’. Time, and hence evolution, are simply the mechanism through which creation is manifest. (This concept may be too difficult for some fundamentalists, but I am certain that it is not too complex for an all-knowing Deity.)
 

Clearly, if there is any all-encompassing Deity, time is within the Deity, not vice versa. Thus, creation cannot be interpreted as a series of volitional acts over time, but rather, a single, instantaneous act of Divine Will. The universe is neither created nor destroyed. It simply exists.
 

Let’s put aside any consideration of God or spirit for the moment, and examine this model from a purely corporeal perspective. What we can say with absolute certainty is that every action, every decision, every nuance of every life is indelibly etched on the fabric of reality. Our fleeting consciousness may traverse the paths of our material life, but from a broader perspective, that life is eternal.
 

If time, as we are told, spreads before us, with past and future like east and west or north and south on a map, wherein lies our consciousness? Is there an instantaneous flash that represents our thoughts over time that then disappears, leaving a cold empty zombie, devoid of thought or soul? Or does the entire person exist forever embedded in this thing we call a life, smeared across the fabric of eternity? And what of the other versions of the self, each representing the various alternative decision points we (seemingly) elected not to follow? Are they mere shells, empty of thought, emotion, or spirit?
 

The answer is easier to comprehend if we assume that spirit, if it exists at all (and I believe it does) exists outside of this fragile, bubble of space-time illusion. From the perspective of the spirit there is no past, or future, or even ‘now’, for there is no time across which to measure such progress. As the spirit considering incarnation views the scape of reality, time is merely one of a myriad of dimensions perceived. Only from within does the peculiar unidirectional illusion hold sway.
 

Consider the analogy of a dream that appears to involve weeks or months of experience, but which actually involves only a few minutes of ‘real’ (physiological) time. The sensation of time passing is, for all practical purposes, instantaneously imprinted on those areas of our brain that sense the passage of time. We get it all at once, even though the experience seems to extend over longer periods of time. This is, in essence, how a timeless spirit experiences the incarnation of a life.

This model has several important implications:

First of all, the quaint old notion of Karma, in which you first perform an action, and then are rewarded or punished for it, goes right out the window because, from the perspective of the spirit, there is no before or after. Similarly, the notion of first incarnating, say, as a cave man, then moving forward to an incarnation in the middle ages, and thence off into the future also leads to a logical absurdity. Indeed, the same spirit may, and often does, incarnate in multiple lives in the same time period. Hence, you may be both the perpetrator and the victim of your own evils; both the benefactor and the recipient of your own acts of charity. This is karma at work, and from the perspective of the spirit, they have experienced every action from every possible perspective.

Moreover, what the spirit sees when it surveys ‘a life’ from this ethereal realm is that life in all of its myriad variations. Now, as suggested earlier, each of these life-lines contain their own material thoughts and intelligence, and these are distinct from the innate wisdom and experience of the spirit. Specific thoughts and corporeal emotions remain forever with the body, whereas abstract concepts and principles enrich the spirit. By stepping back and communing with the totality of the spirit (the greater you, or Holy Guardian Angel), one gains this broader perspective, and can make more informed choices in the full knowledge of where each branch will lead. The greatest among us are so perspicacious that there is scarcely an instance when they make a wrong choice. That’s one possibility. The other is that ‘experiencing a life’ means experiencing it in all of its instantiations, and hence, fully understanding the lessons each life has to offer. In either case, however, experience is, ultimately, what it’s all about.

Can you imagine how boring it would be if the only experiences available to you were endless happiness and bliss? That, my friend, would truly be hell! Moreover, if the point of the exercise is to perfect the soul , then endless happiness and bliss would do very little to propel that perfection. Ask yourself, therefore, what kinds of things would need to be in the physical world? Well, you’d find a mixture of joys and agonies, grand triumphs and bitter disappointments. There can, however, be no judgment associated with these events, for they all serve the divine purpose. Consider the following.

