--- The Complexity of reality ---

" Thousands of years of scientific progress and philosophical debate, but we never moved ourselves off the tip of the iceberg of what reality fundamentally is. There is a whole mountain of reality that awaits us "



PART 1: QUOTES


Quote:
"To arrive at the truth once in your life you have to rid yourself of all the opinions that you have received and reconstruct anew from the foundation, all the systems of your knowledge." -- René Descartes

Quote:
"We are secondhand people. We have lived on what we have been told, either guided by our inclinations, our tendencies, or compelled to accept by circumstances and environment. We are the result of all kinds of influences and there is nothing new in us, nothing that we have discovered for ourselves, nothing original, pristine, clear." -- Jiddu Krishnamurti

Quote:
"There is no logical way to the discovery of elemental laws. There is only the way of intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying behind the appearance." -- Albert Einstein

Quote:
"We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up to now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future." -- Max Planck

Quote:
"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." -- Max Planck (founder of Quantum Mechanics)

Quote:
"Reality is the tip of an iceberg of irrationality which we clamber onto for a few panting moments before we slip back into the sea of the unreal." -- Terence McKenna

Quote:
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my World." -- Ludwig Wittgenstein

"The universe is information and we are stationary in it, not three-dimensional and not in space or time. We hypostatize information into objects. Rearrangement of objects is change in the content of the information; the message has changed. This is a language which we have lost the ability to read. We ourselves are a part of this language, changes in us are changes in the content of the information."


PART 2: SCIENCE IS ONLY THE BEGINNING OF THE ANSWER

Science is and always has been a philosophy (see Scientism), infact it was first called "Natural Philosophy". The problem of science is its need to find problems to be solved, but in this respect science is chasing it's tail and wherever it looks it will always find problems. The place it rarely (if ever) looks at is not out there, but within it's own epistemological and ontological foundations. Science is stuck within tautology.

This is a Einstein quote:

problems cannot be solved by the same level of consciousness that created them".

"Randomness" is a label given to something beyond the complexity of current scientific understanding. "Random" is really pseudo-random, it is a black box. Within science is the existenece of hidden variables which evade science, the discovery of a new anomaly will often require theories to be revised. Chaos theory for example suggests that the universe does not abide by any strict laws of physics at all, the so-called "laws of physics" operate within certain boundaries and conditions.

The unfortunate thing is that the realisation of the "unreality of reality" has not reached the minds of the masses and has generally been parried around by the sciences. The institutionalization of our collective mindscape has suffered somewhat of a cognitive dissonace by the implication of quantum mechanics.


PART 3: PHYSICS AND DIGITALITY

Digital physics sees everything as information, it provides a different way of describing what is happening at the quantum level. Seeing as the universe appears to be composed of elementary particles whose behaviour can be completely described by the quantum switches they undergo that implies that the universe as a whole can be described by bits. Every state is information and every change of state is a change in information. From this it can be said that the history of the universe is in effect a huge and ongoing quantum computation, the universe is a quantum computer.



To get an idea of physics as a software program imagine three atoms, two hydrogen and one oxygen. As the three atoms bind together to form a water molecule the interaction of the particles calculate the optimal angle and distance at which to bond to each other. The oxygen atom uses yes/no decisions to evaluate all possible approaches toward the hydrogen atom. It them typically selects the optimal 104.45 degrees by moving toward the other hydrogen at that angle. Every chemical bond is therefore calculated.

Digital Physics tells us that all information is processed at the boundary of the system. For those who are familiar with the cellular biologist Bruce Lipton and his work on epigenetics you may see a correlation here. Lipton tells us that the cell membrane is the "brain" of a cell. As Above, So Below? Could what we know as our universe really just be the endoplasm of a holographic amoeba?

Any object we might conceive of is really an abstraction or collection of other objects, for example a car is made up of parts and those parts are made up of smaller parts etc. The car as an abstract entity is a storage medium of information, within its semiotic space the "language" can be thought of as how the different parts communicate their relativity to each other.

PART 4 : LANGUAGE RULES EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD


The destructive potential of language is contained within the very nature of representation. Words, particularly nouns, force an infinity of unique objects and processes into a finite number of categories. Words deny the uniqueness of each moment and each experience, reducing it to a "this" or a "that". They grant us the power to manipulate and control (with logic) the things they refer to.

