There’s a magical, almost mystical, place according to science that helps explain where we all came from. It’s found in what they refer to as the quantum world. It’s been the subject of intense speculation and research in scientific circles for almost 100 years beginning with the likes of Albert Einstein. Yet their findings have been mostly withheld from the general public.
Why is that you may ask. Well, that’s an excellent question that deserves more than the few words than I’m going to devote to it. Simply put, we live in a world of information (even far more than we realize) and since information is power, he who has the information has the power and control. Enough said.
But what exactly is the quantum world and what is it like? Well, it’s a world beyond sub-atomic particles where matter dissolves into waves of potential existence and yet it’s a world where all things are united in an indivisible whole. In other words, it’s a world of infinite possibilities contained within a sea of endless energy which is referred to by some as the Zero Point Field. The field could be considered to be the alpha and the omega of our existence.
Astrophysicist Arthur Eddington said that, “In the world of physics…the shadow of my elbow rests on the shadow table as the shadow ink flows over the shadow paper…the frank realization that physical science is concerned with a world of shadow…” Eddington’s shadow world (our universe) is real, in a sense. However, what you experience through your extremely limited physical senses is simply a space/time continuum which has been created by holographic projections from the quantum world, which is beyond space and time. The shadow world that you think is real is merely a potential world of possibility.
It’s something that I refer to as the Video Game Effect. For example, the real you doesn’t die when the video game is turned off since you can’t die if you were never born. The real you exists in the quantum world and is a co-operator/co-creator of this reality (the video game world). You turn the game on and play games where the characters die and are “reborn” (when you restart the game). The characters gain experience and powers as they proceed through the game and are successful in “evolving” to higher levels within the game.
So if our reality in any way resembles a video game, who created it? Jim Gates, a theoretical physicist, claims that certain String Theory equations, which describe the fundamental nature of our reality, contain embedded computer codes just like the codes used by your computer’s web browser. If true, this would confirm that we are indeed living in a virtual reality matrix. The stunning conclusion would be that our reality is nothing more than a bunch of 1s and 0s in a computer code and that God must have been a computer programmer!
Most of the ills in the world today are a byproduct of our faulty way of thinking about ourselves as being separate from everyone else, which results in political, ideological and cultural differences. The good news is, though, that the magical realm of the quantum world and the Zero Point Field can be accessed by anybody, with or without science. With this new knowledge we can free ourselves from the illusion of separatism and thereby change the world for the better. The findings from scientific research into the quantum world are far-reaching, with the potential to completely change every social institution on the planet; everything from religion to government to “dark” projects like the militarization of the paranormal. However, some people would prefer that you never hear about man’s “quantum” leap in knowledge…but, of course, now you know.
“As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.”
Some people believe that they lead meaningful lives, ones with real meaning and purpose. So is a meaningful life the byproduct of what we make of our lives or does real meaning spring from life having intrinsic value? Philosophers have been debating that question seemingly forever.
Unfortunately, a multitude of people live in despair today because they have no meaningful idea about what the future holds. This despair is deeply rooted in a lack of hope, because hope holds out some sort of a promise for the future. As a general rule, people want to be reassured about the future so that they can be happy in the present despite what life throws at them.
Although there are many different forms of philosophy, philosophers generally fall into two groups: those that believe in God and those that don’t believe that a god exists. This results in a strong divergence of ideas with regards to man’s hope about the future. For example, in the latter group there are well-known philosophers like De Sade, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer and Bertrand Russell. They generally believed that both individuals, and collectively mankind, have no purpose in the universe. Because of this deeply depressing prospect, the question of life’s meaning posed a difficult challenge for them. For example, Bertrand Russell believed that man should build his life on the “firm foundation of unyielding despair.”
Existentialists such as Sartre believe that, since there was no pre-existent meaning or purpose to life, people need to create meaning in their own lives (where there was none before). Further, Sartre would say that since there was no God, man has no standard of human behavior (moral values) and without any such values man’s actions cannot be judged to be either right or wrong. For example in Existentialism is a Humanism, Sartre agreed with Dostoevsky that “If God does not exist, everything is permitted (from The Brothers Karamazov).”
In the other group, we have, by and large, people who already have a set belief system about life based upon their personal religious beliefs. We even have different flavors of religion, and denominations within a particular religion, for different people. Their religion is usually the by-product of where they grew up and what religion their parents practiced, as opposed to a rational examination of all religions and the selection of one. They have faith that God exists, even though they have no proof, because their holy book tells them so. Each person can point to a different holy book that their religion says (self-proclaims) is the Word of God. In order for them to live purposefully, they have each had to make a leap of faith to affirm a reason for living (and beyond that a hope for immortality).
Many religions also bring their believers a sense of justice based on the reward of good or the punishment of evil. Unfortunately, belief in the gods of religion doesn’t make man moral otherwise we wouldn’t have had so many wars in God’s name. Anyway, who is to say what is moral and what is not – a holy book? If so, which one?
I happen to believe in the sanctity of life but, of course, that means different things to different people. For me, the sanctity of life is a universal principle which I believe a vast majority of people understand on at least an intuitive level. That’s why most people would say that it’s generally wrong to take another human life. The key is that we can have this understanding with or without a holy book and regardless of whether or not we are a believer.
Mathematically, one’s existence is a statistical improbability which defies any rational or logical explanation. That makes you either a freak of nature or the result of some conscious miracle of life. It’s only been somewhat recently that science has come to grips with the concept that what you really are is a being whose thoughts are being filtered through a virtual reality matrix. As Einstein so aptly put it, “He (man) experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest—a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness.” Nevertheless, for both believers and non-believers, it’s quite okay to act on your beliefs as that’s certainly a legitimate way for man to try and define himself. Just remember, though, whatever it is that you think you know, is probably wrong.
