one chapter from a book I am writing on quantum mechanics and life after death

[Guest guest]

hi, fellow strain hunters,

I do have a life separate from here, and here is part of a book I am writing; it is not for everyone, but maybe one or two of you may find it interesting.

If you want to talk about it, please I would love you too.

happy reading,

john

ANTI-THESIS

It is possible that there exist emanations that are still unknown to us.

Do you remember how electrical currents and unseen waves were

laughed at? The knowledge about man is still in its infancy.

Albert Einstein

Each historical era brings with it a view of the world and our place within it – a

world-view. The ancient pre-Socratic philosopher Pythagoras conceived the

cosmos as a manifestation of number, music and geometry. Aristotle pictured the

world as a gigantic organism that lived. The beginning of classical science

challenged the medieval view of the world, which was a fusion of Christianity and

Aristotle’s cosmology.

The Ptolemaic universe (with the earth at the centre of the universe and the sun

and other planets revolving around a stationary earth) was questioned by

Copernicus’ treatise which was published in 1543.

The Copernican universe is heliocentric (the sun is stationary and at the centre

of the solar system). Copernican’s universe went against the Aristotelian system,

accepted by the traditions of the Church that placed the earth at the centre of the

universe.

Galileo (1564-1642) rejected the Aristotelian concept that an object’s noted

characteristics -- its composition, quality, colour, smell or value -- were relevant

to its motion in space. Galileo showed that only measurable qualities – such as

mass and acceleration – could form a science of mechanics.

Galileo clashed with the Roman Inquisition because he supported Copernican’s view of the universe. Galileo defended himself against these charges by arguing that the bible was open to interpretation

But Nature, on the other hand, is inexorable and immutable; she

never transgresses the laws imposed upon her, or cares a whit

whether her abstruse reasons and methods of operation are

understandable to men. (Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo, ed. and

trans. Stillman Drake, Doubleday: New York 1957)p.182

Descartes, in finding a place for religion in the light of the discoveries of Galileo and the physicists of the 17^th century, divided the world into two distinct

realms: the material world of matter where the laws of Galileo apply and a

immaterial world of mind or soul detached from the physical world even though in

various ways this immaterial world of mind interacted with the material world.

The world became divided into two demarcated segments – the physical world

being the subject matter of science, the world of spirit or consciousness the

subject matter of theology and the Church.

Newton, following on from Descartes, proposed a model of the universe as

being like a huge clock-like mechanism. Newton’s view of the universe as an

automaton following a strictly determined path has become part of our cultural

heritage -- our world-view.

This mechanistic view of reality forms the foundation of classical science.

Classical science determined its domain to be the physical world; consciousness

lay outside of the boundaries of science.

Science was to analyse objective realities only; consciousness was too messy

and ethereal; consciousness could be left to the theologians. The scientist’s

subjectivity was irrelevant as it had nothing to the do with the scientific task of

measuring and describing the “objective” world. Besides consciousness was the

domain of theology and the Church, and to encroach on such territory was

dangerous: the Roman Inquisition was quick to enforce orthodoxy.

The Counter-reformation church was on the defensive, not only from

Protestants but from any one who was not willing to accept the Church’s

authority as final mediator and judge of all knowledge and morality. Galileo was

lucky to escape the flames.

This cultural heritage passed down to us from the Enlightenment, (and the

founding fathers of classical science: Galileo, Newton and Descartes among

others) assumes that our bodies are a type of biochemical machine that can be

completely and exhaustively described by the known laws of science; all forms of

life are subject to the same deterministic laws of physics as electrons and atoms.

Humans can be reduced to biology; biology can be reduced to chemistry, and

chemistry to physics. All aspects of the human world, therefore, can be explained

in terms of matter, molecules, atoms and their interaction.

Our rich mental world is reduced to (or thought to be nothing more than) the

affect of electromagnetic pattens in the brain. The mental world is defined away.

This is one way of solving the problem (handed down to us by Descartes) of how

mental events, such as intention, emotion, belief or thought, can interact with the

physical world of muscles, bones and atoms; in short, the mind-body problem,

that has been with us for over three hundred years.

In philosophy the term Modern philosophy is used to make a distinction from

Ancient and Medieval philosophy. The birth of modern philosophy can be placed

with the work of Descartes. Descartes, due to the scepticism stemming from the

Reformation, wanted to put scientific knowledge on a firm footing. All the

institutions of learning, at that time, were in the hands of an authoritarian church,

whose intellectual leaders were obedient to ancient authority. Descartes, in

pushing systematic doubt to its absolute limit in an attempt to find certainty,

wanted to beat the sceptics at their own game.

ertainty is different to truth; certainty is a state of mind, whereas truth is a

property of statements. He believed that if one had certain grounds for

knowledge, only then would it be possible to know truth. Descartes shared this

search for certainty with St Augustine. Who, after his conversion to Christianity,

wanted to show that human reason does have certainty; we do have access to

certain truths of which we can be certain: the truth of non-contradiction; we know

with certainty that a thing cannot be and not be at the same time. From this

certainty, we are able to logically deduce truths which are equally certain. We

know with certainty, through the principle of non-contradiction, that there can

only be one world or many worlds and if, there are many worlds, then their

numbers are either finite or infinite. We know with certainty that both alternatives

cannot be true.

St Augustine felt he had hit bedrock, for it followed that the mind is not lost in

uncertainty, for not only do we know that both possibilities can not be true,

simultaneously, but this truth of human reason is an eternal one; we know with

certainty that this truth must always be the case. St Augustine wanted to refute

Scepticism. Until his conversion, he had agreed with the Sceptics; that is, he

believed that human reason could not attain certainty. Through the principle of

non-contradiction, the mind does have access to certainty. Moreover, St

Augustine states, there is another certainty here: for I cannot doubt that I doubt;

or that I exist, to do so is to violate the principle of non-contradiction: “for we

know we are, (St Augustine makes clear) and we love our being and our

knowledge of it.”

Descartes’ emphasis was different to St Augustine’s -- Descartes was not so

much interested in refuting the Sceptics, as in wanting to find solid foundations

for the new science. He wanted a certain starting place from which he could

move on to know more, through deduction, once he had established for certain

that scientific knowledge was possible. To do this he believed it was necessary

to start the search for truth with a search for certainty.

Descartes, had this in common with St Augustine, his search for certainty was a

reaction to the tenants of Scepticism. Descartes used what has since been

called the method of “Cartesian doubt” -- he pushed scepticism to its absolute

limit. Descartes used a thought experiment and imagined a malign spirit was

intent on deceiving him, and cast aside any proposition that, in any imaginable

circumstances, he could possibly doubt. What he wanted to do was to find

indubitable propositions, and, thus, provide undoubted, rock-hard foundations on

which to build scientific knowledge.

His investigations lead him to one proposition it was simply impossible to doubt

without violating logic, and the truths of reason; which is that he is thinking. He

could have a false thought, but he could never be deceived into believing he was

thinking when he was not. A false thought is still thought, so it must be true that

he is thinking. From this proposition, Descartes inferred another one: in order to

think he must exist. This lead to his famous first certainty: Cogito ergo sum, in

English it states “I think therefore I am.”

