Integral Science

I have already written quite a lot regarding the conceptual difficulties surrounding String Theory. As it stands I would say that from a qualitative perspective, it presently does not constitute a meaningful physical interpretation of the Universe. However once some of its key ideas are properly decoded we can begin to appreciate what it really is all about. Conventional Science is heavily based on the linear rational approach which is thereby 1-dimensional in qualitative terms. This attempts to give one unambiguous direction to understanding e.g. interpretation that is (merely) objective, space distances that are (merely) positive, propositions that are (merely) true etc. Not surprisingly - in terms of this approach - the most fundamental constituent of matter i.e. the string is viewed likewise as 1-dimensional in quantitative terms. Common sense notions of the nature of space and time likewise reflect the 1-dimensional qualitative approach. Here we view 3 dimensions as spatial (with ...

One issue that needs to be clarified here is the relationship as between number and other mathematical symbols.  On the one hand it would be valid to maintain that the fundamental nature of reality (as phenomenally revealed) is mathematical. However I would also contend that it is more precisely related to number. Basically I would maintain that number in fact implicitly requires other key mathematical symbols and relationships. For example I have frequently identified 1 with the (straight) line and 0 with the circle.  So there are intimate links here as between key numerical and geometrical notions.  Also the important operations of addition and subtraction are again implied by the most basic of numbers (1 and 0).  The very recognition of form in any context implies 1. So for example if one distinctly recognises an object this implies the corresponding inherent recognition of 1. So without such recognition one would not be even able to differentiate objects in exp...

In the last contribution I suggested that - what we know as - reality at its most fundamental level represents a simple binary digital number system operating interactively in both an analytical (linear) and holistic (circular) manner.  The importance of this digital system in analytical terms is well recognised in IT technology where it has the capacity to successfully encode all information.  The corresponding importance of this same system in holistic terms - though not as yet recognised - is that it has the capacity to successfully encode all transformation systems i.e. as the dynamic interaction of both linear and circular logic.  However the most startling revelation comes from the incorporation of both systems whereby reality itself in all its diverse and complex intricacies (both physical and psychological) thereby represents both the encoding and decoding of the combined two systems.  So one way of looking at the nature of reality is as a dynamic computer pr...

It should be apparent in the first instance that number is essential in quantitative terms. The very notion of quantity implies some form of numerical ordering! What is not however so obvious is the realisation that number is equally essential from a qualitative perspective where it plays a holistic role complementary to what is accepted in conventional (quantitative) terms. To appreciate this important point we can initially confine ourselves to the two most fundamental numbers 1 and 0. As we know these two digits can be used - as in modern computers - to successfully encode all information (in quantitative terms). However what is not commonly appreciated is that the same two digits can be potentially used to encode all transformation processes when used with respect to their holistic qualitative meaning. So, as I have repeatedly stated, 1 in this context relates to the linear use of logic in the analysis of form and 0 to its corresponding circular use (as an indirect expression of t...

Following on my last contribution it would be instructive to demonstrate futher important points regarding the "true" nature of physical reality (through corresponding reference with the complementary psychological connection) . In physical terms we have (partial) physical objects that dynamically exist through interaction with a (holistic) dimensional framework of space and time. In corresponding psychological terms we have (specific) perceptions that dynamically interact with (universal) conceptual classes. So for example a specific electron perception necessarily interacts with the universal conceptual class of electron. In other words an electron as quantitatively perceived thereby must relate to the qualitative concept of "electron". The psychological dimensional framework of each electron in space and time is provided through its conceptual appreciation. However as we can have many different types of object perceptions, likewise we can have many correspon...

It seems that the BBC has now found their answer to Stephen Hawking through their own series “The Wonders of the Universe” hosted by Professor Brian Cox. Now Brian Cox, a former member of the 90’s pop band D-ream is something of a wonder himself as he looks far too young to be a professor. However there is no doubting his communication skills and his undoubted knowledge and love for his subject. Indeed I found his programme demonstrating how elements here on Earth have emerged from the high temperature processes within stars compelling viewing as it clearly showed how we are all truly children of the Universe (and indeed of the original Big Bang which is believed to have started it all)! The following programme "Falling" on gravity proved of equal interest as he showed how this mysterious force is responsible for the structure of all phenomenal forms in the Universe. Initially he confined himself - which accepting that it was not fully satisfactory - to Newton’s concepti...

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...