“At the core of all well-founded belief, lies belief that is unfounded.”
– Ludwig Wittgenstein, Austrian-British philosopher
A Nobel Prize in physics was recently awarded for the discovery of the Higgs boson, better known as The God Particle. The search for the Higgs boson had been ongoing for some forty years at a cost of billions of dollars. However, having found the Higgs boson, physicists still apparently don’t know exactly what to make of it.
To better understand the pursuit of The God Particle, it’s important to understand that the science of physics deals with things that are part of the physical universe, specifically things we can observe and measure. Werner Heisenberg, theoretical physicist and creator of the Uncertainty Principle, said this about the pursuit of all things physical, “The atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.” So I pose this question: What is the value in only pursuing an understanding of the “unreal” physical world? The physical world is simply the effect while the cause emanates from the quantum world, a deeper order of existence that is beyond both space and time.
Science has endeavored in vain for nearly the last one hundred years to try and explain that which has no explanation (in the physical world). You see, Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, two of the most important theories in science, don’t agree with one another. The biggest reason for this dilemma is that science only observes and measures the physical universe. It treats Creation as a closed system. By that, I mean that our physical universe is deemed to be the entirety of everything that was ever created. Strangely enough, scientists say that the so-called “dark matter” which comprises most of the physical universe is missing. However, “dark matter” can be said to exist only on the blackboards of theoretical physicists because their formulas recognize that the formulas themselves don’t work. So they invented “dark matter” to fill in the hole – and what a big hole it is (big enough to lose almost the entire universe in).
We observe the universe from within. By that, I mean that we are physically located within the universe and, therefore, our only vantage point is outward towards the observable universe. But what if we could observe the universe from the outside looking in? What if we could see the energy flows that come from beyond the universe, from the rest of Creation, and that we could see that those energy flows stream directly into our universe. Then, one might come to the conclusion that those energy flows are responsible for life in the universe, and that they are responsible for the movement of galaxies and solar systems (rather than the relatively weak force of gravity).
Even if you couldn’t observe the universe from the outside, simply having this understanding of how energy moves throughout Creation would radically change scientific research. There would be no more need to look for the latest flavor of a Higgs boson and no more need to search for the Theory of Everything. By the way, Stephen Hawking has already given up on finding a Theory of Everything (see his book The Grand Design). As for “dark matter”, we would understand that it exists outside of our universe. That’s why it’s “missing” as you can’t observe what lies beyond space and time.
So now we’ve found The God Particle. Big deal! It certainly doesn’t prove the existence of God, as if any particle ever could. Isn’t it time to admit that we’ve been looking for the origins of the universe in all the wrong places? In reality, we could learn more by looking at a snowflake or a butterfly than by looking for a God Particle. After all, you can learn something about the painter simply by looking at his painting (Nature).
“Look deep into Nature, and then you will understand everything better.”
Everybody is in love with ideology. Actually, it would be more correct to say that everybody is in love with their OWN ideology. The truth is that many people don’t care about other people’s opinions, and they feel justified because they are certain that they are right.
Ideology is a wonderful thing. Where else can a person be absolutely certain about something that they might know very little about? One of my favorite sayings along these lines is from Dorion Sagan who said, “The difference between science and philosophy is that the scientist learns more and more about less and less until she knows everything about nothing, whereas a philosopher learns less and less about more and more until he knows nothing about everything.”
With regards to science, Paul Feyerabend, a philosopher of science himself, said that, “…it (science) is inherently superior only for those who have already decided in favor of a certain ideology.” Take creationism vs. evolution, for example. I ask you, how many scientists who are atheists endorse creationism and, conversely, how many scientists who believe in God endorse evolution? Atheists, by definition, have to believe in evolution since they must have a way of explaining how they came into existence without God. On the other hand, scientists who believe in God, by definition, must believe that life came into being through Intelligent Design. Different people can look at the same research and come to two totally different conclusions simply because they were certain of the outcome before they even looked at the evidence. In other words, ideology was the driver.
Of course, with ideology comes certainty, a certainty usually born out of the complete acceptance of someone else’s idea. In religion, it’s sometimes referred to as “blind faith”. The battle for the minds of people generally begins with those who feel vastly superior to others. They are as certain of their own ideology as they are of their own intellectual superiority. Never mind that the wisest of men is probably not that much removed from the intellect of a donkey. As Albert Einstein once observed, “The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe.” However, that never kept people from proclaiming with absolute certainty that the world was once flat or the sun once revolved around the Earth.
Fortunately, many of the great minds have been wise enough to admit that they didn’t quite know everything. Socrates, for example, said that, “I know one thing; that I know nothing.” Even some scientists have been willing to admit that their theories are not much more than formulas on a blackboard. It was neuroscientist David Eagleman who said that, “What a life in science really teaches you is the vastness of our ignorance.” Further, theoretical physicist Andrew Strominger admitted this about the Big Bang Theory, “A singularity is when we don’t know what to do. What’s so embarrassing about singularities is that we can’t predict what’s going to come out of it.”
Yet most people persist in their belief that their ideology is correct. Worse yet, they are certain of it. I guess they figure that they know better than the likes of Socrates and Einstein. It’s one of the great truisms of all-time that man doesn’t know what he doesn’t know. Yet, in spite of that, they still claim to be certain. Based upon what the greats have said, I can only presume that what man is really certain of is his own stupidity.
“Nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is opinion.”
– Greek philosopher Democritus