If strength of character and courage are to be developed, then do we not need an environment in which we must grapple with hardship and react to disappointments? If service to others is valued, then must there not be opportunities to encounter social inequality? If hope is to be developed, then wouldn’t we need the opportunity to be confronted by insecurities and uncertainties? If faith is desired, then must we not find ourselves in predicaments where we know less than we can believe? If a love and respect for truth are to be developed, there must necessarily be a possibility for falsehood. If idealism is desired then we must struggle in an environment that stimulates us to reach for better things. If loyalty and devotion to duty are desirable, then we must carry on amidst possibilities of betrayal and desertion. If unselfishness (the spirit of self-denial) is valued, then we must live face to face with the incessant clamoring within the self for recognition and honor. And what would be pleasure if we did not live in a world where the alternatives of pain and suffering are experiential possibilities? How could we ever judge something good if we could not experience its opposite. [Adapted from The Urantia Book.] In other words, it’s all here for a reason; all here for us to experience and appreciate.

Is not our fear of suffering and death predicated upon a tacit assumption that this is our only chance at life? If we truly believed that it is only one of a multiplicity of experiences, might we not choose to occasionally experience a martyr’s death? The suffering of a debilitating disease? The angst of losing a loved one? The hopelessness of drug addiction? Remember, you have all eternity to experience what life has to offer—do you really want to spend it blissfully sitting on a cloud strumming a harp? One need only contemplate the lives of Physicist Stephan Hawking (stricken with the incapacitating amyotrophic lateral sclerosis—Lou Gehrig’s Disease), or Morrie Schwartz (Tuesdays with Morrie –written about another man dying of the same always-fatal disease) to realize that even experiences normally judged as negative each have very special lessons to impart. So the next time you’re wrestling with the question of ‘why bad things happen to good people’, step back and recognize that this is precisely why they’re here. This is the real meaning of the Bible’s Book of Job. From a simplistic perspective, it appears as if an innocent man is being shameless abused by his god, but this very despair of being righteous but afflicted is precisely the experience for which he has come. He simply can’t recognize the fact while ‘on the ride’.

With the possible exception of the existence of an external spirit, all of the preceding concepts are fully supported by modern physics. But what else can we call an intelligence that is forever embedded in the fabric of space-time? The only question that then remains is whether there is a component of spirit that is greater than the mere collection of corporeal decisions that exist in the eternal bubble of the material. For this, we must move solidly into the realm of metaphysics, but we can still reason in a scientific and apodictic manner.

Part of the experience of life consists of the illusion of temporality, and the sensation of uniqueness. But we’ve already seen that, by all indications, multiple versions of the life we think of as ours exist, and these instances are not mere empty shells, but embody material minds that also think of themselves as the only ones, experiencing that sole path through life in their own unique manner. Hence, we are forced to conclude that, even if they are doomed to forever remain unaware of each other, they collectively represent the entity we apprehend as the self. I would contend, however, that to the extent that these disparate instantiations represent a single entity, there must exist some perspective from which that entity is simultaneously (or, more properly, instantaneously) aware of all the variations (else how can we call it a single entity?) This being the case, we must assume that the whole entity must necessarily exceed the sum of the incarnated parts, right? Three possibilities exist:
 

First, that there is no spirit external to the material life itself; that is, the corporeal thoughts, insights, and creations, eternal as they are, represent the entirety of the being’s intelligence. This is the most conservative conclusion, but still leads to the necessity of mind that is, in some sense, eternal. However, in this case, all of the variations on this life enjoy the same reality. Are they different entities, or part of one single intelligence?
 

The second possibility is that there exists a component of the entity that exists outside of the corporeal instantiation, and this thing, which we refer to as spirit, simultaneously experiences all variations on the life it has selected in one fell swoop. The incarnation is the experience of that life in its entirety.
 

A third possibility is that the external spirit carefully weaves its way through the web of the selected life. Each variation contains its own purely animal thoughts, reasonings, and drives that may appear to resemble consciousness, but only one collection of paths is imbued with soul. This, of course, suggests that many of the people we encounter may be mere shells of flesh, with no real substance behind them. After all, what do you really know about the guy who stood next to you on the elevator this morning? And haven’t you encountered people who seem to be totally devoid of higher functions (i.e., those which are not totally self-serving in nature)?
 

