Image: Oliver Munday
In Brief
- Quantum physicists have discovered that quantum mechanics enlarges our capacity to reason in unexpected ways. The notorious Prisoner's Dilemma, in which the rational choice is the wrong choice, can be eliminated by quantum entanglement. A more recent (and still unproved) claim is that a quantum system of voting could avoid the inconsistencies of ordinary voting.
- Quantum mechanics may be a better model for human behavior than classical logic, which fails to predict the human impulse to cooperate and act altruistically. Instead of trying to force our thinking into a rational framework, we are better off expanding the framework.
More In This Article
An American election season seems like a bad time to sing the praises of human rationality. Candidates make promises that will never be kept yet voters somehow accept; thoughtful arguments hold no sway, while sound bites carry the day. What a comedown from the Enlightenment ideals, the faith in rationality, that inspired the founding of the republic. And it is even worse than you might think. Some things you think should be possible to figure out rationally if only you exerted yourself aren't. If you actually succeeded in living a life of reason—never voting without weighing each candidate's record carefully, never buying an appliance without consulting Consumer Reports, never begging the question, never erecting straw men, never falling into any of the other traps that flesh is heir to—you still would find yourself doing things that made no sense, not because you had failed but because reason itself is a saw blade missing a few teeth.
Throughout the 20th century scientists and mathematicians have had to accept that some things will always remain beyond the grasp of reason. In the 1930s Kurt Gödel famously showed that even in the rational universe of mathematics, for every paradox that deep thinking slaps down, new ones pop up. Economists and political theorists found similar limitations to rational rules for organizing society, and historians of science punctured the belief that scientific disputes are resolved purely by facts. The ultimate limits on reason come from quantum physics, which says that some things just happen and you can never know why.
This article was originally published with the title A New Enlightenment.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
31 Comments
Add CommentI'm a subscriber to SA Magazine. Can I view the magazine in its digital format, or does that require a separate subscription? And, if so, why?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat does seem kind of weird.... apparently they're trying to fix that. Contact me here if you'd like to discuss the physics of my article: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/critical-opalescence/about.php?author=55
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI find difficulty in the attempt to describe the behavior of groups of people in terms of quantum mechanical concepts. I find this to be a vast extrapolation from studies on simple and well-defined systems to complex processes like elections. This involved many intermediate processes that are not understood in. The effort is a bit like attempts to describe phenomena like ESP using ideas from quantum mechanical entanglement.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI fear there may be a difference between processes from complexity and those from deficiencies in fundamental theory. Newtonian mechanics is quite satisfactory for describing the behavior of bodies of large mass moving with velocities appreciably less than that of light. However, there are difficulties in obtaining an analytical solution for many body problems, although approximations may be made that can predict, with adequate computational means, results adequate for many purposes such as predicting the motion of planets in the solar system. This problem is mainly due to complexity rather than inadequacy of Newton’s laws and would not be helped by applying quantum principles.
The task of dealing with a many-people problem with not well understood interactions among them is largely one of complexity and one for which Newton’s laws would not be of much help with current levels of understanding and computational ability. I doubt whether the application of quantum mechanics would be of much help. I do not think that the problem here arises because of the limitation of Newton’s laws.
Certainly statistical descriptions of people based phenomena are possible and these enable one to predict probabilities of various events, although they often do not reveal their cause. Similarly, quantum mechanics offers a statistical description of the behavior of atomic level phenomena. However, I do not see that this infers that since both are described statistically, one explains the other. There may be a connection but what it is is far from our present understanding
The prisoner dilemma doesn't need quantum math to be explained, just the fact that individuals can value group interest more the one's own interest.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt we give to each outcome a value:
0 - remain in jail
4 - get free
5 - get free with a premium
we see that from an individualistic perspective that Bob and Alice should snitch.
But, from a group perspective, adding the outcomes for all members of the group we get
0 (= 0 + 0) - Alice and Bob both snitch
5 (= 5 + 0) - Only one snitches, either Bob or Alice
8 (= 4 + 4) - They both stay mum
This shows that the maximum outcome for the group is that both should stay mum and that they will probably do so because humans are social beings. They are willing to give up a little of self-interest if all can benefit from it.
Many humans know they have a higher chance to get on well if the whole group goes on well.
That to explain such behaviour the author has so resort to quantum math, just confirms the autistic tendencies of the technological mind, as suggested in another article in this same SCIAM issue.