Language by its very nature reaffirms duality because each word is a signifier representing a signified. If a signifier exists without pointing to a signified then it is regarded as meaningless. We tend to think there is a class of things which are symbols and a class of things which are not but there is not a clear distinction between a signifer and a signified. A signified may itself be a signifier pointing to another signified and the physical object to which that idea referes is merely another symbol.

PART 5: PERCEPTION OF REALITY

External "reality" is an illusion, an artifact of our "consciousness". We are in a very real sense encased within a bubble, a cocoon, our nervous system is a buffer into the void of ultimate mystery, even science has it's limits in what it can explain phenomenologically. This is something which a lot of people take for granted. For all I know, maybe I am the only thing that exists as I have no way of proving that anything exists outside of my imagination. Ofcourse "we" are all in this paradoxical situation and "we" will all claim to be equally "real". Solipsism cannot be proven or disproven.

The "problem" in tackling the nature of reality is that it is not something that most people spend a great deal of time gnawing away at and most people seem to lack critical thinking ability. It is far easier to just accept the consensus definition of reality (a lie told often enough becomes the truth). Paradoxically however, the more we hope to tie things down once and for all, to explain things and "factualise" or "solidify" our reality, the more is shimmers and recasts itself to fit whatever beliefs we project into it and consequently we end up chasing our tails ad infinitum. Truth is a pathless path and it cannot be named or handed to you on a plate, it is something beheld in the moment of epiphany. The knowledge or realization of something of a higher magnitude is useless unless you are able to actualize it (to live, breathe and communicate it without it becoming dogmatic). It comes as a great frustration to be silenced by the ineffability of mystical experiences.

By the time we are holding the biggest picture idea of reality in our heads, we are outside the system in the domain of indeterminacy, that is where all potential expressions of reality reside, because that is where the information that could potentially represent all possible realities also resides. Whilst I may not be able to fully articulate what I mean to myself or through myself in these ramblings, I know that there are other people out there who can see a bigger picture, who can join the dots and pass the baton to wherever it needs to go.

We ultimately come to the realisation that all perceptions and knowledge, including scientific work are not objective reconstructions of reality, but instead they are creative activities comparable to artistic expressions (i.e. subjective). We cannot measure true reality, in fact the very essence of reality is its immeasurability.


PART 6: PERCEPTION AND DUALITY

The "masculine" left-brain deals with language, logic and linear reasoning, structure etc, whereas the "feminine" right-brain deals with emotions and is holistic, non-linear, intuitive, creative etc. The education system and social structure is primarily tailored for the left-brain. By keeping people locked into logic they can be more easily controlled.

As a short aside, this imbalance is referred to by many as the supression of the divine feminine and forms the basis of much of theology, mythology and mysticism, it also plays out in a broader sense with regards to gender, sexuality and the entire principle of duality.

What is particularly interesting relative to the right-brain is the ability for it to access non-local information outside of space-time. Emotions and visualizations are a function of the right-brain and as has been hinted at earlier on thoughts create reality. The problem is that most people are creating their reality subconsciously and 90% or more of all our actions are subconscious. Our subconscious has been hijacked and because of this our creation has become not ours but someone elses.

PART 7: WORLD OF SYMBOLS

Reality is at a very deep level a set of interrelated and self-referential symbols. We interpret these symbols and therefore explore reality linked to a set of codes, not all of them are conscious. Some codes have a stronger claim than other. We interpret gravity accoridng to a set of formal codes that clearly and reliably predict its behaviour. Many other codes are less reliable such as those connected to our day to day lives. Changing those codes makes us see things in a different way because we bring new symbols in contact with us. The semiotic theory of magic states that a person is able to effect communication in their universe by changing the symbols they interact with. The magician seeks either a psychological change within themselves or an environmental change by changing their cultural coded symbols.


Art imitates life, just as life imitates art. Making art is a process in which the artist is continually articulating, refining, and creating an ever-evolving form of symbolic language. In being a conduit for the formation of a new language, the artist is shedding light on and participating in the creation of language itself. How language gets created invariably leads us right back to the psyche, which is simultaneously the subject and the object of the new language.

our brains are all about finding and decoding patterns, we are designed to think symbolically. Consider then that as children we have been taught what symbols to use to construct our model of the World. Words are also symbols. When we think about things we are really thinking about the construction and interaction of various symbols, it is a code. Perhaps you can begin to appreciate how powerful language can really be.

