Integral Science

I have been reading recently an updated biography of Stephen Hawking by Kitty Ferguson. Though I have always found Hawking a very interesting and provocative thinker, I would consider the major weakness of his position is that he has adopted throughout an inherently reduced view of the nature of science without the need to seriously question its assumptions. Of course this is a criticism that can be made generally of the mainstream approach to physics. Despite many deep philosophical issues posed by quantum mechanics, most practitioners carry on regardless in the somewhat naïve belief that even its strangest findings can be successfully accommodated within the present approach. Modern science emerged from a mythical medieval worldview where both physical and spiritual realities were viewed as inseparable partners. Thus the subsequent clear differentiation of the physical from the spiritual aspect has enabled an unprecedented development with respect to the...

We have been discussing the notion of rainbow gravity and how it challenges conventional notions of the Big Bang! In fact the deeper implications of what is involved here require the recognition that scientific reality properly contains both analytic (quantitative) and qualitative (holistic) aspects, in dynamic relationship with each other. Therefore conventional scientific understanding is continually limited by the attempt to reduce reality in a merely quantitative impersonal manner (as detached from the observing mind). So when we allow for both scientific aspects, this allows for the local independence of events (in analytic terms) combined with the universal interdependence of all events (in a holistic manner). When this is done it leads to a fundamental change in perspective, especially with relation to our understanding of space and time. Following Newton, space and time were understood in neutral terms as simply constituting a pre-existing background where phenomenal...

I mentioned in the last blog entry how there are in fact two interacting aspects (physical and psychological) to the relative experience of the nature of time and space. Thus from the physical perspective, if a car is travelling at 120 mph then with respect to measurement by a stationary observer it will take just 30 seconds to travel 1 mile. However, when measured from the perspective of a person travelling in the car, the measured time to travel the mile would be slightly less i.e. 29.99999999999952 seconds.  Now of course this slight difference would not be detectable with present time measurement devices. However if it were possible to imagine the car travelling at say 87% of light speed, then the measured time to travel the mile (from an occupant within the car) would be just half of that as registered by a stationary observer. So in this sense, measurements are relative to the speed of the observer estimating both the time and distance  in...

I have never been a big fan of the Big Bang Theory, which for me represents an - ultimately - untenable conclusion, arising from a reduced linear approach to scientific interpretation. Initially, I formed my general reservations in philosophical terms. However, following recent speculation on rainbow gravity and its implications for the Big Bang, I would now be able to articulate better the deeper physical implications of this philosophical position. What seems to be missing entirely with respect to conventional scientific interpretation is the enormous difference as between analytic and holistic type appreciation of reality! Unfortunately as such scientific interpretation is synonymous with mere analytic appreciation (of a quantitative nature), the holistic aspect, which is of distinctive qualitative variety, is thereby inevitably reduced in mere quantitative terms. The analytic approach admittedly however has its great merits, as the wonderful achievements of modern science ...

In the second programme of his two-part series "The Secrets of Quantum Physics" on  BBC 4, Jim Al-Khalili dealt with several interesting examples from biology, showing how modern interpretations have become intrinsically based on principles from quantum mechanics. For example he explained how the navigation of the robin is seemingly based on the quantum entanglement, or what Einstein famously referred to as "spooky action at a distance". This enables the robin to detect minute changes with respect to the Earth's magnetic field associated with distinctive types of quantum entanglement associated with paired electrons. He then went on to explain how the modern explanation of smell relates - in a manner akin to sound - to the vibrations of the chemical bonds holding molecules together. The previous explanation based on the structure of component molecules neatly locking into appropriate sense receptor molecules (associated with a characteristic scent) could not...

I enjoyed watching Professor Jim Al-Khalili's account of the development of quantum physics "The Secrets of Quantum Physics"with the first episode "Einstein's Nightmare" shown last night on BBC 4. Though I had both read about and listened to the discussion of these ideas many times before, I always welcome a new imaginative way of presentation, which can lead one to seeing the issues involved in a new light. What was discussed last night culminated with the Einstein-Podolsky Paradox, which though formulated in 1935 could only be satisfactorily tested much later (largely due to the original theoretical contribution of John Bell). As we know, Einstein was deeply unhappy with the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics, where sub-atomic events seemingly were based on chance and probability. He believed that acceptance of non-local causation would imply communication between particles faster than the speed of light, which thereby would violate a ke...

I was struck by this following quotation when looking through once more Marcus du Sautoy's very readable "Music of the Primes". "When we observe an event in the quantum world, it is though we are not seeing the event itself in its natural domain, but a shadow of the event projected into our 'real world' of ordinary numbers." From a Jungian perspective this lends itself to a direct complementary comparison with the nature of unconscious experience from a psychological perspective. In other words we cannot observe what pertains to the unconscious mind directly. Rather when we observe an event in the unconscious world, it is as though we are not seeing the event in its natural (i.e. unconscious domain) but a shadow of the event projected into our 'real world' of conscious experience. The implications here are highly important as it entails that we cannot hope to understand the sub-atomic quantum nature of reality within the current scientifi...