Well-known psychic Edgar Cayce stated that the number of souls on the Earth plane was 133,000,000. This would be the total number of spirits engaged in reincarnation throughout the ages. As of July, 2000, the world population was estimated at approximately 6,080,671,215. This represents a ratio of just under 46 humans per soul. This could mean that just one in each 46 people actually embodies a soul. Others may be “unused” variations on a life with a spirit, or perhaps they are merely window dressing. Alternatively, since spirits exist outside of time, it is completely feasible that the same spirit might incarnate into multiple lives that just happen to share overlapping time periods. (Think of this the next time you're about to deal harshly with someone, since the chances are pretty good that it'll be you!)
 

The way I look at it, there is no possible survival benefit to thinking about stuff like this, so if you do, chances are good that the part that ponders the meaning of life, or considers altruistic endeavors, or devotes him- or her-self to anything that is not completely self-serving, exists external to the mundane animal part of the being. (Nor does this principle apply only to humans. The loyal dog who gives his life to rescue a child is not reacting to any possible survival instinct, and hence, reveals the presence of spirit. Who are we to judge what value, and what experience a non-human life might offer to the spirit?)
 

A final possibility is that many spirits might choose to incarnate into the same physical form, each taking a different path through that life, each taking away a different set of lessons.
 

Personally, I believe that the spirit ‘inhales’ the full complexity of a life, in all of its variations, and comes away with the understanding of which paths are better, which are worse, and why. These are the lessons that life has to offer. Part of the nature of the experience is that, from within those incarnations, one can only be aware of one thread at a time . . . unless, one cultivates the ability to communicate with the higher self or Holy Guardian Angel, as discussed earlier.
 

One thing that’s clear from any of the preceding interpretations, is that traditional concepts of good versus evil and right versus wrong must be rethought in light of the understanding that all interactions are, in the final analysis, fully consensual. If one incarnates into a life to learn that life’s lessons, that’s all there is to it. Take, as an extreme example, the cases of Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy or Richard Speck. In the first place, we’re looking at only one of a myriad of versions of those lives, many of which might be mundane, or even outstanding. Even considering the versions with which our current life-lines are aware, their deeds were not wrong from the perspective of their effect on others, but rather, because they represent something less than the most sublime of outcomes for those lives. (I would argue that the so-called victims experienced precisely that for which they had come.)
 

Indeed, one can argue that, to the extent that we can say one set of choices is intrinsically superior to another (and, I believe, we can), then there must necessarily be one set that is seen as optimal for that life. For example, if the choices faced by Jesus were real (and he could not be fully man if the temptations in the desert were not truly tempting), then there is a version of his life in which he turns the rocks into bread; one where he uses his eloquence to acquit himself before Pilot; one in which he uses his power to save himself from the cross. These, however, differ from the optimal life with which we are all familiar. The more perfect the version of any life, the greater portion of the whole spirit is utilized. Moreover, certain lives, such as that of Jesus and others like him, are inherently more evolved than others, and these embody correspondingly more of their guiding spirit. If at any time you began to live your life in its most perfect path, you would indeed be as Jesus.
 

Before moving from ethics to magick, let’s tie up some of the points we’ve thus far proven:
 

1. What we normally think of as good and evil is an illusion. Adversity and pleasure are equally part of what we’ve come here to experience.
2. Even without appealing to an external spirit (which I do believe exists), our deeds, thoughts, and feelings do not simply fade away, but are eternally pasted across the time-space continuum.
3. Every corporeal life consists of a myriad of variations, some sublime, some profane, some merely indifferent. The choice of which to experience (if, indeed, we do not experience them all) represents the primary measure of a life well led.
4. From the preceding, it stands to reason that there is one perfect version of each life, and the measure of our success is how close we approximate this ideal.
5. Jesus and others like him are examples of lives that approached their perfect instantiations. Even Jesus said “the things I do you can do also.” (Luke 14:12) . . . which brings us squarely to the issue of magick . . .
    

