Dear DK,
Thanks for bringing up the points of view of some of the comments on your previous posts on unifying Physics and Love of Rumi, which did not share your excitement with the topic.
Reply to your Q#1 part 1: Modern science probably can offer very good quality answers to fundamental questions posed by humanity. But it cannot do it all at once in a single book or film because science requires attention to detail and verification of any proposed theory. Science takes some time to discover the truth about any observed process in nature and so the discoveries come one after another, a little bit at a time, but there is just so much to discover. It took some years for Quantum Physics to develop and put forward the Big Bang theory about the universe. I am not sure whether there is consensus among physicists about this theory even today.
Then there are too many fundamental questions to answer. For example, we all agree that every living being dies. Science should be able to prove it, or may be it already did; if so it would be intersting to see it.

Reply to Q#1 part 2: There is nothing in scientific understanding not to reconcile with humanity's well being because science is an instrument in our hands and we can use it either for our welfare or for our peril.
When you talk about reconcilliation of science with our spirituality and divinity, you probably have the so called reductionists in your mind. The question here is "is a Divine being necessary for the universe to come into and continue in existence?" Spiritualists describe this Divine Being as indescribable! A description they can agree on is that it is consciousness (not dumb), love, and eternal and all pervading. As things stand now, science still does not understand consciousness. There is confusion at two levels. The famous mind-brain identity problem: does the mind cease to exist when the brain dies?. At least for now, we do not have a scientific answer to this as yet. We are even more confused about thought and consciousness. Here, Adwaita already stated and stated very emphatically, that thought is NOT consciousness. Hard to believe that thought is dumb! Moreover, Adwaita stated that one understands thought and consciousness by a sharp interrogation of oneself deep inside and that each one has to discover what consciousness is for oneself but cannot prove it others to by any physical or logical means. So in a way, Adwaita has already unified spiritualism and reductionism.
For science, which works with clear definitions of words every step of the way and verifiability that it cannot do away with, it is quite a challenge to explain the Divine Being and how that being creates and evolves the universe.

Dear DK, an understanding man need not worry.

We know things through senses, feelings, intellect and intelligence as we evolve and not only in our present life but in what I call our evolutionary life which spans many lives of the like of our present life.

And just as lost in feelings in youth we do not listen to reason but an understanding man will know that we will outgrow our age soon and come around, similarly, he would know that those who are now lost in intellect and do not listen to intelligence will someday come around. Time is on the side of intelligence.

Love, Harb

Personality type is a huge factor in career gravitation. Gravitation leads to mass. Mass does not make right. It simply demonstrates gravitation.

Even professors are often failures in the more prestigious sciences and acquiesce to teaching. I've never understood how the failure does not hold back the genius while the genius must pass through his gate. Hence, a tendency on my part to vote for belief in miracles. "Miracles for the Physics Students, Hallelujah, Amen!" I shout. ha ha. So it is perfectly logical that someone would object vehemently to a simple discussion which links science with Rumi and call it pseudoscience.

Smyala pointed out scientific language being methodical and terms defined.

That is the quintessential Tower of Babel. Confuse the language so that they cannot speak to one another. It is as if a special plan was born in Genesis Chapter 11 of the St. James Bible and carried forth in the heirarchy of learning -- learning which gets more expensive the higher you go. Sense of entitlement is born and perpetuated that way.

I pulled up some scientific glossaries to review specific examples of how the words and their connotations mean drastically different things to the layman. Alpha decay. Well, I'd expect decay to be rotting. Instead it is a process of becoming stable and a little bit of shedding.

Okay. I didn't get the memo for coded language at an Ivy League school. Too bad. The scientist got his degree, paid for it, and is entitled to use his understanding of special language but they can select to talk up or talk down. A skilled man has non-skill in his arsenal. He is advantaged. In their world of laboriously proving, disproving, and begging funds ... visionaries are like the idea man that makes laborious work for the scientist. Frustration is understandable. But weaving, instead, with sister sciences, visionaries, and laymen is the best thing for growth, for ethics, and for the world. They know it. They get their inspirations from poets, writers, dreams and even love. Their cynicism comes from somewhere else.

So I say, consider the source.

Well it is all part of a process, a dance, and what is dancing without a partner? Where does the direction of spin come from when dancing?

It is simply a “matter of time” interesting phrase isn’t it? Does it hold a clue?

"Men show their character in nothing more clearly than by what they think laughable." -J. W. Goethe

Some ridiculed ideas which had no single supporter:

Ball lightning (lacking a theory, it was long dismissed as retinal afterimages)

Catastrophism (ridicule of rapid Earth changes, asteroid mass extinctions)

Child abuse (before 1950, doctors were mystified by "spontaneous" childhood bruising)

Cooperation or altruism between animals (versus Evolution's required competition)

Instantaneous meteor noises (evidence rejected because sound should be delayed by distance)

Mind-body connection (psychoneuroimmunology, doctors ridiculed any emotional basis for disease)

Perceptrons (later vindicated as Neural Networks)

Permanent magnet levitation ("Levitron" shouldn't have worked)

So that being said I wonder if we could not say established science eventually becomes pseudoscience.

BY THE WAY.

Science and scientists are fantastic, I now have a previously impossible Star Trek like, Dick Tracy watch like communication device.

I think the measure of scientific success is not in "theory" but in practicle application.

I was at the club, pulled out my cell phone shot video, capturing a phenomena known as feminine energy doing a particle dance and transfered it to You Tube so that in theory the whole world could see what I was seeing.

The Universe is all about the process of the impossible becoming possible.

"The mind likes a strange idea as little as the body likes a strange protein and resists it with similar energy. It would not perhaps be too fanciful to say that a new idea is the most quickly acting antigen known to science. If we watch ourselves honestly we shall often find that we have begun to argue against a new idea even before it has been completely stated." - Wilfred Trotter, 1941

to be continued....

Dear DK,

No, it's not wrong to try "to find ways to bring forward a holistic point of view that seeks to unify all our levels and dimensions of understanding..." In fact, it's critical at this point in our evolution that we can move between the different levels and dimensions of our awareness in order to take the leaps of creativity and understanding that will keep us from destroying each other.

We can't simply believe a truth anymore, we need to experience it. Which is where the hard scientists and the wishy washy spiritual seekers or emotional-idealistic types can find common ground. It's not enough that Ms Scientist or Mr Spiritual Leader says something. We need to experience the truth for ourselves. Because it is the experience that will transform us. It is the experience that will give us the answers to the really important questions:

Who am I? Why am I here? What is the meaning of life? Am I creator or merely created? What do I want to create? How can I fully experience the marvel around me? How can I give back?

Those are my questions.

Sorry, if I'm missing the gist of your questions or the other posters comments, DK. I didn't get a chance to read the last posts on the subject. But I feel passionately that we can come to a place of realizing our unity. But we need to go deeper. We need to keep going deeper, beyond the hard facts, to the heart of the matter. And then we begin to see the different levels. In seeeing the different levels we cannot help but come to the place where where our brother and I are one. YES the hard facts are still important and need to be acknowledged and addressed. But we don't have to stay stuck there. We can explore inner dimensions as well. We can go to the place where we all naturally go right before death - the place of asking, who am I? why am I here? what have I given? what was the meaning of my life? - We can go to that place now. We can create the meaning now. So that when we leave this place, we will know we have tasted life to it's fullest and given with our whole being, not just a small part of it. The mind is very small compared to the vastness and depth of our soul.

That's my rambling for today. Nice to feel a connection to you DK.

Love, Kristin

and pseudoscience become science.

A completely idiotic idea

When Alexander Graham Bell Invented the telephone he also made a remarkable leap of imagination. He correctly foresaw how people would use his invention; that they would speak on the phone instead of writing a letter -- an early form of electronic mail. Keen to sell his invention, Bell approached the Post Offices and commercial organisations responsible for carrying mail. The U.S. Post Office turned him down, as did Western Union. Then he approached the British Post Office, whose Chief Engineer, Sir William Preece was one of Britain's most distinguished scientists. Preece was a Fellow of the Royal Society who had studied under the great Michael Faraday himself. Preece examined Bell's invention, but he, too, rejected it on the grounds that, "England has plenty of small boys to run messages." Preece later surpassed even this judgment. When told that Thomas Edison was researching an incandescent electric lamp with a high-resistance filament, Preece described it as "A completely idiotic idea." This rejection of the new by established science is not an isolated aberration. It is the normal course of invention and discovery. Michael Faraday was described as a charlatan by his contemporaries when he announced that he could generate an electric current simply by moving a magnet in a coil of wire. Stung by these accusations, Faraday wrote, "Nothing is too wonderful to be true if it be consistent with the laws of nature."

DOES THIS SOUND FAMILIAR?

Few examples are more striking than this one. For five years, from December 1903 to September 1908, two young bicycle mechanics from Ohio repeatedly claimed to have built a heavier than air flying machine and to have flown it successfully.

But despite scores of public demonstrations, affidavits from local dignitaries, and photographs of themselves flying, the claims of Wilbur and Orville Wright were derided and dismissed as a hoax by Scientific American,
dismissed as a hoax by Scientific American,
dismissed as a hoax by Scientific American,

the New York Herald, the US Army and most American scientists. Experts were so convinced, on purely scientific grounds, that

heavier than air flight was impossible
heavier than air flight was impossible
heavier than air flight was impossible

that they rejected the Wright brothers' claims without troubling to examine the evidence. It was not until President Theodore Roosevelt ordered public trials at Fort Myers in 1908 that the Wrights were able to prove conclusively their claim and

the Army and scientific press were compelled to accept that their flying machine was a reality.

the Army and scientific press were compelled to accept that their flying machine was a reality.

the Army and scientific press were compelled to accept that their flying machine was a reality.

In one of those delightful quirks of fate that somehow haunt the history of science, only weeks before the Wrights first flew at Kittyhawk, North Carolina, the professor of mathematics and astronomy at Johns Hopkins University, Simon Newcomb, had published an article in The Independent which showed scientifically that powered human flight was 'utterly impossible.' Powered flight, Newcomb believed, would require the discovery of some new unsuspected force in nature. Only a year earlier, Rear-Admiral George Melville, chief engineer of the US Navy, wrote in the North American Review that attempting to fly was 'absurd'. It was armed with such eminent authorities as these that Scientific American and the New York Herald scoffed at the Wrights as a pair of hoaxers.

"I am not very skeptical... a good deal of skepticism in a scientific man is advisable to avoid much loss of time, but I have met not a few men, who... have often thus been deterred from experiments or observations which would have proven servicable." - Charles Darwin

"Round about the accredited and orderly facts of every science there ever floats a sort of dust-cloud of exceptional observations, of occurrences minute and irregular and seldom met with, which it always proves more easy to ignore than to attend to... Anyone will renovate his science who will steadily look after the irregular phenomena, and when science is renewed, its new formulas often have more of the voice of the exceptions in them than of what were supposed to be the rules." - William James

"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives." -Tolstoy

"It is really quite amazing by what margins competent but conservative scientists and engineers can miss the mark, when they start with the preconceived idea that what they are investigating is impossible. When this happens, the most well-informed men become blinded by their
prejudices and are unable to see what lies directly ahead of them." - Arthur C. Clarke, 1963

"When even the brightest mind in our world has been trained up from childhood in a superstition of any kind, it will never be possible for that mind, in its maturity, to examine sincerely, dispassionately, and conscientiously any evidence or any circumstance which shall seem to cast a doubt upon the validity of that superstition. I doubt if I could do it myself." - Mark Twain

"It is not uncommon for engineers to accept the reality of phenomena that are not yet understood, as it is very common for physicists to disbelieve the reality of phenomena that seem to contradict contemporary beliefs of physics" - H. Bauer

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance-- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
- Herbert Spencer, British philosopher

"It's like religion. Heresy [in science] is thought of as a bad thing, whereas it should be just the opposite." - Dr. Thomas Gold

"You can get into a habit of thought in which you enjoy making fun of all those other people who don't see things as clearly as you do. We have to guard carefully against it." - Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP meeting

"New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled, the humiliating question arises, 'Why then are you not taking part in them?' " - H. G. Wells

"The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also." - Mark Twain

"I believe there is no source of deception in the investigation of nature which can compare with a fixed belief that certain kinds of phenomena are IMPOSSIBLE." -William James

"Modern science should indeed arouse in all of us a humility before the immensity of the unexplored and a tolerance for crazy hypotheses." -Martin Gardner

"Almost all really new ideas have a certain aspect of foolishness when they are first produced." - Alfred North Whitehead

Dear DK,

The text hereunder was my reflection at the end of last year:

Religion and science
What have they brought us up till now?
Both have tried to tell us where our roots (might) lie
Both talk about a beginning and an end.
The first about a created Universe with afterlife, the second about a Big Bang and a Big Crunch
Both have failed up till now to proof a final truth.
Both possess perhaps a small part of the truth.
Both possess perhaps a small part of the faith in the truth.
Both are still taking a large part in the adventure into the yet “ to be known” (the unknown).
And what they brought to us up till this moment has been both for the good and for the bad.

What if we could name intuition as the science inside
And the ratio as the science outside

We can go on arguing about theists and atheists as if there ever will be a winner. There are no winners on either side because life is just as it is.

And if we take life just as it is, it unfolds itself before our very eyes in all its myriads ways and each way is as it is, for some a new way, for some a familiar way, for some a lucky way, for some a terrible way, and so on.

We are just such a tiny little spot in it all, does anyone really believe he or she can have that much influence on it? It is my perception that one has the most influence on it when one is able to flow with the moment and does not worry too much about the future or the past.
And when things happen for the good or the bad, yeah, there is always a choice how one looks at it and takes it personally, there lies your freedom. The more you are able to look at things from your own inner deep core, the more freedom you will receive. And the more happier perhaps we will be if we just let it all be.

And that is exactly what i am going to do. I hope that Harb's book will inspire many people. It has inspired me and in a way i can say i have lived his theory for more than 30 years now and i am completely happy with it.

All the best to you and all.

Dear Mieke,

I agree there can never be a winner. As you said, life just is as it is. And I have always found that when I am most sure -- the hole in my perpective is made clear to me. So we simply do the best that we can. I think perhaps if we could all simply admitt that we don't really know, we can't really see the entire picture, and so we can't really say for certain, - that we'd be taking a big step towards reconciling differences and unifying different dimensions of reality.

I read somewhere today that: "Our perception of an event effects our bodies reaction to it." True, right? And then I thought, and our bodies reaction effects our perception of the event. Right? So which comes first? I don't think it really matters because whichever place we begin the result is the same - it's a response that is out of our hands. Or is it? Is there a deeper place where I can transcend my perceptions and bodily responses? Can I see around them, through them, underneath and above them? Can I see with your eyes?

Just fun to wonder about.

Love, Kristin

Dear DK a fabulous dialog you have going.

The functional universe exists due to a "sleight of hand", it is a magic trick. Something from nothing. Which is why some call it an Illusion, but I can assure you the experience is real.
~MySelf

Let's begin to explore the greater reality and new revelation then, and we must use stepping stones to get there.

It is my observation that space has a tendency to collapse and at the same time expand. Whenever it collapses it also expands. Maintaining a balance.

Space is what holds objects in the universe apart. Space is what brings them together.

Gravity is not understood because the focus is on the objects, not the space.

A black hole is a vector of spatial collapse. The big bang might be likened to a vector of spatial expansion.

The first law of space is that for every collapse there is and equal and complimentary expansion.

Remember this is a mental stepping stone to understand the "sleight of hand" of the universe.

As we move on to the greater reality, it also will become irrelevant (the two statements below lead to that) but until then can serve a functional purpose for discovery of practical application and a honing of equations.

Particles do not exist, they are an appearance, a functional one at that.
~MySelf

Travel does not exist, there is no distance in the universe, this is also an appearance, a functional one at that.
~MySelf

These are the other thoughts I play with and explore.

There is one single unifying force in the universe, the cognition and creation of data.

Awareness is the cognition of data, the simplest being I AM. The "will" is the creation of data.

The universe is an infinite set of data which by the way exists in a "NULL" universe. God (the creator / awareness) does not exist in the NULL universe.

Light is the carrier of data. If you look at a light source you are seeing both no data, and all data. When you see objects you are seeing the light stream encoded with data. (this is still not the core of the onion) but a stepping stone.

So Dear DK, perhaps the fellows at CERN are mistaken in that they did not create a particle accelerator, they really created a spatial vector collapse driver. I wonder what they would think about that.

Still we have not touched on the revolutionary concept that changes all of physics.

I like the word intangics by the way. Physics tends to send one off in the wrong direction.

It is interesting that so many clamor for the spiritual intangible state, when Gods greatest treasure and creation, is the experience of solidity.

A fun story I wrote, also a stepping stone.

Being Omnipotent is a curse, no surprises, no mystery, no challenges, all alone....
Then God thought, I hate this, I wish I never existed. With that single thought God exploded and the universe was formed, and time began.

God was no longer, in his place was nature and from nature was born space, planets.white balls , black holes, microbes, humanoids, beasts, plants ,trees and some strange looking things.

After a billion years of development they happened upon a planet to be called Earth, where they did some geo modification, dropped some seed and some self replicating carbon water based pods for consciousness habitation and use as a 3D GUI interface from afar.

Fundamentalists claim there is no God, but some new thinkers, claim he does still exist. That God was not destroyed in his Self explosion; that he took on a disguise and is somewhere out their lurking.... another faction claims that although he survived he suffers from amnesia from the shock of the blast, which would still mean that in effect there is no God.

This is good, for no one especially God, should suffer the curse of omnipotence which is right up there with impotence, which by the way gave rise to Phallus worship.

As seen in Infinite Play the Movie

Dear DK,
I do not think I put scientific discoveries down ever; nor do I think or said that a scientific discovery happens very fast and very easily without undergoing criticism. In fact, standing upto criticism is what verifiability means and makes a scientific discovery trustworthy. That is why it is a challenge. However, it is the responsibility of the scientist to defend his/her thesis and turn what is considered pseudoscience in the minds of others, into science.
Please do not think that raising questions on your previous posts is because of contempt for your investigation. (I say this because of this quote
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance-- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
- Herbert Spencer, British philosopher).
I thought logical answers to the questions have yet to be found.
I do not think you would regard quoting from Adwaita philosophical literature as superstition because you yourself are trying to use the knowledge from there in your investigation.

Dear DK,

You made my day, that means a lot coming from you. I think our success depends on entertaining as many different perspectives as possible excluding none, even those that seem contradictory. We should always ask ourselves how many ways, no matter how preposterous can we look at something.

Yes, I did read Avtar Singh in #91 and thought he did an excellent job of framing the requirements.

I also think, at least I would, be dependant on established scientists with proficiency in the detail of certain specialized areas to complete the entire puzzle such that it would produce practical application. I am just a computer scientist with a love for many other disciplines but not always having a proficiency in them. Of course computer science is all about mapping intelligence and function from many operational fields of application to silicon.

I still have not presented the onions core. Which when I entertain the thought, causes an awkward, uncomfortable feeling, almost in that, I don’t want to believe it, or perhaps it would be better to say “Know it as true”. But it is a concept that connects science and spirituality. The coolest thing is that it can be modeled on a computer even if it is not valid. Other than that is immediately solves. I think, the EPR paradox.

Still there is that most simple question, why does light have a speed and what dictates it the same thing that dictated Pi and Phi ? Perhaps they simply are what is.

Love Always in All Ways
Richard

Dear DK,

I am reading the story of creation as you suggested, thank you, and then I am off to my Improv workshop.

Improv is very spiritual.

One must live in the moment, simply be and go with the flow.

One cannot be attached to outcome

One must practice non-resistance

One always works to make the others look better which results in you looking very good

Ego will mess up everything, so one must put it aside

All the players act as one performing for the eternal witness, also known as the audiance.

Etc.

Which would mean it is a great exercise, in fact the thought occurred it might be advantageous to humanity if the members of the UN attended a workshop and if one has a corporation, their employees as well.

To think and respond quickly on ones feet without prejudice and judgment, is always a good skill to hone.

Dear DK and all,
Just FYI.
The model of the four forces that DK and friends are using to reach their goal is obviously from Physics. I tried to understand consciousness (which plays the lead role in the topic of interest here) using the computer model: the physical body = a computer's hardware, mind (defined as memory and thought processes)= the software in the computer. This model led me to some fundamental differences in how living beings and lifeless systems in nature behave. One of my papers is on http://primordality.com/consciousness.htm#living
The concepts in this paper point to the possibility of sources of energy (energy defined as in Physics) called imaginary masses different from the matter that is known at present in Physics. My intution tells me that these imaginary masses interacting with nerve cells in the brain produce thoughts and that the interactions can be described using Quantum Physics. But this is all still at the level of intution, I have not developed a theory and experiments to verify the theory because it is a job requiring a team of scientists and researchers from various branches of science to
do that.

One last thought.

It might be erroneous to think that science is discovering the universe. It may in fact be creating it, in all it's *macro* detail and function.

If so that opens up a lot of doors and infinite possibility. I look forward to the "future features" and adventures that lay before us.

Dk:

I think at some level this question you have asked is a damning one for the "Holistics" like you and Harb!

The reason I say this is because the closed minded latter-day Quantum scientists could never reconcile to the flight of spiritual awareness that the pioneers of the Quantum such as Bohr, Hiesenberg etc. So to expect that they will be kinder to you is a fallacy.

I think instead of trying to work within the confines of semantics.. you should simple rise above all the word wizardry of these close minds and simply say that you are exploring the path to "Truth" as it pertains to creation in a multi-disciplinary way. Quite akin to how, for example, Ikea may approach development of a new product.

To bring learnings from various disciplines in a formal and structured way that can be mathematically/statistically backed up.. will automatically gain currency.

But if you were to fight the battle to get "acceptance" .. then you are fighting a pyrrhic battle which will take away your energy for pursuits which are neither worthy nor useful.

So, my advice in short, instead of trying to gain acceptance.. ESTABLISH A STANDARD for a NEW DISCIPLINE!

Harb: Sir, you are on a roll! :-) I havent had the chance to go over all that you have published.. instead I may simply buy your book and get it I guess! But this is simply the most awesome dialog here at intent in a long time!

Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com

It seems that science is rife with theory, and little actual proof. I wonder why.

So perhaps scientific method is not about determining what is real, but is about coming to an agreement as to what will be "real".

We did start with a flat earth.... and then we agreed it would be round. We were once the center of the universe and the Sun revolved around us, then we created one without a center and we revolved around the sun.

True the observer is always at the center of the universe "no matter" where they are at.

Which is also true, there is "no matter" where the observer is at. :)

As I wrote before all observers are at coordinates 0,0,0.

That is another stepping stone.

Dear DK and Fellow Intentbloggers:

Let me first emphasize the unparalleled value and need for the Socratic dialogue at intenetblog. One usually cannot have such a dialogue with people we deal with in our daily lives. This is about our experiences beyond the daily world realities. So, in spite of the character of this dialogue, scientific or non-scientific, it is a valuable platform to be able to share similar experiences with others. Intentblog was unknown to me about a month ago, until Dr. Deepak Chopra encouraged me to post my comments on the subject of responding to the God Delusion article in the TIME magazine. But now I see a unique and great value of this platform and the dialogue that goes on.

I respect the individual experiences and wisdom of individuals, especially of enlightened person like Harb as well as deep insights expressed by others on intentblog. I can relate to the truth and authenticity of those experiences with my own. My comments in the predecessor post were to inject reality into the over enthusiasm and extreme exuberance on part of some bloggers to take on direct encounter with particle physics and science without being prepared for the appropriate groundwork to communicate or interact with the scientific community. Proposing a new model or approach puts an extraordinary responsibility to verify and validate what is being proposed to avoid unforeseen embarrassment or disappointment coming from the objective scientific review process.

Many of the comments and experiences expressed by folks on this and previous post are related to the science vs, religion or spirituality debate. I was at this crossroad six years ago, when I started looking into a rigorous scientific basis for spirituality. I had a firm belief that if truth was one, then science and spirituality must converge. Today, six years later after intensive scientific research and several publications including a book – The Hidden Factor: An Approach For Resolving Paradoxes of Science, Cosmology, and Universal Reality , I have concluded that the 96% of the universe that the science of the inanimate matter is unable to predict is what the wisdom of the ages of the spiritual masters discloses with a very simple message for life.

It would be wrong to say that I had the expertise and qualifications to perform this research, but I was motivated by some mysterious energy inside to keep seeking. At each hurdle or point of darkness, a light came on from the spiritual self to guide the way forward. The scientific spiritual approach is based on the essence of the teachings of our spirituals masters – Buddha, Nanak, Kabir, and Advaita. The mathematical model is documented in my book. The essence of the wisdom of the ages is integrated in simple mathematical form into modern physics and cosmology theories to validate the true essence of their teachings via filtering out all dogma, metaphysical fluff, and many-faced interpretations by the so-called religious masters and self-proclaimed gurus. The great power of the spiritual teachings is demonstrated in the fact that the integrated science and cosmology theories can predict the hard scientific data and the observed universe with and unmatched scientific precision. They also resolve the existing paradoxes of science (quantum mechanics vs. relativity, evolution vs. creation) and practiced religion with the spirituality of consciousness. I am preparing a recent paper that will be submitted to the conference - Toward a Science of Consciousness 2007, Budapest, Hungary, July 23-26, 2007. This paper shows how the proposed model based on the wisdom of the ages can provide a seamless integration of spirituality, consciousness, mind, meditation, physics, cosmology, relativity, quantum mechanics, and the observed universe.

This has been a meaningful journey that has been described in the Preface of my book that I am providing below for everyone’s benefit and especially because it deals with the issues of science versus spirituality, faith vs. reason, and reality vs. truth raised by many folks on this post. I also intend to post a series of articles on intentblog addressing specific issues and answers to a number of paradoxes of science, spirituality, God, cosmology, consciousness, universe, life, and genuine happiness. Stay Tuned.

Avtar Singh
avsingh@alum.mit.edu

Preface to my book – The Hidden Factor: An Approach For Resolving Paradoxes of Science, Cosmology, and Universal Reality

This work is to put forward an approach for resolution of the paradoxes and questions that haunt modern science and cosmology. It also provides a fresh perspective on scientific reality as it relates to the ultimate universal reality. A critical review of the current scientific method and theories is undertaken with an objective to facilitate their enhancement towards integrating purpose and meaning. I am not an established physicist, chemist, astrophysicist, astronomer or a biologist. Four years ago, I could never imagine publishing the proposed theory that could possibly explain the unresolved questions or paradoxes of modern science. I still do not believe that it is I who is responsible for the theoretical work described in this book. How and what led me to carryout this work and for what reason is still a great mystery to me. It has never been a conscious decision on my part to do what has been accomplished via or through me. Some mysterious power or inspiration has pulled me into and thru this. What is written in these mathematical derivations is like a poem uttered by a mystical poet expressing his innate but extraordinary and miraculous experiences happening inside the emptiness of his being.

What I can recall, it all started one evening about four years ago while helping my son with his high school physics homework. As I was walking away after giving him some hints to solve a problem, my son asked me- “Dad, does physics have anything to do with the real life? My teacher says that it does not.” My answer was a casual agreement with the teacher due to the common belief that physics deals with the reality of the inanimate matter and not the real life or consciousness. However, his question triggered an anxiety or a deep-rooted question within my subconscious. Deep inside I felt that my answer to his question had no basis, it seemed like a programmed or cultured response by any scientist to such a question. We are taught or trained to think that life runs at its own guided by some unpredictable and mystical laws, while the matter behaves in a deterministic manner subject to the known laws of nature such as the laws of motion, gravity etc. A physicist seldom questions what is behind the animate behavior or free will of living things such as animals or human beings. Spontaneity or consciousness is often characterized as the ‘Ghost in the Atom’ and considered to be outside the realms of physical sciences. Or, worse yet, it is often assumed that some existing laws predetermine even the animate or conscious behavior and there is nothing like free will that exists.

Since physicists mostly pursue and understand the laws of the inanimate matter, they consciously ignore any reality that may exist beyond the inanimate matter. Sadly, any open discussion or even a reference to a consciousness-based scientific approach is tabooed among everyday professional scientific dialogue. Since, it is beyond the grasp of the modern scientific method, which is geared to investigate and describe the behavior of the inanimate matter only, any new theory or approach involving spontaneity, consciousness or free will is sure to be shot down by orthodox scientists on grounds of violation of the widely accepted classical scientific method requiring verification and validation via classical experiments. What if the consciousness or free will is beyond the grasp of the classical experiments that employ classical or fixed space/time and physical measurements suitable only for the classical objects?

Since, I did not consider myself an orthodox classical scientist, I did not hesitate to venture beyond the fixed boundary walls of the established scientific method, with a hope that it can be further enhanced to provide answers to more important and deeper questions of life and the universe. The science of the inanimate matter has resulted in a universe that is thought to be meaningless and headed towards extinction into the oblivion. The erroneous conclusions of the current incomplete theories of the inanimate matter including the Newtonian mechanics, Big Bang Model (BBM) and particles physics, have misled us to believe that we live in a universe that came into existence for no reason, and which consists of nothing more than a collection of mindless particles moved by blind and purposeless forces towards a pointless final state of nothingness. With such a gloomy state of the perceived scientific reality, there is not much to loose in making an honest and bold attempt to integrate spontaneity or consciousness in the scientific approach. After all, the spontaneity is an inherent and observed reality in nature and can not be ignored forever. In my view, a science that leads to a meaningless universe is a meaningless science. In order to make science more meaningful to life, integration of spontaneity or consciousness into the scientific method can not be avoided. A scientific method devoid of the spontaneity, which is inherent in nature can represent only partial or local reality. Such a method misrepresents the universal or eternal reality and hence, is unable to achieve the so-called Theory of Everything.

My answer to the question put forward by my son continued to disturb me deep inside and I began searching desperately to find an answer if not “the answer”. The feeling of vacuum or emptiness inside me kept pushing me to become a seeker of reality and a researcher to dig deeper into physics and philosophy to find some clues to what governs the dynamics of life or the animated matter. Starting from brushing-up my fundamental knowledge of physics, I studied extensively the recent publications dealing with the subject. I began to see some distant parallelism and similarities between the dynamics of inanimate matter and life. A turning point in my understanding was the book- ‘The Large, the Small and the Human Mind” by Roger Penrose [33]. I began to believe that the secret of the inner workings of life was hidden in the behavior that governs the physics of the small. I began to focus on developing an understanding of the inner workings of quantum mechanics, which is still a black box to science. Since I wanted to keep my approach simple, I started to look deeper into the specific theory of relativity for possible headways to unravel the mystery of the small and below the quantum scale.

Both quantum mechanics and specific theory of relativity are widely successful theories that have matched the results of multiple experiments. However, a few crucial disagreements remain dealing with the concept of locality versus non-locality and the limitation of the speed of light for any communication between two separated locations in space. In recent experiments, the observed quantum entanglement between two parts of photon carried away to a large spatial separation has been observed to violate the locality or limitation on communication imposed by the speed of light as prescribed by the special theory of relativity. Since classical objects do not experience such an entanglement phenomenon, I realized that the mystery lies somehow in the space-time behavior of small entities or quantum particles. The wave-particle duality is known to be the governing physical phenomenon that dominates the behavior of the small. To my surmise, most experts (particle physicists) focused mostly on the classical behavior of particles in terms of forces and accelerations, ignoring the fundamental fact that the behavior of the small is dominantly wave-like and less of particle-like. As the entity becomes smaller and smaller the classical particle-like behavior becomes relatively extinct. Hence, I was convinced that the classical particle treatment of small entities can not provide physically valid results without incurring singularities or extremely large inaccuracies. Such singularities are apparent when the general theory of relativity is used to simulate a mass confined to a very small point-like region in space (a black hole). Since quantum mechanics is not a physical or mechanistic theory, I began to look harder into the missing physics (the Hidden Factor) in the theory of relativity to predict the behavior of the small without running into singularities.

