Basic principles

Steam-powered, or quantum-powered philosophy?

I recently attended a philosophy class focused on the ancient Greek philosophers, such as Plato, and others.

I was surprised by the relatively shallow depth of the ideas discussed, when viewed through a quantum holodynamic perspective.

I came to the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that unless the philosopher is post-quantum, they're not really going to add much insight into life.

And by insight, I mean the deeply shocking stuff that comes by way of studying and reflecting on the implications of quantum theory and experiment.


In regards to the after-life

In my book "Awkward Truths: Beyond the Dogmas of Science, Religion and New-Age Philosophies" (2004), I explained the somewhat unfortunate consequences of believing in an ideal, perfect Heaven, or a perfect spiritual existence.

It seems prudent to share some of those consequences, given current world circumstances and that many still idealize the after-life or various spiritual states (e.g. enlightenment).

This subject is also covered in more detail in my forthcoming "They Psycho-Quantum Dynamics of Gender, and Life".

More soon.

Excerpt, Awkward Truths


Simple Tools for Clarity, Understanding and Betterment

  • Simple Tools: for Clarity, Understanding and Betterment.Simple Tools: for Clarity, Understanding and Betterment

    Table of Contents

    • Figure 1: Some clarity would be nice
    • 1. The Stretch Tool
    • Figure 2: Flapping in circles?
    • 2. The Choice Tool
    • Figure 3: Real-ising possible into actual
    • What's so wrong with perfection?
    • Reluctant to stretch?
    • Figure 4: Evolution of us
    • 3. The Big Now Tool
    • Figure 5: 'Little now' within 'BIG now'
    • Relationships to reality
    • Figure 6: Possible, probable, actual
    • Playpens of life
    • Space-time aspects of masculine and feminine
      • Bosons
      • Fermions
    • Figure 7: Reasons to relate
    • Creatively keeping, or keeping creative
    • Figure 8: Free-will and Fate
    • Hierarchies?
    • Figure 9: Childhood: Good vs Bad Oppositions
    • 4. The Make-Like-Einstein Tool
    • Single-minded
    • Odd one out
    • Ignore the Over-dog
    • As natural as
    • Play with it
    • The Future As
    • 5. The Cycle Tool
    • Figure 10: The past "pushes"
    • Happened futures
    • Quality over quantity
    • Figure 11: Heart and Head
    • Figure 12: Focus, while embracing possibilities
    • Common as
    • Detaching from detachment
    • All together
    • 6. 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..
    • Figure 13: Co-Operated
    • (7) Additional
    • Figure 14: Cycled realities
    • Figure 15: The Totality of One and All

Points to remember

As mentioned in "Let's get clinical" and "for the 100th time", I've noticed a penchant for many people to believe in limiting systems.

Unfortunately, I forget on occasions the same very principles that I espouse.

A recent example was that of a lovely woman who professed to be an astrololger. Instead of my inviting her to consider some examples of  dynamic and fluid potentials available to her, I joked about her beliefs in a condescending manner. Not good.


Let's get clinical

While at the wonderful Gulgong Folk Festival recently I chatted to many people, and learned about many diverse and interesting world-views. I'm realising that people will accept and actively champion limitations and fixed beliefs because it serves them to do so. Fixed-systems beliefs gives stability and structure to people's lives (a common example being 'astrology'). And this acceptance occurs despite those beliefs stifling, limiting and denying wonderful potentials and possibilities. Chatting to a young woman at the festival who was open to the deeper quantum-possibilities of life got me thinking of the benefits from sharing good, sound belief-system concepts. As a result I'll start setting up "belief clinics" focused on "Joy, Peace, Ease, Love and Laughter" -- we'll be focused on having fun, ease, laughter and 'letting go' limiting, fixed beliefs about the past, the present and the future.


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).


Timeless knowledge

Voices of the dayWhile visiting a friend in Barkandji Country (Aboriginal country around Wilcannia, and along the Darling River), I was given a book "Voices of the first day", by Robert Lawlor. It contains concepts and ideas which are highly congruent with my basic model of The Theory of One and All that I intuited and explained in my book, BE and BECOME.

When researching materials to support the ideas in BE and BECOME I came across a number of leading physicists who voiced a more technical explanation: within certain bounds and constraints (via various 'lattice-works' or matrices, such as fractals), matter and energy is "plastic" — it can be molded or influenced with mind1. At this stage of our evolution it's not yet a noticeably large influence, but it's the principle that is important. It can be guided (again, within constraints), by virtue of the fact that all bits of matter and energy are 'instinctively choosing' to form the world we know.2 They 'instinctively choose' how to collapse the wave-function (collapse possibility into actuality -- see Fig. BI_RPA). As physicist Freeman Dyson explains:


Do Atheism and Religion rely on ignorance?

Last night I attended a philosophers' meeting, in which the merits of atheism was discussed.

There was a talk given on "The new atheists" - as the email alert of the event explained, "The new atheists are Dawkins along with Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris. The Four Horsemen they call themselves and they can be found on the web. Adding in Michel Onfray and his recent publication, The Atheist Manifesto only extends the concern that they are all barking up a dead end canal."