CONTINUES

PART 8: WORDS HAVE THEIR OWN POWER AND INFLUENCE

Words do more damage than things to most people in our culture because they alter our perception of the thing they are associated with. Distorted words create a distorted reality.

As further cause for concern, there are studies indicate that the vocabulary of the typical teenager has dramatically dropped in recent times. It can be speculated that the influences of television, computer games, and other entertainment media are largely responsible and have atrophied language skills. An article from the July/August 2000 edition of Utne Reader tells how the typical American teenager of the 50's had a vocabulary of 25,000 words, the teenager of 10 years ago had a vocabulary of 10,000 words. A more recent article from the Mail Online claims that some teenagers have a vocabulary of barely 1,000 words (that's pre-school level!). A limited vocabulary literally limits the "resolution" of our symbolic thinking capacity.


Interestingly studies by David Oates almost insists that all speech contains meaningful reversals, apparently the subconscious can communicate in this way. A statement such as "I left work and went to go shopping" might contain a complimentary reversal message such as "loaf of bread". In first learning how to speak we generate reversed speech in the right hemisphere. The brain therefore is able and does to process language and speech in both forward and reverse.


Mass media is the most powerful tool used by the ruling class to manipulate the masses. TV has been shown for example to impact the sensory development of children, increase agggression and hostility, slow intellectual development and impair social skills. Furthermore consider that for very young children everything they see is perceived as real and by the time thet reach their mid-teens they will have seen an estimated 33,000 murders.

is however not just the content of the media, but the media itself that is being used to subvert peoples' will. TV for example has a refresh rate which lulls people into alpha brainwave which is indicative of an unfocused, receptive state. The people who have given us all these "wonderful" new technologies know how the human mind works and how to modulate and manipulate us to their whim. Our brains naturally try to entrain to the predominant background frequency. If we weren't living in such dense elecrtomagnetic smog, that frequency would be the Schumann resonance, which can be thought of as the "pacemaker" of the Earth.

Quote:
"There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution."

PART 9: LANGUAGE HAS LIMITS TOO

all philosophy must be done using language, and no thoughts can be written down (or spoken) without unconscious metaphysical assumptions about reality built into them. As one philosopher put it (Alan Watts), “Language based on the sentence composed of subject, verb, and predicate contains the hidden belief system that events are started by nouns—by things.” If we look unassumingly at the natural world, its interconnected nature is hard to miss. Nowhere in nature do we find the separate categories of the sentence; all in nature goes together. Our unconscious assumptions contaminate pure reality, making it impossible for the philosopher to see past the self-invented syntax of his mind. Only poets retain the ability to feel with their language, creating imagery that displays a truth all at once before the mind’s eye. In contrast, for a philosophical treatise to be taken seriously, it must adhere to the strict rules of logic and exhibit a rational structure. Its truths must therefore become linear and flat, losing the extra dimensions present in more musical, directly apprehended presentations. When such treatises concern the nature of reality, and therefore, of Truth, how is it that they deduce that reality itself is rational? On what is such an assertion based? We must save this question for later, saying only that it originates from a misunderstanding of the nature of Truth. For now we will maintain that it is impossible to make such an assertion, as reality itself is neither rational nor irrational, but arational. That is, reality itself is unconcerned with the categories of the human mind, being neither ordered nor chaotic, but both at the same time.

we must define Truth. A range of definitions are possible, but for our purposes, Truth shall be synonymous with reality as it actually is. Reality as it actually is, in this case, means reality before words and concepts break it up into more understandable bits and pieces. Truth then, is not something that can be communicated or described in its entirety in any way. Descriptions that point the way toward Truth may be called knowledge, but ultimately, they are relative. In other words, knowledge is always provisional: its validity is dependent upon certain preconditions remaining constant. Its conditional nature is exemplified by the progress of science, as new paradigms replace the old and our knowledge adapts to fresh observations.

PART 10: ARE WE REALLY AS PROGRESSED AS WE CLAIM?

