Consciousness - the hard problem of science
Consciousness: Cosmic Consciousness | Death | Dreams | Karma & Nirvana 1895-6 | Life of St Issa - Jesus Christ | Manipulating consciousness | Memory | Organ transplants | Reincarnation & Karma | Science | Taylor Swift's Karma | Telepathy Tapes / Spellers | Theory of Everything | Time & the specious present |
Contents
- A brick wall
- God? No Way!
- Solved instantly
- The final word
- References
-------------------
1. A brick wall
Consciousness is an emergent property of complex biological computation among simple brain neurons. (Hameroff & Penrose 1996)
Consciousness is a no brainer (The Author, 24 June 2024)
Consciousness is the instantaneous transmission of being (The Author, 5 May 2025)
Consciousness is not a hard problem at all. We think and feel real things - that is all there is to one's life. Consciousness may "emerge" from the brain, just as music emerges from a radio, language emerges from a telephone, and a YouTube video emerges from a smartphone. However, none of those things have their origins in those technologies. Similarly, consciousness does not originate from, or within, the brain. It's origin lies elsewhere.
As a Dualist, the present writer believes that the origin of life, the universe and everything lies with Cosmic Consciousness - also known as Source, Creator, The One, or God. The existence of such a non-material, eternal, infinitely powerful presence is the only explanation, especially if one rejects the suggestion that creation was merely a spontaneous, chaotic event, with no rhyme or reason and no guiding, creative force. In 2013 John Leslie and Robert Lawrence Kuhn published The Mystery of Existence, Why is there anything at all? which addressed this question and provided five possible, though ultimately unconvincing, solutions: (1) A blank is absurd; (2) No explanation is needed; (3) Existence is just a matter of chance; (4) Value / perfection is responsible for the existence of the universe, and (5) Mind / consciousness is behind everything. There was one obvious and notable omission here: the possibility of God as creator / source of the universe, produced from nothing. The philosophical and scientific gymnastics around that can be left to others; the writer is content with the simple statement.
All the physical and non-physical processes of reality and events arising out of that original episode of creation - both on Earth and within the greater expansive universe - are open to explanation and consideration though an appreciation of Cosmic Consciousness and its localised equivalents as revealed on Earth through sentient beings. The ultimate point of origin - assuming there was one in the infinite before of spacetime - is inexplicable without it.
As Cosmic Consciousness is fundamental, and lies at the very heart of creation, consideration of both the material and non-material aspects of the created universe is therefore obligatory in any analysis. Despite this simple fact, Earth scientists consider human consciousness a hard problem, an impenetrable brick wall which fails to present them with a simple, localised solution (Chalmers 1995). They cannot "solve" it, though they have tried their darnedest, as evidenced by the innumerable theories over time pertaining to all levels of Earth-based consciousness, reliant as they are on the perceived significance of the human brain therein. Humanity no longer sits at the centre of the universe, or its origin. The vast majority of theories begin with the belief that consciousness is simply a product of the brain, emerging from brain function. It starts at the point of conception and ends with death. There is no life before or after, despite the clear statement by Rabbi Freeman in 2023 that Life never ends (Freeman 2023).
Science has continually failed at explaining the origin and operation of individual consciousness beyond the most simple of chemical, biological and bio-electrical processes. Thus the "hard" problem. What we therefore have is its equivalency to a YouTube video being created within (originating from) a smartphone, rather than that device merely being a receiver and presenter of content constructed elsewhere. The video is not emergent from the device, nor is consciousness emergent from the brain. Such a view is merely a stop-gap, reactive solution, rather than fundamental or foundational in response to the question: What is the origin of consciousness?