Descartes in attaining this certainty (in the process of reaching it) has shown,

however, nothing can be inferred from it with certainty. He can only be certain

that he is a thinking substance that exists. In order to find his way back to the

physical world, and its existence, from the contents of consciousness, he has to

introduce the idea of God. The arguments he uses to do this do not concern us

here.

What concerns us here, however, is that Descartes divides the world into two

separate domains or two different sorts of entity: the immaterial, mental world,

which is without extension in space, and indivisible, (res cogitans) and the

physical world which occupies space and is divisible (res extensa). Humans,

thus, become an incorporeal mind lodged mysteriously in an extended

mechanical body. How these two very different “substances” interacted was

never answered satisfactorily by Descartes, nor an one else to this day. A

satisfactory solution to the mind-body problem has eluded philosophy to this day.

Still much work has been done since Descartes in an attempt to avoid Descartes

extreme dualism between body and mind. In recent times, one way out of this

dilemma is to simply deny the reality of consciousness by reducing it to physical

activity that happens in the brain; to say it is nothing more than electromagnetic

energy in the brain:

There are some scientists who think that consciousness is such a problem

it is best defined away. Let’s sweep it under the carpet, they say. Let’s

make out that the conscious self doesn’t really exist, that we only imagine

it – we merely hallucinate our own existence. Then the problems go away.

Thoughts can’t move electrons or arms or whatever, because there are no

thoughts – at least there are no thoughts that are things with physical

efficacy; there are only electrons and other matter frolicking about in

accordance with physical laws. (Professor Paul Davies, ibid) p84

We humans are reduced, therefore, to almost an automaton slavishly conforming

to the laws of physics. According to this materialist view, we are nothing but a

particular type of machine, one made from flesh and blood; with the human brain

conceived as a sort of computer or information processing device. Of course,

when we stop breathing, and our heart stops pumping blood, this line of

reasoning must conclude everything else also vanishes with our death.

This mechanistic view of the world came out of the Enlightenment and, the work

of such early scientists as Newton, Galileo, and Descartes. In order to classify

and understand how the automaton of nature works, then science must deal only

with objective realities, which will give access to universal “objective” truths.

These truths must be free from the taint of mind. In fact, subjectivity or

consciousness has no place in classical science, where the objective is to simply

report what is observed, without the embellishment of assumptions, value,

morality, belief, preconception or expectation -- all of which are the by-products

of consciousness.

Our cultural imagination (its world-view of how the way the world “is”) does not

have a place for such concepts as survival after death or precognition. This

materialist conception of reality conceives the world in terms of mechanistic laws

based on causality. The universe is also modelled( after Newton) on the

conception of a clock-like machine that ticks along its mechanistic way, with all

forms of matter, including what happens in our brains, obeying laws of cause

and effect just like balls on a billiard table, with every event being determined by

its antecedent cause.

Modern theoretical physics, in showing us our ignorance about the physical

world has at least opened a space for the possibility of such things as survival

after death, and precognition. Classical science assumes all of reality to be

enmeshed in a network of causal relations. Its paradigm of knowledge demands,

for a sequence to have any meaning that a physical causal relation must be

proved to exist between various phenomena. If a physical causal relation can not

be shown to exist between events, (such as in the case of precognition) then

these phenomena are merely random and have no meaning. Classical science is

mechanistically deterministic.

The findings of modern theoretical physics have demonstrated that this

mechanistic, deterministic view of the world held by classical science has only a

limited validity. At the centre of the classical view is a firm belief in causality.

Descartes, who he was a Rationalist philosopher, believed some aspects of the

world could be known a priori (before experience) by reason. He believed

causality was one such concept. Other philosophers have criticised the concept

of causality: Hume (who lived from 1711-76) was one such early philosopher.

Hume argued the outside world is always inferred and never perceived directly.

The outside world impinges on our senses causing transmissions to move along

particular neural pathways. This information is then interpreted by the brain. We

have no direct access to the world, as all our knowledge of the world is mediated

through our sense experiences.

Hume argued that human experience is a series of impressions, and that

consciousness contributes a crucial element to our knowledge of the external

world. All knowledge comes to us through the senses, and we can only be aware

of what appears to consciousness. We can never have an unmediated access to

the real, what Kant called the thing-in-itself. All our experience of the world is

mediated through our sense-experience which the brain then interprets. There

can, therefore, be no external world for us separate from our awareness of it.

Hume argues that we can have no real knowledge of an objective rule governed

world; as without the contribution of consciousness, there can be no world at all

for us. Hume argued that such concepts as causality can not be inferred from

our observation of the external world, for the mind interprets the world in its own

way.

He argues, instead, that because one thing follows another, we can not infer that

the first event caused the second; to do so, is to go further than our observations

allow. If we infer one event caused the other, then this is because we habitually

conjoin them together and project onto nature “associations of the mind”. Hume

argues that our belief in causality can not be rationally justified by an appeal to

observation. We never observe causality but only one event that is conjoined

with another. To infer one event caused the other is to go further than

observation permits.

The experimental results of modern physics put in question any mechanistic

model of the universe, and any cultural assumptions that may be based on such

a model. It may be some time, though, before our cultural presuppositions about

what constitutes the world, or reality, catch up with the latest discoveries of the

new science, especially theoretical physics. I believe that the 21^st century will

bring with it a new way of conceptualising the world and our place in it -- a new

world-view. This new world-view will totally transform the way we view the world

and our place in it.

That, however, is somewhere in the future. As I said before, I cannot give a

rational explanation for the events I intend to describe. What I hope to do here is

to question some widely held cultural assumptions about the world; to put them

under suspicion by showing that they are assumptions only and not certainties.

In this way I hope to at least open a space in the minds of those who may be

sceptical; for them to accept the possibility of the sort of happenings which I shall

relate. I know they happened; but my reader may be justifiably sceptical.

I am writing this for Debbie, to tell her story: how she lived her life and how she died. To do this, I can only talk of the experiences Debbie and I shared. If these cultural assumptions are accepted by my reader, then a lot of what I am writing about – Debbie and the last months of her life -- will not be given the attention I believe it deserves, for my reader may merely discard it.

Many of the implicit values and beliefs of classical science form the bedrock of our cultural imagination, and affect the way we see the world and our place in it. As part of our cultural imagination, these beliefs are accepted implicitly; we assume them to be almost “laws of nature” -- believing their veracity to be based on solid, scientific evidence. They are considered to be just “common-sense”; to be true, an exact representation or copy of the “real” world (whatever that could be).

Classical science certainly can not prove the type of phenomena, which I am about to describe in the next chapter are true, but then it can not prove them false either; In fact, science can not prove the truth or falsity of any assertion. Science deals with states of affairs within the empirical world; it deals with probabilities not truth or falsity. Proof is the domain of pure mathematics and logic, not science.

Classical science assumes that all of reality consists in of physical network of causal relations. This has been deduced from the known laws of nature -- it must be the case -- but it is an assumption nevertheless -- something that is taken as being self-evident, and, therefore, is not questioned. It cannot be questioned too much, as without the assumption of a mechanistic causality the whole edifice of classical science begins to wobble and is in danger of falling down.

