[NotStein]

Originally Posted by Bob Campbell

Hi Jeff,

In all fairness Jeff I think you have quoted me out of context. I do not understand why you have taken rather vehement offense that really amounts to the religious rant that you accuse me of. I do not subscribe to any traditional religion. I have a science education and have studied hard science in depth all of my life. I seek the same thing as you, a pragmatic theory of everything that can lead us out of the wilderness of conflicting biased opinions and unsubstantiated assumptions that underlie the current flaws in our understanding of the universe and our appropriate role in it.

I think your obviously highly spirited remarks are off the mark. I am promoting neither a religious diatribe nor one exclusively based on mathematical physics either. Both sides of these mutually exclusive perspectives come down to biased beliefs entrenched in culturally conditioned dogmatic positions. There are powerful emotional commitments to both sides and neither side is just going to disappear. We need a new paradigm that can bridge this fundamental gap in our perceptions in a way that translates into pragmatic science without arbitrarily dismissing the emotional energies that are obviously spirited in nature and that animate us and fuel our thoughts and actions. We can not just dismiss the human condition from the equation without divorcing ourselves from our own understanding.

I agree that the primary focus in this forum should be on science based on phenomenal evidence. But that should extend to documented phenomenal experience of a spiritual nature where it is relevant to the nature of the human mind. That should reasonably extend to so called OOBs but only where they can find some degree of consistent relationship to the nature of mind. I did not introduce this in the discussion but only responded to the comments of others where I thought it might be helpful.

I first came to this thread because of a post that Pat made on another thread. I saw that he was making an effort to bridge this gap between science and religion in a kind of amorphous recipe that he introduced just as a tentative idea. He introduced factors such as the Void, the I Ching, and so on that are associated with the Eastern Philosophies and religions. That is the theme of his Idea post. I do not see how Pat’s approach can possibly lead to pragmatic science but he at least recognizes a need to bridge this gap between East and West. More than half the world is a spirit culture. Western science can’t reasonably just dismiss it any more than we can dismiss half our brain.

I do not think that an all embracing TOE can be found exclusively in left brain language, including the language of mathematics. There must be a more fundamental structure to the cosmic order that we must be able to access if there is ever to be a meaningful and comprehensive approach to a Theory of Everything. That must include some underlying structural basis to physics and mathematics of course, including cosmology, but current models are fraught with problems and a broad variety of mutually exclusive interpretations as you must know. None of them can find direct confirmation in phenomenal experience of any kind apart from very tenuous threads to very isolated fragments of obscure experimental data that are inherently controversial. They are conjectures much like Pat’s recipe for what he sees as a tasty soup just as others do of their pet theories. I can not see how any of them with the possible exception of the Bohm Interpretation and de Broglie’s pilot wave can provide a convincing basis for meaningful discussion toward a Theory of Everything.

The Bohm interpretation as an extension of de Broglie’s pilot wave at least recognizes that there are universal non-local factors involved in the physical universe and it provides a pragmatic mathematical basis to make some limited headway. There is a recent science article under Toe News entitled “Non Locality of a Single Particle Demonstrated Without Objection.” This clearly indicates that there is a universal component involved in the physical projection of atomic matter. If you have a look at my website or see my TOE article “Gravity and the Void: Tip of a TOE Iceberg” you will see that my work does provide a structural basis consistent with this empirical evidence that is mathematically consistent with special relativity and de Broglie’s pilot wave. On my website it also extends to a pragmatic and highly disciplined approach to how the human nervous system meaningfully integrates sensory experience synapse by synapse consistent with the factual evidence. This can not be called a religious rant.

Whether you can see anything constructive in my work or not, I do share your distaste for pseudo-sciences concocted from blind religious convictions, spiritualism gone off the rails, and aberrations of a similar kind that are based on blind beliefs. The methodology proposed in my work to explore the structure of the cosmic order is not a belief system. It can only be understood through patient intuitive reflection and persistent questioning of how it relates directly to phenomenal experience.

I hope that you will not take further offense at these remarks. I am perhaps wasting more bandwidth but I think you are prejudging my comments related to Pat’s thread without appreciation of the main body of my work or its potential value. My comments on his thread are admittedly out of context with the overall approach taken in my work.

Please believe that my words here are offered with respect and in good faith that we share a desire for some universal basis of understanding that can enrich, not impoverish, the incredible diversity of the human condition.

Best wishes,
Bob

Bob, I do apologize for the bluntness of my response, but you started the 'rather vehement offense' yourself. How? AS you state:

"The physical and biological sciences as they have developed in the last century and a half and especially in the last few decades, would have us believe that the evolution of life can be reduced to a fortuitous series of molecular and atomic accidents going all the way back to the Big Bang. Does anyone seriously believe that a collection of molecules can accidently organize themselves into a conscious intelligence?"

Yea, I believe that may be the case, and the way you word it implies that anyone who doesn't must be an idiot. It smacks of the 'superior than thou' attitude that you 'who believe' foist on us who are still open to all possibilities. We have a fundamental divide in our beliefs that cannot be bridged while we still walk the earth. We seek a TOE that explains all via logic and mathematics. You're telling us our quest is impossible. If we succeed, faith is unnecessary; As you continue to rub it in:

"So some scientists actively preach the blind belief that it all happened by accident."

That's enough to piss me off - another 'thou's dumber than me' statement by implication. Do not skirt the truth here. The only truth here is that which can be reproduced in a lab or mathematical theorum. We cannot accept anything on faith, or our (TOE) quest is defeated. So, give me a step-by-step explanation of how (maybe even why) He did it. That's scientific. So, gosh, you'll say we're just humans, we can't begin to understand Him. We'll never know that until after we die. What a cop-out. You're telling us to roll over & play dead, that one of our core drives is impossible to achieve. Sorry, won't happen.

Post the proof.

Jeff

P.S. I'm not saying He doesn't exist. Just that if he does, just how are you going prove it, as well as how and why He created it (prior to the Big Bang)? We have no tools up to the task. After the Big Bang, maybe He did it logically, mathematically consistent, and beautifully (we'll, maybe threw some ugly in, too) just to help us pass the time.