The fresh observations made by physicists in the past century of the smallest bits of matter yet discovered are still struggling to find their proper context in a coherent universal theory of the physical world. In fact, to call the observed phenomena “the smallest bits” of matter may be misleading, as it would be just as correct to refer to them as waves, or patterns of probability spread throughout space and time. But the true physical make-up of the world is not our problem at the moment. Our problem, and the problem of most of the greatest physicists of the past hundred years, concerns the impossibility of ever knowing the true physical make-up of the world. The so-called “physical” nature of the world is not a verifiable aspect of reality. Physicality is merely one of the silently agreed upon assumptions made about the structure of reality that allows us to communicate meaningfully about it. Meaning, in this sense, is nothing more than correspondence. Meaning allows one aspect of the world to correspond to another using various types of representation. Nouns are used to represent especially pronounced or rigid aspects of our environment, while verbs are used to represent the more fluid and rhythmic aspects. But at their constituent level, “All the words or concepts we use to describe ordinary physical objects, such as position, velocity, color, size, and so on, become indefinite and problematic,” as Physicist Werner Heisenberg has said.


The actual problem was that the physical world, with its supposed separate events and individual objects, was nothing more than a way of speaking. Author Eddington put it wonderfully: “We have found that where science has progressed the farthest, the mind has but regained from nature that which the mind has put into nature. We have found a strange footprint on the shores of the unknown. We have devised profound theories, one after another, to account for its origin. At last, we have succeeded in reconstructing the creature that made the footprint. And Lo! it is our own.” This suggests that human descriptions of the world, down even to the most detailed and abstract of mathematical equations, are not aspects of the world itself, but are superimposed upon it by the linguistically trained mind.

as Schrödinger explains, “We do not belong to this material world that science constructs for us. We are not in it; we are outside. We are only spectators.”

perception alone” is the only real quality that can be assigned to reality, although it hardly suggests any specific qualities at all. We all intuitively feel this perception at the deepest level of our experience all the time. It reveals what there is. It is our current experience, our body’s total sensory awareness of our environment as it exists in its entirety before the names and descriptions we then unknowingly superimpose upon it become our only way of thinking about it to describe it to others.

“It would prove nothing if nature had merely been found to act in accordance with the concepts of applied mathematics; these concepts were specially and deliberately designed by man to fit the workings of nature.”

Great topic and impressive amount of information you have gathered.

This must have taken some time! I will have to re-read and look for some sources, it has got my interest piqued.

Thanks

P&L

Okay, so, I think we really do see only the tip of the iceberg about fundamentally everything that exists.
I think our perception of reality is a re-arrangement of what there is really outside there, outside our heads, in a way that is probably built through the help of a MIND OF THE MINDS to fit ourselves into nature.

We may see only the reflection of the reality as quantum physics defines it.
Just like we see the apple of a red colour, but in reality, the apple absorbs ALL colors BUT red, so that we see the red because its exception, but it DOESN'T corresponds to reality.

There is no red in the real apple. But we can only see the reflection, the exception.
WHY?

So, how about our senses? How much are they actually reliable?

Reality may be a singularity that we perceive as a pre-singularitarian world, or even :

To explain reality, we can only divide reality into parts, into section, into laws. But there is no such division in the world.

For all we know, everything may be NOW, no past and future as we define them, NO DIVISION, NO DISTANCE.

But, as always, the truth is fundamentally --- ? --- ( unknown ).

Meh, personally what I get out of this is that there have been a lot of great minds who held some bizarre and irrational assumptions.

I was out at the bar last nite hanging out with a "super-genius" = IQ168. We love to get together and talk about various subjects, and it's just totally fun because we both process real fast and can jump from topic to topic to topic. People look at us and are like, wtf?? What kind of crack are they on.



Anyways one of the subjects we were talking about had to do with this whole, perception is reality nonsense. He tried his best to argue that the exact same thing as what you say, that perception is the only true reality. My stance was that reality is independent of any one persons perception. He gave some examples, and I gave counter arguments.

Now, this guy is pretty much NPD, but he means well. What I mean to say is that he's simply never wrong. The rationalizations and manipulative practices he employs to squiggle his way around being perceived of as in the wrong is definitely a feat on it's own, but I did totally stump the guy with a very simple example.