Physics and Magick

To fully appreciate how strongly our current scientific evidence supports a mechanism for traditional magick, consider the following (real) experiments:
 

The Delayed Double-Slit Experiment
 

A classical experiment used to demonstrate one of the paradoxes of quantum reality is known as the double-slit experiment. Basically, when a light is projected through a single slit in a screen, the result is a fuzzy band of light that is brightest in the center, directly behind the slit, and gradually fades away, as shown below.

If, instead, we shine the light through a pair of slits, the result is a series of light and dark bands, as shown here:

This effect isn't quite as intuitive as the single-slit situation, but it's still pretty easy to understand. Basically, what you end up with is bands of light where the waves reinforce each other, separated by darkness, where the waves cancel each other out. This is known as an interference pattern.
 

A paradox arises, however, when we were to shoot photons (light particles) at the screen one at a time. If we set up a two-slit experiment, but cover one of the slits, a single band of light results, just like in the first picture. This implies that somehow each particle knows whether or not the other slit is covered!
 

But wait--it gets even stranger!
 

Physicist John Wheeler proposed a delayed-choice version of the two-slit experiment. Basically, this would entail waiting until after the particle has passed the screen, and then deciding whether to cover one slit or not, thereby creating a particle pattern or wave-interference pattern. This would imply that an action performed in the present could influence something that has already happened in the past! Stated differently, the electrons would seem to know in advance how the experimenter would choose to observe them later.
 

Another egghead's daydream?
 

Well, this experiment was actually carried out in mid-1980s by two groups working independently of one another, and both confirmed the theory.

There are many other experiments that clearly demonstrate that the will of the experimenter exerts a direct effect on physical reality.
 

Of course, mainstream scientists are quick to insist that the interaction of will and reality occurs only at the quantum level, and that quantum rules do not apply to macroscopic phenomena. There are, however, several considerations that contradict this orthodox dogma. The one most thoroughly investigated is known as Chaos Theory.
 

Chaos Theory and Our Low-Wattage Brains
 

Chaos Theory, as the name implies, deals with the chaotic behaviors observed in nature. Like the other theories presented, it is developed in a highly rigorous mathematical manner. (The branch of mathematics used in Chaos Theory is known as 'fractals'.)
 

Chaos Theory proves that simple systems give rise to complex behaviors, which, in turn, exhibit surprisingly simple patterns. More important, the laws of complexity hold universally. Consequently, the chaotic systems responsible for the formation of a snowflake, global weather patterns, the great spot on Jupiter, electronic circuits, the spread of measles, and the formation of galaxies, exhibit uncanny similarities, which suggest a universal underlying principle. (This also suggests an underlying mechanism for the occult concepts of microcosm/macrocosm, and synchronicities.)
 

For the current discussion, the most interesting outcome of Chaos Theory is the concept of sensitivity to initial conditions. This says, in effect, that a butterfly stirring the air in Beijing today may ultimately cause storms in Chicago. This is a momentous departure from traditional physics, which generally assumes that such initial effects ultimately cancel themselves out. This can be seen to have vital implications in terms of what we've already learned about quantum reality.

A position espoused by most mainstream scientists is that although it is largely indisputable that observation influences events at the quantum level, the mind does not generate sufficient ‘wattage’ to affect the macroscopic world. Sensitivity to initial conditions, as embodied by Chaos Theory, provides a clue to how the weak energy of the mind might, if properly directed, influence large-scale. Another metaphor that might explain paranormal connections to quantum mysteries is that of a vacuum tube or transistor. Both of these devices allow small signals to imprint their form on virtually unlimited power flows. We already know that the universe is awash with random power, just waiting to be harnessed and controlled.
 

Of course, we must remind ourselves that we don’t really have to create anything, since all alternatives already exist. Hence, all our magical practices actually accomplish is to nudge our consciousness into the eventuality we desire, and that would seem to require far less power, properly focused, to accomplish.
 

There are many other strange, seemingly preternatural properties of quantum reality. Let’s look at one more to fully appreciate just how close to magick modern science really is.
 

Spooky Action at a Distance.
 

Albert Einstein was never comfortable with quantum mechanics precisely because of the strange features we’ve just discussed. To his mind, these theories described a reality inconsistent with his intuition of how a proper universe should operate. In 1935 Einstein, together with Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen, published a list of objections to quantum mechanics that has come to be known as The EPR Paper. High on their list of complaints was nonlocality, or what Einstein referred to as “spooky action at a distance.” Nonlocality means that interactions not possible through simple contact are somehow enforced, faster-than-light, across space and time. Naturally, since Einstein’s theory of Special Relativity began with the explicit assumption that nothing could exceed the speed of light, nonlocality was a pill he found difficult to swallow.
 

The EPR Paper, through a flawless chain of apodictic reasoning, showed how, under certain circumstances, quantum mechanics predicts that performing an action on one particle can instantaneously influence another particle arbitrarily far away. The intent of this exercise was to demonstrate that, since the conclusion was obviously absurd, Quantum Theory was inherently flawed. The resulting uproar in the physics community went on for decades as the founders of Quantum Theory scrambled to come to grips with the EPR criticisms.
 

Almost thirty years later, Irish mathematical physicist John S. Bell proved that the results predicted by quantum mechanics were inherently inconsistent with any theory that preserved locality. In other words, if you set up an experiment like that described by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, and you get the results predicted by Quantum Theory, then there is no way that locality can be true.
 

In 1972, John Clauser actually performed an experimental version of Bell’s theorem at the University of California. Although his intent had been to disprove Bell’s Theorem, much to his chagrin, the results actually confirmed Bell’s predictions. The experiment was subsequently repeated in 1982 by Alain Aspect at the University of Paris, with the same results.
 

In the years since its development, Bell’s Theorem has been called the most important discovery in the history of science. The implications of this theorem, and the experimental findings that have repeatedly confirmed it, are staggering. Among the other implications of Bell’s Theorem is confirmation of the Many-World interpretation of quantum mechanics. (Other noteworthy scientists endorsing the Many-World interpretation include Stephen Hawking and Nobel Laureates Murray Gell-Mann and Richard Feynman.) Bell’s Theorem forces us to conclude that the entire notion of a purely objective world is inconsistent not only with the theory of quantum mechanics, but also with experimental evidence. These findings point insistently to a profound interaction between conscious mental activity and the physical world itself.
 

There are many other peculiar properties predicted by Quantum Theory which I’ll not expound upon here (I do, however, explore them in depth in Faith and Physics). Suffice it for our present purposes to say that a plethora of experiments confirm that there are some very strange, very counter-intuitive things going on in the quantum world.

There is virtually no modern physicist in the world today who would deny the proposition that ‘reality’, whatever that slippery term might mean, is something entirely different from the illusory shadow suggested by our poor, deluded senses. What we perceive as the flow of time, does not flow at all; it merely seems to do so as we navigate past it. What we imagine to be solid objects are, at their most fundamental level, neither particles, nor waves, but rather, some other thing we can’t even imagine, which manifests itself in these deceptive forms, depending on how we squint at it. Decisions in the ‘now’ can affect events of the past. Distant ‘objects’ are seen to touch and influence each other in ways that defy logical resolution. Disconcerting as it may seem, this is the real world, not the orderly universe of discrete objects interacting with each other in ‘logical’ ways.
 

So, what does theoretical magick say about the universe? (Once again, we’re not talking about the entertaining distortions presented by movies and television shows like Harry Potter, Bewitched, or I Dream of Jeannie.)
 