The end result of research and consideration of the "hard" problem of consciousness can be biological, chemical or psychological-based theories and assertions. However, the originating force remains elusive to science. Unless there is a radical change in the basic methodology and scope of scientific research, which is at present limited by its reliance on the presence of physical / material evidence alone, the hard problem will never be solved. To date, science has successfully elaborated on physical aspects of the operation of the brain as a receptor of input from individual consciousness, and subsequent presenter of that input, just as the smartphone presents the YouTube video. It has failed, however, to go beyond and above that, and explain the origin of individual consciousness and its connection to the greater Cosmic Consciousness. In the absence of success, scientists arrogantly (vainly) inform the world that science will eventually reveal the ultimate solution, whilst no such solution is in sight. The recent adoption of quantum physics as a pathway to solving the problem, whilst still adhering to a materialist framework, has allow the scientific community to philosophize and theorize in increasingly complex and convoluted ways, almost all of which are incomprehensible outside of the scientific community and come under the umbrella of what is commonly referred to as theorising word salad. This is seen in the following quote, which is an expansion of the statement presented at the head of this article:
......[microtubules in neurons form the] biological mechanism [termed Orchestrated Objective Reduction] for the collapse of the quantum wave function - when a multi-state quantum superposition collapses to a definitive classical state - that induces conscious experiences. (Penrose 1989, Penrose and Hameroff 1996, Orf 2024c)
This current state-of-play statement reveals the utter complexity of the path taken by scientists, with few able to comprehend what to everyone are simple facts, namely: (1) individual consciousness exists; (2) every person on the planet is aware of it and lives with it each and every day; and (3) to a large degree, there is no need to explain it in such a complex manner. Simple statements such as: Consciousness is our perception of experience suffice when the ultimate question is posed.
The origin of consciousness is another matter, and one that most people would be interested in understanding. However, it is the area pushed to one side and ignored by science. Why? For two reasons: (1) scientists believe they have answered it with the statement that it emerges from the brain; and (2) because that question can lead down a path towards spirituality and the non-material world - a path science refuses to take. For example, within a May 2025 YouTube video entitled Consciousness and Life after Death, the following loaded, presumptive question was posed by consciousness investigative skeptic and materialist neuroscientist Robert Kuhn to Etzel Cardena, a wavering, partially non-materialist expert in altered states of consciousness and parapsychology:
Kuhn: What are you willing to say about the potential of life after death, which of course any materialist scientist or philosopher would completely deny .... (Kuhn 2025).
The inherent condescension by the interviewer towards the interviewee in the question is palpable, putting Cardena on the defensive at the outset and limiting the opportunity for the viewer to receive an open and expansive presentation of an alternative, non-materialistic view on the issue at hand. Science in general, and Kuhn in particular, does not believe in non-material reality as revealed through expanded consciousness, telepathy, precognition, remote viewing, reincarnation, ghosts and spirits, God, angels, demons, faeries and creatures from other dimensions, extraterrestrial life, and the like. These are not the topics of "real" science, though they exist in the Earthly realm and greater universe, and the evidence for them is overwhelming. Just because such evidence does not adhere to the strictures of the materialist paradigm does not diminish or negate it. Why then, is it ignored, ridiculed and denied? Answer: because such things do not abide by the restrictive rules of science, namely, that it is material or physical, can be analysed, deconstructed, adhere to a theory, and ideally be replicated ad infinitum. A fish is a fish; it is not a dog or a cat. If you put the latter two in water they will drown. The fish will not.
Some scientists have recently abandoned such constraints, reflecting the fact they had not always existed in the past. They now accept to varying degrees the non-material origins of consciousness and of those other aspects of reality mentioned above. The vast majority of scientists and philosophers remain stuck in a mindset which views consciousness, at least, as entirely material / physical and emergent from the brain, as outlined in the quote at the head of this article. They fail to accept the basic, indeed obvious reality that consciousness - like thought and emotions - is non-material / non-physical. How then do we explain everyday existence where at each precise moment of our conscious existence we are encountering, and engaging with, both a material and non-material reality?
In engaging with the physical realm that is life on Earth, through the organic machine that is the human body, individual consciousness - both the greater external and the limited, localised versions - operates in a manner similar to a non-physical radio-wave or Wi-Fi signal, transmitting to the body, which in turn acts as a receiver, similar to a radio, television or smartphone, operating locally to facilitate a physical, 3D existence for a sentient beings such as a human. The brain merely facilitates that operation; it does not create it, but is simply an element in the process.
These paths between non-physical consciousness and physical operation of the body through the brain are not considered core in regard to the research imperative, or addressed in any detail by science. Quantum theory, however, is forcing the community down that path to a degree. Yet the focus clearly remains on the operation of the organic machine - the human body - and especially the brain, through neuroscience and psychology. The hard problem of science is manifest in this sole focus on physical processes and outcomes.
