The scientific method has furnished humanity with exceptional benefits. This section includes articles which examine the underlying assumptions of science, particularly in the area of cause-effect relationships.
By using simple analysis we can recognise that the fundamental cause for all physical phenomena must be "meta" physical, and that all systems are in effect, self-organising systems.
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.
There is absolutely no reason we cannot switch humanity to a correct perception of the world—and there are profound benefits in doing so.
The first benefit does not affect physicists (as physicists), and that is the spreading of the philosophical joy of discovering the mental nature of the universe. We have no idea what this means; and we seem to have no hope of ever learning what it means; but—the great thing is—it is true. Physics cannot help anyone from this point onwards. You may, if you wish, descend into solipsism (but do be careful not to blush); or, you can expand to the Deism of George Washington and Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Adams and Thomas Jefferson and the other non-Christian founders of America; or … something else, if you can justify it—just don’t ask physics for help!
Can science and religion be integrated? What comes to mind immediately is that religions themselves cannot agree with one another whereas science is basically monolithic. How can there even be trade between the two, let alone integration?
First, it is only a perception that religions are pluralistic and science is not. Science is monolithic only so far as science of matter–physics and chemistry–is concerned. Psychology, the science of the psyche, has three different paradigms–behavioral-cognitive consisting of hard science orientation, depth psychology consisting of Freudian psychoanalysis and Jungian analytical psychology and their derivatives with psychotherapy orientation, and humanistic-transpersonal-yoga psychology with positive mental health orientation. Both the later paradigms of psychology acknowledge downward causation and subtle bodies in some form or other. Medicine has the conventional allopathic medicine and also alternative medicine practices that complement it. A prominent part of alternative medicine is Eastern medicine that emphasizes subtle energies called variously as prana, chi, and ki. And biology is in transition right now. The materialist biology is highly developed but with some unsolved (maybe unsolvable) problems. Alternative biology is biology that sees life as the handiwork of a purposive designer with the power of downward causation; but at present it is so poorly developed that hardly anyone can call it a genuine alternative biology.
Preliminary: Process Physics: Modelling Reality as Self-Organising Information (Reginald T. Cahill, Christopher M. Klinger and Kirsty Kitto)
(Some background reading to assist with understanding the deeper quantum processes of life)
[ By Dr Johanna de Groot, SMN Meeting 2nd December 2007 at Killarney Heights, Sydney ]
I believe there may be small and uncertain but perhaps significant steps forward in the formulation of a paradigm for the study of consciousness since I last spoke on the topic. Those steps are a new look at ontological relativity and a possible breakthrough in establishing the route of neural correlates. Finally I will add a note about the topics of the extent of consciousness and of machine-consciousness. First follows, however, a brief recapitulation of my previous paper.
KPLL No.2 affirms the inability to meaningfully analyse parts independent of their relationship to the whole (as any independence requires nonsense disconnects that are meaningless and contrary to KPLL No. 1).
The world around us co-exists with us at-once -- no science, at least none that rely on measurable confirmations (reliant on speed-of-light delays) can fully and entirely confirm that at-once nature. That is to say, there will remain a fullness (wholeness) to life that will not be fully revealed by scientific inquiry.
Key Principle of Life, For Life No. 2:
All occurs at once
‘Parts’ and ‘wholes’ have validity, reality and purpose
through an at-once interdependence of each other.
[ Reprinted by Stephen Pirie, with permission, 18 March 2011.
Original PDF version
Published in The Physicist, 37(6), 191-195, 2000.
[Preview of Process Physics: The Limits of Logic and the Modelling of Reality; in preparation]
Reginald T. Cahill, Christopher M. Klinger and Kirsty Kitto
School of Chemistry, Physics and Earth Sciences
GPO Box 2100, Adelaide 5001, Australia
The new Process Physics models reality as self-organising relational information and takes account of the limitations of logic, discovered by Gödel and extended by Chaitin, by using the concept of self-referential noise. Space and quantum physics are emergent and unified, and described by a Quantum Homotopic Field Theory of fractal topological defects embedded in a three-dimensional fractal process-space.
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?
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
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.
By Dr Johanna de Groot, [posted 1 Oct 2008]
Bridging the Infamous Gap: Current developments in consciousness studies and initial presentation of a Ladder of Credibility
[Paper read by author at the meeting held at Killarney Heights of the Sydney Science and Medical Network Group on 15th April 2007. Originally published at the smn.org.au website, and reproduced here with permission ]
Consciousness is undoubtedly one of the areas of most controversy amongst scientists. Not so long ago I mentioned my interest in consciousness as described by Jung to a fellow scientist and got the reply: 'Well, they haven’t even proved consciousness yet!' To acknowledge further that I am moving into a ‘risky venture’ with this paper, I will share what David Wulff, a leading American psychologist, had to say: ‘The valorising of transcendental experience [as a subset of consciousness] is…risky for the field of psychology, for to take it seriously…is to open oneself to a worldview that fundamentally challenges the assumptions, theories, and procedures of modern empirical psychology.’ He adds, ‘the initial, great challenge is accessing such experiences as fully and openly as possible.’ (Wulff, 2005:430).