What if Reality Isn't Real?

What follows is my response to an entry in an online discussion forum.
Misha references an article at

https://medium.com/s/story/what-if-reality-isnt-real-1161d7b12256

 

I responded:

First, Misha, I like the title of the original post.

Not only is it philosophically startling, it reveals a great deal about the nature of conjecture.

There are many conjectures masquerading as hypotheses or even, as theories.

However, a conjecture is more a question than an answer.
That is where the, "what if?" comes in.

Whether it be the Simulation Conjecture, the Many Universes Conjecture, or

the Panspermia Conjecture, among others, they are all questions, not answers.

All of them kick the can down the road.
They all pretend to offer answers as to the origin of reality, the origin of
species, the origin of consciousness and so forth.

So they propose that life comes from alien planets, but without considering where

alien life came from.  They propose that our unlikely universe is the product of an even
LESS likely multi-verse.  They propose that we are constructs within a computer,
without considering where the computer came from, where the programmers came from,
and perhaps most curiously of all, are the simulators themselves simulations???

How many layers of simulations are producing simulations of simulations ad infinitum?

How many levels of ever less likely multi-verses are there?
How many levels of origins of origins are there?

These conjectures would be interesting questions if those who make the

conjectures would acknowledge these factors.
Instead, they pose as original thinkers,
when instead they reveal themselves as shallow dabblers in philosophy.

Like me :)  LOL

-
-

 

 

Superposition of Theories?

I will assume that everyone reading this is familiar with the double-slit (DS) experiment, which is perhaps the most often-repeated experiment in quantum physics.

(If not, there are excellent videos on you-tube which even I can understand--the videos, not quantum physics.)

 

The article linked at the end, refers to several and conflicting theories which attempt to explain the experiment, and more importantly to this forum, speak about how these theories cross the line from physics to metaphysics and philosophy.

 

The central core question concerns consciousness.  According to some, the DS experiment demonstrates that human consciousness governs the behavior of subatomic wave-particles.  According to others, the experiment demonstrates no such thing.

 

Continuing research is being done in an attempt to resolve the conflicts, but these are hampered by the inability to clearly define basic terms such as "consciousness" and "measurement."  These two words at first may seem clear and straightforward, until we think more deeply into them, whereupon the very word, "think," become problematical.

 

The bottom line is that, as of now, there is no bottom line.  One is reminded of the maxim, "It's turtles all the way down."

 

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/what-does-quantum-theory-actually-tell-us-about-reality/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=space&utm_content=link&utm_term=2018-09-13_featured-this-week

-

Faith

Faith in God is for some, elusive.  “If only I could be sure.”  Why doesn’t God simply make it undeniably plain and clear that He exists?  Why are we left to doubt, even to deny?  And yet, for some, their faith is more valuable than life itself.

Why, then, this dichotomy between believers and unbelievers?

 

For those who espouse reason as their basis for belief or disbelief, in anything, faith is often decried.  To believe something without proof seems the utmost folly.

 

The late Bishop Fulton J Sheen stated that faith cannot be arrived at through reason, but that once faith is used as the starting point, it enhances reason.

 

A loose analogy can be made between faith and romantic love.  One does not arrive at love through a process of reason.  To be sure, reason can play a useful moderating role, but one does not begin from a neutral start and then reason his way to falling in love.  A man may list certain requirements that a prospective wife must have, but he does not compile a list of candidates, review their résumés, and then without meeting any of them, select one, and sight unseen, fall in love with her.  There is a necessary emotional component, a compulsion to love one’s spouse that arises from intangible factors, not from a structured format.  This love can even develop over time in the context of an arranged marriage.

 

Granted, no analogy is perfect, and this one surely has its weaknesses, but the comparison can be useful.  Faith is more than just an academic belief that, there must be a God.  It may begin with that, but along the way there must develop a relationship, a continuum of experience that either reinforces or else undermines one’s faith.  For those who live their faith, they find that it does not violate reason, but rather that it transcends reason; it imbues their lives with a sense of purpose and value that neither violates mathematics, nor can be formulated by it.

 

This explains much of the chasm between faithful people and unbelievers, for they speak two different languages, neither of which can be readily translated into the other.  The reasoning person may become frustrated at his inability to communicate his skepticism to a believer, while the believer suffers from an inability to persuade the doubter, an inability that is increased by attempts to persuade by means of reason alone.