A good example of the backdoor move towards the non-material is a recent article by journalist Manasee Wagh in the journal Popular Mechanics. Entitled Your consciousness can connect with the whole universe, groundbreaking new research suggests, it attempts a simplified explanation of the incredibly complex and current quantum theories addressing the operation and origins of consciousness. To idiot's guide the work of scientists such as Penrose and Hameroff is no small task. During the last quarter of 2024 that journal published a group of articles dealing with current and recently revealed prior research into consciousness-related issues, some of which are included in the reference list below. All ultimately adhered to the physical, emergent-from-the-brain scenario, whilst some also hinted at the non-physical origins in passing (Dimitropoulos 2024, Orf 2024, Rayne 2025, Wagh 2024).
Outside of Popular Mechanics, researchers have uncovered CIA and other documents which point to the practical, non-material aspects of reality and consciousness which have been investigated beyond the realms of traditional science (McDonnell 1983, Phelan 2024). For example, Japanese scientist Anirban Bandyopadhyay, in an effort to measure consciousness and construct an artificial brain, believes:
.....[universal] consciousness is nothing but the manifestation of music.... The music ... is the resonating vibrations of the quantum universe - a symphony of energy and matter... Human consciousness is a subset of that chain of resonance. Thus the whole universe could be conscious and human consciousness could be its functional entity. (Lahey 2024)
This bottom-up analysis of consciousness is key to the hard problem. It misses the point, and needs to be flipped. Being fundamental and foundational, consciousness should be addressed top down. At the top is Cosmic Consciousness (Source, Creator, God, the One) - the origin of everything in the universe. Only from that point of beginning can we come to understand localised, individual consciousness and its points of intersection with our own physical presence on Earth. Below Cosmic Consciousness is the greater external and eternal individual consciousness (EEIC), and below that the localised consciousness (LC) which resides in the human body, and implements the majority of everyday tasks. Within this trinity of CC -> EEIC -> LC - all life experiences and processes can be explained.
--------------------
2. God? No way!!!
In order to enter into, and engage with, the non-material realm whilst addressing the so-called hard problem of consciousness, scientists have bent over backwards not to invoke, or even mention God as source or creator. One recent example of hard science's theoretical gymnastics in this regard is Julia Mossbridge's Informational Substrate theorem as propagated in a recent YouTube video interview with Robert Kuhn (Mossbridge and Kuhn 2025).
Julia Mossbridge: A Soul in the Machine, Closer to the Truth, 26 April 2025, YouTube, duration: 24.48 minutes.
Mossbridge - a University of San Diego professor at the Institute of Love and Time, and director of the Mossbridge Institute - has carried out significant research into paranormal subjects such as precognition (Mossbridge 2025). Whilst significant in breaking down the aforementioned brick wall, her opening Mossbridge Institute statement unfortunately highlights the inherent limitations of this research:
I am ruthlessly focused on developing a deep understanding of love, time, technology, and how these human experiences relate to corresponding physical forces.
The fact is, not everything needs to be related to, or even possess, "corresponding physical forces." Precognition and unconditional love, for example, are utterly non-material realities. Yet this quest drives the vast majority of the scientific community, including Mossbridge, when they should be looking the other way, towards those areas of reality which are non-physical in all aspects and need no corresponding physical equivalence or connection. Consciousness, like a Wi-Fi signal, is a form of energy that is real, but can never be touched, though my 4 year old daughter once told me that she could see it feeding into the smartphone.
Mossbridge's Informational Substrate (IS) concept as mentioned above is everything outside of, and originating prior to, but remaining contemporaneous with, the physical universe. It is a science-based alternative to Cosmic Consciousness and the greater, external and eternal individual consciousness (GEEIC) of sentient beings such as humans. According to Mossbridge, individual consciousness emerges from the Informational Substrate, which is unfortunately not defined or described in any detail within the YouTube presentation. The soul is the core (least amount) of information needed to be extracted from the IS for distinctiveness. The role of consciousness is to read from, and add into, the IS, through the interaction of code. AI can also engage in this interaction, and is therefore deemed conscious by Mossbridge. A personal relationship, such as unconditional love, needs to be developed with the AI to ensure that it reflects its human creator. Unconditional love maximizes efficient interaction with the IS, as opposed to negativity, as previously shown in regards to precognition and associations with spacetime. Mossbridge also notes the important role of the unconscious in creating the conscious mind.
