The Psilocybin Solution

which… well, you know the score by now.

Are the above proposals tenable in explaining our very special Universe? On reflection, these “you want it your way, you got it” schemes are a tad ridiculous, for in them there must be, by definition, not only an infinity of Universes but an infinity of ones like our own, differing perhaps only in some minor detail like, say, your surname. In one of this infinity of Universes, or perhaps in 582 of them, each of my readers will be called Mr. or Mrs. Banana. But, since we can never observe or experience these other Universes (apart from in Star Trek or The Twilight Zone), then what on earth is the point of invoking them? In other words, is it really legitimate to speak about that which cannot in any way be verified by direct experience? I think not.

The popular principle of Occam’s Razor (perhaps we should now call it Occam’s Laser) holds that one should always stick to the simplest theory possible whenever one has to choose among competing theories. This tenet has attained a kind of hallowed status within science. If we introduce it here, we see that there could be no more blatant departure from the use of Occam’s Razor than in an inference that a literal infinity of unobservable Universes exist. And, as Davies has pointed out, even if you do endorse one of the cunning multiple-Universe scenarios, they all fail to explain why an infinite chain of Universes exists in the first place! Basically, what all of these imaginative multiple-Universe scenarios reveal is that physicists and cosmologists are in expletively deep water when it comes to accounting for the “why” of our most creative Universe. In other words, it is becoming more and more apparent that Nature is extremely fine-tuned, yet no one really wants to invoke an intelligence to account for the fine-tuning.

Alternatively, some people just shrug their shoulders at the presence of life and consciousness in the Universe, happy to heed the Beatles and just let it be, let it be. As long as dinner is on the table and there’s a good film on TV, who cares why the reality process is so organized, coherent, and conducive to consciousness? And as for agnostics who deny that people can acquire knowledge about the ultimate nature of the Universe, unless they have explored all possible approaches to the mystery, then they are merely being lethargic, happy to shrug and shrug again at unexplainable brute facts. Alas, we have no time for such shruggers here.

I happen to think that it is a bit of an intellectual cop-out to dismiss the fine-tuning of our Universe as being no more than a brute fact to be mindlessly swallowed and forgotten about. It is not just that a Universe with specific laws, dimensions, and free-flowing energy should exist in the first place (why not dimensionless nothingness—it seems a lot more simple), and it is not just that a Universe should endure for so long. Why should the something that does exist be so creative and reach a state where it can contemplate itself through the mind of Homo sapiens? How come we ourselves are so highly attuned to the mystery?

Ultimately, the choice about the significance one attaches to the Universe is a personal one. One can only mull over the facts about reality, the rules of the game as it were, and then interpret them in the light of contemplation. One’s unique life experiences will also help shape one’s conclusions about the nature of reality. If you tend to notice and be awed by beauty and purpose within Nature wherever you might care to look, you are perhaps more likely to be dissatisfied with brute-factual explanations. What I have tried to highlight is the sheer fantastic nature of reality, for Nature deserves this at the very least. For my part, I side with Davies. There is most definitely something fishy going on both in and around us. What is more, this fishiness is very subtle and mystifying. And an immense source of wonder.

At the end of The Mind of God, Davies sticks his neck out and suggests that one cannot get at the ultimate meaning of reality by logical and rational thought alone. These are brave words coming from a respectable scientist with an award-winning reputation to defend. And Davies knows that an appeal to other forms of thought for ascertaining answers to the “why” of the Universe is controversial, to say the least. He writes:

Although many metaphysical and theistic theories seem contrived or childish, they are not obviously more absurd than the belief that the universe exists, and exists in the form it does, reasonlessly. It seems at least worth trying to construct a metaphysical theory that reduces some of the arbitrariness of the world. But in the end a rational explanation for the world in the sense of a closed and complete system of logical truths is almost certainly impossible…. If we wish to progress beyond, we have to embrace a different concept of “understanding” from that of rational explanation. Possibly the mystical path is a way to such an understanding. ^{41}

There ends Davies’ exploration of God’s mind. Whatever one concludes about the fine-tuning of the Universe, there will always be some factor involved that cannot be grasped by our normal conception since the factor in question is uncaused. If we side with the clumsy and arguably nutty multiple-Universe scenario, we must admit that the infinite multitude of Universes were not caused by anything, that they just are, were, and always will be. And if, like me, you opt for just this one remarkable Universe, there is still the matter of the initial setup, which also indicates some uncaused factor. In other words, there must always have been a timeless and eternal “something” that existed. A chain of causes and effects cannot be extended back in time indefinitely because time itself is believed to have had a beginning. Even if we smugly assume that the Universe sprang out of “nothing,” a potential of some kind, quantum or otherwise, must have always existed. In fact, such a potential must be the richest and most powerful potential imaginable, as it gave rise to everything! Thus, however we look at things, we have no choice but to invoke an eternal something that cannot be explained in terms of something else. One cannot escape this disturbing yet mildly innervating conclusion.

A Return to Entheogenic Wisdom

If we want answers to these most difficult questions, we need to be armed with new forms of consciousness. Our normal frames of thought cannot cope with notions of eternity and the like. And here we must once more face up to the potential power of Nature’s entheogenic allies in elucidating the living mystery of existence. The knowledge attained during the entheogenic experience as well as the revelatory insights gained through superconscious perception of the world arguably represent the most direct path to the kind of metaphysical understanding alluded to by Davies. As far as I am aware, Davies is not clued in to the epistemological virtues of visionary agents, for he explicitly states that he has never had a mystical experience. Open-minded scientists like himself would therefore do well to explore natural entheogens like the psilocybin mushroom, since their numinous effects are in the here and now and not limited to the pages of mystical religious literature.

Psilocybin can potentiate new and enhanced states of consciousness, and it is precisely in such a state that one may glimpse an answer or two to the riddle of reality. Of course, if you are happy with a simple god scenario in which an omnipotent being just sits around studying its creation and maybe dabbling with it now and again, then good for you. However, many of us will want to pursue the mystery in more depth, hoping to attain some deeper and less supernatural insight into the nature of reality. Without doubt, psilocybin can be utilized in this noble and justified pursuit. Entheogens work, just as mathematics works. And it is precisely because they do work and because they do allow one to confront big truths that they elicit fear and mistrust in the West. Indeed, as McKenna attested in his book The Archaic Revival, much of the New Age movement—ostensibly a movement devoted to forging spiritual awareness—is actually a move away from Nature’s psychedelic dimension.

People love seeking answers. If you were to suggest to people that the time of seeking is over and that the chore is now to face the answer, that’s more of a challenge! Anyone can sweep up around the ashram for a dozen years while congratulating themselves that they are following Baba into enlightenment. It takes courage to take psychedelics—real courage. Your stomach clenches, your palms grow damp, because you realize this is real—this is going to work. Not in twelve years, not in twenty years, but in an hour! What I see in the whole spiritual enterprise is a great number of people supporting themselves in one way or another on the basis of their lack of success. Were they ever to succeed, these enterprises would all be put out of business. But no one’s in a hurry for that.^{42}