Archive for the 'Science' Category

A Short Guide to the Scientific History of the Universe, by Paul Marvelly

December 30, 2009

A Short Guide to the Scientific History of the Universe

by Paula Marvelly

Part I of III

All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered;
the point is to discover them
Galileo Galilei

In the beginning was the void. Emptiness. Nothing. And miraculously, about 14 billion years ago, out of this nothing came a something – the Big Bang – setting the whole universe into being.

For whatever reason, our planet Earth was formed and human existence appeared on its surface, albeit only in the last 150,000 or so years. At first, humans, like any other species, existed by their wits. The instinct to survive – to find food, shelter and a mate – was the only thing that mattered. But over time, humankind started to become more sophisticated, living in small communities, sharing skills, and forming meaningful relationships. Thus, their ability to understand and interact with other people and their surroundings evolved, for better or worse.

It’s very easy to get a romanticised view of the past. Indeed, it was a brutal existence in many ways – famine and disease, rape and war. And yet, people were more acutely in tune with the rhythms and seasons of the planet, the changing vistas of the cosmos. Everything was believed to be interconnected by an underlying field of energy – the universal life force if you will – which was experienced and worshipped as one holistic whole, this ‘something’ from which the universe had emerged.

And how did people communicate this understanding, generation to generation? By inventing myths, formulating poetry, composing songs, for all posterity.

As the world’s population grew, however, humans became more and more competitive for the planet’s resources: communities developed into hierarchies; language and cultural differences set people against each other; and religious methodologies started springing up all over the place as a form of societal regulation and control. So instead of believing that everything was linked together, men and women started to see themselves as separate, isolated, solitary beings pitched in battle against everyone else, fighting the so-called noble fight of good and evil, with the only hope of reward in some future life ordained by a distant and judgemental God. You only have to open a daily newspaper or switch on the television to see how that idea plays itself out even today.

The next profound shift in the state of consciousness of humankind would be the millennium before the birth of Jesus of Nazareth and during the empire of the Ancient Greeks. The Greeks were the most advanced civilisation in the known world during this period in history. They galvanised mankind’s obsession with looking at the world objectively and rationally, that is to say by only trusting in hard evidence that could be observable through the senses and endorsed by the power of reason.

Indeed, it was the philosopher, Democritus, who expounded one of the first theoretical models of the universe. What he effectively said is that everything is made of atoms and empty space. And nothing else.

Then came the fall of the Greek and Roman civilisations, and the subsequent rise of Christianity throughout Medieval Europe, as represented by the Roman Catholic Church. Its own view of the world essentially comprised a pastiche of Aristotelian philosophy, the cosmology of Ptolemy – who believed the Earth was at the centre of the universe – and biblical imagery taken from the Book of Genesis.

Of course, many who challenged this view were exterminated. The world has witnessed many holocausts, and that of the Middle Ages ranks along side some of the worse the world has ever seen. Millions of women throughout Europe were burnt at the stake by the Inquisition, punished for their knowledge of pagan folklore and natural medicine – heretical ideas at the time, rendering them a threat to papal authority.

Only in the Renaissance period, starting approximately in the early fifteenth century, do we start to see something of a sea change. Indeed, many mathematicians and astronomers of the time were beginning to make discoveries that would challenge conventional thinking, which weren’t based on superstitious faith but hard evidence – empirical observation, calculus, rational analysis – and triggering what we now call the Scientific Revolution.

And thus amazing breakthroughs were made in our understanding of the world in which we live. People such as the astronomer Copernicus usurped the Church’s geocentric model of the universe by stating that it was flawed. Copernicus demonstrated that our solar system is in fact heliocentric, meaning that the sun is at its centre with the Earth revolving around it, rather than being the other way around. The Church was so affronted by this new proposition that they threatened to silence Copernicus permanently like so many before him who had dared to speak out publicly – luckily for Copernicus, he died of natural causes first.

Similarly, it was the contemporary British philosopher, Francis Bacon, who coined the phrase ‘knowledge is power’; in other words, the more you know about yourself and your environment, the less likely you are to be seduced by spurious arguments about the way things are and to be taken in by the prevailing paradigms of the time.

It was during the seventeenth century, however, when the study of physics would truly begin to take off. Sir Isaac Newton, whilst nursing wounds sustained from a falling apple, would go on to formulate one of the world’s greatest theories based on the nature of gravity.

Moreover, Newton essentially saw the world as a clockwork machine, which obeyed predictable laws that can be measurable to a high degree of mathematical accuracy. Although it was believed at the time that God created the world, Newtonian mechanics says that the world carries on working without any outside help. In other words, God – or whatever you what to call it – is separate from creation. So, everything in the universe is seen to be objective, that is to say, can be looked at and measured by an independent observer.

