CONTENTS
1. Science as spiritual
and math as relationships and structure of spiritual without attachments:
only suchness chapter on rules to allow correct and respectful connections and bonding without mental abuse, bias projections, narcissism, and merging / fusion / grasping of a single "Truth".
2. Characteristics of science:
1. Public domain
2. Completability
3. Falsifiability
4. Why they are spiritual
3. Levels and stages of development
1. Explanations
2. Models and maps
3. Theories
4. Laws
4. Problems: science as religion
1. Truth then and now.
1.5 Rules
2. Fuzzy logic and reality: metamodels and rules
3. No Unified model.
5. Resources
1. Extra tools of science in korzrief: power of thought and instantaneous time field, and psychotronics and Kervran: Biological Transmutations and Peter: extrasensory perception of quarks & psychic discoveries, and Arthur Young. Muses.
2. Science and religion as projection of mind
that indicates intuitive direction and self organization revealing
itself.
Science and the scientific method represent for me a new or the next stage in human spiritual development. The language of science is mathematics which symbolically gives concrete structure to what was once the domain of spiritual ideas. The language of the spiritual was mythology and stories which showed relationships as well as explanations. These traditional myths were attached and strongly connected to particular times and cultures and ordinary everyday language. Mathematics is rooted in an abstract structure of numbers that are common to all cultures and without attachments to a particular historical time or language. This is a spiritual stage of development that is already "built into" the structure of science. Asian religions teach non-attachment as a subject or accomplishment, but Western religions seem to ignore or oppose this important issue.
I will explore this issue of "only suchness"
in a later chapter on rules to allow correct and respectful connections
and bonding without mental abuse, bias projections, narcissism,
and merging / fusion / grasping of a single "Truth".
I don't want to mix "hard" science of fractals, neural nets and holography with my or other hypothesis and speculations. This chapter is about the scientific method which allowed for mixing to take place where any hypothesis can be considered: only results and "suchness" counts. I Am including this material after the material on traditional religion because I wanted to use the Buddhist and Taoist material in pointing out the spirituality of science. There isn't much room in Traditional Monotheism for connections from spiritual traditions to science, but there is room to connect religion to science as I have done in the last chapter. There is a real bias and animosity in both science and monotheism against each other. It is fortunate for both that thought and belief are illusions of the imaginary realm. Just imagine if all the thoughts of monotheists became physical reality: I would be alternating between heaven which I would not enjoy or hell where I would be forced to endure the deprivation of heaven.
I will argue that science itself is the inheritor
of a "spiritual" tradition foreseen by Buddha and Jesus,
which involves openness, integrity, self knowledge, trust and
creative realization. I will present material from science and
Buddhism which can open a joint discovery process as to the goal
of the enlightened human. Current ideas regarding neural nets
and fuzzy systems will be used to propose a new understanding
that is also present in 2500 years of Buddhist tradition. This
is not an argument that Buddhism is the one true religion or that
Buddhism is a religion or science or anything but what it is.
(Suchness) I am not a "Buddhist", but I owe a great
debt of gratitude, and respect to Buddhism, since it was upon
my first reading of the Buddhist "heart" sutra that
my enlightenment experience happened. At that point I realized
that as a human with a fully functional mind, I could come to
understand and comprehend whatever other human minds have offered
to share. This fully functional state was an awakening from the
"mystification and trance" which human culture uses
to "train and supervise" our flexible minds for the
continuance and growth of culture. What I woke up to was that
my mind does not need supervision, but creates itself in a here
and now, and if not interfered with, is self originating "Buddha"
mind. This book is about the struggles in Buddhist culture to
share that and the connections. I have made with new developments
in science which I believe support my understanding and experience
of enlightenment.
It has been very hard over the years to select a frame of reference for my writings: should it be Science and all the required proofs, or psychology and the nature of mind, or religion - astrology with a freedom - but no "impact in the modern world". I have shied away from astrology for the obvious reasons of unbelievability. Up to the time of reading Bradshaw and Miller, I saw little reality in psychology (with a few exceptions of NLP, TA and Gestalt). And few scientists, let alone nonscientists, had the diverse background to comment on by ideas.
I feel that a full presentation of my ideas is best frames a "scientific metaphors", much like fairy tales in intent: as mythic prescientific language.
In the previous chapters I have outlined some of the modern science which lays a foundation for unity of science and religion / spiritual endeavors. I have outlined some of the structure of my model for the connection of the cosmos and life. I have shown some of the applications to traditional religions. I have not done this in any complete way, but have really only touched on highlights. Yet I am very excited about sharing this material developed since my enlightenment in 1958. I hope to share more over the Internet and in subsequent books. This has been a very personal journey: truly self organized and guided from within. It has taken a long time because of, on the one hand, waiting for science and culture to generate the materials and cultural support. The material on holographic mind, fractals and neural networks did not exist at the time of my enlightenment. On the other hand, I knew that the organic relationship that I had emerged from my enlightenment was tied to the cosmos and could not be rushed. Each cycle brought new viewpoints and insights, as if I was within a kaleidoscope that was within a kaleidoscope within a kaleidoscope. Each one pointing in a different direction of mind and moving at different speeds.
For me the promise and search of traditional religion has been and is being fulfilled in modern science. Everything that I value in traditional spiritual quests is available in science: only look within a kaleidoscope at a different structure. In this chapter I will outline the spiritual values I fine in science as well as the drawbacks, especially in the presuppositions about what constitutes lawfulness and truth of structure in life forms, where by self organization each form can have unique structure.
How do we know or believe something is true,
is a fact and can be relied upon? Is the material of the connection
of life and the cosmos true? Is it proved and where is the proof?
Although the nonscientist wants results and proof, science starts
at another point. Before proof can be had, a model must developed
which has characteristics of openness to the whole culture and
is in a "language" accessible to all humans. This does
not exclude understanding uniqueness, for even though science
understands the process of the formation of snowflakes, each flake
is unique. So understanding the development of knowledge relates
to understanding the method of science.
Scientific method: what is it?
The scientific method is without a doubt one of the great spiritual advances in human history. Some of the defining features are:
1. Completebility. No new theory contradicts known knowledge without proposing a simpler, more complete model of the old and new knowledge.
2. Falsifiability: New models must not be so vague that they cannot be contradicted. If they are true under all conditions then very little can be learned.
3. Public domain: The knowledge must be reproducible,
verifiable or productive anywhere, anytime and when used by anyone
as long as the procedures of the theory are carried out correctly.
The public domain allows individual unique structures to be testable. In the old spiritual tradition, one's development was personal and only sharable if students learned their personal mind set. Now we see that this is a result of the flexibility of our neural networks and using fractal scaling of a higher resolution. Then each person can understand or reproduce the others fractal "address" at a higher scale. They don't need to change their life rules because morality is not a spiritual issue, but a social human identity.