The many coincidences and other events that relate to Debbie’s life, how she lived her life as well as how she died, cannot have a reality in this mechanistic, deterministic model of reality. I experienced these happenings; I know they happened. These events, however, can not be linked by any mechanistic causal sequence -- there is an objective sequence but it is one of meaning, and, not a physical causal chain. To understand this meaningful relation we have to introduce mind or consciousness into the sequence.

Mind or consciousness has no place in classical science -- Newton and company-- agreed that consciousness lay outside of the bounds of science. What happened inside the mind, in their view, is irrelevant to the objective task of measuring and describing the physical universe – classical science has no use for the mind except as a blank recording device.

This should not surprise us; the 17^th century and early 18^th century saw the development of British empiricism. In opposition to the Rationalist school of thought that had its genesis in the philosophy of Plato and includes many others including Descartes, Empiricist philosophers, such as Locke, Hume and others, argued that all our concepts are derived from experience. There can be no concepts or ideas that are innate at birth; they are, instead, built up by the mind mediated by our sense experience of the world to form ideas. The mind, through association, recognises differences and similarities between our sense-datum, and in the process forms concepts about the world.

As Locke put it, the mind at birth, is simply “white paper, void of all characters”: only sense experience can mark this sheet and provide it with ideas, which are built up in the mind to form ideas from sense-experience through association. A tabula rasa or blank slate was the Empiricist’s conception of the mind. Sense experience wrote on this blank slate with the pen of nature to produce ideas. The mind’s role in this process was passive, until it had ideas with which to work. Once the mind had associations to work with then it can built ideas, some of such have no physical existence; or imaginary forms such as, a Unicorn.

Classical science in sharing this assumption which Empiricism sees the that mind as being only as a passive recording device; that must remain separate from, or mirror, its subject-matter. The role of consciousness is as an observer and measurer. The scientist’s role is seen as a passive one. This methodology uses inductive logic (inductive logic, in opposition to deductive logic, reasons from a group of particulars to a universal proposition) based on direct observation, measurement and accurate description of nature. It is assumed that if one observes measures and describes accurately enough, then what each instance shares with others would shine forth, and a general, universal or objective proposition will be found.

No universal propositions can be drawn from the incidences I wish to discuss. On the contrary, I wish to say that, although essentially unique, singular and unrepeatable, these many coincidences that weave their way through Debbie’s last few months of life and her death are pregnant with meaning. It is true no direct physical causal chain can be demonstrated between these events, nor do I wish to induce any general truths from these incidences, yet they display an order of meaning that lights the darkness and fills me with hope, courage and faith.

It is also true that these events could never satisfy the necessary and sufficient conditions to be recognised as scientific truth. Scientific truth deals only with what can be shown to be universally and eternally true; science deals with generalities and has no room for the unique, particular or the unrepeatable. To classical science such phenomena are random and, therefore, can have no value in its search for universal and eternal truths.

The truth of classical science, however, is only one form of truth, (in fact, in logic, induction is seem as being an invalid form of reasoning for one can never be sure that all instances of a class have been observed – it only takes one white crow to prove the proposition false that “all crows are black”).

Classical science’s paradigm of truth can be traced back to the ancient Greeks, and in particular Plato. The scientific revolution involved a shift in how the world was conceived. Scientists turned aside from Aristotle and other ancient philosopher’s conceptions of truth, or knowing, towards a Platonic one. To Plato sense experience can only give us access to the transitory, illusion, the particular and not truth or knowledge. In Plato’s epistemology mathematics represents an ideal form of truth. Numbers participate in “Being” in that they are abstract, eternal, and universal; separate from the world of becoming. For Plato, truth or knowledge is a process of abstraction away from the concrete, changeable particular -- the ephemeral -- towards what is universal, abstract, unchanging and eternal.

What gives these many incidences, that occurred during the last months of Debbie’s life, their meaning and truth is the very thing that would disqualify them from science or from Plato’s view of truth. These events are empirical; they exist in a public world common to us all. What gives them their value, however, is their singularity, their uniqueness, their “random” yet necessary character.

These “random” events have their own necessity, or truth; they give meaning to the most unique, particular and exquisite sequence in the universe, a solitary human life. The truth they uncover is not universal, nor is it eternal, but a truth about a particular life: Debbie’s life and her death. If as Aristotle asserts the universal is embodied in the particular, then general truths can be deduced from the happenings I intend to discuss, but that is not my purpose, or main concern, here. I am not interested in general truths, but in what these happening have to say about one life – Debbie’s life. Once again I appeal to the authority of modern physics, and words of Professor Davies:

We observe that nature is ordered in a law-like manner; we are not

presented with cosmic anarchy. The order we express in terms of

laws, such as the laws of physics, which in some way compel

matter and energy to do certain things, they make it necessary. For

example, when we say that a stone falls to the ground because of

the law of gravity, we imply that the stone necessarily falls. Hence

necessity – it is necessarily so. However, there exists alongside this

necessity what we might call probabilistic events, chance events,

things which are not seemingly legislated for. They just happen.

(Paul Davies, ibid) p.39

When I pointed out one or two similar occurrences to Debbie she was a little sceptical: I remember saying to her “life is full of random events, but true wisdom consists in being able to know which ones have a meaning and which do not”. Near the end of her life, Debbie sensed something in these coincidences I missed -- her imminent end. These events do, however, show forth an underlying pattern and meaning in Debbie’s life and her death. Above all else, I see this as the final measure of their truth.

Still I realise that what I have been speaking about, and the events which I am going to relate, may stretch the credibility of some readers. Such readers may feel I am making too much of them and that these events have to be merely random as such things are not possible.

I wish to assert that such phenomena are real, and give a rational, coherent explanation of why I hold this view -- a rational, coherent justification for my view that does not contradict the findings of modern science. Central to this is our conception of time. As St Augustine stated we know what time is until we have to analyse it, or define it, then it seems to slip through our conceptual net. Instead, I appeal to the experimental evidence gained from the new science to build the theoretical framework which must be assumed by my belief in such phenomena and their existence.

Of course, this is for the benefit of the sceptical reader; I do not need to justify what I know through experience to be true. Those that have experience of such phenomena will need no convincing; those sceptical others, that have had no such experience, will probably never be convinced no matter how strong my arguments, or the documented evidence. It is my experience; but as a philosopher, if I claim to hold a point of view, then I must be able to give rational, non-contradictory, reasons why I do so.

In our age scientific knowledge is seen to be the final arbitrator of truth. I shall, therefore, have a look at classical science’s theory of knowledge, and, why this theory of knowledge discards the type of phenomena which I shall be describing, and how the new science questions the basic assumptions of classical science; in doing so, the new science has shown how strange and mysterious reality can be.

Scientific knowledge is concerned with the description of regularities that occur within nature. As the famous philosopher of science George Santayana stated, science traces “the thin red vein of order in the flux of experience.” Iron rusts in air but gold does not. Chickens lay eggs but cats do not. Lightening is followed by thunder. Science, however, is not interested in these regularities just for the fun of it, but because they allow the scientist to predict future events. If one can predict when certain events will happen, then the course of these events can be controlled to some extent. If we know when a serious storm is approaching, then we can take precautions to prevent loss of life or property damage. By observing that those who are in close proximity to others who have a cold will also get a cold, then we infer that John can be prevented from catching a cold by staying away from Sam who has one.