Here it is:

So if reality is but what we perceive, let's follow this through. I'm driving in a car. I have psychosis. My perception tells me that I'm in the clear to put the pedal to the metal...the coast is clear and I'm feeling like being a maniac. So I do. The problem is that in reality, which is independent from my perceptive state, there are several cars backed up at a stop light just ahead. Now, according to your assumption, my perception of there being no cars ahead should make this a reality, meaning that I don't hit the cars. I hit the cars. Why?

He did a ton of squiggling, but offered no true counter argument.

This is just magical thinking.

Sorry.

reply to post by unityemissions


I agree. Perception is not reality, since perception involves the making of distinctions, and no distinction can define reality, nor can we appraise it from some position apart from it (quantum entanglement has proven this).

A great mind I've been studying lately, decribes reality as beyond the beyond, impressionless and without distinction.

Nevertheless, while it cannot be percieved in the traditional way with the five senses it can be known when one loses the self as a particular POV, and then, according to some of these masters, what was unreal becomes real, although it cannot be distinguished and paradoxically, is without any impression, what Buddha called "nothing special" which I find exceedingly amuzing and humorous.

S&F to the OP for starting this discussion about the nothing we take for something and call it reality, when the real reality is beyond the beyond and everything already always within which any "thing" is nothing in particular.

Reality is non-particularized and to behold it we cannot be seeking it or looking for it, since what is, just is and nothing more or less.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


The whole process of externalizing our perception when we are trying to define something generally, the whole process of " being the spectator of a phenomena " is the problem.

We have to detouch from the whole to define it. But, fact is, we are part of that whole and no distance exists. There is no distance between our minds and nature.

I think what some may be missing here is the idea that while seeming fixed, reality is indeed fixed BY perception. In other words, at a fundamental level, there is no objective "reality." This cannot be perceived in the "macro" primarily because you are always observing, or projecting this reality. However, this is well known at the quantum level, and pretty much accepted.

What I find exceedingly hilarious is that some people actually claim to say that reality can't be known, and then go on to describe it's properties.

You guys and gals have fun with these assumptions. My left-handed, right brained intuition tells me questions like this were never meant to be answered, as they are without reason and therefore unknowable. The best we can say is we know that we know not. Anything else is just a delusion, imo.

Peace.

reply to post by joechip


Practically nothing about the quantum world is accepted as fact. We have no clue what we're observing, or what the data truly means. There's so many people out there who have different THEORIES AND OPINIONS but nothing has truly been proved at all. We're still in our infancy understanding these things, and even after we understand them we have to somehow apply that which is at the nano level to the macro in a reasonable way, if this is even possible at all.

Basically, we know penis, but there's a ton of charlatan's who have built new age jargon out there and a lot of people blindly accept this. It's the new religion for fools, imo.

reply to post by joechip


The question is why we are forced to order our perception in sequences, patterns, cycles and laws if all these stuff have no actual correlation with reality?
There is no sequential time therefore no history, no seasons, no laws, not the same laws we know of.
What are the implications?
Why cannot we see the actual reality?

Our brain limits us, but why? Will somebody ever be able to answer this question?

Originally posted by joechip
I think what some may be missing here is the idea that while seeming fixed, reality is indeed fixed BY perception. In other words, at a fundamental level, there is no objective "reality."

I think that's backwards and absurd, in the sense that first, what you say is fixed is instead blurred and made unreal by perception, being nothing but a pale immitation or a very small delusion, at best, and that secondly, we needn't go so far as to deny our own existence in order to be right!

reply to post by Zagari


Great question, really. Perhaps the laws, patterns, etc. are fundamental (in the sense of the schematic of a circuit board being fundamental to the proper functioning of a device) to this PARTICULAR reality, while having no real limiting power over consciousness in general. The states of being achieved by "adepts" or even the instant obliteration of normal perception caused by lsd may hint at states where these patterns you speak of can become conscious and therefore not as limiting to consciousness.

Great thread.

Originally posted by Zagari
reply to post by joechip

 

Our brain limits us, but why? Will somebody ever be able to answer this question?

