|
|
ONE: A Critique of Reality We tend to view reality as a constant. We forget that our concept of reality has changed over the centuries in some subtle and not so subtle ways. Our current view of reality is dominated by two main factors: our perception and the concensus of modernism (the reality paradigm predominant in the twentieth century and based in Newtonian and post-Newtonian views of the cosmos and its workings). And yet, there is much mounting evidence that what we regard as reality is but a small slice of the perhaps infinite pie. Reality is a concensus, and as such has such an awesome weight that it is not questioned by the main stream of life. It has always been questioned by philosophical extremists, but questions also arise in the cutting edge of scientific research. Let us then examine three compelling arguments that debunk and unseat our view of reality from its current absolute status.
A. The Historical Arrogance Of Assuming Finality If you had lived in the middle ages your cosmological view would be largely provided by the church. You may have regarded the Earth as flat (if you thought of such things at all) and at the very least you regarded the Earth as the centre of God’s creation with all other things revolving around it. Illness was God’s retribution for sin. One of the great reality paradigm shifts came with the invention of the microscope and the discovery of bacterial organisms. Up until that time the notion of diseases being contagious was largely unknown. Even after this, the practical application of these discoveries did not impact until much later. It is only slightly over a century ago that hospitals realized that by sterilizing bedding and washing hands, the spread of disease could be drastically reduced. The penetration of this reality view took over two centuries before the mainstream of life began to act in accordance with it. Typically, the pioneers of these practices were mocked and their credibility questioned, when in fact their only crime was to have a practical view of reality which included micro organisms. If you were transported back to the middle ages, perhaps to the time of the Black Plague, and you attempted to implement your current reality paradigm to combat disease, you would likely be viewed as a witch or force of Satan for daring to step outside the main stream thoughts of the time. And none would be faster to condemn you than those with philosophical authority, namely then the clergy (later scientists and currently economists). Such is always the case as their authority rests on a certain view of reality. Threaten that view of reality and you threaten their authority, whether it be clergy or economists. There would be few people at all capable of making the transition to your reality or paradigm of thinking. It would be, quite simply, beyond them. (This is a phenomenon that has a wide spread parallel throughout our own current society, and which we will revisit extensively later.) They regarded their view of reality with absolute certainty and finality. Similarly there is a story told about the field of physics about one century ago. As a field of academic research it was largely out of favour. It was thought by the scientific community of the time that physics research was unnecessary as everything in the field had been discovered. Newtonian Physics had been taken as far as it could go. (They chose, of course, to ignore the vast majority of Newton’s work, which was metaphysical in nature. If they had looked at this other work -deemed unscientific- they would have found the foundation for the next step in physics!) As a result of this attitude, students were not encouraged to pursue studies in Physics since those with philosophical authority had decided there was no point as there was nothing left to study. Of course the sheer arogance of this was displayed only a few decades later with the original research done by Nils Bohr and the ensuing explosion of research in nuclear and quantum physics. From Nils Bohr to Albert Einstein, to modern research into Chaos Theory and holographic space, we have definitely proven that there is more to reality than Newtonian physics. -Not that we have disprove Newton. Nor have we let go of his principles in our day to day lives. In most cases clinging to Newtonian physics in our day to day lives is justifiable. It works for us, and it wasn’t so much that it was wrong as that it was incomplete. It was only one piece of the pie. Was it worthwhile bursting beyond those limitations and into the new reality of Quantum physics? Is it relevant? Look around. Most of the technological marvels of the 20th century, whether good or bad, owe their existence to this quantum leap. Our thinking may still be Newtonian, but our toys are in the realm of a Quantum reality. Just as there was a lag in the implementation of the knowledge gained in the first Age of Reason, we have been slow to integrate the implications of the Quantum reality into our daily lives. It took centuries for practitioners to apply the idea of micro organisms into some practical areas, because their reality had not yet caught up with their knowledge. Similarlly, most of the practical implications of a Quantum reality are still beyond us. How do Chaos Theory, Quantum Physics and holographic models of the universe relate to our daily lives, how we view things and make decisions? Most importantly, how do they relate to our sense of what is possible and what is impossible? There always seems to be a lag between the cutting edge of scientific theory and the practical understanding permeating to our reality consensus. We’ll regard the implications of this new quantum reality in a later section of this chapter. However to conclude this section I think the moral of this story is to not trust the arrogance of those with philosophical authority to claim a finality to their view of reality. In any point in history the main stream has possessed of view of reality which was believed to be absolute and final. They were blind to the next step, and kept blind by the existing philosophical authority. Are we so naive to think that we, presently, are not in exactly the same situation?? Our current view of reality is no more absolute or final than was that of the middle ages or that of the end of the 19th century. We are equally blind to the prospects of the future, even though there are many hints about it in the cutting edge of scientific research. Like the hospital workers of the 19th century who new about micro organisms but didn’t think to wash the linen in the beds, we are still functioning in the former reality paradigm. The quantum universe is not yet part of our thinking. In his famous book, The Tao of Physics, Fritjov Capra examines the relationship between quantum physics and eastern mysticism and spirituality. In The Tao of Chaos, Katya Walter examines the relationship between chaos theory, DNA code and the I Ching. The signposts exist to show us how quantum physics can lead us to a new view of reality, cosmology, ontology and spirituality. All we have to do is allow our mainstream state of mind to catch up with the existing, proven trends in the cutting edge of science. -And to let go of our self imposed limits.