Newton is known as the founding father of what is generally called classical physics, and which refers to the everyday world we see around us. In fact, classical physics is also called Newtonian physics in his honour since everything manmade – washing machines, TV sets, space shuttles – owes its conception and creation in some way to the laws of classical physics. Needless to say, the realm of feelings, emotions, intuition, even psychic phenomena, have no place in this model. They are subjective, irrational and, therefore, aren’t measurable in the classical sense.

So when Charles Darwin came along in the nineteenth century, he sealed mankind’s pre-programmed, bestial status seemingly forever. His famous Origins of Species makes the case that humans are not descended from Adam and Eve as it says in Genesis but instead from a bunch of apes. The survival of the human race, according to Darwin, is dependent upon competition and selection – the survival of the fittest you might also like to say. And this has led to contemporaneous theories that propose that everything about us, from our eye colour to our sexual preferences, comes from our genetic programming, our DNA.

It would be Albert Einstein, twentieth century physicist and Nobel Laureate, who would radically alter our perception of the universe forever, his most famous theory being the Theory of Special Relativity, or put simply, E = mc². Dealing primarily with the macroscopic level of the universe, Einstein realised that space and time are relative measurements depending on the position of the observer.

Think, for example, of being on a moving train pulling out of a station – if you really look out of the window, it feels as if the train is stationary and it is the platform itself that is moving.

Despite breaking the classical mould by saying that both space and time, energy and matter, are all bound up with one another in some way, Einstein still believed that the universe obeyed certain laws, one law in particular which states that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.

But this is just where even Einstein himself would be proven wrong …

–Paula Marvelly

Read Parts II and III.

Nonduality: A Scientific Perspective

December 9, 2009

This book is free, anonymously written, and not copyrighted.

Nonduality: A Scientific Perspective

Preface

Chapter 1: The Nature of Inflationary Cosmology

Chapter 2: The Unification of the Laws of the Universe

The Second Law of Thermodynamics

Chapter 4: The Nature of Spontaneous Emergence

Chapter 5: The Nature of the Quantum State

The Nature of the Observables, Observing and the Observer

Chapter 6: The Incompleteness Theorems

The Natural Interpretation of the Holographic Principle

Chapter 7: The Nature of the Mind and Body-Based Self-Concept

Chapter 8: Object Relations Theory and the Nature of the Ego

Chapter 9: The Illusion of Personal Identity

Chapter 10: Selected Quotes from I Am That

Chapter 11: Selected Quotes from The Matrix

Read Nonduality: A Scientific Perspective

Notes on the Science and Nonduality Conference 2009: Part 5

December 7, 2009

The following are the slides presented by Stanley during his talk at the Conference. Stanley’s website, A Course in Consciousness, is a pristine classic, and continuously updated. I hope Stanley is involved in next year’s conference!

Quantum Theory of What?
What does quantum theory describe?

by Stanley Sobottka

In classical physics, we assume that objects exist objectively
Classical physics describes classical objects, which are those that are assumed to be directly observable with the human senses.
Classical objects are assumed to exist whether or not they are being observed because different observers agree that they exist.
This is the definition of objective reality.
If there is no agreement, there is no objective reality!

But, what does quantum theory describe?
That is the big question!
Quantum objects are not assumed to be observable with the human senses.
Quantum theory predicts the probability of obtaining a specific result, such as position or velocity, in a specific measurement on a specific quantum object.
That’s all it says.
But there is no agreement on what a quantum object is!

So, what is a quantum object?
Is it objectively real—i.e., does it exist whether or not it is being observed?
Or is it only the mathematical prediction of the probability of obtaining a specific result in an observation?

If it is objectively real…
We should be able to verify that it exists whether or not it is being observed.
But, how can this be verified?
The only verification we have is that, if two different observers agree on the results of their measurements, then they assume that something exists on which the measurements are being made.
This is verification by agreement.
However, in quantum theory there is no agreement on what that something is!

For example:
Suppose we devise an apparatus to measure either a position or a velocity.
Quantum theory tells us the probability of measuring a specific position or velocity.
Measurements can then be made and the experimental results can be compared with the predicted probabilities.

But, is there a self-existent object that is being measured?
How would we know?
All we can do is make observations with whatever tools we have and compare them with the predicted probabilities.
Anything more requires an interpretation in terms of what might exist objectively.

In both classical and quantum physics, an interpretation is needed
In classical physics, we regard the interpretation to be self-evident because the objects are assumed to be directly perceivable with the human senses.
In quantum physics, the interpretation is not self-evident because the objects are not assumed to be directly perceivable with the human senses.

There is no single agreed-on interpretation in quantum physics
Remember, quantum theory consists only of the mathematical probabilities of obtaining specific results if specific observations are made.
The basic theory tells us nothing more.
It does not say anything about the object, if any, whose properties are being observed.

