Impending or Inevitable Marriage Between Physics & Metaphysics?
Offline Hi Everyone,
This is Part One of a post I’d like to make. If you wish to read Part Two, the last part, please let me know. I look forward to all comments.
Scientists work within their personal belief system--as do we all. They must examine the sole reality they see as real and as existing--what we all call "physical reality." To do so, they invent their tools and instruments. At the same time, to metaphysicists, physical reality not the only reality. It exists as it appears to the five senses, while simultaneously it is actually something akin to a camouflage reality which springs forth from an invisible or nonphysical reality much like (in an analogy only) the tip of an iceberg may stick out from the ocean.
In the world of science—classic science deals with physical reality as perceived by the five senses; and quantum physics deals with an aspect of physical which is “behind the camouflage”—so to speak. I think that what quantum physicists are examining (in their fashion), theorizing about and discovering--is exactly what the metaphysicists describe as nonphysical reality. In other words, physical reality is an “appearance reality” that is “conjured up”from quantum or “nonphysical” processes—that are involved in the creation of physical reality and its objects.
To use another analogy, a scientific fish would have quite a bit of trouble measuring the gaseous atmosphere with his instruments for measuring the liquid atmosphere. But to even attempt to do so, Mr. Fish would have to believe in the possibility of a gaseous atmosphere.
I've never studied physics--but I'd like to make a case that unites physics & metaphysics. I think that the following quote by Dr. Carlo Rovelli should frame all such discussions--and should be the foundation upon which all such discussions are built:
Dr. Carlo Rovelli (who works on spin nets at the University of Pittsburgh) has said: "If we believe what we really have discovered about the world with quantum mechanics and general relativity, then the stage fiction has to be abandoned and we have to learn to do physics and to think about the world in a profoundly new way. Our notions of what are space and time are completely altered. In fact, in a sense, we have to learn to think without them."
I firmly believe that PHYSICS and METAPHYSICS (or spirituality) is in the process of (and one day will succeed in such a clear-cut way that all would be able to witness and observe) joining hands in "marriage"--and will become one pursuit.
I believe both are searching for explanations of the same things--but are coming at them from opposite directions; and that both are reacting to the same "thing" --that is, the obstacles that are in their path.
What both are also doing, is attempting to understand and describe the "reality" they encounter---thinking it is the only reality that exists.
To use an analogy, it is like two groups of people heading towards NYC. Neither of them has ever been there before. One is coming in a submarine from Europe--and believes in no other perspective than that; the other is walking from California--and believes in no other perspective than that.
Members of both groups are trying to understand and explain to themselves the obstacles that they find in their way as they try to get to NYC. Both groups may be totally correct in their assessment of those obstacles, and both may think the other is totally nuts and wrong.
One talks of a liquid atmosphere, floating, an engine and worrying about food & air. The other one complains about no water at all, plenty of air and heat and a sun, but yes, food is a worry.
Now, none of their experiences have to do with the reality of NYC once they get there (or, other words, the true nature of reality). When they get to NYC, they learn more about their route & obstacles, & will both see how they were both right--and that both their explanations actually go together and are not in opposition.
For what was behind the creation of the ocean and the creation of the desert were related in ways neither one could understand from their perspectives during the journey.
Here are some short examples of where these physics in beginning to touch upon what I've been saying:
1. THE CONCEPT OF SIMULTANEOUS TIME: This relates to Dr. Wheeler's concept of quantum foam. He writes in his 1998 memoir: "So great would be the fluctuations that there would literally be no left and right, no before and no after. Ordinary ideas of length would disappear. Ordinary ideas of time would evaporate."
Once "ordinary ideas of time" evaporate---we are left with simultaneous time, or nonlinear time. And if time is simultaneous, then the whole concept of stages must be re-thought because stages imply a building upon something that was previous. And with no linear time, there is actually no "previous."
Also, the whole concept of cause-&-effect must be rethought because even this process intrinsically involves time as linear. Therefore, beyond linear time there must be another form and method of creation.
