Latest TOE News

It seems to me that there something inherently contradictory about the concept of multiple universes when the prefix (uni-) implies unity not multiplicity. Language it seems, including the language of mathematics, can be used to justify any fantasy, especially when a posteriori concepts like space and time are raised to a priori status to explain their own creation. The fantasy theory can even provide limited predicable test results, even though it can never be directly confirmed in phenomenal experience of any kind. 

Language based reason is a left brain function distinct from right brain intuitive insight and both are fuelled by patterned emotional energies via our ancient limbic system. But right brain intuition seeks out integrating themes, so in the mind of the scientist who may have a heavy emotional commitment to parallel universes, he sees this theory of a multi-verse as a unity, another contradiction which is shunted aside. The scientist finds this sense of unity very rewarding of course, and this continues to fuel the efforts to promote this or that theory constructed in language. This kind of double speak has come to infiltrate physics ever since the experimental practice of physics has become divorced from the philosophical interpretation of physics. The same empirical evidence can be interpreted in many ways.

The shortcoming of this linguistic approach is that there must be some structural integrity to the way the universe works as a whole. There must be some way to see into the structural dynamics of the creative process and the whole cosmic order that is not dependent upon language but from which language can meaningfully derive as it relates directly to phenomenal experience. The same pattern of structural dynamics must also underlie the meaning inherent in language. To be valid this non-linguistic method of delineating the creative process must embrace all possible structural varieties of experience.  There can be no conceivable way to intuitively perceive anything apart from it. It must render the whole creative process structurally transparent. As it happens there is a way to do this outlined at http://www.cosmic-mindreach.com. It offers a new methodology to the both the physical and biological sciences that complements traditional approaches without imposing a blind belief in this or that interpretation. It can remarry the practice of physics with its structural interpretation while expanding the horizons of physics and science generally. Without this marriage metaphysical speculation can endlessly abound without possibility of direct confirmation in experience of any kind. This erodes at the credibility of science in general.

If the divorce is enforced, presumably out of a sense of fairness to all interpretations, it also precludes a methodolgy that requires the marriage. This is huge mistake because there can be no other way to short circuit endless mutually exclusive metaphysical speculations with no hope of resolution.