It's possible, if the "mind" is viewed as having two separate natures, one a classical brain-mind, and the other a quantum mind, or the free one who chooses and who, between choices and distinctions, and impressions, is and must be a type of non-local, holographic mind. The first slices and dices, but the second is capable of apprehending the real world as it really is and is one with it, with everything everywhere and who may be considered consciousness itself as the very ground of being. Ancient Hindu mystics spent about 3000 years in this study, which they called 'Bramavidya" (supreme science) whereby they would withdraw consciousness layer after layer, to see what was left, if anything at all, and it's not nothing.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


I don't believe it is necessary or desirable to "deny one's existence" in order to understand it better. If indeed our dominant paradigm is in some degree informed by our scientific understanding, then it is only logical that we include the ideas (and science) that the OP laid out so diligently in our world-view. (Perhaps our meta-world-view, if you will)
That these ideas correlate in many areas with ancient mystical understanding is also interesting and noteworthy.

I realize after posting, its perhaps a semantic difference we have. Hard to always get your point across clearly. I think i probably failed, in using assumptive telescopic metaphorical language. Apologies.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

It's been said that the reality of Reality is only made truly real when the differentiating mind utterly vanishes and all impressions dissolve in an un-impressed awareness ie: nothing special.

However, because we have things to do, to feed the body and to survive, the only way to go about choosing is to choose very lightly, and to act, to act with ease and in flow, while renouncing all attachments to any outcome, or as Ghandi said "renounce and enjoy".

Also we are IT, in truth "thou art that", but most of us are not the least bit "real" to begin with, and we cannot be really, to be in relationship, to communicate etc where there's always something to project or a role to play. However, if we can become entirely authentic about our own inauthenticity, and get that straight away up front (this is me playing a role), then perhaps, we might be able to become more real, more true to self and other.

But to even begin to become present to the presence of the real reality within which we are intrinsically emersed, neither can we differentiate between the within and the without (skin barrier). No, the no-self self is nowhere in particular and therefore everywhere, all at once.

Therefore the only way to "see" is to see everything in everything.

OTOH, the particularized notion of being a teeny tiny thing on a small globe circling an insignificant sun in a galaxy and all that, or the Newtonian Materialist Monist POV, with human standing apart from it, insignificantly, that doesn't begin to percieve "it", and of course we know that at the foundation of the classical world is another deeper and infinitely more connected and interpenetrating reality.

At the very least I think it's fair to say that what we took for the real world and for ourselves and our place in it, is at best an illusion and at worst an unhelpful delusion and one clung to rather tightly by those of a more atheist mindset, what amounts to a separatist viewpoint, where only perception is reality in some sort of isolate consciousness or Cognitive Reletavism ie: personal isolation chamber based only in perceptual awareness from the five senses and solely from the POV of the limited small self.

That said the no-self self without distinction ie: a nobody or a nothing within an unimpressioned nothing and having no mind, no opinion, and no POV, pointless - might very well awaken to or become conscious of, the everything already always and thus become real and now wouldn't that be something of the farthest reaching significance or a wonderful nothing special (special nothing) as everything..?!

I believe that the infinite series of discreet and finite nothings that form the big nothing we take for something extraordinary, is being re-absorbed (re-cognized) by the everything already always as consciousness or the first/last cause and the alpha and omega of existence.

"The God Theory" by Bernard Haisch
www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1249274834&sr=8-1
Haisch is an astrophysicist whose professional positions include Staff Scientist at the Lockheed Martin Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory, Deputy Director for the Center for Extreme Ultraviolet Astrophysics at the University of California, Berkeley, and Visiting Fellow at the Max-Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics in Garching, Germany. His work has led to close involvement with NASA; he is the author of over 130 scientific papers; and was the Scientific Editor of the Astrophysical Journal for nine years, as well as the editor in chief of the Journal of Scientific Exploration.

an excerpt

If you think of whitte light as a metaphor of infinite, formless potential, the colors on a slide or frame of film become a structured reality grounded in the polarity that comes about through intelligent subtraction from that absolute formless potential. It results from the limitation of the unlimited. I contend that this metaphor provides a comprehensible theory for the creation of a manifest reality (our universe) from the selective limitation of infinite potential (God)...
If there exists an absolute realm that consists of infinite potential out of which a created realm of polarity emerges, is there any sensible reason not to call this "God"? Or to put it frankly, if the absolute is not God, what is it? For our purposes here, I will indentify the Absolute with God. More precisely I will call the Absolute the Godhead. Applying this new terminology to the optics analogy, we can conclude that our physical universe comes about when the Godhead selectively limits itself, taking on the role of Creator and manifesting a realm of space and time and, within that realm, filtering out some of its own infinite potential...
Viewed this way, the process of creation is the exact opposite of making something out of nothing. It is, on the contrary, a filtering process that makes something out of everything. Creation is not capricious or random addition; it is intelligent and selective subtraction. The implications of this are profound.