Science is concerned with the search for genuine invariants in nature, for regularities without exception, so that scientific truth consists of propositions which state: “Whenever such and such conditions are fulfilled, then this kind of thing must happen.” These are the truths of reason that form the basis of St Augustine and Descartes’ certainty. In science such statements are called “Laws of Nature.” Laws of nature, although empirical, form a smaller class of propositions to empirical statements in general. The statement “it is sunny today” can be checked by looking through the window – by observation of the world. If it is sunny outside, then it is a true empirical statement, but this statement does not come anywhere near satisfying the necessary and sufficient conditions for being a law of nature.

Laws of nature must be universally true; that is, it must apply to all members of a given class without exception: all iron rusts when exposed to oxygen is a universal proposition. As scientific laws are universally true, they apply to all times and places, their claim extends into the future, and, hence, their basis for prediction.

Scientific laws are universal statements that display a high level of generality, since they must apply to all members of a given class. They are formed by direct observation of states of affairs in the world or by deduction from known laws. Science does not consist of singular statements: the hard sciences, chemistry and physics, makes no reference to the motions of particular bodies (except by way of example) but is interested in the motions of bodies in general. Chemistry does not tell us about this particular piece of iron, or that particular vessel of chorine, but is interested in knowledge that has such a high level of generality that it relates to all instances of iron or chorine gas.

The hard sciences, say in opposition to a soft science such as psychology, are in an advantageous position in that they are able to achieve this level of generality only because scientific laws can be stated in terms of the smallest number of conditions; these laws, therefore, describe only a minute part of reality, while all other aspects of it are excluded.

For instance, if one wants to describe at what velocity objects fall, then one can ignore most of the universe, and take into account only a few variables: the object’s mass and speed. Galileo did this when he tested for himself Aristotle’s contention that bodies of different weights fall at different speeds. Nobody before Galileo had bothered to question Aristotle’s authority, and Galileo’s measurements indicated that Aristotle was wrong; each body increased its speed at the same rate no matter what its weight. If there is a difference, say between a lead ball and feathers, then this difference is due to air resistance. The Aristotelian tradition is firmly rationalist, as it holds one can work out all the laws of nature by pure thought. Galileo, in questioning this tradition, became one of the founding fathers of classical science.

In psychology, by contrast, which deals with human behaviour, it is not possible to limit these conditions, in such a way, for not only is the subject matter a living person, but it is also very difficult to know what might not turn out to be relevant. A small event that occurred in childhood, even though you may not remember it, may influence your behaviour today and cause you to react differently from others to a given stimulus.

Scientific laws can have such a high level of generality because only a very tiny part of the world is made reference to, while the rest is ignored. Science, however, consists of much more than laws of nature, it is a body of knowledge that seeks to explain the world, and in doing so it makes certain assumptions about the nature of reality, based on its theory of knowledge.

Science attempts to explain the world, and to do this it forms theories. A theory is a body of propositions about the world which explain certain events or phenomena. These propositions may not be directly observed by our senses; they are, instead, inferred as the theory explains what is observed.

Science explains certain phenomena as being an exemplification of general law-like behaviour; it then offers a theory that can take account of them. It does not necessarily follow, however, that the theory mirrors reality, for any phenomena can be explained in any number of ways. The totality of the world is broken down into smaller sections and these are covered by partial theories. Each theory describes and predicts a limited class of observations, neglecting the other aspects of the totality. Each theory must then gain acceptance by the scientific community. Scientific knowledge is not produced in a vacuum, nor is it, as it once was, produced by isolated scientists:

I shall take the simpleminded view that a theory is just a model of

the universe, or a restricted part of it, and a set of rules that relate

quantities in the model to observations that we make. It exists only

in our minds and does not have any other reality (whatever that

might mean). A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two require-

ments: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on

the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements,

and it must make definite predictions about the results of future

observations. ((S. Hawking, A Brief History of Time,

Bantam Books: Great Britain, 1991.) p.10

Not all accepted scientific theories satisfy all these conditions. For example, Darwin’s theory of evolution, which includes the idea of random mutation, can give no accurate predictions as to which species will survive through natural selection and which will not.

Thomas Kuhn’s characterization of science (he is a well known philosopher of science) rests upon the concept of socialization, or training. Kuhn argues that a budding scientist is socialized into both the formal and tacit knowledge of a disciple or speciality. He states that the overarching paradigm (a paradigm is an implicit network of underlying assumptions that hold the disciple together, and is part of the intellectual and cultural assumptions of that time) defines both what is seen as an interesting problem and what is taken to be a valid scientific solution to that problem, by the scientist and his peers.

The hard sciences are able to form laws about the world because they are dealing with inert matter, and are able to exclude all other variables, except the few they wish to quantify. Such laws refer to only an infinitesimal part of the universe; hence, the ability of such laws to have such universality and generality. From such laws, science forms various theories about reality, but the underlying assumptions that form such theories are part of a much wider conceptual network, which includes not only the general state of scientific knowledge at that time, but also the intellectual and cultural assumptions of a particular time.

The 18^th Century German philosopher, Hegel once said that “What is well known is for that very reason not known”; in other words, when something well known it is not known for the very simple reason that it is implicit, unquestioned, and simply taken for granted. One is blind to it, as it is assumed as a universal and self-evident truth; it is, therefore, not questioned, but is simply taken for granted. Many unquestioned assumptions form the foundation of many classical scientific theories (as well as forming our cultural heritage) are implicit, and taken for granted by most of us. One such assumption is that reality in its entirety is nothing but a network of mechanistic causal relations that follows rules not that different from billiard balls, as they strike each other and move around the pool-table.

The explanatory power of Newton’s theory of gravity, and the success of other 17^th Century scientific theories, led the French scientist the Marquis de Laplace to argue that all aspects of the universe are completely deterministic. Laplace suggested (as he assumed reality to be nothing but a network of causal relations) that the goal of science should be a set of scientific laws that would allow the scientist to predict everything that could happen in the universe, if the scientist (or some supernatural entity) could know the complete state of the universe at any one particular time. He also assumed that a similar set of deterministic laws governed all aspects of reality, including each individual’s behaviour. Laplace’s assumptions have become part of our cultural heritage, and were seen as truths of science until the early part of the 20^th Century, and the birth of the new science. These truths of classical science, however, lead us to a deep problem that has been with us since the ancient Greeks: the dilemma of determinism.

Classical science explains reality as a causal network, where each event is caused by its antecedent; there will always, therefore, be a law whereby one can say that given the antecedent conditions, what happened was the only thing that could have happened. The Pre-Socratic philosophers believed that the world could be explained in a way that was based on the truths of reason; that is, a logical, necessary system of general ideas, whereby every element of the world could be rationally understood. This, with the success of science and technology, has lead to the assumption that nature as an automaton.