 

There is no shortcut.  People of faith do well simply to attest that they believe in God, to bear witness to the fruits of their faith, but then to leave it at that.  The unbeliever will, when he is ready, observe how his own life is going, observe the lives of the faithful, and then make his own decision.

 

That decision may disappoint us, but as our faith increases, we come to understand that God allows each individual to freely choose for himself.  As Joshua in the Bible said, as for me and my family, we will serve the Lord.

Manifesto for a Post-Materialist Science

Here is something online to which I was directed.

It concisely summarizes several of the leading candidate philosophies for supplanting the

unscientific paradigm called physicalism (among other names).

I do not necessarily agree with everything in it,

but it demonstrates the growing trend toward the challenging of physicalism.

https://www.aapsglobal.com/manifesto/

Manifesto for a Post-Materialist Science

We are a group of internationally known scientists, from a variety of scientific fields (biology, neuroscience, psychology, medicine, psychiatry), who participated in an international summit on post-materialist science, spirituality and society. The summit was co-organized by Gary E. Schwartz, PhD and Mario Beauregard, PhD, the University of Arizona, and Lisa Miller, PhD, Columbia University. This summit was held at Canyon Ranch in Tucson, Arizona, on February 7-9, 2014. Our purpose was to discuss the impact of the materialist ideology on science and the emergence of a post-materialist paradigm for science, spirituality, and society. We have come to the following conclusions:

1. The modern scientific worldview is predominantly predicated on assumptions that are closely associated with classical physics. Materialism—the idea that matter is the only reality—is one of these assumptions. A related assumption is reductionism, the notion that complex things can be understood by reducing them to the interactions of their parts, or to simpler or more fundamental things such as tiny material particles.
2. During the 19th century, these assumptions narrowed, turned into dogmas, and coalesced into an ideological belief system that came to be known as “scientific materialism.” This belief system implies that the mind is nothing but the physical activity of the brain, and that our thoughts cannot have any effect upon our brains and bodies, our actions, and the physical world.
3. The ideology of scientific materialism became dominant in academia during the 20th century. So dominant that a majority of scientists started to believe that it was based on established empirical evidence, and represented the only rational view of the world.
4. Scientific methods based upon materialistic philosophy have been highly successful in not only increasing our understanding of nature but also in bringing greater control and freedom through advances in technology.
5. However, the nearly absolute dominance of materialism in the academic world has seriously constricted the sciences and hampered the development of the scientific study of mind and spirituality. Faith in this ideology, as an exclusive explanatory framework for reality, has compelled scientists to neglect the subjective dimension of human experience. This has led to a severely distorted and impoverished understanding of ourselves and our place in nature.
6. Science is first and foremost a non-dogmatic, open-minded method of acquiring knowledge about nature through the observation, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Its methodology is not synonymous with materialism and should not be committed to any particular beliefs, dogmas, or ideologies.
7. At the end of the nineteenth century, physicists discovered empirical phenomena that could not be explained by classical physics. This led to the development, during the 1920s and early 1930s, of a revolutionary new branch of physics called quantum mechanics (QM). QM has questioned the material foundations of the world by showing that atoms and subatomic particles are not really solid objects—they do not exist with certainty at definite spatial locations and definite times. Most importantly, QM explicitly introduced the mind into its basic conceptual structure since it was found that particles being observed and the observer—the physicist and the method used for observation—are linked. According to one interpretation of QM, this phenomenon implies that the consciousness of the observer is vital to the existence of the physical events being observed, and that mental events can affect the physical world. The results of recent experiments support this interpretation. These results suggest that the physical world is no longer the primary or sole component of reality, and that it cannot be fully understood without making reference to the mind.
8. Psychological studies have shown that conscious mental activity can causally influence behavior, and that the explanatory and predictive value of agentic factors (e.g. beliefs, goals, desires and expectations) is very high. Moreover, research in psychoneuroimmunology indicates that our thoughts and emotions can markedly affect the activity of the physiological systems (e.g., immune, endocrine, cardiovascular) connected to the brain. In other respects, neuroimaging studies of emotional self-regulation, psychotherapy, and the placebo effect demonstrate that mental events significantly influence the activity of the brain.
9. Studies of the so-called “psi phenomena” indicate that we can sometimes receive meaningful information without the use of ordinary senses, and in ways that transcend the habitual space and time constraints. Furthermore, psi research demonstrates that we can mentally influence—at a distance—physical devices and living organisms (including other human beings). Psi research also shows that distant minds may behave in ways that are nonlocally correlated, i.e. the correlations between distant minds are hypothesized to be unmediated (they are not linked to any known energetic signal), unmitigated (they do not degrade with increasing distance), and immediate (they appear to be simultaneous). These events are so common that they cannot be viewed as anomalous nor as exceptions to natural laws, but as indications of the need for a broader explanatory framework that cannot be predicated exclusively on materialism.
10. Conscious mental activity can be experienced in clinical death during a cardiac arrest (this is what has been called a “near-death experience” [NDE]). Some near-death experiencers (NDErs) have reported veridical out-of-body perceptions (i.e. perceptions that can be proven to coincide with reality) that occurred during cardiac arrest. NDErs also report profound spiritual experiences during NDEs triggered by cardiac arrest. It is noteworthy that the electrical activity of the brain ceases within a few seconds following a cardiac arrest.
11. Controlled laboratory experiments have documented that skilled research mediums (people who claim that they can communicate with the minds of people who have physically died) can sometimes obtain highly accurate information about deceased individuals. This further supports the conclusion that mind can exist separate from the brain.
12. Some materialistically inclined scientists and philosophers refuse to acknowledge these phenomena because they are not consistent with their exclusive conception of the world. Rejection of post-materialist investigation of nature or refusal to publish strong science findings supporting a post-materialist framework are antithetical to the true spirit of scientific inquiry, which is that empirical data must always be adequately dealt with. Data which do not fit favored theories and beliefs cannot be dismissed a priori. Such dismissal is the realm of ideology, not science.
13. It is important to realize that psi phenomena, NDEs in cardiac arrest, and replicable evidence from credible research mediums, appear anomalous only when seen through the lens of materialism.
14. Moreover, materialist theories fail to elucidate how brain could generate the mind, and they are unable to account for the empirical evidence alluded to in this manifesto. This failure tells us that it is now time to free ourselves from the shackles and blinders of the old materialist ideology, to enlarge our concept of the natural world, and to embrace a post-materialist paradigm.
15. According to the post-materialist paradigm:
    a) Mind represents an aspect of reality as primordial as the physical world. Mind is fundamental in the universe, i.e. it cannot be derived from matter and reduced to anything more basic.
    b) There is a deep interconnectedness between mind and the physical world.
    c) Mind (will/intention) can influence the state of the physical world, and operate in a nonlocal (or extended) fashion, i.e. it is not confined to specific points in space, such as brains and bodies, nor to specific points in time, such as the present. Since the mind may nonlocally influence the physical world, the intentions, emotions, and desires of an experimenter may not be completely isolated from experimental outcomes, even in controlled and blinded experimental designs.
    d) Minds are apparently unbounded, and may unite in ways suggesting a unitary, One Mind that includes all individual, single minds.
    e) NDEs in cardiac arrest suggest that the brain acts as a transceiver of mental activity, i.e. the mind can work through the brain, but is not produced by it. NDEs occurring in cardiac arrest, coupled with evidence from research mediums, further suggest the survival of consciousness, following bodily death, and the existence of other levels of reality that are non-physical.
    f) Scientists should not be afraid to investigate spirituality and spiritual experiences since they
    represent a central aspect of human existence.
16. Post-materialist science does not reject the empirical observations and great value of scientific achievements realized up until now. It seeks to expand the human capacity to better understand the wonders of nature, and in the process rediscover the importance of mind and spirit as being part of the core fabric of the universe. Post-materialism is inclusive of matter, which is seen as a basic constituent of the universe.
17. The post-materialist paradigm has far-reaching implications. It fundamentally alters the vision we have of ourselves, giving us back our dignity and power, as humans and as scientists. This paradigm fosters positive values such as compassion, respect, and peace. By emphasizing a deep connection between ourselves and nature at large, the post-materialist paradigm also promotes environmental awareness and the preservation of our biosphere. In addition, it is not new, but only forgotten for four hundred years, that a lived transmaterial understanding may be the cornerstone of health and wellness, as it has been held and preserved in ancient mind-body-spirit practices, religious traditions, and contemplative approaches.
18. The shift from materialist science to post-materialist science may be of vital importance to the evolution of the human civilization. It may be even more pivotal than the transition from geocentrism to heliocentrism.

