Associated websites

Websites associated with Contributing authors

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


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.


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.

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?



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.


A Clearer Light (reprint)


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?

by Prof. Amit Goswami (August 10, 2008)

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.


Congruent Solutions to Zeno's Paradoxes

[Posted November 8, 2008, 8.11am.]

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)


This article (and the "Zeno's Paradoxes" section of this website)  details the fundamental and irrevocable failure of standard scientific (Newtonian) solutions to the paradox of movement: the great bulk of science is now failing to fit theory with (quantum) fact. A fuller, more congruent philosophy (or 'world-view') is needed to account for the evidence.

The old Darwinian, competitive and manipulative models of biological development (that fail to accommodate cooperative nonlocal influences and connectivity) are no longer tenable or sustainable in the face of this new evidence. A new holodynamic systems model (one that includes a discontinuous-space | continuous meta-space duality) is required.

...(the idea) that space is continuous is, I believe, wrong.

Professor Richard Feynman
The Messenger Series: Seeking New Laws


Around 2,400 years ago a Greek philosopher (Zeno of Elea) questioned how anything or anyone moves around. Theoretically, for anyone to lift a finger, bat an eyelid, or even to fall down requires we move through a seamless but endless (never-ending) progression of ever-so-small little movements. He highlighted how there appeared to be a mismatch between our theories (of moving through endless physical steps) and our simple, everyday practical experiences.

The content in the following two sections was originally posted on the Wikipedia website under "Zeno's Paradoxes" in the Proposed Solutions section. However, after many objections from various Wikipedia commentators, the material was removed.

The widely cited and accepted standard (infinite-series) solutions to Zeno's Paradoxes highlight how majority scientific opinion is no longer congruent with the facts (of quantum physics), in that with the infinite series solutions there are NO demonstrable or even theoretical 1:1 correlations of mathematical points with physicality (for there to be such, a strict correspondence of mathematical values with physical location and momentum would need to be demonstrated at and below Planck times and distances.

As a result of failing to fit theory with fact, we now witness a new era of old-world dogmatic behaviours deeply imbued with irrational disconnects -- The modern superstitions of science and religion.

None have been shown or theoretically advanced.

Infinite-series theories do not -- and due to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle can not -- fully correspond with physical reality. Simply put, infinite-series solutions do not fit the facts.

with the infinite series solutions there is NO demonstrable (or even a theoretical) 1:1 correlation of mathematical values (.e.g. position) with physicality.

A chasm has developed in the understanding and thinking of the great majority - a chasm that might best be characterised as humanity's "Peak Disconnect" (of theory with fact, of conscious with unconscious, of local with nonlocal, of physical with metaphysical). This cultural disconnect has limited our imagination, potentials and responsibility to realise extraordinary, beneficial systems of actuality quite possible with an expanded awareness and meta-science.

Other articles in this section at this website go into greater detail as to the nature and cause of that disconnect in the psyche of people. Ironically1 it is scientists who are now failing to apply the scientific method in response to the evidence of quantum physics.

The resistance to asking questions and constructing new theories that explain experimental evidence, particularly anomalous phenomena, is a common human experience, and can be understood to be, in part, the practical expediency of "getting on with life" – in practical terms, if we had to question every move, or belief we held, most would get very little done. As covered in "The Evolution of the Human Psyche" this is partly due to our racial immaturity.

However there are quite deleterious consequences emerging as a result of not revising our world-view to accommodate the facts. As covered in more detail in "The Travesty of Modern Science" the widespread failure of scientists and philosophers to expand their thinking and awareness is due to short-term expediency, greed and fear (which, as stated above, is largely due to immaturity).

[ Note, the following paragraph beginning "Another solution to some of the paradoxes ..." was existing content prior to the additional material by Stephen Pirie]


First Update on Consciousness Studies

[ 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.


Process Physics: Modelling Reality as Self-Organising Information

[ 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
Flinders University
GPO Box 2100, Adelaide 5001, Australia

[ Reprinted with permission, March 2011.
Original PDF version

Published in The Physicist, 37(6), 191-195, 2000. ]


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.


Proof of the impossibility of physical movement


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]


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.


The Birth of Science, Sin and Autism

[Copyright Stephen Pirie, 2006]

Excerpt of "Maya Sends Her Love":

Grandfather Johann telling young Maya a bedtime account of humanity's history and development:

Once upon a time the many peoples of Earth were one with nature. They lived in a veritable Garden of Eden ... theirs was an instinctive paradise, naturally engaged and lived.

As a people they were like new-born babes, fresh from the nurturing womb of Mother-Nature. And just like new-born babes they felt and knew themselves to be nurtured and nourished by their Mother-Earth. They felt at-one with Her rocks and trees and things. Even though they killed, or were themselves killed for food, they understood the deeply interconnected harmony of life.

Naturally as children do, they began taking little steps exploring and learning about themselves and the world around them. They were a young race ready to stand alone, apart and independent. They were ready to think for themselves, to take on free-will, independent of instinct.

This was written in their holy Book of Genesis – that to remain in nature’s paradise God had said they must not eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge, for if they did their eyes would be opened and they ‘shall be as gods, knowing good and evil’.


The Ladder of Credibility

By Dr Johanna de Groot

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 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).