Problem: Too many interpretations!
Examples of classes of interpretations:
1. Statistical (predicts the probability distribution of the results of many observations on identical systems, not of a single observation. All other interpretations may apply to a single observation as well as to many).
2. Copenhagen with consciousness (objective wavefunction is collapsed by consciousness of observer to give a subjective result).
3. Copenhagen without consciousness (objective wavefunction is collapsed by some unknown objective process into classical physical state).

More interpretations…
4. Hidden variables (classical particles, objective quantum force, no collapse, no consciousness).
5. Many worlds (objective wavefunction, no collapse, conscious observation mysteriously causes branching into many noncommunicating objective worlds).
6. Many minds (objective wavefunction, no collapse, conscious observation mysteriously causes branching into many noncommunicating objective brain states).

Still more interpretations…
7. Transactional (objective wavefunction, no collapse, observer emits retarded wave that cancels advanced wave emitted by observed object).
8. Relational (subject and object represented by entangled objective wavefunctions, no collapse).
9. Mostly subjective (Christopher Fuchs) (external object but no objective wavefunction, quantum probabilities interpreted as subjective Bayesian probabilities).

Problem: How does consciousness fit into all of this?
Consciousness as essentiality is required in some versions of Copenhagen to collapse the wavefunction.
Consciousness as an emergent property is required in many worlds and many minds (to cause a branching, the mechanism of which is unexplained), but the wavefunction is assumed to be objective .
Consciousness is not a necessary part of the other interpretations.

Another problem!
In quantum theory, objective time and space form a fixed background in which everything happens.
In general relativity (gravity theory), objective time, space, matter, and energy depend on each other and evolve in time together.
How to unify such disparate theories into a quantum theory of gravity?
One possibility: Eliminate objective time and space!

A nondualistic interpretation would solve all interpretation problems:
1. Awareness would be the essential source, background, and substance of the mind.
2. There would be no external objective reality, and no objective time and space. (Objective realities imply separation between subject and object, and cause interpretation paradoxes.)
3. Quantum theory would describe only subjective mind states (not brain states) and the subjective process of decision making.
4. The subjective interpretation of Christopher Fuchs is close, but it still assumes an external, objective, system that is observed.
5. Major problem: To find a mechanism by which Awareness is essential to the arising of the mind.

Reprinted from Quantum Theory of What?
What does quantum theory describe?

“I was only my consciousness and nothing else”.

November 24, 2009

from
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/23/man-trapped-coma-23-years

Trapped in his own body for 23 years – the coma victim who screamed unheard

• Misdiagnosed man’s tale of rebirth thanks to doctor
• Total paralysis masked fully functioning brain

* Kate Connolly in Berlin
* guardian.co.uk, Monday 23 November 2009 13.13 GMT

For 23 years Rom Houben was ­imprisoned in his own body. He saw his doctors and nurses as they visited him during their daily rounds; he listened to the conversations of his carers; he heard his mother deliver the news to him that his father had died. But he could do nothing. He was unable to communicate with his doctors or family. He could not move his head or weep, he could only listen.

Doctors presumed he was in a vegetative state following a near-fatal car crash in 1983. They believed he could feel nothing and hear nothing. For 23 years.

Then a neurologist, Steven Laureys, who decided to take a radical look at the state of diagnosed coma patients, released him from his torture. Using a state-of-the-art scanning system, Laureys found to his amazement that his brain was functioning almost normally.

“I had dreamed myself away,” said Houben, now 46, whose real “state” was discovered three years ago, according to a report in the German magazine Der Spiegel this week.

Laureys, a neurologist at the ­University of Liege in Belgium, published a study in BMC Neurology earlier this year saying Houben could be one of many cases of falsely diagnosed comas around the world. He discovered that although Houben was completely paralysed, he was also completely conscious — it was just that he was unable to communicate the fact.

Houben now communicates with one finger and a special touchscreen on his wheelchair – he has developed some movement with the help of intense physiotherapy over the last three years.

He realised when he came round after his accident, which had caused his heart to stop and his brain to be starved of oxygen for several minutes, that his body was paralysed. Although he could hear every word his doctors spoke, he could not communicate with them.

“I screamed, but there was nothing to hear,” he said, via his keyboard.

The Belgian former engineering student, who speaks four languages, said he coped with being effectively trapped in his own body by meditating. He told doctors he had “travelled with my thoughts into the past, or into another existence altogether”. Sometimes, he said, “I was only my consciousness and nothing else”.

The moment it was discovered he was not in a vegetative state, said Houben, was like being born again. “I’ll never forget the day that they discovered me,” he said. “It was my second birth”.

Experts say Laureys’ findings are likely to reopen the debate over when the decision should be made to terminate the lives of those in comas who appear to be unconscious but may have almost fully-functioning brains.