Then it becomes a matter of reshaping our energies and connections: our computational space. This no longer needs to be done in a foreign space or language by following others structure, which they turn into rules.
The mass production and interchangeable parts in the social realm is part of this development. This happened by a higher level of resolution or scale which allowed greater precision to be shared and not be the personal art or possession of individuals. We don't need one of a kind objects to stand in for the uniqueness that we give up, because humans can now have their uniqueness.
In physics they remove the connectedness:
quanta are just there, not part of life and human "mind".
If this is the primary structure of the universe then humans participate
and incorporate and build our computer hardware of the brain by
being within and using the universe as it exists. We have evolved
using and incorporating the so called Physics of the universe.
I do not believe that probability waves and interconnectedness
of all "particles" is not part of "mind" and
consciousness. We did not evolve intelligence by ignoring and
not making use of those structures that make intelligence most
probable. True that to create fractal structures whose levels
of resolution are "fine" [or small] enough that quantum
probabilities can be incorporated into what is called "mind"
may take a long time, even hundreds of millions of years, but
that is the time of evolution of "nature". Not human
nature, but that intelligence of the DNA and so called "animal"
intelligence, of which human intelligence is a recent extension.
Physicists and other scientists may look at humans and life as
outside-standers: just a scum. Understanding that the marvelous
resources developed by scientists can be used by anyone to picture
their model of global and spiritual structures is a step to understanding
how science has essentially replaced religion.
What does Religion, spiritual / meditational
disciplines and other subjective developmental experiences have
to tell / guide us in understanding our place in the "Universe"
described by science and mathematics. The practice of science
in a testable public domain seems to preclude any fuzziness produced
outside of controlled conditions. Yet the neural networks of the
brain are just such self originated "fuzzy logical"
systems, so how can they be tested in any context or any species?
My contention is that models produced thousands of years ago are
about just such fuzzy neural net systems. That equivalence systems
evolved independently in different environments and times, which
is more "experimental control" than is required by even
today's standards.
In looking for the realization of religious thought's roots in brain structure, it is not a question if there is a connection, but where. It is there to find.
Science doesn't provide any
rules or morality of how to discipline mind
or develop ones potential. This treats humans as mature and able
to be self creative / self organizing and regulating. We can use
any resources to see our mind: Mathematics is tantra! It is but
for me to see and use! The instructions of spiritual discipline
are within, all I need is to access them using the resources of
math and science! This reveals the structure of Mind! The math
and science of the public domain is centered as a heliocentric
structure, with my model and uniqueness revealed from my earth
which distorts the laws and structure to my unique "chart".
So what is attachment to my positions and how do I allow the heliocentric
center to shine thru?
Models, Explanations, theories and Laws.
The scientific method does not immediately result in laws and facts. Sometimes what was proven as law becomes replaced by more complete theories. There are many stages of development and levels of certainty. A law of nature is more complete than an explanation. A theory contains some method of prediction whereas a "model" or map is more explanation of how things fit and are connected. It is like a proposal whose outcome is aimed to correctly predict and be accepted as a "law". Yet models and explanations follow the scientific method, not because they must or are forced to, but because this is the best procedure.
Religion rests on the accomplishments of a single individual with the idea of unity. Science has demonstrated that many diverse thinkers can refine or see other views of an idea in order to arrive at a core idea.
If the mind has developed as I model it, then the public domain of discourse and experiment is the best way. Any single formulation in a specific language can only be from a "geocentric" or personalized viewpoint. The many views of the public domain in the single language of mathematics get to the "real heliocentric" position. This view from the center is not accessible from personal language statements as has been so often stated in the "mystery" of religion, especially in the Taoist saying "He who knows the Tao does not speak, and he who speaks does not know." That is why I believe that mathematics is the inner language of Tao, mind and Buddha nature.
An example is the ancient rejection of imaginary
numbers and recent rejection of fractal structures as "monstrosities".
In the same light the Aristotelian logic of excluded middle which
seemed so obviously a Law of nature in the Christian dominated
schools even till the present. Fuzzy logic where statements can
be true and false at the same time are still not accepted in many
places. [No wonder Asian cultures have an edge in science! In
1966 I personally heard the head of the University of Chicago
philosophy department say that they were only Aristotelian. After
that I did not look any further into any academic philosophy.]
I would like to quote from
a book "Philosophy and the science of
Behavior" by Merle Turner 1965. First an excerpt on theory
and then the whole quote so that the context of this is available
to you, the reader. This excerpt clearly states the principle
of Falsifiability and how science evolves.
"It is the nature of fact that it should be subject to revision. To the scientific empiricist, fact is inseparable from theory. It is an hypothesis, a conjecture germinated in theory. which guides the scientist in his search for evidence. What kind of world one finds is determined by what kind of structure that world is assumed to have."
The task of this book is to enlarge to connectedness structure to include intuition and make sense of old spiritual intuitions. The "assumptions" about the structure of the world did not arise out of a disjunct abstract "observation", but from the activity of the brain / mind which projected its own naive structure on the world. By this I mean that there was no self awareness of structures of the brain. Thus prescientific reality of a flat earth and the cosmos revolving around that earth were like a 18 month old human child looking in a mirror at themselves, but unable to recognize that this is a reflection of them. Everything is "real" so they sometimes go behind the mirror to see who is there. Often in real science the mirror is a broken symmetry of the mind: left becomes right, etc. The quote continues:
"Rather than facts standing alone to
be discovered at the blink of an eyelid, they emerge only in conceptual
focus. They are the product of the theory and its dictionary,
for it is the latter which con jointly direct the evidential search.
The events, the data, the facts that reward the sophisticated
exploration may have an identity of their own which evokes their
special credence; but nonetheless, that identity is inseparable
from the conceptual framework. To alter a theory, even to reject
it, is ultimately to alter, even to reject, the fact. A rejected
theory is thrust aside not so much because "the" facts
belie it as because alternative theories with new conceptions
extend the factual interpretation of the available data."
This is what I see has happened. Science has
extended itself so that it has caught up with the "tail"
[tale] of religion: it has come full circle to where the theories
called "myth" in religion can be seen as intuitively
pointing to structures developed in science. Such I believe is
Astrology as discarded as a theory of influence. Now I point to
it as included as a part of an extended model.
Here is the context of those excerpts:
"LAWS OF NATURE
When scientists speak the word "nature" they often do so with just a touch of reverence, as if "she" is that cosmic entity hiding a treasury of secrets for us to share piece by experimental piece. And it is not always clear whether or not they arc speaking metaphorically. What are laws? On initial inspection the question resolves to whether nature, the cosmic entity, conforms to some a priori set of regularities which do in fact detail the cosmic processes, or to whether laws are man-created generalizations which facilitate both his description of his world and his predictions concerning specifiable events in certain familiar surrounds. Are laws true descriptions? Or are they conventions? No doubt our metaphorical predilections commit us to think of laws in terms of cosmic decrees. Events must obey laws; indeed, they have no alternative. However, one need not think of decrees and cosmic agents to support this view. Mechanists and determinists may arrive at such a position merely by assuming that lawfulness is a characteristic of the given universe.
Now it takes but little reflection for us to reject this metaphysical point of view. The scientist inclines more toward methodology than metaphysics. He may proceed as if he believes there are cosmic regularities, but his belief is hardly more than a procedural agreement. The history of his subject reveals that laws are subject to revision, disconfirmation, and withdrawal. They are more like hypotheses than decrees. He uses them to predict, not necessarily to command. An event that violates a law of nature is still an event. It is the law that must yield."
[In looking for the structures of mind in
which each individual is unique, laws of cause / effect and influence
which work so well in the "mechanical" universe can
be replaced by models of process and fractal generators which
create structure and connection.]
"In this context, two comments from the philosophy of science are worthy of attention. One, the certainty that man finds compelling belongs only to logic. Events themselves, though their relations may be expressed in a language of rigorous syntax, are not compelled to follow any prescribed pattern. ... And two, laws are adopted as instruments of understanding and prediction. In this context they have been called "inference tickets"... Rather, laws are the credentials which enable the scientist to justify asserting his expectations. Laws, therefore, assume a personal reference. They are the expressions of our states of knowledge, they are not ontological contracts held to be binding upon nature.
The issues here are not so poignantly drawn in psychology as they are in physics. Psychologists need little persuasion as to the provisional character of their laws. Laws of learning, of reinforcement, contiguity, and recency, for example, are hardly more than empirical surveys of certain classes of learning experiments. The fact that a law like that of reinforcement has only limited extension over the range of all possible learning situations is implicit in the prevalence of two-factor learning theories. And the Weber-Fechner law, S = k log R, offers a classic example of the well-tempered law.
As is well known, the Weber-Fechner law, which prescribes that perceived intensity over scales such as loudness or brightness varies directly with the logarithm of the intensity of the physical stimulus, holds only for the intermediate range of intensity. The law breaks down at the extremes. That is to say, the law is a useful generalization over a certain range of stimuli but not over others. It is for the psychophysicist to determine the range of application by experiment, and not to pronounce, as Fechner did, that some underlying principle of nature had been defined.
Laws are useful, then, as devices of inference,
but they are to be tempered, as it were. by the search for their
extensions. Thus, like theoretical constructions, they have a
conventional character; they are inventions that serve as hypotheses
concerning events. But as before, one need not conclude that laws
are thereby unreal. To say a law is true is merely to say that
there is a class of events for which the lawlike statement serves
as a convenient summarization.
THEORIES
If, ontologically speaking, theoretical entities and laws have only a contextual status, then theories, too, can be interpretably real only in the context of convention and procedural agreements. Is a theory a picture of the world? Is it some description of actual events? Or is it a model and deductive system by means of which we infer lawful relations among observables? A theory could, of course, be both a picture of an actual world and a deductive system. Yet, if we are not careful we will impart to our naive phenomenology the properties of the deductive system. This temptation to reify fails us in matters concerning laws and hypothetical entities. All the more reason, then, that it should fail for theory.
Though ultimately concerned with data, theories begin with conventions, laws, and rules of inference. Only somewhat belatedly does a dictionary tie the theory to the world of experiment. The foremost considerations are that the theory be consistent and comprehensive. It must protect against generating contradictory hypotheses; it must have a secure foundation in tested scientific traditions. [completability] But of the truth of a theory, one may only speak with reservation. Theories are useful and they are "contextually true," but only to the extent they generate well-confirmed hypotheses. Their extension is empirically determined and provisional. They make no claim to an absolute truth status that would enable us to prejudge the world and retire from the ontological quest.
Yet, at some critical point each well-supported theory may be dis-confirmed. The false hypothesis condemns it; and the temptation may be great to declare the theory false and ourselves, in that moment of humble reckoning, mistaken. To succumb abjectly, however, would itself be a mistake. The history of science would show us that no theory can be true in any lasting sense, for no theory endures without modification. Should we then presume that science can make no claims for any special epistemic resource?
The mistake here is to confuse enduring logical truths with contingent factual ones. One expects that logical truths will endure throughout all time; he cannot conceive what it would mean to say that the laws of arithmetic or those of syllogistic inference might be disconfirmed, for data have no part in logic. [This of course was written before fuzzy logic, neural network theory or fractals had been "discovered" / developed.] This is not true, however, in the domain of fact and theory. It is the nature of fact that it should be subject to revision. To the scientific empiricist, fact is inseparable from theory. It is an hypothesis, a conjecture germinated in theory. which guides the scientist in his search for evidence. What kind of world one finds is determined by what kind of structure that world is assumed to have. Rather than facts standing alone to be discovered at the blink of an eyelid, they emerge only in conceptual focus. They are the product of the theory and its dictionary, for it is the latter which con jointly direct the evidential search. The events, the data, the facts that reward the sophisticated exploration may have an identity of their own which evokes their special credence; but nonetheless, that identity is inseparable from the conceptual framework. To alter a theory, even to reject it, is ultimately to alter, even to reject, the fact. A rejected theory is thrust aside not so much because "the" facts belie it as because alternative theories with new conceptions extend the factual interpretation of the available data. Thus the world is no longer flat, nor does the sun revolve about the earth, nor do objects in motion seek their natural position. Yet each of these at some time was the fact of observant men. There are innumerable examples wherein a new conceptual-factual context introduces a different excursion into reality.
No obvious advantage accrues to us in trying
to force this treatment of the truth status of theories into traditional
philosophical molds. It is better to do as Campbell (1921) and
Toulmin (1953) recommend: reserve the language of truth for matters
of logic where its use is nearly unequivocal. Theories, rather,
should be regarded as "holding" over the range of facts
which their hypotheses generate. They are the instruments for
deriving experimental hypotheses, the truths of which are attested
to by the data. The only danger inherent in this language is the
suggestion that the instrumentality should be regarded any the
less real because it does not translate directly into the truth
functional language which our simple empiricistic conventions
dictate. Yet, when we learn to accept the contingent character
of all empirical propositions and the inseparability of fact and
conceptual framework, we will appreciate the suggestion that strict
truth-reductive translations are not appropriate to the language
of science.
SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION
No doubt the retreat of the scientific empiricist from naive realism is a source of amusement to his critics. It is also a source of embarrassment when he hears his confrere adopt the language of fictionalism to describe tasks of theory construction and scientific explanation. This freedom of invention is the heritage of pragmatism, and like pragmatism it too has been interpreted as sheer license happily purchased by the coin of clever people. However, a close reading of Charles Peirce or even of William James (and of contemporary instrumentalists such as Nagel ) would reveal that the emphasis upon fiction misrepresents the case for scientific invention. One needs only reflect upon the character of scientific explanation.
In general, events are explained by one of two strategies: by instantiation, or by higher order deductions. In the one case, a particular event is expressed as some particular value of a variable in a general proposition (law); in the other, the law, of which the event is a particular instance, may itself be a hypothesis deducible from within a theory. In neither case does one have the fictionist's freedom to construct just any explanation that aesthetic whim may dictate. Theories, for example, contain laws, theoretical constructs, a logical calculus, and a dictionary. To a large extent the calculus and the theoretical terms are inventions. There may also be a conventional element in the statements of laws and the dictionary. However, in no case are the inventions peremptory. They reflect the factual conceptual traditions of the given science. They also reflect the selective principles of comprehensiveness and simplicity which, at a more subtle level of ontology, are the guides to theoretic evaluation and theoretic convergence.
It is one of the interesting speculations of conventionalists that every theory is salvagable. This is a corollary of fictionalism. But no one, not even Pierre Duhem (of. N7.6), has thereby argued that every theory is worth saving. The complex hierarchy of many scientific theories makes some particular set of constructions preferable to another. It is well known that Ptolemy, Tycho Brahe, and Copernicus could each provide a model of the solar system, each with a different set of constructs, and each with confirmational success. Yet, the construction eventually selected was the one that fitted most readily into a more comprehensive system. Kepler and Newton assured us what kind of inventions would be eligible for scientific license. And the issue of the freedom of invention was thereby closed.
When we turn to the idea of a hierarchy of
explanation, we especially realize there is a guidance implicit
within scientific invention. One seeks not only an explanation
of a particular set of events but also a theoretical construction
that itself is derivable from within some still more basic science.
Chemical explanations, for example, were conceived in terms wholly
unique to the phenomenology of chemistry itself. But the advantages
and the guidance of atomic constructions are now all too apparent.
Geneticists could have continued to think in terms of the gross
characteristics of genotypes. but the molecular models of biochemistry
offered explanations of the duplicative powers of the genes. And
psychology can continue to build hypothetico-deductivc models
in learning theory, knowing (perhaps unconsciously) that issues
of alternative theories will be [have been now] resolved by developments
in neurophysiology."
Theories and models "are the instruments for deriving experimental hypotheses, the truths of which are attested to by the data." This is exactly my attitude concerning spiritual development, which is what I believe the Buddha meant by the request to not believe what is said without testing it oneself. This is a far cry from the attitude that some "God" thru THE one true religion provides laws and rules for living, which if disobeyed is sin that sends one to "hell". This is politics and control given a "cosmic" kick!
I chose these excerpts as a "generic"
example of a an "ordinary" scientific writing on science.
Nothing new: just mainstream science. Yet this "mainstream"
attitude is just what I see as development of human spirit. Where
humans are becoming more self aware and conscious of who we are
in the universe. Where we feel free to shed that attitude common
to early development stages that there must be something "out
there" that watches over us and did all this for some "good
purpose". Science now points to the whole universe as self
organizing and that is a purpose if one wants it to be. Science
presents humans with structures and resources, not with rules
and commandments and meaning. Our species has given up some of
its self organization in order to create a shared mind called
culture. It is our responsibility to self organize and reorganize,
and not look to some higher power to do it "for us".
The structures and resources of science are for our use to make
our sense out of a world where old "myths" are just
that. There will be no new myth to take their place, even though
science tries in some ways to provide them. In that context I
find science moving from a discipline of spiritual development
into a religion!
Since the main stream statements quoted above that informed my youth, much has been developed which is even closer to my "heart". The idea of "complementarily" is that "seemingly" opposing or complementary theories of reality are necessary for a full explanation. Opposites and broken symmetries unite in my system in the "Star of David" and other structures of the cosmos.
I quote from the book
"Conscious Universe":
"We will also advance the hypothesis that the epistemological situation we are obliged to confront in a quantum mechanical universe, in which non-locality must now be viewed as a fundamental fact of nature, provides a new basis for understanding the ability of the human brain to construct symbol systems, or symbolic representations of reality. Drawing extensively on Niels Bohr's definition of the logical framework of complementarily, which we regard as fundamental to understanding the actual character of physical reality in a quantum mechanical universe, we will advance and attempt to support the view that complementarily is the most fundamental dynamic in our conscious constructions of reality in both ordinary and mathematical language systems. If this thesis is correct, it provides a more reasonable and self-consistent explanation than physical scientists have developed thus far as to why the language of mathematics, or the language of mathematical physics, is more "privileged" in its ability to uncover the dynamics of physical reality than is ordinary language. And it could also relieve much of the obvious "angst" that has apparently been occasioned by the rather widespread conviction among humanists and social scientists that all of us are locked, as Nietzsche put it, in the "prison house" of our linguistically-based constructions of reality with no real or necessary connection between subjective reality and external reality. The most radical hypothesis advanced here is, however, more narrowly scientific. That hypothesis is that since complementarily has been a primary feature in every physical theory advanced in mathematical physics beginning with the special theory of relativity in 1905, and since complementarity can also be shown to be an emergent property or dynamic in the life of the evolving universe at increasingly larger scales and times, then future advances in physical theory in cosmology, or in the study of the origins and evolution of the entire universe, will also feature complementary constructs. In this same discussion, we also suggest that present limits of observation in the study of the large-scale structure of the universe appear to be providing additional evidence that the entire universe is a quantum system, and that cosmologists and astrophysicists may have to invoke complementarity in resolving some seemingly irresolvable problems associated with the most widely accepted model for explaining the origins and evolution of the cosmos--the big-bang model with inflation.
...
Equally important, we confront here an indication that macro-level, or everyday, logic, which is premised on the law of the excluded middle, does not hold in the quantum domain. It is this realization, as we will see later on, that would lead Bohr to develop the new logical framework of complementarity.
...
The unsettling conclusion forced upon us by complementarity, as Bohr and others have understood it, is that the truths of science are not "revealed" truths. We are now obliged to introduce into our understanding of the character of these truths an assumption that scientists have traditionally regarded as having no place or function in a scientific world view--the assumption is that scientific truths are, like other truths, subjectively-based constructs which are useful to the extent that they help us coordinate greater ranges of experience with physical reality.