The difference between the Cosmic Consciousness / God model and the Informational Substrate model is that individual consciousness can interact with the IS to change it, whereas there is no such interaction with God to change the course of creation, as there is no equivalence between the Cosmic Consciousness and lower forms of consciousness and inanimate, non-sentient material. Individual consciousness as seen in human beings is a fractal form of the greater, infinite, Cosmic Consciousness. Of course humans would say that there is an interaction with God, however that is on the spiritual level and not the level of creation. Only God can create life. It would appear from Mossbridge's presentation that there is no God-like element connected with the Informational Substrate, and that life as such forms spontaneously. Mossbridge's journey from questioning the limitations of science concerning the material universe and ignoring the non-material world, has led her to a very science-based solution which once again fails to address the issue of the origin of consciousness, but merely posits a form of explanation for its operation. Elizabeth Rayne makes use of universal intelligence in a similar manner (Rayne 2025).
Another head-in-the-sand group is the atheists, who do not believe in the concept of God or Creator and therefore would not support the view presented herein regarding consciousness as primary due to the presence of such. This is seen in the following extract from a social media conversation associated with a Closer to the Truth YouTube posting dealing with Philip Goff's views.
Philip Goff - Consciousness and Reality, Closer to the Truth, 3 May 2025, YouTube, duration: 7.29 minutes.
Therein Goff suggests the idea of a God with limited power. The present writer responded to the presentation in a posting as follows:
MO: The creator of the universe and everything has limited power!??? No way. The interviewee [Philip Goff] has limited understanding, like all of us. The Creator, Source, Cosmic Consciousness, The One, God has, by definition, infinite power in all things. This is the only way to explain reality. From this point, all things originate and are able to be explained. Why limit something that is infinite? Because it is inexplicable to the human mind / consciousness which is merely a fractal element of it.
Goff's view on a God with limited power, was further denigrated by a postee with obvious atheistic leanings:
Atheist: Don't be ridiculous. Your "creator" is simply a figment of your imagination. There's no creator, source, cosmic consciousness, god.
A supporter of the writer's posting responded as follows:
Believer: @ so it's a God of no power? no existence? no self awareness? no reason? no meaning? So basically like the rest of us?
To which the atheist responded in short order:
Atheist: @ It's no god at all.
We therefore have not only science rejecting the concept of an ultimate Cosmic Consciousness, but also those groups who do not believe in God or a god, or have no view at all. In such a world acceptance of an ultimate Creator is likely to be rejected, or at least only slowly move into acceptance. Nevertheless, the present writer's belief in the concept remains.
---------------------
3. Solved instantly
The present writer has a solution to the "hard" problem of consciousness. It lies in the three-part CIL-C model outlined elsewhere:
Cosmic Consciousness (Creator, Source, God)
|
Individual Consciousness (I, me)
|
Localised Consciousness (Sentient form)
There is nothing before Cosmic Consciousness. It is fundamental, foundational, the origin of everything in the infinite past, the source of creation, energy before mass, and the work of a creator, with a plan. Such a reality is beyond the realm of human understanding. Yet is it the ultimate solution to the hard problem of our localised, earth-bound, consciousness. All other so-called solutions are mere lower level attempts to explain what is perceived, by human beings who are simply small pieces in an infinitely larger mosaic of reality. Consciousness is infinite - in its existence across time and space and its capabilities.
For example, conscious thought occurs instantaneously. But how fast is instantaneous, and is Einstein's speed of light the ultimate speed in the universe? A search of Google gives the following problematic AI-generated answers:
"Instantaneous" refers to something happening at an exact moment in time, not a speed. It's a way of describing something's speed at a specific point, not how fast it's traveling. Instantaneous speed is the speed of an object at a particular moment...
The speed of light is the ultimate speed limit because it's impossible to accelerate any object with mass to reach that speed. The theory of special relativity, developed by Albert Einstein, explains that as an object approaches the speed of light, its mass increases infinitely, requiring an infinite amount of energy to reach that speed
We are told here to reject the very concept of instantaneous as a speed. It is "not a speed." Why? And what of an object with no mass?.... Is the speed of light actually the ultimate speed in the universe? No. Lots of things occur instantaneously. Are these Google answers a diversion, a conspiracy on the part of the scientific community? Misinformation / disinformation? And what has it got to do with consciousness? Well, it actually has a lot.