If the Absolute is the Godhead, and if creation is the process by which the Godhead filters out parts of its own infinite potential to manifest a physical reality that supports experience, then the stuff that is left over, the residue of this process, is our physical universe, and ourselves included. We are nothing less than a part of that Godhead - quite literally.

Next, by Ervin Laszlo

Science and the Akashic Field, an Integral Theory of Everything, 2004
www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1249275852&sr=8-1

And, his other seminal work
Science and the Reenchantment of the Cosmos: The Rise of the Integral Vision of Reality
www.amazon.com...=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1249275852&sr=8-6

Ervin Laszlo is considered one of the foremost thinkers and scientists of our age, perhaps the greatest mind since Einstein. His principal focus of research involves the Zero Point Field. He is the author of around seventy five books (his works having been translated into at least seventeen languages), and he has contributed to over 400 papers. Widely considered the father of systems philosophy and general evolution theory, he has worked as an advisor to the Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. He was also nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in both 2004 and 2005. A multidisciplinarian, Laszlo has straddled numerous fields, having worked at universities as a professor of philosophy, music, futures studies, systems science, peace studies, and evolutionary studies. He was a sucessful concert pianist until he was thirty eight.

In his view, the zero-point field (or the Akashic Field, as he calls it) is quite literally the "mind of God".

Naming Hal Puthoff, Roger Penrose, Fritz-Albert Popp, and a handful of others as "front line investigators", Laszlo quotes Puthoff who says of the new scientific paradigm:

[What] would emerge would be an increased understanding that all of us are immersed, both as living and physical beings, in an overall interpenetrating and interdependant field in ecological balance with the cosmos as a whole, and that even the boundary lines between the physical and "metaphysical" would dissolve into a unitary viewpoint of the universe as a fluid, changing, energetic/informational cosmological unity."

an excert from Science and the Akashic Field, an Integral Theory of Everything

Akasha (a . ka . sha) is a Sanskrit word meaning "ether": all-pervasive space. Originally signifying "radiation" or "brilliance", in Indian philosophy akasha was considered the first and most fundamental of the five elements - the others being vata (air), agni (fire), ap (water), and prithivi (earth). Akasha embraces the properties of all five elements: it is the womb from which everything we percieve with our senses has emerged and into which everything will ultimately re-descend. The Akashic Record (also called The Akashic Chronicle) is the enduring record of all that happens, and has ever happened, in space and time."

Laszlo's view of the history of the universe is of a series of universes that rise and fall, but are each "in-formed" by the existence of the previous one. In Laszlo's mind, the universe is becoming more and more in-formed, and within the physical universe, matter (which is the crystallization of intersecting pressure waves or an interference pattern moving through the zero-point field) is becoming increasing in-formed and evolving toward higher forms of consciousness and realization.

------------

According to James Oroc's experiences (Tryptamine Palace), when the ego is dissolved in consciousness through the temporary formation of a type of neurological "Bose Einstein Condensate", there is no real dilineation or distinction between individual consciousness and God-consciousness or the universal "akashic field" (Lazslo) aka Zero Point Field.

Whatever it is, I think it makes sense, given the reality of cosmic evolution, that indeed "it" is fully informed and therefore, nothing more or less than absolute consciousness itself.

In fact, a monistic idealist frame of reference (consciousness, not matter is primary) is the only way that all the quantum paradoxes can be resolved satisfactorily.

Therefore in conclusion I would suggest that the classical brain-mind needs to be dissolved in the quantum holographic mind, as matter itself dissolves into spirit, making, for the human being, what was unreal, real at last, including himself, or what was lost, and dead, found, and alive again - now enveloped by the first father of creation who is a who, and who is love, light and life or the truth and the REALITY which is not and cannot be a death thing or an "it" at all, but a living truth a way of being.