The Seventeenth century’s advances in physics; along with its discovery of the laws of nature, at that time was seen as uncovering the essential role of an omnipotent God as the legislator of nature. It was thought that the uncovering of nature’s deterministic laws brought humanity closer to God’s timeless point of view. The birth of classical science came before the French revolution; its genesis was shared with the age of the divine right of kings, along with a belief in an Omniscient and Omnipotent God. In such an age any concept of democracy was considered to be pure treason to be punished by death.

The Ancient Greeks not only gave us the concept of logical necessity, but also the concept of democracy. Our ideal of a democratic society assumes human freedom, choice, creativity or novelty; that humans are responsible for the decisions they make, and the actions they take. In the realm of human action, we may be influenced by causal pressures but we are not determined by them. If we are to make any sense out of our democratic values, then we must assume that we choose freely; we make a free decision that is not completely determined by prior conditions. Here it is not so much things that happen to us (for here we may be determined), but what we do (our actions, our moral choices) with what is done to us. Since classical science wishes to explain all aspects of our world as a determined automaton, based on mechanistic causal relations, then these two ideals clash and are illogical or contradictory.

Classic science leaves us with this contradiction for there is no room for the concept of consciousness or free-will, in its mechanistic world-view. If we assume that our bodies are just machines, our mind a computer, with each aspect being subject to the same mechanistic laws as the physical world, then every aspect of our life is mechanistically determined -- for classical science assumes all reality to be caught in a net of causal relations.

We have, therefore, no creativity, no free-will, and can not be held responsible for our moral choices or our acts. Our legal and democratic system assumes that each person has free will – the ability to make choices amongst possibilities, and to assume moral responsibility for our actions. If we assume each of us is determined in every aspect of life, then this assumption makes a mockery of our political and legal system as well as our sense of moral responsibility. If, on the one hand, we accept some concept of free will and personal responsibility, then to hold this view; while, also asserting that reality consists in a network of mechanistic causal relations, involves us in a contradiction.

To be logically consistent, we must choose either some concept of free will, or a view of human reality based on deterministic causal relations. We can not have it both ways and be logically consistent, for classical science states that all of nature is an automaton, including human experience. The values we hold so dearly in a democracy, such as freedom of choice, novelty, or spontaneous action, can only are seen as illusions in the ideology of Classical science, or are seen to be real only from our limited point of view. As I stated above, we do not have total freedom nor are we totally determined, we have degrees of freedom. This is how things have been in my life; it is also consistent with the experimental evidence of the new science; although my assumption is totally inconsistent with the basic tenants of classical science.

At the end of the nineteenth century, these assumptions about the dynamic nature of the universe were accepted by all scientists. The world is consistent and ordered; all things in the universe moved continuously, in a way covered by the laws of motion. The laws of motion applied to all objects (including the atomic and subatomic levels) in the universe; motion was determined by prior causes, with everything following on in a predictable, causal manner. The universe along with motion could be analysed and broken down into smaller parts. Each of these smaller parts moved together to form the machine of the universe. The complexity of the universe could be understood by breaking down its complexity, and looking at the simple movement of its various parts. The universe, and its totality, consisted of smaller sections, with the whole not being greater than its parts. Space and time were fixed, separate, absolute, never changing and, therefore, universal constants. The observer was totally separate from what was being observed, and, through observation, could have no effect what so ever on experimental evidence. These assumptions lasted until the end of the 19^th century. With the birth of the 20^th Century, it was not very long before all these assumptions would be questioned and seen to be problematic.

The new science came to the fore with the publishing of Einstein’s general theory of relativity. (Einstein’s second paper was called On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. It was published in 1915.) This new theory argued that time is not absolute as assumed in Newton’s theory, but is relative depending on what speed one is travelling at -- one’s frame of reference. In other words, the theory of general relativity argued against the notion of an absolute time.

Einstein’s equations proved that time slows down as you approach the speed of light, and that time is non-existent at light speed. There is a constant in the universe, but it is the speed of light and not absolute time or space. Classical science had assumed time to be constant, unchanging and absolute. (“What is well known is for that very reason not known”.) Einstein dared to argue that time was not absolute or constant, but that time is relative. Newton’s notion of the universe as a giant machine was under attack and now was cracking at the seams, and with Newton’s understanding of the universe under strain, a long with the whole edifice of classical science. The grand edifice of classic began to display crack and crumble. It no longer seemed so conceptually secure and so it began to wobble.

Very accurate observations of the planet Mercury revealed a small difference between its motion and the predictions of Newton’s theory of gravity. That Einstein’s relativity theory predictions matched what was observed, while Newton’s did not, was one of the reasons why this new theory was accepted by other scientists.

Newton described the force of gravity through a body’s mass. The law of gravity states that gravity is a force of attraction between bodies that is proportional to the mass of each body and in inverse proportion to the distance between them. After 1915, and Einstein’s general theory of relativity, space and time become elastic quantities that interact, so that when a body moves it effects the curvature of space-time and, conversely, the structure of space-time effects the way in which bodies move.

Time, in Newton’s own words, is an “absolutely true and mathematical time (that) flows equably without relation to anything external”. To Newton (and all that followed him) time and space were universal separate entities; while, there was no absolute position in space, space and time were believed to be absolute and the same for everyone regardless of what speed one may be travelling, or one’s frame of reference.

Einstein argued, in his special theory of relativity, that the speed of light is a constant in the universe, and he went on to describe mathematically what happens when something travels near or at the speed of light. Not only did Einstein’s equations show that space and time were not absolute, but that energy and matter were also not absolute, but could be converted into each other. Einstein’s famous formula, E=mc² (where E=energy; m=mass; and c² = the speed of light squared) revealed the interrelationship between matter and energy.

His theory states that as objects approach the speed of light, time slows down, length shortens, but mass increases; as energy and mass are convertible into each other. Light is able to travel at 299,800 kilometres per second because photons have no mass; the photon has no mass and experiences no passage through time; it is pure energy.

Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light because as a body approaches the speed of light, it gains ever increasing mass (E=mc²). Mass is a measure of inertia (effort to change in motion); the more speed or motion an object has, the harder it is to get it to go faster as the object has more mass. At near the speed of light the object becomes infinitely massive, and needs an infinite amount of force to go faster. Einstein’s theory states that space, time, energy, mass, motion and gravity are all relative to a particular frame of reference.

Einstein’s theory, however, was inconsistent with Newton’s theory of gravity, as Newton’s theory stated that objects attracted each other with a force proportional to their mass. This meant that if one object moved, the force on the other object would change instantaneously. Einstein, however, stated that nothing in the universe could move faster than the speed of light, and, therefore, gravitational effects could not travel with infinite velocity as Newton’s theory implied.

Einstein argued, instead, that gravity is not a force, but results from the fact that space and time is not flat, they are not separate entities as was previously assumed by Newton and others, but that space and time are curved, or “warped” by the distribution of mass and energy in them. The more mass an object has the greater it will warp the surrounding space, and the greater will be the gravitational influence it will exert on other bodies. All objects warp space but the extent to which this happens depends on the object’s mass. This spatial warping decreases as the distance from the large mass increases. A large object’s mass will not only distort space, but, as time and space can not be separated, it will also distort time. The greater the mass of an object, the more time will slow down as something approaches it.