Basically, magick theory holds that:
 

1. There exists a more fundamental level of reality than what we normally perceive; that perception being only a reflection or projection of that underlying reality,
2. In this fundamental level of reality, conscious volition plays a direct role in manifesting events,
3. Events manifest at this more intrinsic level are subsequently reflected in what we perceive as ‘normal’ reality.
4. From the perspective of this higher-order reality, time does not represent the inexorable flow that our senses suggest.
5. At this level of reality, things may be connected in ways that are not generally revealed to our physical senses.
    

When you get right down to it, magick assumes nothing that has not already been proven by modern physics with 100% certainty. What we refer to as ‘magick’ simply entails getting in touch with that part of our consciousness that has access to this more fundamental level of reality.
 

In the traditional interpretation, an effort of will is then used to manipulate those aspects of reality that are susceptible to such influence. These changes are subsequently reflected in the material world. The energy to implement such changes may come directly from the mind, or may involve external sources of undirected energy being utilized by the mind. From our more enlightened understanding, we recognize the more traditional interpretation: we get in touch with our ‘Holy Guardian Angel’, survey the possibilities, and nudge our consciousness into a reality-line consistent with our will.
 

Other practices, such as divination, rely on subtle connections between seemingly disparate aspects of reality, but we’ve already seen that this, too, has been proven by scientific experiment.
 

Doesn’t sound so absurd any more, does it?
 

There are, of course, many other possible aspects of magick. Some may involve intelligent entities that reside in what is frequently called the astral plane. Others, such as ‘Chaos Magick’, deal with control of external sources of undirected energy. Shamanistic practices frequently involve the cooperation of ‘spirit guides’ to help implement the desired changes. In the final analysis, however, there is convincing evidence to suggest that these various interpretations may, indeed, be supported by sound scientific concepts.
 

Let’s go back to our ‘many-worlds’ model of the universe for a moment. From this perspective, all of the possibilities, including the one you want, are already out there. Your challenge is to consciously move into the specific one you want. Hence, we can see that magickal practices really can’t cause anything to happen. Rather, they represent practices whose intent is to help the mind to recognize and navigate into a version of reality desired by the practitioner. This may take the form of a conversation with a Holy Guardian Angel, advice from a Spirit Guide, or the scrying of a lottery number.
 

If you can visualize the reality you want with absolute clarity, you will move into that branch, and all of the various practices are meant only to facilitate that clarity of vision. From a higher perspective, your practice has not really caused anything. Rather, you have selected a life-line in which magick seems to have exerted an efficacious effect, but this, like so much else in life, is illusory.
 

Here’s an example from personal experience:

A few months back, I broke a tooth, and couldn’t afford the co-pay for getting a root canal and a crown. On impulse, I decided to play the lottery (which I have honestly never done before). I used the Enochian deck because its cards are numbered sequentially from 1 to 96. Since the game I decided to play, the Pennsylvania Cash 5, is based on numbers from 1 to 39, I selected the first 39 cards, shuffled, cut, drew 5, and played that number. I matched 4 of the 5, which (unfortunately) did not give me the $200,000 first prize, but was good enough to give me a bit over four hundred, which was just enough to get my tooth repaired.

At the time when I read the cards, I had the feeling that I was truly seeing through the veil of illusion, and was living completely in the ‘now’ – it’s a difficult sensation to convey, but those who have had it will know what I mean. Your mind is suddenly blank of all the illusory connections you normally are making every second, your thoughts are silenced, and you are, momentarily, touching the pure reality around you. It’s my belief that achieving this state, in a reliable manner, is what all of the various rituals and practices are really all about. Some may work for one person, but not another, for that other person is more suited by temperament to some alternative practice. Voodoo, hoodoo, high magick, shamanism, etc., all share this common aim, and seek to activate the same forces of nature. Hence, we see that the mind does not need to generate a great deal of energy to affect change, for it is as easy to navigate into a low-probability world-line as a high-probability one, if only you can become sensitive to the choices. It’s like learning to walk all over again, but the result is well worth the effort.
 

But one need not use magick to benefit from the concepts outlined in this article. By stepping back and thinking about it, it’s always possible to anticipate the likely outcome of any decision, great or small, and to ask yourself whether the resultant reality is the one you truly wish to enter.