...
In quantum physics, the total reality represented
by the quantum system is dealt with in terms of two quite different
theories--wave mechanics and matrix mechanics. As Bohr was among
the first to realize, the relationship between these two theories
and the reality which they describe makes sense only if we view
them in terms of a new logical framework. Bohr began with the
assumption that the wave aspect of this reality and the particle
aspect are logically antithetical--something spread out and continuous
in space-time represents a profound opposition to something with
a discrete and well-defined location in space-time. Thus one view
of the situation in a given instance must displace the other.
Although the two theories are mathematically isomorphic, the choices
that we are obliged to make in order to apply one theory will
produce results that are logically disparate from those revealed
in the application of the other. What makes the logical framework
of complementarity new, or where it extends itself beyond our
usual understanding of the character of logically antithetical
constructs, is the following stipulation: In addition to representing
profound oppositions which preclude one another in a given situation,
both constructs are "necessary" for a complete understanding
of the entire situation."
These ideas of these individual scientists indicate for me a direction that supports my model. In this case it supports the real time cycles of Jupiter and Saturn that are embodied in the Star of David and elaborated in the 2nd chapter. It is enough to mention that my model indicates that "profound opposition" as well as independent / separation and unity of process is built into the mind / brain structure and is "necessary" for a completely functional human culture.
Concurrent developments in theoretical directions
pointing to the holographic image of unity of consciousness is
found in the writings of John Gribbin in his book
"Schrodinger's Kittens and the search for reality"
1995 from which I quote:
This material gives good support to on of the major problems of a model which links life and intelligence with the cosmos: how can we directly know the positions of the planets much less the stars and galaxy where light takes a minimum of years to reach us and where the gravity of our immediate surroundings, such as another person, is much stronger than any or all the planets. My model contends that it is not sense data but deep structures even in the DNA that relate to the deep structure of reality in the cosmos. Thus I hypothesize that "mind" and awareness is built into the universe and is not a "later development" of the human species. It is part of the billion year intelligence of our cells and organ systems that is preverbal. It is not directly accessible because it is in a different computational space of "handshaking" for which our best metaphor is interference patterns of the hologram.
From the point of view of religious statements I could conceive of "God" saying: "This is what I have been pointing to all along! I exist in this instantaneously aware space / dimension which is outside of 'time' ".
This outside of time or meta-time is what
I model as the nature of language, so I again quote from further
in the same book"
"SHAKING HANDS WITH THE UNIVERSE
The way Cramer describes a typical quantum
'transaction' is in terms of a particle 'shaking hands' with another
particle somewhere else in space and time. You can think of this
in terms of an electron emitting electromagnetic radiation which
is absorbed by another electron, although the description works
just as well for the state vector of a quantum entity which starts
out in one state and ends up in another state as a result of an
interaction - for example, the state vector of a particle emitted
from a source on one side of the experiment with two holes and
absorbed by a detector on the other side of the experiment. One
of the difficulties with any such description in ordinary language
is how to treat interactions that are going both ways in time
simultaneously, and are therefore occurring instantaneously as
far as clocks in the everyday world are concerned. Cramer does
this by effectively standing outside of time, and using the semantic
device of a description in terms of some kind of pseudotime. This
is no more than a semantic device - but it certainly helps to
get the picture straight."
I call this "pseudotime"
a fractal of time with the constructors
/ generators being the interactions of cycles of the cosmos. Thus
language is "about" time and cycles and their "interference"
patterns which create partitions and subcycles that are mapped
back onto the original "human life-cycle activities"
as "work / specialization". This can only happen when
we are aware and trust cultural interdependance to provide us
with our missing resources: we cannot be a doctor and farmer at
the same time, so being a doctor implies that we will get food
from the direct efforts of others.
I have often refereed to what is "built
into the mind / brain structure and is "necessary" for
a completely functional human culture". I have not refereed
to what is not built in like single "truth" and "rational"
thinking. What is built in is fuzzy logic, thus humans have a
great deal of trouble with the concept of "truth" as
an abstraction beyond communication processes of "telling
the truth" which are subject to mixtures of truth and not-truth.
[Thus when a culture makes not-truth into lies and sin, that culture
in effect tries to ban a process as fundamental as say "gravity".]
What is "absolute truth" or metaphysics or observational
/ empirical evidence is very problematic to "science".
It may make this book too long to include all the material I have
available on this subject, although I plan to include it in a
CD ROM version.
allows modern humans to ignore more "global"
- complete - total "existence" in "order"
to concentrate on a very narrow viewpoint now called a paradigm
which organizes the universe of knowledge as if the sun and galaxy
revolved around this position. Thus new ideas of complementarity
proposed in the book "Conscious Universe" see theories
from a viewpoint needing their complements. I see this as a "spiritual"
opening up process with the same structure as moving from a geocentric
to heliocentric position. From the periphery to the center. This
also has the characteristic of all knowledge at a single location
of holomind!
Tradition [as "ancestors] is needed for
orientation and process in the brain, where feedback resonance
between hierarchies establishes harmony - serenity; even if those
"values" are rejected. Thus the establishment of paradigm
fit into the extended family structure complete with the head
of the family, only this "head" is an idea. This brings
skills development from many independent self-organizing sources
to bear on an area of knowledge.
Knowledge is an abstraction that does not exist as an outcome of the activity of our nets.
All forms of life, from microbes to humans,
work as time and place processors, with skills (cognitive abilities)
specific to concrete environments and the personal history of
that skill. The `solutions' of these processors is the actual
connectivity net structure, and does not have any generalized
form, like TRUTH, beyond the topology of the net. There is no
`self' which possesses knowledge or skill beyond those present
in the total system of `nets' and that the `real self - nature'
(Buddha) is a distributed process and hologram encoding of `solutions'
(intelligence). The illusion of a supervisory `ego' is only a
result of properties of other nets which require `supervision'
in order to operate. The so-called free will (ego) is just a property
of the net of being unsupervised and self organizing.
In closing this chapter, I will mention two
[or more?] books that report the direction of how
mind can interact with the mechanical universe at the level of
sub Atomic particles, which, in my view, would support the
model that life emerges within a seamless whole and that awareness
is not restricted. The first book by Professor Louis Kervran:
"Biological Transmutations" 1972 refers to the transmutation
of one basic element into another having changed the atomic structure
of the nucleus! Examples are given of life forms as simple as
moss "creating" magnesium from calcium!