Einstein equations showed, therefore, that space and time are not separate but are joined together to form a fourth-dimension called space-time. The earth, for example, does not move on a curved orbit by the force of gravity; it, instead, follows a straight line in curved space, which is called a geodesic. A geodesic is the shortest (or longest) path between two points. The mass of the sun curves space-time, so that although the earth follows a straight line in four-dimensional space-time, it looks to us as though it moves along a circular orbit in three-dimensional space.

Not only did Einstein’s theory introduce the understanding of time as being relative, but for once the observer or a frame of reference had to be taken into account. The speed of light is the only constant in the universe; it travels at the same speed regardless of its source or frame of reference. The notion that the universe can simply be recorded by mind, by an observer who is separate from what is being observed was shattered by the work of Einstein. In Einstein’s universe each person’s measurement of time and space is different, as it depends on where the person is and how fast they are moving; their frame of reference:

Before 1915, space and time were thought of as a fixed arena in

which events took place, but which was not affected by that

happened in it. . . .

The situation, however, is quite different in the general theory

of relativity. Space and time are now dynamic quantities: when a

body moves, or a force acts, it affects the curvature of space and

time – and in turn the structure of space-time affects the way in

which bodies move and forces act. (S. Hawking, A Brief History of Time,

Bantam Books: Great Britain, 1991.) p.36

Marquis de Laplace’s notion of a deterministic universe; his dream of a supernatural agency being able to predict everything that could happen, if this being knew the state of the universe at one time, can now be seen to be unachievable. Marquis de Laplace’s deterministic model, centred as it is on a network of causal relations, assumes the separation of space and time, as well there being one universal time. Given Einstein’s understanding of the universe, what could it possibly mean to know the state of the universe at any one time, as there is no universal, unitary time? Another development that made it very clear that Laplace’s goal could never be achieved was Heisenberg’s formulation of his famous uncertainty principle in 1926.

The movement and mass of subatomic particles is described by quantum mechanics. It is a mathematical system developed during the 1920’s and 30’s and is alien to the theory of general relativity. It describes what interactions take place at the sub-atomic level, and is centred on Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.

Einstein’s equations showed that many things that were thought to be absolute were relative to a particular frame of reference. Relativity deals with the very large, while quantum mechanics deals with the very small, the subatomic level. Not only do events depend on a frame of reference at the subatomic level, but there is no absolute certainly at this level; all science can attain are degrees of probability.

Moreover, the observer, or the scientists’ frame of reference, can not be separated from the results of an experiment. The uncertainty principle states that atomic and nuclear particles are distributed in an uncertain and random fashion. Moreover, the probable outcome of any event (a particle’s position or speed) depends on what the scientist is looking for. The subatomic world, and even the world beyond it, has no independent structure at all until it is defined by an observer:

The reason is that in quantum physics the elements are not physical

themselves; they do not exist as objects. Their very existence de-

pends on the idea of their existence beforehand. They are treated

as “tendencies to exist” rather than as already existing possibilities

like the sides of a flipped coin. In the quantum world the quantum

coin’s sides do not appear unless someone calls for them to

appear. (Fred Alan Wolf, ibid) p.17

Newton firmly believed that light was a stream of particles, but about one hundred years after Newton, Thomas Young performed a famous experiment in which he showed light had wave-like characteristics. When light waves are forced to travel through small areas, the interference pattern that is created can only be understood if light is viewed as a wave and not a particle. Many scientists at the time refused to accept Yong’s results; he was later vindicated by the work of two other physicists that came later: James Maxwell and Heinrich Hertz. The understanding of light’s nature was eventually changed so that it was seen to be an electromagnetic wave.

Due to this, and a number of a number of other phenomena that classical physics could not explain, it was discovered that the universe is not constant as was once thought; electromagnetic energy is emitted in chunks of energy which the physicist Planck named quanta. Here rather than nature being like a steady flow of constant phenomena it is more like throwing tennis balls, with each ball being a unit or quanta of energy. Whereas in classical physics, nature was seem as being continuous, now nature has come to be seen to be grainy or jerky, as each quantum is a multiple of a minimum amount, with each one jumping from one quantum amount to another without passing state in between.

When referring to light these units of energy were called, by Einstein, photons. It was discovered that light had a dual nature – not only could it behave like a wave, but it could also display the properties of a particle. It was made clear that all electromagnetic waves behaved in a contradictory manner, and could display the properties of particles or of waves. This phenomenon is called the wave/particle duality.

Light sometimes acts like a wave and at other times like a particle, and which aspect light displays depends on how it is looked at by an observer. When a particle is looked for a particle is found, and when the physicist looks for a wave, a wave is found. Such a paradox was very strange for classical physics to handle, as it assumed matter was made out of particles that behaved like billiard balls, with each ball having a definite position in space and measurable speed, with each balls’ behaviour acting precisely according to the laws of physics; such laws reflected mechanistic causal relations; i.e., if such and such conditions are fulfilled, then this kind of thing must happen.

In the domain of the subatomic, mechanistic causal relations no longer applied. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle states that at the subatomic level, nature does not follow deterministic laws. All that can be formulated are statistical laws; i.e., twenty percent of the time a particle goes this way or has this speed; forty percent of the time, it goes that way or has that speed. At the subatomic level, and beyond, it is nature that is not determined; and not merely the scientist’s knowledge which is incomplete.

In classical physics everything is continuous: momentum is an even flow through space; energy comes in a steady and infinite range of amounts; light undulates in a continuous electromagnetic wave. In classical physics there is no minim amount of anything; events follow a smooth flow, like water flowing from a tap. Quantum mechanics challenged this view of reality. In quantum mechanics energy, light, force and motion only come in certain multiples of minim amounts, the quanta. This is not a smooth flow as classical physics assumed, but, instead, the universe shows itself to be mottled, grainy, spread out and uneven, as it jumps from one quantum state to another, without traversing the any state in between. The exact state of things between these quantum leaps is unknowable.

A quantum leap is a discontinuous transition between quantum states. An electron in one energy orbit in an atom jumps instantly into another energy orbit, while emitting or absorbing energy as it does so. It is discontinuous – there is no in between state, it just happens, and it takes no time for this event to occur. Such leaps occur at random, selecting from the possibilities available to the quantum entity according to the rules of probability. A quantum leap, therefore, is a discontinuous, sudden change in a system and it occurs at random. An electron cannot exist between quantum states; there is no in between state; the quantum leaps in and out of existence. How does this quantum state appear out of no where? Where does it go? How does something get from point A to point B, without transgressing what is in between these two states? The subatomic world is full of paradoxical features: energy is absorbed and then is given out in quantum chunks; the basic stuff of the universe is not smooth or soft but has a rough, lumpy, nebulous, vague or grainy texture; moreover, causality breaks down at the quantum level. Certain atomic and subatomic events appear to occur without being determined by any set of prior conditions.