Originally posted by Wally898
Great topic and impressive amount of information you have gathered.

This must have taken some time! I will have to re-read and look for some sources, it has got my interest piqued.

Thanks

P&L

A large amount of the OP was taken verbatim from my book without any acknowledgement under the creative commons licensing terms listed at the bottom of the page...

linguistic object is a rather undiscerning metaphor

From your book.

I find this language no where in the original post.

Please substantiate your claims that the original post was lifted from you book.


David Grouchy

Originally posted by davidgrouchy

linguistic object is a rather undiscerning metaphor

From your book.

I find this language no where in the original post.

Please substantiate your claims that the original post was lifted from you book.

David Grouchy

edit on 27-1-2011 by davidgrouchy because: spelling

It shouldn't be that hard to see...

For starters all of the quotes mentioned in the OP can be found dotted throughout the different sections of the book. They should be easy enough to find because of the CSS style applied to the blockquote elements. The quotes used generally appear sequentially throughout the book i.e. the first quote was taken from the first section (Introduction).

Section 2...

Science is and always has been a philosophy (see Scientism), infact it was first called "Natural Philosophy". The problem of science is its need to find problems to be solved, but in this respect science is chasing it's tail and wherever it looks it will always find problems. The place it rarely (if ever) looks at is not out there, but within it's own epistemological and ontological foundations. Science is stuck within tautology

From my book (The Inauthenticity of Science):

Modern science is and always has been a philosophical affair, it originates from Scientism which arose from Natural Philosophy. The problem of science is its need to find problems to be solved, but in this respect science is chasing it's proverbial tail and wherever it looks it will always find problems as the universe pulls away from the observer. The place science rarely (if ever) looks at is not out there, but within it's own epistemological and ontological foundations. Science is stuck within tautology, perhaps we all are, philosophy is game that cannot be won/one. Science is not governed by facts, it is governed by paradigms which is essentially a move from one belief system to another, paradigms are culturally constructed, not discovered. Likewise Issac Newton did not discover the law of gravity, he imposed it. Something must be named before it can be discovered.

In fact, I think the exact version of my book that the OP has copied can be found here.

Once again...

OP:

Science is and always has been a philosophy (see Scientism), infact it was first called "Natural Philosophy". The problem of science is its need to find problems to be solved, but in this respect science is chasing it's tail and wherever it looks it will always find problems. The place it rarely (if ever) looks at is not out there, but within it's own epistemological and ontological foundations. Science is stuck within tautology

From my book (old version):

Science is and always has been a philosophy (see Scientism), infact it was first called "Natural Philosophy". The problem of science is its need to find problems to be solved, but in this respect science is chasing it's tail and wherever it looks it will always find problems. The place it rarely (if ever) looks at is not out there, but within it's own epistemological and ontological foundations. Science is stuck within tautology (perhaps we all are, what can I say that has not already been said somewhere else? Am I not just a signpost to another signpost? Don't look at me, look at you!). Immanuel Kant said that we cannot possibly see the noumenal world, the world in and of itself, we only see our personal version, our interpretation of a reality that is "out there".

reply to post by dynamo


yeah. it was pretty plain to see. the opening posts were very well formatted and then....

....the OP himself came in and the typing and tone changed completely.


poor form, OP. shame shame shame

Originally posted by Zagari
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

The whole process of externalizing our perception when we are trying to define something generally, the whole process of " being the spectator of a phenomena " is the problem.

We have to detouch from the whole to define it. But, fact is, we are part of that whole and no distance exists. There is no distance between our minds and nature.

So we have to suspend judgement then, distinctions, born of impressions, somehow we have to come to experience but not "see" the world, the way Hellen Keller experienced the world before she got language. We must retrain ourselves not to think table when we see a table, but instead to just be with life as an experience, you're 100% bang on about the problem being the very position we take as a subjective observer, as if apart from the thing itself, and to a large degree this was Isaac Newton's fault and where quantum physics comes to the rescue, and we just haven't caught up with the truth of the matter yet, in the same way that the great masters of all ages have gone largely misunderstood up until perhaps only recently and then only partially, but we're making a START. We are just beginning to climb out of that prison, thank God!