B. The Limits Of Perception We have demonstrated the error in assuming that our current view of reality is absolute. But can you really take that seriously? After all, don’t our senses tell us the truth? Isn’t reality well represented through our five senses? We all agree on properties of space and time and causality, don’t we?? It is true that there is a cultural consensus regarding reality. But that’s all it is, a cultural consensus! If you go to another culture, like the Australian Aborigines, or even Native American culture, there are striking differences in that reality consensus. There is the "dreamtime" of the Aborigines where the dreams, imagination, visions, visualizations, or whatever you want to call them take on aspects of reality. In Native culture, reality extends in a very real sense into the forces and "spirits" of the environment. In each case these views of reality have a very real effect on the culture’s relationship to their surroundings and general mindset, which in turn are very different from ours. Different consensus = different mindset = different reality. Are our senses not reliable reporters of reality? Are our perceptions not consistent across individuals and cultures? Science would certainly have you think so, since reliability in science is based on empiricism. However, critical examination of our senses shows that here, too, we are only privy to a small piece of the pie. In fact, based comparing human senses to those of other mammals, we don’t really fare all that well. Our eyesight involves taking reflected wavelengths of light, captures them and relays them to our brain where neural pathways and conceptual structures interpret them as shapes, colours, space, and distance. Do those shapes, colours and distances exist independently of our mind? Perhaps, but let’s look at it more closely. First of all, while our sight interprets colours, we can only see a small fraction of the light and electro magnetic spectrum. Other animals have different perceptions of what we view. Certain insects, for example, are capable of seeing ultra-violet light and to them flowers that look boring to us are vibrantly luminescent . Rattlesnakes have infra-red sensors which allow them to see the body heat of an organism at night. Dogs can hear audio frequencies that we cannot. All of these animals have different perceptions of the reality we take for granted. We must be careful not to assume the superiority or absoluteness of our senses and perceptions just because we are humans. We may have some serious sensory limitations, not to mention perceptual boundaries which make our experience of reality fall short of a complete picture of reality. In his book "The Wild Within", Paul Rezendes gives the example of the reality of a dog (or other animal depending on its sense of smell). When the dog comes into a new room, it runs around sniffing the furniture, the air and the walls. If it could talk, it could tell a story of perception quite different to ours. It would be able to tell you how many different people had been in the room previously, how long ago and where they were sitting. The dog’s concept of time and its awareness of reality has got to be totally different from ours. It smells into the past and puts together a construct of reality that includes the history of a place. Animals with acute sense of smell can read emotions from people by reading the differences in scent that may be associated with certain emotions. I don’t know if we truly appreciate how completely different the reality of animals must be from ours. We must then be careful not to make the error of judging our reality to be innately superior to the others. All these reality constructs are equally valid. They are all different ways of looking at the same thing. And if they are all equally valid, then we must admit that out sensory reality is only one perspective. As D. G. Berkeley points out in his philosophical writings of the early 1th century, our sensory inputs, such as shape, colour, smell, texture, etc., all combine in our minds to create a "thing". It is known and described and identified by its sensory characteristics. If our perceptions are as incomplete or partial as I have demonstrated, then, too, must our knowledge of all reality be incomplete and a mere construct of our minds. And even beyond the sensory quandary, it is well known that such things as attitudes, moods and preconceptions can have a strong effect on our interpretation of what we sense. Truly, our reality is a mental construct. "...as to what is said of the absolute existence of unthinking thins, without any relation to their being perceived, that is to me perfectly unintelligible. Nor is it possible that they should have any existence out of the minds or thinking things that perceive them." (Principles of Human Knowledge, p.1) Or, in other words, if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, does it make a sound? More to the point, does it exist at all? Berkely is perhaps a little egocentric for my tastes, but he brings up an interesting point. Think of the depths of space, or the surface of a distant uninhabited planet. Without the senses and the mind to organize it, what is the reality of that place? Can we know it? I believe it is there, however what is there may defy our understanding and be estranged from our reality.