Linear time is our method of physically perceiving events. I suggest that the true nature of reality behind physical events do not involve linear time.
2. A DIRECT CONNECTION BETWEEN INNER SPACE & OUTER SPACE: George Johnson (12-7-99 NY Times (F6) writes: "In superstring theory, a mathematical relationship called T duality suggests that one can shrink a circle only so far. As the radius contacts the circle gets smaller and smaller and then bottoms out, suddenly acting as though it is getting bigger and bigger."
This ties in to metaphysical concepts that say that the further inside the mind you go, or the further away you go from the focus of the ego, the further away is the physical manifestation of that event. This actually suggests that true space travel may be mental. When you use camouflage instruments built to navigate in camouflage reality--you can only go so far. But IF the nonphysical reality can be navigated you may be able to get "there"(across the physical universe) instantly.
3. THE CONCEPT THAT PHYSICAL REALITY IS NOT WHAT IT APPEARS TO BE ME: The spin network theory is touching upon this. Again, Johnson discussing the "spin net" work of Dr. Rovelli & Dr. Smolin, "The implication is that the very idea of a surface is an illusion generated by the spin network."
To me, this spin network is science's way of beginning to comprehend that there may be a connection between thought or consciousness and creation of physical reality.
4. THE CONCEPT THAT THOUGHT or CONSCIOUSNESS CREATES REALITY--OR THAT THE OBJECTS OF PHYSICAL REALITY CONSIST OF THOUGHTS MADE PHYSICAL: I suggest an inner, invisible realm exists of an electromagnetic energy of consciousness and this realm appears or bleeds thru to the camouflage reality as swirling waves of varying densities and intensities. I believe that the superstring theory is involved with this. Superstrings have been described identical to how I envision the appearance of consciousness and thoughts in these inner dimensions. Physicists describe physical objects as consisting of of these superstrings. In my terms, physical objects consist of consciousness or thoughts which are now speculated to be superstrings. To me, the two may be one.
By the way, this inner universe of which I speak, probably manifests itself in physical reality as being so super-duper tiny, that it takes up no space at all & is thus, invisible. Thus, there are infinite numbers of universes which exist between you and person sitting next to you on the couch. These universes may the "location" of the dream state, parallel (probable) realities, out-of-body travels, and so on. AND, as I said earlier, there may be a direct connection between these tiny realms and the vast outer huge realm of physical outer space---which exists in ways we not yet understand.
*****END PART ONE*********
Please let me know if you'd like to read the final Part Two. And I'm looking forward to any comments.
Be well & happy,
Barrie
- Login to post comments
Just because quantum theory is weird doesn't make it metaphysics. And just because metaphysics tries to answer physics questions doesn't mean its physics.
Metaphysics is just a colletion of spiritual/philisophical bullshit based on superstitions and ignorance. I might agree with you that string theory bridges upon this ground, (because string theory has absolutley no experimental evidence, but it does have more mathematical proof than metaphysics), but then again string theory has a very good chance of being totally false bullshit in itself.
Quantum theory does not work this way. Quantum theory has mounds of experimental evidence and is based on solid mathematics. If anything, if quantum theory finds more strangeness in our universe it will only replace metaphysical garbage with real science.
If you beleive in or follow metaphysics, please don't. It's as baseless and idiotic as alchemy and ESP. You said you hadn't studied physics. Please do, because you're taking alot of these theories and scientists completley out of context and lack an understanding of their underlying mechanics.
For instance, our observation doesn't create physical particles or states, we simply register one of many millions of possible states, and because our instruments are innaccurate, we cannot say with certainty what the sate of a particular particle is. This doesn't mean we make a particle's state "real" by the mere act of observation, all of its states are equally real, including the one we register.
Hi TOG (theotherguy),
Thanks for your thoughtful response. And allow me to explore my responses to you as I read your post again.
Barrie Responds: I agree. The only thing is I keep getting struck by the similarities of descriptions. So often, words used to describe the quantum state mirror what people have said about metaphysical things. This led me to speculate and explore the possibility that both may be talking about the same thing. If what I'm saying is correct, then the metaphysical is actually part of a realm of physical reality that is too tiny as of yet to explore; and the so-called "supernatural"--is very natural but not yet understood. Perhaps, one day, reincarnation will be considered very natural and proven mathematically.
What I am about to say isn't aimed at you--it is just prompted by your post. I don't mean to imply that you possess the traits of the "person" I am characterizing. But since these feelings came up, I am including them in my response to you. But I don't mean them personal TO you.
I have tried to list and discuss briefly some areas in which I saw these similarities between quantum phyiscs and metaphysics. I am attempting to explore these similarities. Dare I say, I am attempting to do some free thinking: Free of theists and free of atheists.
I ask generically: Are freethinkers going the way of labor unions? That is, labor unions once facilitated people getting jobs; and often nowadays they facilitate excluding people from getting jobs. Even so, I am still a strong supporter of labor unions.
Barrie Responds: This is what I'm trying to explore--and not simply conclude. There are these uncanny coincidences--similarities between what quantum physicists say in their descriptions of what they are finding--and what metaphysicists have been saying all along in their "findings."
I see the two groups going in the same direction--but from opposite ends.
To use an analogy: They are both headed for NYC--but one is travelling overland from California; and the other is travelling by submarine from England. Each swears that their route is the only sensible way to go; and each group explains away the discoveries the other group makes along the way. One denies the existence of land; the other denies the existence of sea; both would find the needed tools of the other--mostly unneeded.
Barrie Responds: Years ago, the concept of string theory would have had no mathematical proof at all. It is beginning to have some. Perhaps one day, depending upon people starting to look, some or many metaphical concepts will also have or begin to have mathematical proof as well.
I believe that this will happen. I ask seriously and with no preconceived answer: Am I senselessly dreaming? Or am I like a person in 1800 who is dreaming about the fantastic possibility or idea, perhaps metaphysical at the time, of something called TV?
If I am correct at all in any way, then the concept and existence of consciousness and what it is and how it relates to and effects physical reality--will be one of the keys to be discovered in this field.
For example, what makes the strings vibrate? Could consciousness be involved in the process? Another area of exploration would be why do plecebos work? What is the power of the mind? And as silly as it sounds, if one thinks a tad more free of the dogma of "freethinking," there has been great evidence of psychic abilities--for example, in the area of psychics helping various police departments solve cases. Also, the area of remote viewing needs further study.
In regard to UFOs, I remember that Carl Sagan said something like extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I would say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary research in order to discover if there is any evidence.
Isn't it true that way back in the day people so much did not believe in meteors, that some scientists even refused to try to look at them when they appeared--going under the theory: "It can't be; therefore it isn't?"
Barrie Responds: I would not use the term "garbage"--yet you are stating the point I am trying to make: That science may be just beginning to enter the "physical" realm that so-called "nonphysical" reality has its place and form. Perhaps there is proof of ESP to be found; and of reincarnation; and other metaphysical/spiritual concepts.
I'm not sure what the connection, but I strongly believe there is a direct connection between quantum physics and all of its tiny dimensions--and metaphysics--and that consciousness is also in the equation. There are just too many "coincidences" of description.
I also believe there are direct connections we can only dream of now--between deep inner space and deep outer space.
And now, excuse my possible misuse of terms, but even the concept that atoms or molecules or something--doesn't take form until looked at by the scientist--mirrors perhaps how physical objects are actually formed via the human mind. I am discussing far out possibilities--but I believe that there are enough similarities as I've been stating--that warrant such an exploration as I am verbally attempting.
Remember how many concepts were discounted and ridiculed by science--before discoveries were made to embrace the very concepts that were once ridiculed? And just imagine how discoveries of today would be laughed at by scientists of the past--if someone were to bring up the possibilities back then. It follows that a certain number of things ridiculed today, will be similarly proven tomorrow.
Barrie Responds: Again, I am being sincere and not facetious: I totally believe that your honest and sincere free thinking has led you to the conclusions you have on metaphysics. But I also totally believe that those who beleive in many metaphysical concepts do so with honest and sincere free thinking which has led them to the conclusions they have drawn on metaphysics.
And again, I ask this sincerely, and mean no slight in any way: Are you able to see that someone may come to different conclusions that you have drawn--and not be baseless or idiotic?
I generically ask to all sides: Why is it that so many groups find it so easy to impose their set of beliefs on others? Regardless of who may be right or wrong--the ability to see the world thru the eyes of others--using their belief system to do so--is an admirable trait.
For example: IF someone who hasn't heard from a friend for 20 years, suddenly has a dream about that person, and then that morning receives a phone call from that person: Is that simply just a coincidence? Or does it evidence of ESP? Must the people who hold opposing views think so "low" of the others? Cannot a freethinker allow for such freethinking explorations without negative judgements made--including your sincere term "idiotic"?
In the past, there have been serious and well-meaning scientists who dismissed "idiotic" things that others have--just to have these "idiotic" things be proven valid either in their lifetime or years after. Isn't it possible, and not simply remotely possible because "anything" is possible, but isn't it possible that some of the things that you are so sure are baseless & idiotic--may be similarly proven valid one day?
In your response above, you group together alchemy and ESP, because to you they are both so baseless and idiotic--so they belong in the same group. Yet, to others, they may be very different. There are those who may believe alchemy to be baseless, but not ESP.
Therefore, you may do a disservice to ESP, to so "baselessly" dismiss it. I playfully use the term "baseless" because to some people, your dismismal is as baseless and your belief that believing in ESP is baseless.
Each side should be true to themselves and stick to what they believe is true--until they honestly change their minds. At the same time, each side should find a way to understand how others can come to different conclusions--even conclusions that each side "knows" is totally wrong.
Barrie Responds: Probably like you in regard to metaphysics--when it comes to physics--I've read some things and seen some TV shows. Correctly so, given your beliefs and understandings, you dismiss metaphysics--even tho you may have taken some concepts out of context or have not fully understood some theories. And I believe the same holds true with me and physics.
My point is that there are these uncanny similarities in descriptions--in or out of context. And I believe that there are connections to be made or at least explored by intense research to be conducted by teams consisting of open-mined physicists and metaphysicists--so an ongoing "translation" of observations can be made.
Barrie Responds: I agree. But it doesn't mean we don't make a particle "real" by the mere act of observation. We don't even know what "real" is. Back in the day, the idea that pictures can be broadcast thousands of miles on invisible waves--would be considered "unreal." Likewise, things considered "unreal" today may one day be seen as very real.
That said, I'm not sure what all I propose means. But I do believe that the large number of such similarities of descriptions cause me to believe that there is study needed to be done in this area. I don't think these are simply coincidences.
As you know, what we perceive as physical objects--are not physical at all--from the quantum perspective.
So I ask: What are the far-reaching affects of quantum reality upon classic physical reality and the definitioins of reality? We don't know enough yet. Also, I ask: What is the involvement of consciousness in both realms?
For example: When you talk about "many millions of possible states" this "happens" to mirror the concept of many millions of probable realities which simultaneously exist in parallel universes. That in "this" reality--one person becomes a dancer; while in a probable reality not chosen--this same person becomes a TV reporter.
There seems to be a connection between the world-at-large and the world-at-small--and perhaps we have labelled the passageway "metaphysics."
Be well & happy,
Barrie
Hi Barrie
Wow that's almost a books worth
And that's far to much information for me to easily digest, in one go
You have made some references, to concepts which I haven't encountered before, I hope you don't mind if I quizz you about them later
Metaphysics I have virtually no knowledge of this subject, ? would I be correct in assuming you referring work such as Sri Yukteswar in this field
Physics you might find this extremely interesting
Click here