Not only does matter no longer have clear outlines, positioned in an absolute time and space, but somehow paradoxically the observer plays an active part in what is being observed. This lead to a active debate, between Niels Bohr (a founding father of quantum mechanics) and Einstein, that went on for around 28 years. This debate was centred on one question: “Does the world exist outside of us, separately from us and our conceptions of it, or does the mind interpret the world so that in some sense, we create the world through the concepts we use to understand it?” The debate most physicists believe was won by Bohr. Einstein stated that quantum theory was contradicted every reasonable idea about reality. He called the quantum world “spooky”. Bohr’s reply to Einstein was: “Your idea of reality is too limited”.

When it comes to the subatomic world and beyond to the macroscopic world, science does not deal with immutable laws, with certainty; even physics, the hardest of the sciences, can deal only with probable events. In the words of the Nobel Laureate, Ilya Prigogine, from his book, The End of Certainty: Time, Chaos and the New Laws of Nature (The Free Press: New York, 1996):

What is now emerging is an “intermediate” description that lies somewhere

between the two alienating images of a deterministic world and an arbitrary

world of pure chance. Physical laws lead to a new form of intelligibility as

expressed by irreducible probabilistic representations. When associated with

instability, whether on the microscopic or macroscopic level, the new laws of

nature deal with the possibility of events, but do not reduce these events to

deducible, predictable consequences. This delimitation of what can

and cannot be predicted and controlled may well have satisfied Einstein’s

quest for intelligibility. p.189

Einstein could never accept the findings of quantum mechanics, even though his research helped to lay its foundations. Einstein could not accept the conceptual framework of quantum mechanics; its randomness -- in his words: “God does not play dice with the universe.”

General relativity is a classical theory; the universe is explained in terms of particles and their affect on each other, it predicts a single path for each particle; the other great scientific theory of the twentieth century -- quantum mechanics, states that there is always an element of randomness, chance or uncertainty in the universe; it is always a matter of either/or; if one quantifies the particles position, then one can not be sure of its speed; or contrary, if one quantifies the particles speed, then one can not be sure of its position. Einstein spent the rest of his life attempting to unify these two theories, but he was unable to do so.

No physicist has yet been able to unify the quantum world with relativity. (String theory is one such promising attempt and it posits up to 10 dimensions.) Stephen Hawking follows on from Einstein in his attempt to unify these two theories, which include the four forces of physics: gravitation, electromagnetism, the strong force and the weak force, into a theory of everything or TOE:

In classical physics, one can describe the state of a system by giving

the positions and speeds of all the particles at one time. In quantum

physics, on the other hand, particles do not have precisely defined

positions and speeds. Instead, the most complete description one

can give is what is called the wave function. This can be thought of

as giving the probabilities for finding the particles in different

positions. One does not also have to specify the speeds of the

particles. These are determined up to a prescribed amount of

uncertainty by the wave function. (Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History

of Time. A Reader’s Companion ed., Stephen Hawking: New York,

Bantam Books. 1992) p.123

One of quantum mechanics most revolutionary findings is that all the constituents of matter are both wave-like and particle-like at the same time. Although this notion may violate the logical principle of non-contradiction, it is based on experimental evidence. One aspect can not be privileged over the other, the two compliment each other. This wave/particle duality is necessary for any full, accurate description of the universe and electromagnetic energy.

The wave/particle duality leads to Bohr’s concept of complementarity. Bohr stated that the reality of subatomic particles required more than one point of view. The scientist can only look at nature one dimension at a time, this is a limitation built into our human perspective. The paradox of the particle/wave duality highlights an innate limitation in our mind-set. What the scientist finds depends on what is being looked for, and that is why light and all energy, along with matter, can be seen as quantum chunks or as waves; it depends on the context, what is being looked for:

Complementarity makes it easier to accept the innate limits on perception

and measurement. Each way of seeing only goes so far. In the same way

that we need two eyes to see depth (combination of two distinct images),

we need more than one perspective to see something in all its dimensions.

(Gary Moring, The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Theories

of the Universe: Indianapolis, Alpha Books. 2002) p.191

Quantum mechanics was developed to explain certain phenomena that could not be explained by classical theories. Physicists have come to a description of matter and energy which is complementary, i.e., as being both a particle and a wave. It has been found that no one description is a universal account of the nature of light, energy or matter. The quantum universe is a place of probability, uncertainty, complementarity, and paradox, and unlike classical explanations, it can not be understood as a network of causal relations; the quantum world is not mechanistic – it can not be understood in terms of particles and causal relations. The quantum world can not be modelled on the classical assumption of a clock-like machine that ticks along its mechanistic way, obeying the law of cause and effect, somewhat like balls on a billiard table.

The classical scientist assumed the mind to be only a passive recording device that had no effect on the results of experimental evidence. In the quantum world, the experimenter can not be separated from the experiment; the quantum universe questions the classic ideal of “objective” realities free from the taint of consciousness. In fact, what is called the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, developed by Neils Bohr, states that subatomic particles can have no existence separate from the observer.

Bohr had some very famous debates with Einstein (who, as stated above, had trouble accepting the findings of quantum mechanics). A famous argument developed by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen, and put forward by Einstein is known as the EPR paradox.

The EPR paradox involves separate measurements being made on two different systems that have been allowed to interact until their internal state has been correlated; measurement always disturbs a quantum system, so they reasoned that if these two systems are separated by some distance, with both being opened at the same instant and measured, then it was asked would they have identical internally observed characteristics?

Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen argued that the two systems would be correlated once each internal state had been measured; they came to this conclusion mathematically, and used it as an argument to show that quantum theory was incomplete. For if the boxes are opened at the same instant and their internal states measured and found to be identical, then somehow each system has been able to communicate with the other instantaneously to reach an agreement on which internal state would be present. Einstein and company stated this to be impossible as it would involve instantaneous reassignment of information, and that would violate Einstein’s postulate that nothing in the universe can travel faster than the speed of light.

Bohr responded that it was not necessary to posit a mechanism that moved faster than the speed of light; instead, he argued that subatomic particles can not be thought of as independent entities; they are part of an indivisible unity. Subatomic particles, therefore, have no existence separate from an observer -- the Nobel-Prize-winning physicist, Wolfgang Pauli said “On the atomic level the objective world ceases to exist”. (Wolfgang Pauli and Carl Jung developed the notion of Synchronicity discussed in the first chapter.)

In 1982 an experiment was carried out by Alain Aspect in Paris. Alain Aspect, with some associates, discovered that under certain circumstances, subatomic particles, regardless of the distances involved, are able to instantaneously communicate with each other. Each separate particle somehow seems to “know” what the other is doing. This is called “quantum entanglement”: if a pair of linked particles is separated, they exactly mirror each other no matter what the distance between them. This phenomenon is paradoxical to say the least as it seems to violate Einstein’s law that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.

We have discussed how subatomic particles can change their movements without observing causality. Somehow subatomic particles become entangled and, although far apart, each particle mirrors the movement of the other. This experiment by Alain Aspect along with other physicists, as well as other experiments carried out in 1997, unmistakably detected “non-locality”.

