Stephen's blog

The art and discipline of happiness

When chatting with a friend recently we discovered that we had (independently) come to a similar place in our lives — a wonderfully light, free and peaceful place.

We found that we each had arrived at this place by doing something exceedingly simple — we had finally "let go" blaming others, or blaming "out there" or "suffering" blame from others, or suffering or feeling lonely, or ...


Systems thinking - an oxymoron?

A contributor on LinkedIn had wisdom to write: "A system is. Anything that follows that is either redundant or restrictive."

My response: 

To some extent I agree, but perhaps not for obvious reasons.

I dropped out of system thinking dialogue for the lack of in-depth consideration of natural systems that ... well, are natural and work.

In particular, the role of quantum coherence in organising systems.

As this article explains:

"Molecular biologists "are trained to look at the molecule," Engel said. "We don't usually design systems. We design molecules. The question becomes: Which aspects of this do we strive to recreate? We are very interested in the design principles. How could you design one of these?"

I believe that unless you're talking quantum principles, as applied to systems, you're wasting time (pun not originally intended, but in hindsight, a good one ... in that with quantum coherence there is an immediate "at-once" connectedness to life, that obviously wastes no time whatsoever. Can't get more efficient than that, or more effective and immediate :).


Clockwork thinking sprung again

I was reading an article about the 11th minute of the 11th hour of the 11th of November, and how it "has great meaning for astrologists, numerologists and psychics."

It struck me how childish we remain -- both scientific and new-age adherents are deeply given to superstitious beliefs that are exceedingly detrimental to the well-being of individuals and our communities.


Commonly coined

Some time ago I coined the term "physioplasticity" to more aptly describe the deeper plastic nature of physical matter and energy.

As was explained in more detail in this (2008) article ("Brains and beliefs"), matter and energy is continually cylcing and emerging (unfolding) from a deeper meta-physical level.

As Jane Roberts explained


The modern superstitions of science and religion


Modern science is still almost entirely based on 17th century concepts that physical movement is perfectly smooth and continuous.

This continuity of movement implies continuity of operation (of the world we experience) which naturally induced the perception that our universe (and our bodies) operated like a clockwork machine. This machine-world view was the impetus for the Industrial Revolution which resulted in many beneficial technologies (aircraft, automobiles, etc).

Around 200 years after Newton developed the calculus (which is based on the assumption of perfect continuity), the continuous-machine model was not able to explain a growing number of puzzling experimental results1 especially those concerning the presumed wave-like behaviour of light.

In the minutia of physical movement, movement is not continuous, nor clockwork in nature, nor predictable, nor certain ...nor physical in nature, but meta-physical.

In 1905 Albert Einstein resolved the mismatch of clockwork theory with actual experiment with his photo-electric effect for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics. Light came in "lumps" or particles of energy, and these particles, what we call "photons", were not continuous.

This "quantum" view of light gave rise to a burst of discoveries2, leading to what is now accepted as being, by far, "the most successful physical theory in history"3 : quantum theory.

Physicists quipped that quantum physics was all about "lumps and jumps" - lumps of light that "jump" from location to location without travelling the intervening space.

As one leading physicist explained, "according to the quantum theory, movement is not4 fundamentally continuous".

However, our sciences are still working on the assumption of clockwork continuity, which works well enough for rockets, rifles and railways.

Medical science, for example, still seeks to find the static machine-parts (genes) responsible for our personal behaviours, despite the evidence for nonlocal, interconnecting fields of quantum potentials that would, if researched, open whole new avenues for healing and wellbeing.

In the minutia of physical movement including when we so much as lift a finger, movement is not continuous, nor clockwork in nature, nor predictable, nor certain ... nor physical in nature, but meta-physical.

Yet our sciences carry on, as if movement was continuous and purely physical. The bulk of modern science is reliant on 17th century assumptions that are incompatible with world's most successful physical theory. The scientific method calls for theories to be discarded or modified when faced with evidence that is unable to be accommodated within the scope of a particular theory. This is how science advances. The geocentric model (Earth as centre of the universe) was ultimately replaced by the heliocentric model (Earth orbiting the Sun) because of the weight of evidence for the heliocentric model.

The intransigence to upgrade science's mechanical-universe model with one that is compatible with the quantum evidence is, like the behaviour of priests in Galileo's time, the hallmark of dogma, superstition and greed. That failure (to accommodate the facts within a congruent world-view) is a travesty of modern science.

In brief:

Standard5 modern science is still almost entirely based on 17th century concepts that physical movement is perfectly smooth and continuous (comprising an infinite-series6 of ever-so-small "infinitesimal" movements).

There are no bodily processes (chemical, electrical or otherwise) that can move anything infinitely ("infinite" literally means without end). Accordingly, physical movement is theoretically impossible when based on standard science's Newtonian (17th century) "assumptions". Given that physical movement is a routine aspect of everyday life, the root assumptions of standard science are clearly and unambiguously wrong.

Instead of applying 17th century thinking to our 21st century world, a new holodynamic world-view that matches the (quantum) evidence is, arguably, long overdue.


Superstition - "a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation."

While sharing various ideas on a forum recently, it became evident there are many people (including and especially atheists, scientists and the religious) who still very deeply rely on superstitious beliefs.

And by "superstitious" beliefs, none are more evident than when the topic of Zeno's Paradoxes is considered.

To put things in context:

Imagine we have a number of belief-systems, let's call them BS1 and BS2. Let's now see how well they match a particular set of evidence (facts and observations, as can be readily experienced on planet Earth).


The many benefits of quantum physics

Dialoguing with various participants on a forum, I was mindful to explore some of the benefits of understanding the deeper principles (not necessarily the mathematics) of quantum physics.

As Einstein demonstrated perhaps unwittingly, being too focused on the mathematics can take one away from one's intuitive feel for the deeper rhythms and connections in life.

And those deeper rhythms and connections are now well-verified, and are of immense benefit.


Does God Exist?

In response to the question "Does God exist?" on a forum in LinkedIn, I drafted the following, which seems to be sufficiently well-formed to be posted here, prior to posting there as well:


There is no "God" in a purely objective, independent sense for that would require weird, nonsensical disconnects (within any holodynamic systems, or indeed any reasonable rational context).

The idea of an independent creator was an idea developed during the childhood of humanity:

Bishop John Shelby Spong:

"Religion ... was for most of human history, always childlike and by definition authoritarian. It was, to be specific, a primary activity of the childhood of our humanity as a species."1


Creatively out there

I put some creativity into explaining a few things on a forum (not my usual bent), and recognised some useful ideas that I thought should also be shared, and reproduced here (with some additions and amendments):

In my experience when giving business presentations or business courses on the practical uses of quantum mechanics, I've nearly always found a distinct and highly noticeable divide in the audience.