Belgian doctors used an internationally-accepted scale to monitor Houben’s state over the years. Known as the Glasgow Coma Scale, it requires assessment of the eyes, verbal and motor responses. But they failed to assess him correctly and missed signs that his brain was still functioning.

Last night his mother, Fina, said in an interview with Belgian RTBF that they had taken him to the US five times for reexamination. The breakthrough came when it became clear that Houben could indicate yes and no with his foot.

“Powerlessness. Utter powerlessness. At first I was angry, then I learned to live with it,” he tapped out on to the screen during an interview with the Belgian network last night, AP reported.

Laureys, who is head of the Coma Science Group and department of neurology at Liege University hospital, has advised on several prominent coma cases, such as the American Terri Schiavo, whose life support was withdrawn in 2005 after 15 years in a coma.

Laureys concluded that coma patients are misdiagnosed “on a disturbingly regular basis”. He examined 44 patients believed to be in a vegetative state, and found that 18 of them responded to communication.

“Once someone is labelled as being without consciousness, it is very hard to get rid of that,” he told Der Spiegel.

He said patients suspected of being in a non-reversible coma should be “tested 10 times” and that comas, like sleep, have different stages and need to be monitored.

Houben hopes to write a book detailing his trauma and his “rebirth”.

Science and Nonduality: Minding the trip

November 5, 2008

What are the main themes to consider when organizing science and nonduality? The first job is to differentiate science and nonduality from science and consciousness.

There is a body of literature and work on science and consciousness. The focus is on experiences, phenomena, mystical states and possibilities, things like communicating with animals, accessing the quantum mind, tripping on the mind, relaxing the mind, developing mental abilities, accessing the potential of the mind, studying the brain and neurology. “Tripping on the mind” says it all. That’s the hallmark of “science and consciousness.”

The hallmark of “science and nonduality” is more like “minding the trip.” That is, asking “whose mind?” “What mind?” “What experience?” “Who is fascinated with the play of consciousness?”

Science and consciousness is a trip down the rabbit hole that stops on a spacious ledge.

The work of science and nonduality is a deeper ride down the rabbit hole, through a small door that leads beneath the tripping on mind and goes far down. How far? As Greg Goode might say, “All the way!”

Here are a few quotations that would set the tone for a body of work on science and nonduality:

This is a fragment of dialogue between a Devotee and Ramana Maharshi:

D: Is not meditation better than investigation?

M: Meditation implies mental imagery, whereas investigation
is for the Reality. The former is objective, whereas the
latter is subjective.

D: There must be a scientific approach to this subject.

M: To avoid unreality and seek Reality is scientific.

D: I mean there must be a gradual eliminaton, first of the
mind, then of the intellect, and finally of the ego.

M: The Self alone is Real. All others are unreal. The mind
and the intellect do not remain apart from you.
The Bible says, “Be still and know that I am God.” Stillness
is the sole requisite for realization of the Self as God.

~ ~ ~

from “The Way of Chuang Tzu,” trans Merton:

*The Lost Pearl*

The Yellow Emperor went wandering
To the north of the Red Water
To the Kwan Lun mountain. He looked
around
Over the edge of the world. On the way
home
He lost his night-colored pearl.
He sent out Science to seek his pearl,
and got nothing.
He sent Analysis to look for his pearl,
and got nothing.
He sent out Logic to seek his pearl,
and got nothing.
Then he asked Nothingness, and
Nothingness had it!
The Yellow Emperor said:
“Strange, indeed: Nothingness
Who was not sent
Who did no work to find it
Had the night-colored pearl!”

~ ~ ~

William Blake wrote in the introduction to “Jerusalem,”

Poetry fetter’d Fetters the Human Race
Nations are Destroy’d or Flourish in proportion as
Their Poetry, Painting and Music are Destroy’d or Flourish:
The primeval state of Man was Wisdom, Art and Science.”

Wisdom precedes art as art precedes science. Wisdom is consciousness of being itself; it cannot be qualified, conditioned, or defined, for it is intrinsic to being itself. Art is the reflexive state of wisdom; it is the natural and spontaneous expression of being. Science is the way of materially implementing the reflexive state of wisdom. In awakened human consciousness these three form a unified whole. But in our own time science precedes art, and the practice of art precedes the realization of wisdom; and the three are no longer related as a unified system of knowledge. By Blake’s terms, the state we live in is the utter reversal of man’s natural state… (from this untitled work)

~ ~ ~

Science and nonduality is about self-realization or knowing who you are. That goes for the scientist. Anyone exploring science and nonduality has to find out their true nature or who they are. They can’t just trip on the mind and all kinds of cool things about consciousness. They need to go beneath that.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 174 other followers