C. The Quantum Reality Matter, energy, space, time and causality are all drawn into question by the science of Quantum Physics and its related disciplines. Matter is made of atoms and molecules. Atoms are made up of protons, neutrons, electrons and an assortment of other sub atomic "particles". However "particles" may not be the proper word as when studies separately they behave more like energy than particles. Scientists also theorize that atoms are mostly empty space, like our solar system. Relative to the size of protons and electrons, the spaces between them are immense. And so matter, it seems, is made up of mostly empty space and charged particles. When the atoms of my fingers come into contact with the atoms of a glass the amount of empty space should allow the two to pass through each other. It must be the energy or the forces which create the barrier. Seen that way, matter becomes solid due to force fields, given characteristics by our senses. When the hammer hits the thumb there is not only real pain, but also real impact and physical damage. The gestalt of something implies that there is a quality possessed by the whole which cannot be explained by the sum of the parts. In other words, take all of the energy charges, atoms and molecules and put them all together and you have something which is more than just space and energy. Matter exists on this gestalt level. But the building blocks are important, too. A house stands as an identity unto itself, but it is still made of wood, bricks and cement. Not only is that an important fact when you are building the house, but it is also important when you are changing, fixing or maintaining the house. Matter is solid to us and responds to Newtonian laws of physics. But it is more than that and if we wish to broaden our understanding of the universe, it is necessary to look at it on several different levels. The evolution of time as an objective, constant concept probably was the result of the invention of clocks. Without clocks, we all recognize that our perception of time is very subjective. Time can go quickly or time can drag on. The passage of time in dreams is often remarkable, with long sequences of events happening in mere minutes. Clocks create a consensus. Before clocks the natural cycles of days, lunar phases and seasons created a strong consensus which almost all cultures could refer to. Einstein’s theory of relativity takes the subjectivity of time one more step. It theorizes (and has hence been proven) that time actually proceeds at a different rate in relatively different velocities. If there is a clock on the Earth and one on a space ship traveling close to the speed of light, the one on the space ship slows down. There also seems to be a link between time an gravity. Time also is presumed to slow down in the tremendous gravitational distortion within the event horizon of a black hole. This theory is obviously still unproven. Since the Earth is also moving at tremendous speeds though space, this begs the question whether our concept of time should be in any way absolute. Relative to the clock down the street time is probably behaving itself. But outside of mundane experience we are not constrained by common rules for time. "Let us forget the lapse of time; let us forget
the conflict of opinions. Quantum theory also impacts on the principle of causality. We think of causality in a mechanical way, like balls on a pool table. One hits another and the energy is transferred, causing the second ball to move. There is a logic behind it; "a" leads to "b" in chronological order and according to the laws of (Newtonian) physics. But in the Quantum world things do not always follow our accepted rules of logic. Light behaves both as a particle and a wave, depending on how you measure it. Electrons spin in ways that defy logic, sometimes behaving as if they know what other electrons are doing. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that we can know some characteristics of nuclear particles only by ignoring others. The more one examines the world of Quantum physics, the more contradictions there seem to be within our accepted laws of causality and logic. While it may be true that such principles are only true for atomic particles, some of these paradoxes seem very close to such things as synchronicity and the ability to effect causality through meditation. I am not examining Quantum physic in detail within this article. There are many excellent books on the subject that I will indicate in the chapter bibliography. However, there is one area that I would like to examine in more detail. The next chapter is dedicated to some of the principles of Chaos Theory and the related area of Cellular Automata. This will be a continuation of my discussion of causality. BIBLIOGRAPHY Abram, David, The Spell of the Sensuous Berkeley, D. G., Principles Of Human Knowledge Capra, Fitjof, The Tao Of Physics O’Sullivan, Edmund, Transfomative Learning Rezendes, Paul, The Wild Within
|