The second book is by Stephen M. Phillips:
"Extrasensory Perception of Quarks" 1980 concerns the
analysis by the subatomic particle physicist, Phillips, of a book
published in 1908 called "Occult Chemistry" which left
no doubt in Phillips mind that two people had discovered, investigated
Quarks by directly psychically viewing them while in a "Yogic"
trance state. These two psychics, Annie Besant and C. W. Leadbeater
had conducted their investigations after D. Mendeleev had published
his scientific theory on the organization of the periodic table
of elements in 1871. The pictures that they drew as remembrances
of what they had "seen" in their trance state were directly
correlated with the subatomic level of mater of Quarks, which
had not been even theorized until the 1960's and whose existence
can only indirectly be "proved" but not "seen"
because scientific instruments have not yet achieved that fine
a level of resolution. Quotes from these books, and much more
are in the CD ROM edition.
START ARRANGE 3.5 FOR CD ROM
What are the details of science in the words
of a scientist? This writing from 1966 uses the term "scientific
empiricism" which is very much against "intuitionism
as a significant alternative to empiricism" and wants "to
cut the heart out of metaphysics". So this is for me an extreme
position, yet it outlines very well the "hard" scientific
method. I reframe the statement: "intuitionism as a significant
alternative to empiricism" to be a statement of egolessness:
to be non-attached to "personal intuition".
THE FOREGOING DISCUSSIONS of the foundations,
limits, and possibilities of knowledge have brought us to the
front of scientific empiricism. The way has not been easy, it
has not always been free of misgivings. But from Locke to Kant
to Wittgenstein we have been assured that the important problems
of knowledge have been dissolved. It remains only for the scientist
to get on with his work, to marshal fact and law and theory, and
thence to cut the heart out of metaphysics. This is a sanguine
picture, to say the least. After all, no layman need eavesdrop
in order to learn of the scandals of science. The difficulties
are advertised freely. Yet they are not difficulties that send
us into epistemological retreat. Nor need they invite us to reconsider
intuitionism as a significant alternative to empiricism.
ON THE QUEST OF SCIENCE
What is it then that gives to science its endowment of epistemic privilege? One will not be much rewarded here by reviewing descriptions of what science is, or even descriptions of what it is that scientists do. Rather, he comes more directly to face the special status of science by considering what are the aims of science and what, at least, are the pretensions of its achievements. Whatever science is, its commitment to logic and observation have earned for it the fullest measure of public support. Its systematized knowledge, its methodological explorations of first principles, its reliance upon data seem somehow to bring to the person answers often more satisfying than any others he receives. As a rule, he does not question the "findings" of science. Facts, it would appear. are indubitable, even though they may not tell all the observer wants to know. But what is more important, science provides a kind of closure to curiosity; it gives answers that put an end to the person's search for meanings and explanations.
Observations and data, law, theory, and the rare synthesis of one theory within another theory: all these give comfort to the curious. These are the rewards of science. What is more, they provide answers to our incipient ontological inquiries. Whether the problem being considered is the machinery that makes the clock go round or the cosmologist's search for the origins of the universe, or whether it is even the psychologist's looking for the mechanism of perceptual constancy, the specific quest is always the same--a description of the world "as it really is."
[Called "suchness" in Buddhism.]
On first impression, we all seem to be realists. When the child sees the internal mechanism of the clock with its springs and gears, he is satisfied that there is no mystery to the rotating hands. If the cosmologist pursues the retreating galaxies for one more clue to an evolving universe, he is likely to think of himself as learning what the universe is, or was, really like. And if the psychologist sees perceptual invariance emerging from neural integration over equivalence classes of input, he is likely to put aside his heuristic devices and proclaim the truth as to the real nature of perception. Such satisfying states of knowledge have this in common: they bring the inquirer close to some kind of microstructure that lies concealed behind the larger phenomenon. That microstructure is what reality is.
[I sometimes refer to the "microstructure" as the primitives of consciousness in the sense that they are the generators of the other scales and models of reality]
By temperament, then, it would seem that scientists at first are realists. For them, the quest itself is real. True explanations lie behind the confusion, uncertainty, and unknowns concerning man's present state of knowledge. Although the most recent theories are subject to revision, or may yield to entirely new formulations, and even though each new experiment may provide only tentative conclusions, the postulate of terminal truth appears to be implicit--as if the quest should end eventually with apodictic success and allow the researcher to move on to other inquiries.
I say only at first brush with fact and theory
do scientists appear to be realists. For soon doubt creeps into
the picture. The road to scientific progress is bestrewn with
the "debris of antiquated ideas." Concepts that once
were held with confidence become the discarded relics of many
presumptive worlds. The psychologist's entelechies, his instincts
and faculties, join the calorics, the electric fluids, and nethers
in our museums of scientific heirlooms. Nowadays we are more amused
than impressed to learn that Newton could retire early from his
memorable career in science because he felt the important truths
were known. or to learn that Kant could proclaim that the absolute
nature of time and space are forever embedded in the perceiving
mind, or to learn that even today some scientists pronounce that
the frontiers of microphysics are exhausted with only a few details
remaining to be added. We are much too sensitive to the fragility
of our theories and, alas, of our convictions to invest much faith
in enduring scientific conceptions.
But there is another factor that is even more disconcerting to the naive realist. As the grain of microstructure is further refined, the hypotheses become further and further removed from the data that are their support. In physics there are technological and perhaps logical barriers to penetrating the hypothesized microstructures. All palpable properties of the material world evaporate. Cloud chamber tracks, scintillations, and Geiger counts are distant cousins to the postulated "entities" which compose the flesh of a theoretical calculus. Rather than a corpus we have a wraith incarnate in a deductive system, looking much more like an "idea" than any of the familiar grains of sand.
In psychology the logical barriers to microknowledge
may not exist, but technology still does not permit our probing
the fine structure of the nervous system. Like the physicist,
the psychologist may turn to invention, indeed, even preferring
it, say, to crude excursions into neuroanatomy. A system can be
built with hypothetical entities having no more initial credence
than the prospect that their theoretical role may lead to the
deduction of confirmable hypotheses. It may even be that microphysiology
is an encumbrance, since so little of it is known. Thus, a feeling
of emancipation comes to a theorist who can say that theoretical
constructs "need have no truth character at all" (Kendler,
1952). And among other strategies, he may proceed, as the cyberneticist
does, to sketch out functional components of a system of behavior
without specifying how any one of the components necessarily implements
that function. Only the eventual output counts.
CONVENTIONALISM VERSUS REALISM
We have breathed this air of conventionalism before. Science should not be so pretentious. It should be more modest in its aims, and leave to metaphysics all matters of ontology. The caution comes from positivism itself. Statements about the real world are hardly ever subject to test; either direct verification of an hypothesis is impossible, or the assumptions of verification are in doubt. Tests of theoretical constructs are always in terms of material implications, i.e., of if-then propositions. Therefore, the confirmation of the consequent is never sufficient to establish the truth of the theoretical antecedent. Only disconfirmation is straightforward. Furthermore, all tests of hypotheses are subject to qualifications. One always makes assumptions which, themselves, are not subject to test in the given experiment. If the assumptions are suspect, they may be subject to revision, with a subsequent discard or a reinterpretation of the original data. Thus test results are seldom conclusive.