No person can predict with certainty the profile ( type and intensity)of thoughts emerging out from his own mind even after a few hours or days. Quantum mechanical model are applicable upon non - living ( non-conscious) entities. Human mind which is highly loaded with consciousness, no predictive model is applicable. Understanding of current Science about Mind and Consciousness is far from rudimentary, therefore, no predictive model can be applicable upon Human mind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Understanding of current Science about Mind and Consciousness is far from rudimentary"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI made a mistake in framing above sentence. Instead of using the words "far from rudimentary", it should have been " even less than rudimentary"
Above mistake per se establishes that even in small matters, it is not feasible to predict the mind's behavor.
Physicists’ desperation to present themselves as relevant in other disciplines --- never stops to amaze me. The absurdity like “Humans Think Like Quantum Particles” simply imply that “Quantum Particles Think Like Humans”...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do appreciate creativity powered by imagination --- but I do not appreciate wild phantasies. Unfortunately, physicists are lately stretching their phantasies beyond reaches of a sane mind. Also unfortunately, they are often given outlets by supposedly scientific publications --- like Scientific American...
So we have phantasy like universe of information --- demonstrating complete ignorance about what is information at the first place. We also have phantasies about our universe being simulated in a machine designed by advanced aliens --- a la Matrix...
I do think that publications like Scientific American urgently need to tighten their criteria. Increasing sales by cheap “science” can quickly backfire.
Have a nice day,
Damir Ibrisimovic
http://home.pacific.net.au/~damir-dsl/
As a retired information systems analyst, I wholeheartedly agree, especially in reference to the quantum cosmic information theory BS.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The ultimate limits on reason come from quantum physics, which says that some things just happen and you can never know why."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI feel very strongly that the stage physics has reached at the present day is not the final stage. It is just one stage in the evolution of our picture of nature, and we should expect this process of evolution to continue in the future, as biological evolution continues into the future. The present stage of physical theory is merely a steppingstone toward the better stages we shall have in the future. One can be quite sure that there will be better stages simply because of the difficulties that occur in the physics of today.
Paul Dirac, "The Evolution of the Physicist’s Picture of Nature," SciAm: June 25, 2010
http://bit.ly/sPJ5GC
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The ultimate limits on reason come from quantum physics, which says that some things just happen and you can never know why."
-----------------------------------------------
Is this not the same pap that faith-based religion uses to "explain" why bad things sometimes happen to good people? The "Hairy Thunderer" works in mysterious ways and we do not expect to understand.
Personaly, I think it is long past time to get back to the definitive predictions and empirical testing of traditional science, and throw untestable pseudo-science into the dustbin of history, where it belongs.
Robert L. Oldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
"Instead of trying to force our thinking into a rational framework, we are better off expanding the framework."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is 100% truth right here.
HOWEVER our educational framework (In America) promotes and sustains linear thinking. Religion (In America) requires linear thinking. Don't you think we are trying? Its a huge mess over here.
Actually, this is a genius article. The writer is about as informed as the title, and represents it intrinsically. You guys got yourselves an artist over there!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaybe we should look at free will.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHumans don’t think like quantum particles because particles don’t think. The difference is between humans, who freely choose, and particles whose causes are indeterminate. A free choice is the very first cause in a series of events. For example, I freely choose to turn left instead of right; a series of events follows until I make my next choice. Conversely, particles have causes, although we cannot always know their causes, unless you’re Danish, in which cause they have no causes because we cannot know them. Even if the latter is true, particles still do not make free choices.
Choices have no prior causes, which is why choices, “just happen and you can never know why.” The answer to “why did you choose that?” ultimately must be silent. For example, “I chose to turn right because that path looks more interesting,” works only until we ask, “Why do you choose more interesting paths?” Eventually we stop at, “I chose it” because the choice is a first cause.
I'm having the same issue; computer glitch, maybe?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek, gmusser, rjwolfe - me too. I suspect that the potential promise of increased revenue and operational expense would prevent SA allowing access to both products for the price of one subscription. Realize that, if the access to the online digital magazine were provided to hardcopy subscribers, subscribers to the online magazine would be demanding delivery of hardcopy print magazines.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI suspect that the most economical response by SA would be to eliminate the hardcopy print magazine and convert all subscribers to the online magazine, eliminating all print production and delivery expenses.
This was an interesting article, but it was pretty speculative and I think the overall theme that quantum physics may help us get around the limitations of classical reasoning and social decision processes (like voting) is not very strongly supported by a careful analysis of the research that's summarized. I've posted a lengthy if somewhat preliminary discussion at my blog Wine, Physics, and Song, in this post:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://winephysicssong.com/2012/11/05/no-new-enlightenment-a-critique-of-quantum-reason/
but I'll summarize it in this comment. Some of the research being summarized, like Eisert Lewenstein and Wilkens' article on quantum prisoner's dilemma, is solid but tricky to interpret and easy to misinterpret, and I fear that may have happened here with the suggestion that quantum methods may help solve prisoner's dilemma if the prisoners can take particles entangled with each other into the interrogation. Actually, the jailer would have to cooperate by doing an entangled measurement. Segre's theorem that if we generalize Arrow's unanimity and independence conditions on voting rules in a particular way from subset lattices to quantum logics, we avoid Arrow's conclusion that the rules must be dictatorial, is quite weak since it only states that some quantum logics have generalized-nondictatorial "acceptable generalized voting rules", where acceptable voting rule means, for Segre, an ultrafilter on the logic (and nondictatorial translates to nonprincipality of the ultrafilter). I point out in the post that the logics with the infinite-dimensional ones; the noncommutative finite-dimensional ones, which are the (mathematically!) natural quantum generalization of Arrow's finite-sets setting, do not have nonprincipal ultrafilters. Infinite-dimensional quantum logics (understood as projection lattices of von Neumann algebras) do have nonprincipal ultrafilters, but so do infinite-dimensional classical logics, as was already known to conoisseurs of voting-theory esoterica.
Finally, I think the empirical behavior of players in Prisoner's dilemma can be understood fairly well in terms of a concept Doug las Hofstadter has called "superrationality" others, "metarationality", based on the thinking that "my opponent is like me, he will do what I do", without invoking the metaphor of quantum superposition. That way of viewing things competes with the argument for Nash equilibrium, but becomes less vivid, and the latter more vivid, when one is told what the opponent will do.
Howard Barnum
http://winephysicssong.com
No editing facility here so
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I point out in the post that the logics with the infinite-dimensional ones" should have read "I point out in the post that the logics with the nonprincipal ones [i.e. ultrafilters] are infinite-dimensional."
I see I don't specialize "quantum logic" to "projection lattice of a noncommutative von Neumann algebra" until later... that is probably neceessary to have "infinite dimensional quantum logic" be meaningful... it means the von Neumann algebra is infinite dimensional.
This interpretation presumes that we fully understand the behavior of quantum particles. Our difficulty in finding the microscopic origin of superconductivity even after 101 years of its experimental discovery clearly proves otherwise. A new approch which tries to have the correct understanding of quantum particles naturally questions the majority opinion and such an attempt is not given due consideration even if the approach explains the phenomenon. To this effect people may see the recent works,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.scribd.chom/doc/110441679/Intrinsic-Problems-Superfluid-Theories
http://www.scribd.com/doc/110681115/First-Quantization-Theory-of-Superconductivity.
Hence it is too early to say that humans think like quantum particles.
Y S Jain
Maybe abandoning the economist's definition of rational would be easier philosophy than taking the roundabout route to a choice through quantum mechanics. If I'm not misreading, you have pointed out a similarity between a brain state of too much and too little information at the same time giving way to an elected result and a superposition of quantum states giving way to the collapse of the wave function. Your use of the word 'model' mostly precludes any accusation of inappropriate application of science in your thinking. By the fact that I'm considering serious implications of your little essay and simultaneously finding myself laughing at it, I guess that I'm due for a collapse, too. By the way, since you mention entanglement, where is part two of your and John's excellent adventure? Did you find a way to outwit Bell's inequality experiment?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisElection choices may have more to do with evolutionary psychology than dry quantum mechanics- (although the 'Donna-e mobile'-principle might cover both disciplines..Come to think of it:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's the choice between the recumbent alpha male and the would-be contender, and the collective unconscious
plays a subliminal part.
Even the colour of the tie can play a role: Romney was more dominant in the first get-together- with his red tie!
Most of life' decisions are coloured by our social animality. Recommended Reading: Colorific Manifesto.
