Associated websites

Websites associated with Contributing authors

The Belief Doctor (Steaphen Pirie)   Infoworks (Steven Lesser)

Disclaimer

Please be aware that the opinions, beliefs and materials of contributing authors need not reflect the beliefs or opinions of other contributing authors. As a general rule articles are posted on this website which infer or in some way point towards, or add weight to an "integral systems" or 'holodynamic systems" world-view.

Stephen Pirie's blog

Technical details revealing errors in scientific assumptions

Overview

There is now ample theoretical and experimental evidence that ought to motivate serious thinkers towards adopting a new, expansive world-view -- one that eclipses the standard scientific view that physical things (genes, viruses, physical forces) are the sole cause of physical effects (bodies, behaviours etc.)

The section Zeno's Paradoxes at this site provides a number of useful thought-experiments, and related blog posts that clearly demolish the standard scientific world-view.

Categories: 

3rd Proof of the Impossibility of Physical Movement

It is commonly argued that objects the size/weight of people would have an imperceptibly small de Broglie wavelength. But when movement of fingers, arms and people involves infinitesimal increments, as required by Assumption no. 1, the wavelength, despite being imperceptibly short, must go infinitely shorter, thus requiring mass and/or momentum to become infinite. In other words, according to standard scientific world-views, movement is theoretically impossible.

This proof (in addition to others1) shows that physical movement is impossible, when it is theoretically based on standard2 scientific assumptions. Since everyday physical movement is not only possible but routinely lived and experienced, we can confidently conclude that modern scientific world-views are "wrong" (in that they do not fully account for, or explain the facts).

The objective of these proofs is to reveal how our modern scientific views are surface-layer perceptions that do not reveal or account for deeper, nonlocal (meta-physical) rhythms and processes.

  • Scientific Assumption #1: The standard, widely-accepted scientific solution for explaining the paradox of physical movement (often referred to as Zeno's Paradoxes) is fully resolved by the mathematics of infinite series. In particular, the assumption of, and reliance on a one-to-one correspondence of mathematical points with physical points is required. It is never assumed or stated that the mathematical points (in whichever equations or formula) are entirely unrelated to physical reality: that would make the mathematical expressions a 'nonsense' exercise. The assumption is that we are able to traverse each point in an infinite sequence of 'infinitesimal' contiguous physical steps in finite time, thus enabling everyday movement of our bodies etc.

Categories: 

2nd Proof of the Impossibility of Physical Movement

This proof, based on the assumptions of modern science and medicine, reveals how we are unable to move our bodies even for the simplest of tasks, such as blinking an eye, or lifting a finger. In view of our easy ability to blink, or move a finger, we may confidently conclude that standard scientific theories -- reliant on the assumption of 'perfectly contiguous and continuous' movement  -- are inappropriate and incorrect at the micro-scaled dimensions of space-time, but approximately correct in the macro-scaled events of everyday life1.

This proof focuses on the issue of first-cause. What enables or makes us think, e.g. about thinking? The brain-as-computer metaphor has serious shortcomings, chief of which is the inability to explain the impetus to think: before we think, what must we do? Less well known, but even more telling is the inability of brain-as-computer metaphors to accommodate and explain how the computer model operates in the quantum realm involving fields of potentials and possibilities; realms within which all brain 'stuff' is bathed.

As Freeman Dyson explained:

Quantum mechanics makes matter even in the smallest pieces into an active agent, and I think that is something very fundamental. Every particle in the universe is an active agent making choices between random processes.2

What enables particles of our brain-stuff to make choices between random processes that can't be physically predicted or modelled?

{C}

Categories: 

Proof of the impossibility of physical movement

Overview

Standard scientific beliefs are that when we move, say a finger through a small distance, it does so by moving through an infinite number of very small "infinitesimal" steps. This proof asks a very basic question: What is the electrical, chemical activity in the body that can account for, and control that infinite-step process?

"If infinite-series do not track physical movement in the details, they cannot be used in the details of physical movement." [Stephen Pirie, 2011]

Introduction

Proving the impossibility of physical movement,
using the assumptions of modern science

This proof, based on the assumptions of modern science and medicine, reveals how we are unable to move our bodies even for the simplest of tasks, such as blinking an eye, or lifting a finger. In view of our easy ability to blink, or move a finger, we may confidently conclude that standard scientific theories -- reliant on the assumption of 'perfectly contiguous and continuous' movement  -- are inappropriate and incorrect at the micro-scaled dimensions of space-time, but approximately correct in the macro-scaled events of everyday life.

As is more fully explained in this proof, modern deterministic science (including and especially medical and biological science) requires that

for each and every physical effect (ie. for each and every infinitesimal physical step) there MUST BE an identifiable physical (NEUROLOGICAL) cause

This expectation (of perfect biological determinism) is unable to accommodate the quantum facts: the majority of contemporary science is based on incorrect assumptions. A new scientific paradigm is required.

Categories: 

Technically living ON the moment

I've read in recent news reports that people were queuing overnight to buy the new Apple iPhone (S model).

It reminded me of times past when I would look forward to purchasing some new gadget, only to notice how the wonder of the device soon dissipated.

But it also reminded me of one particular time years ago while driving in peak hour traffic, when I had a sense that I was living "on" the moment, not IN it. I was heading back to the office after some appointment, and it felt like I was scurrying around on the surface of life, not deeply in it.

Categories: 

Gut feelings win again

According to the Sydney Morning Herald, a Sydney labourer who won $2.5 million in a Lotto draw, had a strong premonition about winning a large prize.

He reported that he "had a gut feeling he was about to win money."

As the article goes on to explain:

"I've just had a funny feeling. Over the last month or so I've been saying to my wife, 'I'm going to win something'," he said.

Sir Ken Robinson on Creativity and Innovation

An interesting and worthwhile interview with Sir Ken Robinson on the ABC's 7.30 Report with Kerry O'Brien.

Two parts to the interview.

Part 1 (transcript, mp4, wmv)

Sir Ken Robinson: 

"...people achieve their best when they firstly tune into their natural aptitudes - and lots of people I have interviewed aren't musicians, they're mathematicians, they're business leaders, they're teachers, they're broadcasters, you know, they've found this thing that they completely get. But the second thing is that they love it. And if you can find that - a talented and a passion - well that's to say you never work again. And it is true, I think, that our current education systems are simply not designed to help people do that. In fact an awful lot of people go through education and never discover anything they're good at at all."

Categories: 

Spring clean

I'm in the process of moving, and I've decided to give to friends various books that I've enjoyed, but no longer wish to keep.

When reading books that I've purchased I highlight sections for quick future reference, and any books in my library without highlights usually means I didn't find anything of particular interest in the book. So before handing on a few, I've decided those that did grab my interest, to transcribe the highlighted sections, and rather than put in some quote file (which I'll soon forget), I've decided to post here.

Categories: