New Paradigm Science — Further Thoughts
This follows on from some of my recent articles about new paradigm science and spirituality, and is essentially a response to Sender Spike, who has been highly critical. I will summarise and edit our correspondence here, in order to extract the relevant points. There is therefore no need for readers to refer to the originals. Our discussion has two main themes.
Theme 1: Spiritual Traditions and the Role of Meditation
At the end of an article about the philosopher Bernardo Kastrup, I mentioned the well-known teaching story in relation to the Perennial Philosophy of an elephant and several blindfolded philosophers, and then Kastrup’s separation of these Perennial Philosophy traditions into two camps. He calls these ‘myth’ and ‘no-myth’, the latter known more frequently as non-dualism, examples of which are Zen Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta. I consider myself to be in the former and, from what he has said over a period of time, Sender Spike to be in the latter. This may account for our differences in outlook. (One consequence of this, relevant to this discussion, is that personally I don’t meditate.)
Sender Spike replied: “I guess I didn’t make myself sufficiently clear to you. When I said what I said, I meant that, no matter the path you are walking, no matter where you initially touched the elephant, the final goal is to realize that what you are touching is an elephant. Thus, I don’t criticize your particular path nor do I encourage you to walk a different one, I merely try to incite you to follow through and take your path to its natural conclusion”.
This seemed to be different from what he had said earlier, so I replied: “You say that you don’t encourage me to walk a different path. Have I remembered this correctly? Was it not you who some time ago, having criticised the content of one particular article, wrote ‘I strongly advise you to take up some form of meditation’? As if that might help me to clear up my errors”.
He then replied: “You remember correctly, I advised you to pick up some form of meditation. And if I remember correctly, I also said that if your path is a valid one, it should have something in that vein. So, if I’m correct (i.e. your path has some form of meditative practice) and if you don’t apply all tools in your path’s toolbox, you cannot hope to realize ‘its fruits’. If your path, on the other hand, has no form of meditation, I’m afraid it is exactly as useless as pure armchair philosophy which can never arrive at Truth”.
My response to his first point is the same as it was at the time he first made it. I believe that my path is that of Karma Yoga, loosely translated as ‘serving the divine’. This is a recognised valid spiritual path in Hinduism. I was told this some time ago by the Sufi teacher Irina Tweedie, author of The Chasm of Fire, whose daily group I was attending. Some readers may find this hard to believe but, in addition to being a very impressive person, she was in (some kind of telepathic) communication with her deceased guru. He seemed to know about me and who I was, even though he had obviously never met me, and that piece of guidance came from him through her. She specifically said that meditation was not my path. That’s good enough for me. Let me just add, however, that believing that I am trying to serve the divine does not mean that I think that everything I say or write is true, and there may indeed be errors. I’m just trying to do the best I can from my limited human perspective.
Theme 2: Science and Spirituality
Sender Spike: “What I do criticize in your approach is that you have a certain preconceived interpretation of the ‘myth’ and in an attempt to reconcile it with scientific explanation you either cherry pick or discard science that does not fit that interpretation (even though that science is correct), or you rely on outright rubbish to confirm your view (see your recent article on ‘new biology’)… What I encourage you to do is either adjust your interpretation of the ‘myth’ to correlate with already confirmed knowledge, or set the ‘myth’ aside for a moment, ‘reach’ enlightenment and see the ‘big picture’, and then reinterpret the ‘myth’ accordingly”.
I replied: “I’m afraid that I don’t accept the concepts of ‘correct science’ or ‘valid science’ or ‘confirmed knowledge’. As far as I can see, there is only the best possible science we can come up with, given our current understanding. This can only ever be provisional and limited, although apparently convincing at any given epoch. Hence the need to sometimes think outside the box. Can you give me an example of something you consider undeniably and absolutely correct science (avoiding maths, chemical formulae, and obvious laws of physics like Ohm’s Law)?”
He replied: “Yes, no science is 100% correct or exhaustive, but there is a degree of reliability of explanation. That is, if a theory is able to explain its coarser predecessors and make reliable predictions (e.g. quantum physics and theory of relativity don’t invalidate thermodynamics or Newtonian physics), and it allows for functional technology, its reliability is in the ballpark of ‘correct’, ‘valid’ and ‘confirmed’. So, lets not play these linguistic pretzel games. No matter how outside of box you think, if your alternative hypotheses don’t have any of the aforementioned properties but you nevertheless continue to adhere to them, you are thinking inside a bubble of utter ignorance. As for examples — we already went through this exercise several times, so rather than me giving you examples for the nth time, I’d like you to provide an explanation how your ‘out of the box’ hypotheses account for observable phenomena, how they can be tested, and what testable observations they predict. Unless you finally present a workable framework that is not just a word salad of scientific terminology, quote-mining, and/or a patchwork of superseded or disproved theories without any practical use whatsoever, I consider this conversation as closed”.
My response:
1. Sender Spike is treating me as if I am a scientist myself. What I write about are not my out-of-the-box hypotheses, rather those of professional, highly qualified scientists whose ideas are considered worthy of public attention by reputable publishing companies. (We’re not talking about spaced out New-Agey hippy types with their heads in the clouds.) I am merely quoting them. That doesn’t mean that these ideas are true, of course, and I never say that they are; it just so happens that these published, professional scientists believe them. It does suggest, however, that such ideas are worthy of consideration, and I write about them in order to draw them to the attention of others, inviting further contemplation and discussion.
Sender Spike has told me that he has a background in physics, enough at least to state confidently that Danah Zohar’s understanding of physics is false. (She was the subject of several recent articles.) I don’t know the extent of his background, but I imagine that it is not as extensive as that of Nobel Laureates like Werner Heisenberg. Sender Spike was critical of my approval of The Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra, because he was to some extent inspired by Geoffrey Chew’s Bootstrap Theory, which Sender Spike dismissed. Capra says, however, that Heisenberg went through the manuscript with him chapter by chapter, so we can assume that he endorsed it, unless anyone has any evidence that Capra was lying. So should I accept Sender Spike’s viewpoint rather than Heisenberg’s?
2. Sender Spike’s request to provide an explanation how these out-of-the-box hypotheses “account for observable phenomena, how they can be tested, and what testable observations they predict” is unreasonable, and he should know that. The conditions that he is setting, which are essentially ingredients of the scientific method, can only be applied to phenomena within the space-time universe, which is where science as we know it operates. I am in agreement with the physicist Fred Alan Wolf who says: “We only know that there is something other than space-time, but we don’t know what it is. Because Beyond Space-Time is non physical, unmeasurable. But what is beyond space-time is within everything”. Distinguished mathematical physicist Henry Stapp says the same thing in almost identical words: “Everything we know about nature is in accord with the idea that the fundamental processes of nature lie outside space-time but generate events that can be located in space-time”. I take these statements as a given — similar ones can be found in the writings of early quantum physicists: Sir Arthur Eddington, Sir James Jeans, Werner Heisenberg, and Max Planck. If Sender Spike disagrees with this viewpoint, let him make his case. If these statements are true, however, then it is clear that any theories about what is outside space-time cannot be subjected to the same exacting standards of the scientific method as those phenomena within space-time, simply because these phenomena are unobservable, inaccessible, and cannot therefore be subjected to scientific scrutiny.
The ideas and hypotheses that I have been discussing in recent articles, if they are true, on the whole have their explanation in what Fred Alan Wolf calls ‘what is beyond space-time’. Their truth or otherwise can only be inferred from their effects. This is directly analogous, and perhaps more easily understood, in relation to Carl Jung’s concept of the collective unconscious, another subject over which Sender Spike and I have disagreed. All contents of the unconscious are by definition unobservable and inaccessible, and their existence can only be inferred from their effects in consciousness.
Along similar lines, the results of quantum physics experiments and the resulting quantum theory, described as the most successful scientific theory of all time, have various philosophical interpretations, precisely because the experiments occur in space-time, but the hidden background is inaccessible.
Here is an example of this type of thinking. As outlined in a previous article, James Lovelock hypothesised that the Earth is a self-regulating organism, therefore appears to be alive. He was criticised because the idea seemed mystical, suggested clairvoyance and teleology, and because, according to Darwinian evolutionary theory, the Earth could not regulate itself in the way that he suggested. However, he did manage to persuade two previously highly sceptical biologists that this was indeed the case. Perhaps they were wrong to concede, but this would suggest that the mainstream biologists were in error, and that the Earth’s behaviour did indeed suggest some form of teleology. This would then need to be explained. Rupert Sheldrake therefore speculated that “if Gaia is in some sense animate, then she must have something like a soul, an organizing principle with its own ends or purposes”.
This is indeed a possible explanation, as Sender Spike requests, for how observable phenomena might be accounted for, (although materialist sceptics will presumably continue to deny that the Earth is self-regulating). Of course, such a speculation may not be true; we cannot be sure because, if it exists, the soul of Gaia is beyond space-time. We infer the possible existence of a soul of Gaia, from the observable effect that it is a self-regulating organism.
On the theme of the scientific method, this brings us also to the question of falsifiability; a theory is deemed to be unscientific if it is not possible to devise an experiment to establish its truth or otherwise. This obviously applies to this question. How could we possibly test such an idea scientifically? That doesn’t mean that it’s not true, however. It might be true if the Earth is indeed a self-regulating, living organism, which it appears to be.
I am very interested in the ideas of Thomas Kuhn around new paradigms in science, as elucidated in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. We appear currently to be at a moment in time when a new emerging paradigm and an outdated one co-exist. The 19th century philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer seemed to be remarkably prescient in anticipating the thinking of Kuhn when he wrote: “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident”.
As is very apparent from what I write, I am seeking to identify myself with, and promote this new paradigm. This is because I believe that the world urgently needs a reunification of science and religion/spirituality. However, I am very happy to concede that some of the ideas that I discuss may in 100 years time have been rejected, while others will be considered self-evident, having been previously ridiculed.
At the present time, as an ordinary member of the public, with no specialist scientific training, I have no way of knowing which are which. All I can do is read about the ideas of others. I do know, however, that more and more scientists are adopting a new paradigm way of thinking. (See, for example, Gayle Kimball’s excellent trilogy of dialogues with visionary scientists — for details see this article.) If Sender Spike knows better than these scientists what the future holds for us, then I suggest he writes more articles, to let us all benefit from his knowledge.
We don’t know who Sender Spike is. He invites me to meditate my way to Enlightenment so that I can see the big picture. I therefore assume he believes that he has already achieved this. His profile states merely “I Am”, which I take to be a reference to the statements of God to Moses in the Old Testament “I AM WHO I AM”, and “I AM has sent me to you” (Exodus 3.14). (I’m sure that he will correct me if I’ve misinterpreted him.) Other than that we have no idea on what authority he speaks. He chooses to use a pseudonym and provides no information about himself, which is obviously his right. This means, however, that we unfortunately have no idea how seriously we can take what he says, even though it is clear that he is very knowledgeable.
Two More Observations
He says that genuine truth can only be obtained through meditation. Yet he claims that there is such a thing as ‘correct science’, ‘valid science’ or ‘confirmed knowledge’. Can he name one famous scientist historically who says that he or she made an important discovery through meditation (in the sense of the standard spiritual practice)? I would assume rather that they used their powers of observation and reasoning.
He describes my recent article on new paradigm biology as “outright rubbish”. He is presumably including in that description one book by a distinguished University of Oxford Professor, Denis Noble (CBE FRS FMedSci MAE, holder of the Burdon Sanderson Chair of Cardiovascular Physiology at the University of Oxford, also Professor Emeritus and co-Director of Computational Physiology). Unless Sender Spike comes out of the closet, and tells us what his qualifications are, and on what authority he speaks, apart from his apparent belief in his own Enlightenment, I know whose views I would rather take seriously.
I am fairly sure that Sender Spike will think that I have done nothing here to answer his objections to his satisfaction, and may therefore, as he says, consider the conversation closed. I am happy for it to continue, however. What I would prefer, if he feels so strongly, is for him to write an article, explaining in detail all his objections, and what he considers to be the true science that I am ignoring, thus the science that has ‘disproved’ the theories I describe. (His last attempt to refer me to a scientific paper was somewhat unconvincing.) Then I would know what I have to deal with, and this would also give me the opportunity to deepen my knowledge by studying alternative ideas. This could then also become an open forum in which other Medium readers could participate.
So, for what it’s worth, in the meantime I intend to carry on exactly as before and, in Sender Spike’s words, take my path to its natural conclusion.
====================================
If anyone is interested in how this somewhat tedious argument progresses further, see Sender Spike’s response, and my further response.
I hope you have enjoyed this article. I have written in the past about other topics, including spirituality, metaphysics, psychology, science, Christianity, politics and astrology. All these articles are on Medium, but the simplest way to see a guide to them is to visit my website (click here and here).