Dear Sir,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe views of ygmarchi are also supported from individual perspective. If one is guilty, he cannot assume that if he charges the other guy, he will remain silent. Thus, both will get three months in jail. However, if he remains silent, the possibilities are both will get one month in jail. For the other, the same thought will work. However, there are other reasons to link quantum mechanical concepts to human behavior.
The basic difference between sentient and non-sentient is the volition for auto-motion. This is reflected in the functioning of neurons, which belong to the micro field. The functioning of mirror neurons mimic quantum entanglement. However, as Mr. vinodkumarsehgal has pointed out, "Understanding of current Science about Mind and Consciousness is even less than rudimentary".
basudeba
The difficulty with us that we do not apply the effect of gravitoetherton soup which is ether or dark energy what ever you say in our equations and experiments. The space around us is ether soup which is mono magnetic coupling of gravitoethertons focussed towards center of earth and a magnetic field of earth, so the back drop is quite dynamic and fluctuating. We have developed our theories on isotropic concept with limiting light speed of relativity and Bohrs muli orbit electron model with strong and weak force concept without visualizing the effect of dark energy inside and outside atoms. The experiments we do can not be interpreted based on wrong theories and we are at loss to understand the results. My advise will be to revise quantum physics with new atomic model prescribed by me long ago and also revise the theories of Einstein for non isotropic ,non limiting light speed universe. You will be getting those theories if you click my name in google search.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe that we all understanding your reasoning. I have one observation, however. Please explain the difference between the observer of Schrodinger's cat before opening the box; and the woman who doesn't know whether her unborn baby is a girl or a boy. Is the observer more important than what is observed?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou have correctly pointed out the malaise.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem lies in the method of measurement. Measurement is a comparison with similars. This comparison is done at a particular instant and the result is frozen for future use as the result of measurement. In the meantime the object of measurement evolves temporally. Thus, when we use the result of measurement, it no longer represents the current state of the object. As a corollary, time evolution of the object is independent of observation. We can only know the true state of the object at the moment of observation - neither before or after it. We impose our ignorance on the object and call other unknown states as the superposition of states.
In case of Schrodinger's cat, the longevity of the cat is not dependent on observation, but release of the poison as one of the factors. The cat can die due to other reasons also like suffocation, hunger, etc. Observation only points out the state at that instant and not at other instants. However, since longevity is unidirectional, it only shows the state so far. If the cat is found to be dead on observation, it does not mean that it died at that instant. It might have died earlier, which is reflected in its state of decomposition, which is reality.
The same is true for the woman who doesn't know whether her unborn baby is a girl or a boy. Thus, there is no necessity to sensationalize and fictionalize it. Yet there are innumerable scientists, who think that rational explanations are not science. Unless you express something in an incomprehensible way by compartmentalizing the issue and denouncing others beliefs, they do not believe that it is science.
basudeba
Basudeba:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFinally, someone is willing to call a stupid idea “stupid.” I especially like your last paragraph.
I thought Schrodinger’s cat story was an effort to show how silly Bohr’s theory is. Bohr claimed that any given particle is in every state until it is nailed down by observation. Schrodinger used the cat as an analogy of Bohr’s silly conclusion, arguing that if Bohr is right, then the cat is both dead and alive. That conclusion is contradictory and thus false.
If a particle is in state A, then it is not in state not-A. But Bohr seems to argue it is in both states (all states), and that’s the contradiction Schrodinger has in mind.
Dear Sir,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you very much for the post. You are right that "Schrodinger’s cat story was an effort to show how silly Bohr’s theory is." However, subsequently, others gave it a spin to justify quantum weirdness. In fact all quantum phenomena has macro equivalents. But since most of the scientists have shut their eyes firmly from the macro world on the superstitious belief that it has no relation with the quantum world, they cannot see it. And this includes some Nobel laureates.
To give one example, let us consider dimension. It is the perception of differentiation of the "inner space" of an object from its "outer space". Since ocular perception is possible only through electromagnetic interaction, where the electric and the magnetic fields move perpendicular to each other and both move perpendicularly to the direction of motion, we have three mutually perpendicular dimensions. Yet, in spite of their failure to find it for almost a century, scientists are superstitiously clinging to the theory of extra-dimensions. And most theories are built upon such such superstitious belief.