In brief the conventionalistic character of assumptions and theoretical terms suggests to us that the scientist may be more concerned with predictive ingenuity than he is with "truth" or "the real," neither of which have proved enduring or accessible. In the words of Poincare, certain conventions prove convenient for describing the processes underlying events. We should no more ask whether they are true than "ask if the metric system is true, and if the old weights and measures are false; if Cartesian co-ordinates are true and polar co-ordinates false" (1905, p. 50; and of. N7.1 ).
The story is more familiar in physics than it is in psychology. This is because physics has a large number of formal theories that postulate theoretical entities only indirectly related to observation. Quite frequently the psychologist avoids speculating about internal processes intervening between observable states of the organism, between stimulus and response. Or, if he engages in any conceptual activities, he is likely to adopt constructs that are explicitly reducible to sets of observation terms such that the given construct is no more than a convenient means of designating a complex of data. Only rarely does he venture into the realm of micro-structure wherein theoretical entities are postulated to explain behavior, not in terms of what is observed and given, but in terms of what might be in order that the data of behavior should be what they are. Now in physics the story is different. We come much more quickly to face problems of microstructure. Molar descriptions will not suffice, nor will the correlations of a crude empirical chemistry. We need to enter the smallest structure of matter in order to ascertain what it is that determines the binding and disintegrative properties of matter.
As is well known, the fine-grain constructs
are "as-if" entities; they are not observed but are
betrayed, as it were, by events quite gross on the observational
scale. The structure of the hydrogen atom was initially inferred
from scintillations on zinc sulfide screens, and from spectro-grams.
No nucleus, no electron of the atom was ever photographed, just
telltale tracks in the ionized gas of a cloud chamber. Nor has
the fine structure of a crystalline solid been photographed; all
we have are gross patterns of reflected light. We say that the
theoretical entities are "as-if" constructs, because
the data suggest that it is as if there was such an atomic
structure, or that it is as if atoms are arranged in Bragg planes
(cf. N7.2). One cannot say that a theoretical construct is definitely
true, for alternative constructions of theoretical entities may
serve just as well to suggest the events. And it may be that no
experiment can decide the issue among alternatives.
[This "as-if" as previously proposed
is an evolutional development of the human species which internalized
the heliocentric map allowing manipulation in language structures.]
When he enters the labyrinths of mathematics, the physicist doubtless gives little thought to any hard-core reality. As Dirac has said, the physicist must get over thinking in terms of pictures and concrete models, and rather accept his constructs as possessing significance only in the context of an abstract, unconcretized mathematical model (cf. N7.3). He seems hardly concerned with questions such as: what is the world really like? or, where is the electron at this very moment? or, is a smallest particle hard like a grain of sand? Philosophers in turn have wondered whether theoretical constructs picture facts at all and whether the physicist has not entered into a world of disciplined fictionizing.
We need, therefore, to have another look at realism, or at least at the ontological status of theoretical terms. Are we playing games? Are we inventing convenient prediction machines? Or, do our constructs take the measure of a more substantial world? Second thoughts are likely to be sobering. An increasing number of empiricists maintain that existence propositions (these propositions have always been problematic) are not uniquely different from propositions about hypothetical entities (cf. N7.4). We attribute existence to an object if there is a set of observations which is taken as testimony to the real, not illusory, presence of the object. In other words, existence prescribes evidential bases for asserting the object. But then, are not theoretical terms used in just this kind of context? To assert the theoretical entity is to prescribe a set of observations which are evidential to the entity. In fact, it is very likely that the theory incorporating the theoretical entity has, through deductive inference, led precisely to the search for some evidential support in behalf of that entity. Photographs are not the objects they report, but they are evidential bases for objects occupying some slice of time and space. If we observe that the hands of a clock move and hear the ticking of the clock's escapement, we are satisfied as to the existential status of its mechanical guts. The existential extension of our world at any given time exceeds our immediate data. Perceptually, we process only minimal cues, the rest of the construction is done by inference. One cannot conceive what it would be like to perceive each and every detail of the composite event--not only, for example, to witness another person's smile, but to perceive the state of each and every cell that composes that person's being. Even the smile is evidence for an hypothesis --- an hypothesis, say, about some interpersonal attitude. That attitude is no less real because it cannot be pointed to directly, as we can "point to" the worm in the case of the jumping bean.
We are led then to reconsider the status of our theoretical terms. The descent into microstructure has meant that we have had to give up formulating existential propositions in germs of simple empiric equivalences. The data suggest what we would assert, but only indirectly; yet, the data-inference rubric itself spells out what it is we mean to assert by our maintaining existential status for our theoretical constructs. Could we separate the data from the hypothesis, the case might be more clear-cut for separating the two into exclusive epistemic classes. But this cannot be done. The state of one's knowledge, his hypothesis, if you will, indicates how the complex of data input is to be processed--what, for example, is to be the figure and what, the ground. It takes training, i.e., hypothesis, to read an electro-encephalogram, just as the star in the cloud chamber photograph can only be existentially read by a person conversant in the field of cosmic ray research. The student who is new to his science is blind to the facts put before him. He has to learn to see what is in the microscope, he has to learn to detect the significant patterns in an oscilloscope--just as a music student must learn to detect harmonic structure in a musical composition. One does not just open his eyes and see, he brings with him perceptual hypotheses. Otherwise, he remains blind to facts.
One other comment should be made before we
leave this preview on theoretical entities. Existence and existential
status carry overtones of permanence. The evidential basis of
our data should not signify one thing at one phase of hypothesis
and another thing at another. The rhythmic pattern of the electro-encephalogram,
for example, cannot be the evidential basis for both spontaneous
electro-cortical response and mechanical vibrations of the brain
substance. The red-shift in the galactic spectrum cannot indicate
both a static and an expanding universe. The state
of our knowledge determines how we interpret the data, what hypothesis
we bring to them, and consequently, what the real world is like
at any given time. Why speak of the real world or existential
status at all? Why not accept the predicament and acknowledge
all constructions to be ephemeral? And what of alternative theoretical
entities bound to the same data complexes? These are sticky ontological
problems. However, much of their apparent difficulty resides in
our naive commitment to simple empirical equivalences (again,
like our looking for the worm in the jumping bean). Nevertheless,
hypotheses do affect what we perceive and hypotheses do determine
how we construct entities out of data. A good hypothesis is one
that serves to crystallize data into the meaningful configuration
we call the entity. One does not claim permanence for his entities
but only that in any given historical context those "entities"
serve unambiguously and consistently as approximations to the
real. To be sure our ideas, even the most basic ones like those
of force and motion, are subject to modification with the changing
state of our knowledge. Yet they change not so much because we
were mistaken but because at any given time the data and hypothesis
are such that just this particular construction should be given
to the world and not another. One does not catalogue his textbooks
of biology and physics as fiction because he knows in time their
hypotheses will be outmoded. There is an element of time-boundedness
in existence, and in truth, just as Margenau and Whitehead, for
example, have pointed out.