• The Manifesto for a Post-Materialist Science was prepared by Mario Beauregard, PhD (University of Arizona), Gary E. Schwartz, PhD (University of Arizona), and Lisa Miller, PhD (Columbia University), in collaboration with Larry Dossey, MD, Alexander Moreira-Almeida, MD, PhD, Marilyn Schlitz, PhD, Rupert Sheldrake, PhD, and Charles Tart, PhD.

** For further information, please contact Dr Mario Beauregard, Laboratory for Advances in Consciousness and Health, Department of Psychology, University of Arizona, Tucson, USA. Email: mariobeauregard@email.arizona.edu
*** We considered two ways of referring to the emerging paradigm presented in this Manifesto: the hyphenated version (post-materialism) and the non-hyphenated version (postmaterialism). The hyphenated form was selected for the sake of clarity for both scientists and lay people.
**** The Summary Report of the International Summit on Post-Materialist Science, Spirituality and Society can be downloaded here: International Summit on Post-Materialist Science: Summary Report (PDF).

Manifesto Authors
Mario Beauregard, PhD, Neuroscience of Consciousness
Laboratory for Advances in Consciousness and Health, Dept of Psychology, University of Arizona, USA
Author of The Spiritual Brain and Brain Wars
Larry Dossey, MD, Internal Medicine
Independent Scholar and Executive Editor, Explore
Author of Recovering the Soul, USA
Lisa Jane Miller, PhD, Clinical Psychology
Editor, Oxford Handbook of Psychology & Spirituality, Editor-in-Chief, Spirituality in Clinical Practice
Professor & Director, Spirituality & Mind Body Institute, Columbia University, USA
Alexander Moreira-Almeida, MD, PhD, Psychiatry
Associate Professor, Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora
Founder & Director, Research Center in Spirituality and Health, Brazil
Marilyn Schlitz, PhD, Social Anthropology
Founder & CEO, Worldview Enterprises
President Emeritus & Senior Fellow, Institute of Noetic Sciences, USA
Gary E. Schwartz, PhD, Psychology, Neurology, Psychiatry & Surgery
Professor, University of Arizona
Director, Laboratory for Advances in Consciousness and Health, USA
Rupert Sheldrake, PhD, Biochemistry, Developmental Biology, Consciousness Studies
Fellow, Institute of Noetic Sciences; Fellow, Schumacher College
Author of A New Science of Life, UK
Charles T. Tart, PhD, Transpersonal Psychology
Core Faculty Member, Sofia University
Professor Emeritus of Psychology, University of California, USA

Life and Meaning

The basic question of any science, religion or philosophy should be this:  does life have any purpose?  More largely, the question is one between a meaningful existence, or one that has no meaning.

 

If the answer is null, then no further questions need be asked.  For, if life is only a momentary phenomenon, a brief flicker of chemical reactions that will soon result in—for the individual—eternal oblivion, then existence itself becomes a moot point.  Once one establishes that his life is nothing more than an ephemeral phenomenon, then he is simply waiting to die, filling what few moments remain, with whatever meaning he might concoct, pretending that his further existence is somehow justified.

 

That assessment is both abysmal and cruel, but it is the assessment the individual may choose to impose upon himself.  Many do.  It has been said that if people were to seriously consider how very brief life is, and that its end is inevitable, they would go mad.  For, what is more maddening than ultimate futility?

 

True, it matters not whether such an assessment is abysmal or not, but only whether it is true—but before discarding the alternative hypothesis that life is meaningful—eternally so—is it not advisable to carefully consider whether that alternative might be factual, and whether the abysmal assessment might be not only incorrect, but catastrophically wrong?

 

Unfortunately, man’s best efforts to verify that nature is more than atoms and forces, and various arrangements of them, including humans—those best efforts have failed.  No God has been found by human means, neither a soul, nor an afterlife.  Even the famed Mother Teresa, as she neared her own death, remarked (I paraphrase) that she stood at the edge of an abyss, beyond which lies only darkness.

 

The only basis for belief in God is faith.  Those of a scientific mind, whose basis is disciplined reason, meticulously applied to physical evidence, governed by mathematics—those people tend to scoff at the very notion of faith.  One might as well believe in the Easter Bunny.  Worse yet, destructive religious wars had been blamed on the faith men placed in unscientific beliefs.

 

Absent physical proof, why should physicists have any faith in any God?