Another example is dark energy. It is called dark because it is non-interacting. It is called energy because it is smooth and persistent. Energy is never perceived directly, but is always inferred from its effect on matter. It it is non-interacting with matter, it cannot be energy. Its smoothness and persistence indicates the properties of a background structure. Thus, we have held it as the universal background structure. Since light is a transverse wave, by definition, it is background invariant. Hence the null result of the MM experiment does not contradict it. No theory including Schrodinger's equation or Einsteins views conflict with medium based theories. In fact, Schrodinger's equation is medium based. Yet, it is treated as something like anti-gravity and last years Nobel prizes was awarded to those who believed so. We had written to them our views. But no reply.
On the other hand, some people in this forum have used abusive language for our views and advised us to read high school text books. We can only pity them and their ignorance.
You may like to see: basudeba.blogspot.com
Regards,
basudeba
"The ultimate limits on reason come from quantum physics, which says that some things just happen and you can never know why."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQuantum physics never 'said' that to me:
The quoted statement is merely an (unfortunate) description of physicists' prevailing ignorance about quantum-scale systems as interpreted through their fundamentally classical model.
Gödel's insight applies to human inventions such as mathematical constructs, languages and QM which assume that determinism prevails generally. Problems emerge when people and their grantors take such simplistic models seriously and describe deviations from that basis of expectations as reflecting a fundamental uncertainty.
Economists and political theorists pretend objectivity while remaining steadfastly ignorant of their subject matter, and, surprise, surprise, their models routinely fail. Economics is not a science because it has no theoretical basis beyond kinda-sorta-maybe-like physics (why is there a Nobel-sorta prize for it?). The cosmic joke is that the true model is within reach, but remains deprecated.
We must hand some recognition to SciAm and the other pop mags for so cleverly generating profit from such fatuously inventive ignorance!
SciAm's self-regard is such that it does not require our recognition. Regardless, I recognize SciAm as a pale shadow of its former self.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGeorge Musser:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Through these particles, the partners can coordinate their decisions without knowing in advance what those decisions are—information they could have used to flout the contract"
Don't you think that a zero-knowledge protocol could do the job without having to go through the trouble of dealing the quantum particles?
Regarding the November article “The New Enlightenment”, let me offer, perhaps, a more parsimonious hypothesis than that presented. I think it wise to consider the psychology of the nature of the human primate brain a little more deeply before “leaping” to quantum explanations ---especially now that researchers are taking a more natural science, Darwinian evolutionary approach, at long last. I would hypothesis that, contrary to the author’s contention that “people do not have fixed preferences”, people do have many "fixed preferences" --both Nature and Nurture are capable of fixing them in various degrees. But as to my point here, it's the fixed evolutionary preferences that are important here ---one of them being derived directly from the fact that the human primate is a herd animal (now, unfortunately, engaging in the pretense that it is not!) We lived in primate “troops” of large extended forager families for most of our evolutionary history. For any herd animal’s survival, it evolved to think and move in a coordinated fashion. And, likewise, we still carry that same tendency even into the modern age. In short, we want to believe that others think and come to the same conclusions as we do (as was often the actual case in the human E.E.A.) despite our rationality telling us it's no longer logically feasible to continue to believe it. Yet, the very fact that so many of us still do, oftentimes it does actually work to act on that basis. Thus, considering our long evolutionary trajectory, it should be no surprise that we don’t always think like logical robots ---that’s because, deep down, we still think like the herd animals we are.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDake Bach, evolutionary psychologist
The Nefarious Irishman on the Paranormal wwwrcwormus.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExplain this.
I’m well aware of all the subliminal information the mind intuitively processes, as well as, its ability to augment; but I can’t explain this.
On Wednesday, the 23rd of October, Adeline and I returned, via United Airlines from an extended trip to Oregon. We had mailed most of our clothing, books, and miscellaneous belongings back home by U.P.S.
As it turned out, we were able to place one suitcase into the other and still put all our valuables , including a newly purchased IPOD, my camera, all our up and coming cruise documents, medications, passports and the like, into the one piece of luggage.
Exiting baggage claim with our suitcase, we spotted a ‘Primetime’ Shuttle Van. The driver said where are you going? I said, Rancho Palos Verdes. He said, to my surprise, “Jump in, that’s my last stop. I live in Palos Verdes.”
After dropping off two other passengers, we were alone in the Van with the driver. I asked him where he was from, and he said, “Iran”. I told him we were excited about getting home, because we were remodeling, and I wanted to see the progress.