So what is the spirituality of the scientific method?
Science itself is spiritual.
Reality is conscious and synergetically resonant with human mind.
All life forms and matter share structures that resonate with what we call mind, and this can be registered in mental activity by dreams, meditation, intuition and other ways in what is termed "reality pointing to reality" or mind pointing to mind.
The foregoing section and this statement about
seem to not be talking about the same science. But if mind and
human scientific thought are totally different and apart from
reality: [if] mind and thought do not arise / emerge from connection
with the structures of all of reality. Then mind does not reflect
the procedures and workings of our body and history, especially
in our DNA. Does our DNA only give us physical structure, and
science is only an accidental invention not connected to anything
or responsible - connected. I don't use the word "cause"
as it implies religious prejudice, yet some science contends that
all that exists is cause - effect and stimulus - response.
Science deals with words and rational statements.
< I must not describe my work using nominalizations like:
Astrology - religion - I Ching - Spiritual - Material;
but describe to process: Denomilization - non-attachment.
- Show exactly which cultural fragments are reowned - individualized as personal process. Within a new context of 1993.
Thus I wish to point to which things I
see as dead - stagnant - undifferentiated - fused - confused;
and show the process of integration - return of continuity &
process.
Science deals with models.
I Ching and hypercubes
Matter uses the basic spacial organization
of dimensions as the equidistant corners of hypercubes. This produces
random or chance processes that "fill" all possibilities.
Life has selected and organized these same logics as belonging
to the phase space and consequently as connected with "process"
and "time". The phase space is divided into the ground
states of cycles and excited states as fuzzy ground states. Thus
there is an original "order" or logic into which the
movements of the planets is fit, not the other way around. Life
structures "use" the cosmic elements and cycles of elements
to create diversity and order.
relationship between local and global systems is illustrated
The relationship between local and global systems is illustrated by the episode of the TV Drama, "STAR TRECK, the next generation" where an sequence of actions - time was cyclically repeated without consciousness or connection between cycles. There was no awareness that they were doing the same thing over and over endlessly. They "evolved" a method to send "signals" that aided in survival over the cyclical breaks [death], which eventually allowed them to break from the cycle and continue "time" in a "normal" manner. As a metaphor, this would continue to evolve into language, where continuity could be established without "death and rebirth" of generational cycles. And in so doing the connection of the origin of language and the consciousness of cycling repeating time would be lost, forgotten and ignored, and only signaling and "saving" intervention of accumulated knowledge [called culture] would remain. Thus "real" cyclical time would never self organize and resonate, but always be under the supervision of ever expanding "body of knowledge" which needs to be learned for the purpose of being "saved" from the errors of the past. Thus experience becomes performance, and cyclical self organizing "time" becomes the "enemy" in the form of Fate or samsara. Freedom from this "ignorance of the true situation" becomes nirvana or bliss and ones life becomes perfectly self adjusting, no longer relying on "supervision", but upon immediate and direct seeing into the nature of reality [Suchness - Dharma nature]. I can turn over all the pieces of the puzzle!! The apprehension - dissatisfaction - suffering concerned with performance and getting-it-right disappears and I AM creator and seer in the here and now! [This is not magic or mysticism, which is what it turns into when "culture" tries to teach it as just another lesson to be learned in an unending quest for perfection. YUCK!]
My position is that science has no general system to guide it, and consequently cuts off its orienting BAMs. like a man lost in a forest of facts and not able to assemble what is before his face, and other metaphors like selling water by the river: only because others don't realize what a river is!! Science is drowning in Buddhist ideas.
Nature requires a unique set of laws to generate each case
The common sense view of and by `science'
is to discover the underlying laws and structures of `nature'
by reducing superfluous detail until principles can be established
that explain and predict the essential behavior. Thus the laws
of nature do not depend on individual and unique fluctuations.
Nature does not require a unique set of laws to generate each
case. OR DOES IT? This contention has never been called into question,
and what kinds of laws of the universe would allow such action.
I propose that a model of the universe which includes matter,
mind, and spiritual structures has a structure in which the laws
of the universe is precisely a holographic structure which has
local qualities that have been called MIND. That these `laws'
create the universe at every moment and are the first level of
resolution of `consciousness'!!! "The proper study of man
is man": finding the structure of uniqueness at all times
and places, not the study of laws of collective behavior followed
autonomously as cause and effect.
Aristotelian view of causation is still present
The Greek - Aristotelian view of causation
is still with us today. This does not allow for self organization
without supervision. In fact, the emerging social - political
organizations.
Bias of science from renaissance
At first I accepted the bias of most scientists
that science has nothing to do with a spiritual quest, since the
time of the Renaissance when men of good intention broke away
from a mentally bankrupt Christian culture. The abuse of the failing
culture still permeates science. No scientist dares approach religious
beliefs with a view to connecting with, or opening this wealth
of human experience to the creative, spiritual, discovery process
of the scientific method. To the rational mind of the scientist,
beliefs about God, Heaven, Buddha, Astrology, Spiritual healing
and even less "far out" areas as acupuncture, and humanist
psychology, etc., present a tangled mess. The practice of science
has produced everyday "miracles" which are concrete
"facts", where by comparison the "miracles"
of religion seem impossible. So it seems that people choose sides,
either giving up their connection with rationality, or any possibility
of rationally understanding unique personal unrepeatable experience.
This attitude injures both parties: scientists convince themselves
that they are studying a "reality" of matter and energy
which has little or no connection or application to "spiritual",
and religious "persons" look upon science from an outside
viewpoint, not as participants. Thus both are limited in their
area of application, especially when they try to find explanations
and proof or deny that any proof exists or is needed. This is
the attitude of the outside - stander who wants neat little packages
or separate subjects to study, without any interconnection or
wholeness to human experience. This attitude of isolation was
sufficient during the centuries of the infancy of science and
was intimidating to those who had no way to duplicate the success
of the scientific method in the discovery of "truth"
and the proof of facts. Maybe the human "spirit" had
found a new home for discovery and creativity.