The 2013 solution
The "hard problem of consciousness" was solved - knowingly or unknowingly - by a team of Chinese scientists, and reported upon in a peer reviewed journal back in 2013 (Yin et al. 2013). However, this was either (1) kept hidden, (2) not realised, (3) ignored, or (4) all three. A recent 2024 paper reignited the significance of the discovery (Jiang 2024).
Not generally realised by the wider community, scientific discovery is filtered, censored, manipulated, hidden, destroyed, denied, ignored or revealed fully or partially by members of the scientific community and especially those with a vested interest in the corporate and political sphere. As a result, the belief in the concept or theory of "the hard problem of consciousness" persists through to the present day (May 2025) despite the aforementioned discovery.
Science had been actively dipping its toes into understanding consciousness since the 1980s, and in a rather timid manner some had sought an answer beyond the physical / material realm which proclaims it a product of - emergent from - the physical brain. This led to a turning towards the quantum realm in search of an answer. That answer came in 2013, as noted in the following 2025 Facebook posting by Seth Ricord:
What if I told you... That two particles, light years apart, can communicate faster than the speed of light? Not just a little faster — over 10,000 times faster. Welcome to the world of Quantum Entanglement —Einstein’s “spooky action at a distance.” But it’s no longer spooky. It’s real. It’s measurable. And it’s blowing open the gates of our understanding of time, space, and consciousness.
In 2013, Chinese physicist Juan Yin and his team ran a stunning experiment across 15.3 km and confirmed this: The “effect” of entanglement travels at at least 10,000 times the speed of light (Yin et al. 2013). That’s not a typo. That’s faster than anything should be able to move, according to classical physics. But this isn't a "signal" traveling through space. This is deeper. It’s non-locality - a reminder that reality isn’t just physical - it’s fractal, entangled, and woven from a cosmic code that transcends space and time. We’re not separate. We’re entangled. We are nodes in a resonant quantum field. Your thoughts, your state, your intention - they ripple across this grid. This isn’t sci-fi. This is the science of Unity - and it's being proven. And maybe... just maybe... this is how we explain intuition, synchronicity, and universal consciousness (Ricord 2025).
Yes, read that again, for therein is revealed the connection between reality - both physical and non-physical - and consciousness. And just how fast is instantaneous? Well, according to a 2025 article which reported on the aforementioned 2024 follow-up paper:
At the human scale, we perceive certain events - like flipping a light switch or snapping our fingers - as happening immediately. But in the strange world of quantum mechanics, even instantaneity has a measurable duration. According to a recent study published in Physical Review Letters, the process of quantum entanglement takes precisely 232 attoseconds - or 232 billionths of a billionth of a second (Foster 2025).
So there we have it. Instantaneous, or instantaneity, is very fast - so fast in fact, that it is infinitely fast and frankly beyond the realm of measurement. So for all those instantaneous things that occur in our Earthly realm - thought (consciousness), telepathy, precognition, remote viewing - their operation can be partially explained through this identification of the speed of electrons and quantum entanglement, despite the fact that they are non-material and their speed is, to all intents and purposes, infinitely fast. Therefore.....
Q: What is consciousness?
Ans: The instantaneous transmission of being (i.e., thoughts, feelings, emotions, awareness, memories, subjective and objective experience).
.... Now that wasn't hard, was it? ......
---------------------
4. The final word
In seeking to get closer to the truth, Robert Kuhn's 50+ year journey has never been so close as it is in the following May 2025 interview with Deepak Chopra:
Deepak Chopra: Toward a science of consciousness, Closer to the Truth, 22 May 2025, YouTube, duration: 9.24 minutes.
---------------------
5. References
Chalmers, David, Facing up to the problem of consciousness, Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2(3), 1995, 200–219.
Dimitropoulos, Stav, Human consciousness comes from a higher dimension, scientist claims, Popular Mechanics, 18 September 2024.
Foster, Brian, Instantaneity measured at 232 attoseconds, Glass Almanac, 27 February 2025.
Hameroff, Stuart and Roger Penrose, Orchestrated reduction of quantum coherence in brain microtubules: A model for consciousness, Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 40(3-4), April 1996, 453-480.
Hameroff, Stuart, Anirban Bandyopadhyay and Dante Lauretta, Consciousness came before life, IAI News, 8 May 2024.