We arrived at Palos Verdes Shores, passed through the guarded gates, and drove to our home. The driver got out, opened our doors, went around to the back of the Van, then walked over to see my new front entrance , with its newly remodeled slate stairway, curved rod iron railings, and gabled roof. All outlining an oversized, beveled glass, double door entry. I was happy it came out as I had envisioned it. He was impressed and said so. I paid him, and he left.
It was, as I mentioned earlier, Oct. 23rd, and the last of the Presidential debates were to start in twenty minutes. We got the spare key, went in, and opened the lanai doors to a spectacular view of the Pacific Ocean, with Catalina Island dead center.
I turned on the T.V. to the Presidential debate; witch was ten to fifteen minutes away. I Told Adeline, I’m going to get the luggage, and then go get a sandwich for both of us from Subway.
That’s when it started! I walked out the front door, expecting to see our one bag of luggage. Nothing! The driver had forgotten to remove our luggage from the van.
I immediately called ‘Primetime’, only to find that they’re a National company with 30,000 vans, and worst of all, closed! The message said, call back on Friday. I panicked! Called again, waited for the options to go through their interminable series...at last there was an emergency number.
I dialed the emergency number; a human version of the tape came on, Saying, “Our offices are closed, call back Friday morning. “ I told him that this was a dire emergency that all our medicines were in the suitcase that the driver had forgotten to remove. He asked questions, like what was my address? Etc.; and then said that nothing was reported as delivered to that address! There was no record of a driver going to my home!
The gravity of the situation hit me at that moment; the Driver was happy to take us home, because he could go home himself without reporting our existence to Primetime, and pocket the fares! But no way could he turn in our luggage to lost and found or he would be caught. Now I was beside myself. I don’t remember too much about what happened next, but Adeline, said I sort of went into a trance, and was chanting, “I will find the Van! I will find the Van!” She tried to stop me, but I was in some kind of trance; I got in the car, and started to drive.
Now, Palos Verdes Peninsula, 36 miles from Los Angeles City, covers 20 square miles and borders the Pacific Ocean. There are tens of thousands of houses on the Palos Verdes Peninsula! Hundreds of communities, thousands of condos; it has an estimated population of 100,000 people.
I could close my eyes and ‘see’ the red Primetime van. I drove all the way from one end of the peninsula to the other, east to west; at no time did I stop or even look for the van.
I could still close my eyes and ‘see’ the van. I just kept driving, waiting for some kind of ‘sign’ or ‘feeling’. Over and over again, I kept chanting, “I will find the Van, I will find the van; but nothing!
I then did the same thing, traveling the width of the peninsula, this time south to north; periodically closing my eyes to ‘see’ the red Primetime van…I could visualize it, parked outside a large home. Again, at no time did I stop to look for the van, or pull into a community, or even look at a house. I was waiting for ‘that’ feeling! Again Nothing! All this time I was in a weird, hyper-intensive trance. I was going to WILL myself into finding this van; again, nothing.
I turned around and started back to my house. Three quarters of the way, I ‘felt’ something. I was at the intersection of a street that I didn’t know. But I did know that that is where I had to turn left! I was driving along the perimeter of one of the largest developments on top of the hill. ‘Monaco’ a walled community with 23 entrances!
I drove along the perimeter wall, passing entrance after entrance. Staring straight ahead, again waiting for that ‘feeling’ At the second to last entrance I turned in, only to find that I had now three choices right, left or straight. I closed my eyes, pictured the van parked outside the house to my right; I made a sharp right turn, and opened my eyes to a Primetime van, twenty feet in front of me. I went up to the house’s double doors (and I thought mine were massive. these were 20 feet high!) I rang the doorbell; several times, and a few minutes later a woman asks, “Who is it?” I said, “Your husband took me home from the airport, and he forgot to give us our luggage.” It was a few minutes before he opened the door; same driver. He said incredulously, “How did you find me? Did the office give you my address?” I said no, they were closed; and that I don’t know how I found him, but I needed my luggage. We walked out to the van, and of course my suitcase was in the back. I drove home, mentally exhausted, told my wife and one other person; and have been trying not to think about since since! It’s just too eerie. The mind is capable of far more than we are aware.
I’m well aware of all the subliminal information the mind intuitively processes, but I am at a loss to explain this.