This suggests that the universe is interconnected in a way that is totally foreign to the theory of knowledge that is assumed by classical physics. If at its most basic level, reality is non local then it becomes very difficult to form universal laws; it the universe is non local then it becomes difficult to demonstrate a direct causal relation between simultaneous events. A universal law, by definition, must be able to state that given the antecedent conditions, what happened was the only thing that could have happened; classical theory assumes a direct causal relation exists between all phenomena, so that it can be said that event “B” was inevitably caused by event “A”, and, therefore, necessarily follows event “A’. If reality is no longer local, then it becomes difficult to conceive the universe in terms of a clock-like automaton, where each event must necessarily be followed by its antecedent cause. What non locality seems to reveal is that there are correlations that take place instantaneously regardless of the distance separating the objects.

Here rather than the parts defining the whole, the whole is an entity much greater than its constituent parts, and this totality defines each part. If the universe is to be conceived as a network of mechanistic causal relations, then this includes an assumption of locality, for there can be no direct causal relation between any events, unless one point in space is within a relatively short distance of another to influence it. Rather the implication of non locality (as every particle has been entangled with others) is that physical reality on its most basic level is an undivided whole, or, at the very least, that reality consists of an interconnectedness that can not be explained using the concepts of classical physics:

Entanglement breaks down all our conceptions about the world developed

through our usual sensory experience.

These notions of reality are so entrenched on our psyche that even the greatest physicist of the twentieth century, Albert Einstein, was fooled by these everyday notions into believing

that quantum mechanics was “incomplete” because it did not include elements

he was sure had to be real. Einstein felt that what happens in one place

could not possibly be directly and instantaneously linked with what happens

at a distant location.

To understand, or even simply accept, the validity of

entanglement and other associated quantum phenomena, we must admit that

our conceptions of reality in the universe are inadequate. (Amir D. Aczel,

Entanglement: The Greatest Mystery in Physics, John Wiley & Sons Ltd,

West Sussex, England. 2003) p.249-250

The world is a place full of mystery and wonder, and all our conceptions are fictions. All we have are explanations and not the real thing. We all are very small when we compare ourselves to the stars, and our race is a tiny tiny part of something bigger than us;

I hope you enjoy,

john

[WhiteRhino]

"hi, fellow strain hunters,

I do have a life separate from here,"

so youre cheating on us ... BASTARD

[Guest dfwi]

i could see us 2 old farts sitting on the porch with a joint in one hand a Jonny Walker in the other debating the topic nice work

[Romeu9]

this is very nice, my friend!

But this is just the antithesis, and what about the rest of it?

take care, multi-guru :hat:

[indicando]

john, thanks for this sharing

There is a lot to say, probably Hube view of the world is somehow similar in how the "real" world is

and would place a spot in the Quantum science if was born at our time.

I never made to study Einstein in school, I really been carried on his theories, I see a lot of truth in his view,

I wouldn't say it's a shame that he didn't have a less contaminated mind by our western culture

but he might be a buddha in his filed. From my point of view, we are immortals, waiting to become gods, the western culture or what underground movement call "The System" asleeps us thru television, media in general, intoxicated food, pharmaceutic drugs/deseas, bad teaching of values, religions...all this it's not true, we are here for a reason and an we can discorver what it is by looking in ourselves and outside, the system instead managed to create a subconcious in EVERYONE that received this kind of education, the subconcious in reality it does not exist. Might look like insane words,

but for an "Enlightened mind" (this wiki might help ) all the answers are in us, any answer; you just need to ask the right question.. I'm going to study some phylosofy in the near future so I can learn from the past questions, I will need to ask myself. John my friend, I believe energy is communication also, how we attract people on us, I have myself a story to tell you, about casualties...you remind me of this because you seem linked too.

Peace

[aussie haze luver]

All i know is when i read this in the right column where the little headings are... The first thing i thought was i bet the post is from John... No disrespect mate just stating that you must be the deepest person in this place... peace bro

[aussie haze luver]

All i know is when i read this in the right column where the little headings are... The first thing i thought was i bet the post is from John... No disrespect mate just stating that you must be the deepest person in this place... peace bro

[Guest superbluehaze]

thanks to all you.

It is not easy reading Tokage, especially for some one who speaks English as a second language.

That quote your mention "when some thing is well know it is for that reason not known"

comes from Hegel(The German philosopher) from the 18th century.

What he means is not we have many beliefs which we never question, because they are just assumed to be true by everyone; or , we can not bear to question them too much;

What I was attempting to do in this essay is give a philosophical and scientific argument for survival of the persoan after death.

New theories of science have broken down the way we view the world so that Newton's mechanical conception of the universe as a large clock ticking away.

Causality in other words has been questioned not only by philosophers but now also science.

take care,

john

[Guest superbluehaze]

It is possible that there exist emanations that are still unknown to us.

Do you remember how electrical currents and unseen waves were

laughed at? The knowledge about man is still in its infancy.

Albert Einstein

hi tokage,

What i was attempting to argue for was the posibility that our consciousness still exists after death.

I used the above quote by Einstein to suggest that our essential sense of awareness may well be some scientifically undiscovered emanation,

and this is what the essay is about, that there is room for other ways of conceptualizing reality, and the way we see life and death other than the traditional scientific way, which states such awareness is impossible, as the body and brain are dead.

take care,

john

[gasmeter]

Although this is an old post I could not resist commenting and hopefully provide some food for thought.

As to whether a human conciousness exists after death you can answer this question yourself.

When you go to sleep make yourself into a comfortable relaxed position so you are not aware of your body, just your breathing inhaling and exhaling gently.

Now focus on a thought, this can be an image of someone or something or a plan f what your doing tomorrow or even a word, keep it simple at first.

Maintain the focus on the thought as you relax and follow your conciousness or carry it into sleep, or more accurately what you percieve as sleep.

It may take a bit of practice and a few attempts, but you will know when you have been successful, when you wake it will seem as if you haven't been asleep you just carried on thinking, but it will seem like only a moment or two has passed and you will feel rested and refreshed, which will probably feel a bit strange that you don't feel tired.

Most scientists do not have any religious beliefs they see the world from an objective perspective, amusingly occultists describe the real world as "the objective", for them the concept or idea of faith is problem because it cannot be proved that a deity exists in an objective way that can be easily demonstrated, so it is illigical to them to believe or have faith.

So to accept they as a human being here in the objective are a duality, that is body (not self) self (soul) will never because this cannot be proved and shown or demonstrated.

For me the idea of faith or belief is not an issue, I have neither, I just know.

I am, that, I am

Enlightenment and axpansion of awareness is a gift or reward that is earned as you travel along your path on your journey through life and evolve to realise our potential as a human being.

With regards to quantum entanglement you may find Alice Baileys book The Conciousness Of The Atom interesting you can read it online at the Lucis Trust web site.

When the particle that is entangled at a quantum level is measured in the Schrodingers cat experiment by the detector as it decays it realises its potential, before it decays the quantum particle and the cat can be considered to have two ultimate potentials, while unobserved in the box the cat is in two states dead and alive and the particle is in two states OK and decayed.

When the box is opened and the cat is observed the cat is eather dead and we have a sad observer or it is alive and the observer is happy.

From the occult perspective at the point the particle is measured or observed this could be viewed as self realisation of its own potential.

Observation and measurement equate to the same thing.