We learn by listening to others, and by trying to persuade them of our point of view. Viva la Dialectica! Anyway, on the unitary consciousness and death, here is a very nice excerpt from Robert Sheckley's “Dimension of Miracles”, in which the hero (Carmody) has a chat with a God (Melichrone):

"I abolished them," Melichrone said. "I did away with all life on my planet, living and otherwise, and I also deleted the Hereafter. Frankly, I needed time to think."
"Huh," Carmody said, shocked.

"In another sense, though, I didn't destroy anything or anyone," Melichrone said hastily. "I simply gathered the fragments of myself back into myself." Melichrone grinned suddenly. "I had quite a number of wild-eyed fellows who were always talking about attaining a oneness with Me. They've attained it now, that's for sure!"

"Perhaps they like it that way," Carmody suggested.

"How can they know? Melichrone said. "Oneness with Me means Me; it necessarily involves loss of the consciousness which examines one's oneness. It is exactly the same as death, though it sounds much nicer."

I'd question why oneness with Melichrone would "necessarily" involve "loss of the consciousness which examines one's oneness"; rather than the gaining of the consciousness that examines every one's onenesses in turn." But what do I know? Just lamenting how tough reality is to explain accurately. QM is obviously 'weird' - Feynman was saying this about the standard 2 slit experiment ages ago and is still difficult to appreciate, before entanglement got rediscovered as a new weird concept (“strange” is another word for “weird”). So, Greenstein unsuccessfully tries explaining 'reality' and deep physics but it’s definitely a work in progress. No real ground work. No epiphany as well. Books like these are simply used to ensure that we don't forget that “The Big Predictor” is: 1) ubiquitous, 2) omnipotent, 3) unknowable, and of course, 4) a quantum mechanical being. When I read books like these, I may then flavour my understanding by applying appropriate adjectives in my pondering...

The diversity of opinions on this serious topic reflects ironically the Everett paradigm of quantum ontology. There are as many views of reality as there are observers. Thankfully in all instances, given the depth of some comments, the interaction of the observer state wave and that of the rest of the universe is extremely asymmetrical - the universe has a great effect on the observer but the latter's effect on the universe is mercifully, infinitesimally small. There is no doubt that the philosophical implications of the developments in modern scientific thinking are in lagging mode. This is because of the extreme complexities of the formalisms created to describe the reality as seen by human observers with a certain evolved sense of perception. The modern philosopher has to tread wearily through the theory before emerging tired and almost at wit's end to be in a position to even expound a valid opinion, least of all an emerging new philosophy, on the ontological basis of the quantum world.

Nothing in d'Espagnat's paper (which I read a long time ago) or in Greenstein’s book detract from the fact that what's important in life is whether we have a roof over our head, food in our stomach, loved ones beside us and peace in our lives. And nothing changes the fact that after a few years we're all going to die and nothing will remain of our body or our consciousness. True, we may not understand ultimate reality, but it doesn't matter a hoot whether or not we do - the reality we have to deal with is challenging enough. So, until a practical application comes from this research at the limits of reality, let's keep it in perspective. Whether it wears the face of quantum physics or ancient Chinese philosophy doesn't matter - it's nothing more than an intellectual exercise, which may involve, interest and entertain us, but that's as far as it goes. And what’s with all the same paragraphs repeated in several chapters?? Me no grok. ( )