 

There are two answers to this question.  One of them was eloquently delivered by the late (and renowned) Bishop Fulton J. Sheen (1895 – 1979).  He wrote:

 

The great arcana of Divine Mysteries cannot be known by reason, but only by Revelation.  Reason can however, once in possession of these truths, offer persuasions to show that they are not only not contrary to reason, or destructive of nature, but eminently suited to a scientific temper of mind and the perfection of all that is best in human nature. [1]

In other words, since humans are inherently incapable of discerning eternal truths on their own intellectual power, they should examine religious teachings, and discern whether, by applying them, they advance their ability to conduct science, and to conduct their own personal affairs in life.

 

The second answer is given by scientists themselves, and in some ways, is not so different than that offered by the Bishop.  Scientists may dislike calling it faith, so instead they have adopted a physicalist paradigm, one that asserts that nature is orderly, coherent, and perfectly organized according to immutable natural law.  The origin of that order is not explained—it is taken on faith.  Without that paradigm, science could not operate.  Accepting it enables scientists to proceed.

 

The difference is that the physicalist paradigm avers that everything in nature can be explained by, and only by, other things in physical nature, and that no other explanations are needed.

 

This application of the physicalist paradigm, however, has numerous flaws.

 

Whether intentionally or not, it discards the idea that life—indeed, the universe itself—is meaningful.  It relegates these questions to philosophy.  If it went only that far, we might accept the separation of science and faith—but it goes farther.  Many in the institutions of science are openly hostile to religious faith.  Indeed, at least one professor openly sought to prevent science students who were believers, from entering graduate schools.  Others were undoubtedly not so open, but probably equally effective.

 

In the final analysis, we must address the important questions, such as this one:  if humans are nothing more than arrangements of atoms, then by what physicalist principle should we be treated as anything more than that?  What physicalist principles endow us with rights—and responsibilities?

 

“. . . the perfection of all that is best in human nature. . .” is not to be found in the physicalist paradigm.  We must seek for it elsewhere.  Where better to start, then, than to turn to revealed, divine wisdom?  If it is not there, then where is it?

---

[1] The Life of all Living; Garden City Books reprint edition 1951; copyright 1929 by The Century Company, printed in the United States at The Country Life Press, Garden City, N.Y.

Life Force

The entire universe can be thought of as a life force.

Every one of the myriad and intricate details of physical law

conspire and coincide to produce the conditions for

life, consciousness and free will.

The universe is seemingly impossibly organized to produce not only life,

but intelligence, civilization, and technology.

Some say this is happenstance.

A more plausible explanation is a Divine Creator.

Quantum Epistemology

henry.pha.jhu.edu/Marburger.pdf

 

The link above offers a perspective on quantum physics that I had not fully considered.  It asks, how do we “know” anything about that which we cannot see directly, but must rely on instruments, such as Geiger counters?

Two excerpts follow (emphasis added):

It is not true that the underlying stuff sometimes behaves like a wave and sometimes like a particle.  It always behaves like itself, but we sometimes choose to measure one property, sometimes another.  When we choose to measure momentum, we find momentum clicks.  When we choose to measure position, we find position clicks.

= = = = =

Why all the talk about waves and particles?  That has to do, in part, with the different kinds of detectors.  You can make an apparatus that triggers a momentum detector consistently at the same value p – so its histogram just has one tall bar reaching to 100% at p.  It is a fact of Nature that the same apparatus will trigger an array of position detectors in a wave pattern with a definite wavelength precisely equal to h/p, where h is the tiny “Planck’s constant”.  (Multiple trials have to be run to generate the histogram. See the figures on the next page.)  The wave is not in the underlying stuff, it is in the spatial pattern of detector clicks.  We do not – cannot – measure waves in the underlying stuff.  We can only measure detector clicks.  But when we hear the click we say “there’s an electron!”  We cannot help but think of the clicks as caused by little localized pieces of stuff that we might as well call particles.  This is where the particle language comes from.  It does not come from the underlying stuff, but from our psychological predisposition to associate localized phenomena with particles.  That predisposition is reinforced by the fact that in large scale Nature there are particles whose trajectories we can trace to an accuracy limited by the size of Planck’s constant.  This is how the Copenhagen Interpretation frames the wave versus particle issue.

= = = = =

 

On The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

Symposium on "The Copenhagen Interpretation: Science and History on Stage"

National Museum of Natural History of the Smithsonian Institution

John Marburger Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy

March 2, 2002