By Anthony North
We?re told we live in a hard reality. Material sciences have mapped it out adequately to know this is the case. Well, not quite. At best they can say they understand the world enough to discount esoteric forces at work.
Oh, sorry, no they can?t. Their own theories concerning the subatomic world show a myriad of esoteric forces working below the material world. Indeed, it is looking very much like the ?material?, as we know it, doesn?t actually exist.
This is the problem with present science.
The world they think they know about is in conflict with the world they don?t think they know about but are thinking about it. And these two counter-influences do not seem to meet.
This is a problem of specialization. A specialist thinks only of his own area of expertise, thus discounting awkward realities such as the total lack of understanding of what reality is. And it gets worse.
Theories are offered to explain a phenomenon.
Probability of correctness is then placed by peers, and the theory nudges towards acceptance. Yet the most likely truth of this is that nothing has a single, and definite, cause.
We can see the world at work through our senses, experiences and rationality. It appears simple and straight forward. But as soon as we attempt to theories open-mindedly about it, a definite reality is open to multiple causes.
The theories then placed hold a problem.
By definitely allying a theory with the data, a degree of subjectivity is placed on the objective facts we see. Is it possible that these ?facts? can then be manipulated to give a false impression of the reality we see?
Some areas of paranormal research suggest yes. In particular, the idea of the ?experimenter effect? could hold value. In essence, the theory is that a person?s expectations can have an effect on the result ? i.e. how reality behaves.
This begins to merge reality with the mind.
And if such a process is possible, then as a growing consensus arises out of experimental results, then the subjective effect of the experimenter grows in power as more and more expect to see what the experiment suggests.
In such a way, consensus reality grows. And there is no absolute way of knowing whether experienced data is absolute, or the result of subjective infection - which does, of course, suggest that the ?material? world of science is actually a mind-model of the world, experienced as a manipulated reality.
Particle theory does, infact, allow for this process. In the ?observer effect? it is argued that in order for the probability of the subatomic to become ?real?, an ?observation? must be made by a form of consciousness. And it is this consciousness which defines what that reality is.
Of course, science would argue that this whole idea is rubbish. But they would, wouldn?t they. Their reality holds no place for such a concept in the material world, so it isn?t there.
Yet some people perhaps know better.
http://beyondtheblog.wordpress.com/2008 ... l-reality/
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