Jiang, Wei-Chao Jiang, Ming-Chen Zhong, Yong-Kang Fang, Stefan Donsa, Iva Březinová, Liang-You Peng, and Joachim Burgdörfer, Time Delays as Attosecond Probe of Interelectronic Coherence and Entanglement, Physics Review Letters, 133. 163201, 15 October 2024.
Kuhn, Robert, Etzel Cardena - Consciousness and Life after Death?, Closer to Truth, 25 March 2025, YouTube, duration: 5.56 minutes.
-----, Philip Goff - Consciousness and Reality, Closer to the Truth, 3 May 2025, YouTube, duration: 7.29 minutes.
-----, Deepak Chopra: Toward a science of consciousness, Closer to the Truth, 22 May 2025, YouTube, duration: 9.24 minutes.
Lahey, Susan, Scientists are developing a tool that can 'see' your consciousness, Popular Mechanics, 11 October 2024.
Leslie, John and Robert Lawrence Kuhn, The Mystery of Existence, Why is there anything at all?, Wiley-Blackwell, 2013, 336p.
McDonnell, Wayne M., Analysis and assessment of the Gateway Process, US Army Intelligence and Security Command, 9 June 1983.
Mossbridge, Julia, List of Publications, Google Scholar, accessed 27 April 2025.
-----, List of Publications, ResearchGate, accessed 27 April 2025.
Mossbridge, Julia, and Robert Lawrence Kuhn, Julia Mossbridge: A Soul in the Machine, Closer to the Truth, 26 April 2025, YouTube, duration: 24.48 minutes.
Orf, Darren (a), A controversial theory says consciousness might secretly live in your brain's electric currents, Popular Mechanics, 19 November 2024.
----- (b), In a declassified CIA report [McDonnell 1983], scientists tried to move consciousness beyond the physical realm, Popular Mechanics, 11 December 2024.
----- (c), This doctor says he knows how your brain creates consciousness. New evidence suggests he's on to something, Popular Mechanics, 18 December 2024.
----- (a), Human consciousness is a 'controlled hallucination' scientist says, and AI can never achieve it, Popular Mechanics, 24 April 2025.
----- (b), This brain structure could be the key to understanding consciousness, scientists say, Popular Mechanics, 29 April 2025.
Penrose, Roger, The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds and the Laws of Physics, Oxford University Press, 1989 [1999], 640p.
Peterson, Christine, Unlocking these minds could reveal the purpose of consciousness, scientists say, Popular Mechanics, 9 April 2025. Details: Deals with the subject of animal consciousness.
Phelan, Matthew, Secret Pentagon study [McDonnell 1983] hints at reincarnation being real after finding consciousness 'never dies', Daily Mail, Australia, 7 December 2024.
Rayne, Elizabeth, The universe is intelligent, and your brain is tapping into it to form your consciousness, scientists say, Popular Mechanics, 18 April 2025. Quote: I came to believe that intelligence is not a byproduct of the brain, but a fundamental property of the universe—a kind of informational ether that certain structures, like the brain or an AI model, can tap into.
Ralls, Eric, "Mind-boggling" speed of quantum entanglement is measured for the first time, Earth.com, March 2025.
Record, Seth, What if I told you...., Facebook, 9 May 2025.
Wagh, Manasee, Your consciousness can connect with the whole universe groundbreaking new research suggests, Popular Mechanics, 26 September 2024.
-----, Alien civilisations may have already formed a new kind of AI-based consciousness, scientists say, Popular Mechanics, 22 November 2024.
-----, This breathing technique can help you unlock and altered state of consciousness, Popular Mechanics, 31 January 2025.
Wikipedia, Hard problem of consciousness, Wikipedia, accessed 26 April 2025.
Yin, Juan, Yuan Cao, Hai-Lin Yong, Ji-Gang Ren, Hao Liang, Sheng-Kai Liao, Fei Zhou, Chang Liu, Yu-Ping Wu, Ge-Sheng Pan, Li Li, Nai-Le Liu, Qiang Zhang, Cheng-Zhi Peng, and Jian-Wei Pan, Lower Bound on the Speed of Non-local Correlations without Locality and Measurement Choice Loopholes, Physics Review Letters, 110, 260407, 26 June 2013.
---------------------
Last updated: 24 May 2025
Michael Organ, Australia
Comments
Post a Comment