Integral Science

I have just been completing four articles that seek to outline a new vision of physics (which I believe is greatly needed at the present time). For very good reasons, I do not share the present optimism regarding physics, which seemingly assumes that at last we are on the threshold of unveiling a Theory of Everything . Rather than finding this illusionary TOE, we are about to painfully discover how limited in truth is the present scientific framework! So as I would see it comprehensive scientific understanding will require at least three great phases. What we are witnessing therefore at present is but the peaking of the first great phase that is geared merely to the specialised quantitative interpretation of physical reality. However properly understood science possesses an equally important holistic qualitative aspect (which I refer to as Integral Science) . However this aspect has remained for all practical purposes entirely undeveloped. In fact most scientists would have g...

Looking again at the Horizon TV programme on Fermat’s Last Theorem proved a very rewarding experience. Unlike the first time I was able to appreciate much more of the fine detail (e.g. with respect to elliptical curves and modular functions). Also it got me thinking again on a number of levels regarding my own mathematical journey. Like Wiles as a child of about 10, I too had heard of Fermat’s Last Theorem. The problem seemed so beguilingly simple that in my naïveté I thought I would be able to solve it. However after many hours of futile endeavour I abandoned this quest in failure. Nevertheless as Mathematics remained my favourite pursuit I hoped to major in the subject at College. However after a troublesome first year when I became greatly disillusioned with the mathematical treatment of the infinite, I dropped out of the class. Many years later I became interested again in Fermat’s Last Theorem from a very different context. I had been paying a great deal of attention to my ne...

It is indeed a pleasure to watch so many beautifully produced programmes highlighting the wonders of the universe. Recently I was viewing "Stephen Hawking's Universe" on Channel 4 and found it fascinating (especially the last episode on the origins of creation). The Big Bang about 13.7 billion years ago has now become so commonly accepted as if it is an established scientific reality not to be questioned. However I always like to take a wider perspective than mere conventional acceptance of present views. Just look at how our worldview has changed so much from even 100 years ago! Is it not reasonable to assume that perhaps even greater changes will take place in the next 100 years making much of what is presently gospel truth seem naive and even foolish! So even if the Big Bang remains the accepted orthodoxy, I am sure that the manner in which it is understood will have changed considerably. Indeed it seems to me somewhat ridiculous to attempt to describe in detail what h...

I have often stated that the current definition of "a string" is somewhat meaningless from any coherent physical perspective. A string is viewed essentially as like a thin elastic band - extremely short in length - that is 1-dimensional (with no other spatial characteristic). However this very definition requires the background existence of space. However it is then also admitted that the dimensions of space and time must in some way arise from strings (as the basic constituent ingredients of everything in the universe). So we clearly have an obvious problem. Indeed there is a strong parallel here with a similar issue in mathematics relating to the prime numbers. The prime numbers are conventionally viewed as the basic (independent) building blocks of the natural number system; however equally the general distribution of the primes intimately depends on the natural numbers. Now I have explained that this issues of the primes in Mathematics ultimately relates to the fact that ...

When doing some research for my articles on the Riemann Hypothesis, I made the interesting discovery that both Darwin's Origin of Species and Riemann's famous article on prime numbers were both published in 1859 (just over 150 years ago). Indeed the historic connection can be shown to be even closer with the publication date of Darwin's book in November of that year while the full text of Riemann's article also appeared in November (in the monthly reports of the Berlin Academy) though Riemann actually had delivered his address on the contents of that article to the Academy in August, 1859. However recently I have come to see an even greater significance to this interesting coincidence of publication dates (of what constituted truly ground breaking initiatives in two different fields). In earlier blogs I addressed the issue that any attempted reconciliation of science and religion would require two key developments. 1) the recognition of an alternative qualitative aspect...

Much is made of the Uncertainty Principle in Quantum Mechanics, whereby it is accepted that both the position and momentum of a sub-atomic particle cannot be precisely determined. So there is a trade-off involved with respect to both aspects with ever greater accuracy with respect to one aspect (e.g. position) inevitably being at the expense of the other (momentum). And this is an inherent problem with respect to the behaviour of such a particle (and not due to practical difficulties with measuring devices). However there is a much wider context to this principle which is not properly recognised (due to the lack of any appropriate qualitative context to Conventional Science). As I have stated before the very basis of Conventional Science is the use of linear rational logic (reflecting in turn the Middle Band of the psychological spectrum). However just as electromagnetic energy has many bands (of varying wavelength and frequency) likewise it is true with the modes of possible rational ...

I have found the odd numbered dimensions more difficult to understand than the even. As we have seen the even are more properly geared for holistic integral interpretation of reality and as my main concern over the years has been to articulate such an approach in appropriate mathematical terms, it is not surprising therefore that the even dimensions held more resonance for me. The clue to understanding however of the higher odd dimension (focusing initially on the positive) is the realisation that human development necessarily entails both differentiation and integration which need to be maintained in healthy balance. So even for one committed to the process of growing in pure contemplative awareness, a certain level of activity at each stage must be maintained. Thus for example when one returns to active involvement (following the development of the more passive even numbered dimension), the next odd numbered dimension will then unfold. Thus arriving at the first of ...