The classical or Newtonian treatment of the motion of a particle in physics requires external forces to affect changes to the static (zero velocity) or steady state (constant velocity) motion. No changes to the state of motion of a body can occur without an external force being applied to the body. This is basically due to the assumption that matter and particles are inanimate. Following this assumption, there is no scientific basis for existence of any motion in the universe. If the universe is considered to consist entirely of the inanimate matter, which is defined to be devoid of spontaneous motion, there are no existing scientific laws that could explain the existence of the observed motion and evolutionary changes with time in the dynamic universe, such as the observed Hubble expansion. According to the current scientific understanding and widely accepted models of the universe, the source of all motion in the universe is hidden under the assumed Big Bang singularity that presumes to have started it all at the beginning of time (t = 0). For science to lay all its trust into a singularity for the source all motion in the universe is more unscientific and “ghostlier” than the belief of a mystic in the hidden or non-material reality. According to the Big Bang theory (with a zero Cosmological Constant), the initial explosion-like jolt from the Big Bang provided all the energy that fuels any observed motion in the universe today. To rely upon a singularity to be the source of all the motion in the universe is obviously a big leap of faith, which scientists consciously ignore in the absence of any other credible theory to rely upon. Many complicated and partial fill-in-the-gap theories, such as the ‘super luminous’ inflation and the Anthropic principle, are put forward to overcome deficiencies that are inherent in the Big Bang theory in the absence of nothing better to explain the observed behavior of the universe. However, these patch-up or fill-in-the-gaps theories remain unsuccessful in explaining the wide range of observations including the dark matter, mysterious dark energy causing the accelerating expansion of the universe, non-locality and homogeneity in the universe and so on. To top this, the modern physics resorts to the mysticism (a set of unexplained rules) of quantum mechanics to explain parts of the observed behavior of the universe.

The current state of scientific knowledge is a complex web of multiple theories and rules that provide only limited and partial explanations of the observed data. Because of the missing physics of spontaneity or consciousness, the more advanced modern theories such as various versions of the string theory have to resort to an incomprehensible set of multiple dimensions beyond the three spatial dimensions and time comprehensible to human mind. The whole approach seems like a desperate attempt to repair a broken necklace by gluing each pearl individually, rather than running a single seamless thread thru them. Another analogy representing the current state of science and cosmology may be as if the creatures of the ‘Flatland’ were trying to describe the three dimensional universe. Such an approach is not only uneconomical, but also afflicted by extreme complexity and incomprehensibility even by the accomplished scientists. Science has been progressively breaking reality into smaller and smaller pieces (particles) and when it attempts to put the pieces together, the sum of the parts falls significantly short of the whole.

Science is paying a heavy price for consciously ignoring spontaneity or consciousness, which is the fundamental property of nature and the universe. Science must look beyond the inanimate matter if it has to catch a glimpse of the Theory of Everything. Any theory without the proper inclusion of the inherent spontaneity or consciousness in nature is only a partial theory of the inanimate matter, which science itself has proven to account for only a small fraction of the whole universal reality. The recent observations of an accelerating universe expansion have further shown evidence of a dark or unknown energy in the form of a Cosmological Constant or a vacuum energy inhabiting the universe. Science now has confirmed that the vacuum is not nothing but probably a source of everything including the visible as well as dark matter or energy in the universe. The mystery behind the strange rules or inner workings of the quantum mechanics is hidden behind this unknown energy. Unfortunately, even the most rigorous estimation of this energy by using existing rules of quantum mechanics are calculated to be in error in excess of 100 orders of magnitude from the observed data.

The strength of the scientific method lies in the validation of a proposed theory against the experimental observations. Without the experimental observations, no proof of the exactness of a theory or model is supposed to exist and the theory remains unverified as regards to its capability to represent reality. With so much of the proof being relied upon the observational data, let us look carefully into the process of collecting the observational data in scientific experiments. First of all the data has to be objective, meaning that it cannot be measured by any subjective experience of an observer. This requires an objective measuring device such as a probe or an instrument or a recorder. All such devices are classical devices in the sense that the outcome of their observation or measurement is a fixed or definite quantity rather than a potential probabilistic wave function of quantum mechanics. Hence, even the outcome of an experiment involving a quantum system is a set of classical measurements. Any proof of the exactness of the quantum theory has to rely upon classical measurements, which involve the collapsed wave function rather than the original un-collapsed and probabilistic wave function. It is well known and accepted scientific fact that the collapse of the wave function depends solely upon the consciousness of the observer. Until a conscious human observer looks upon and interprets the measurement, no collapse or a classical measurement is complete and no data exists. Hence, the ultimate quantification of the measurement is not objective but highly subjective to the consciousness of the observer. Hence, it is almost impossible to guarantee a complete absence of subjectivity in any quantum measurement to the consciousness of the observer. However, the degree of subjectivity may vary from low to high depending upon the complexity and degree of the consciousness of the phenomena being observed. If the phenomenon being observed involves only inanimate matter, the degree of subjectivity in observation may be smaller than the subjectivity of observing a conscious phenomenon such as the human behavior. If a consciousness-induced force is causing a phenomenon to occur in the inanimate matter, again the subjectivity of the observation will remain high.

The point of the discussion above is that the subjectivity in any scientific observations, especially the behavior of the small, is unavoidable and the degree of this subjectivity depends directly upon the degree of the consciousness of the observer and the observed phenomenon. This subjectivity results in the uncertainty of measurement or observation. In other words, if we could imagine an ideal observer who has a capability to witness with full consciousness or objectivity what is being observed, the uncertainty due to the subjectivity of observation can be reduced to zero. The important conclusion here is that the uncertainty, such as the Heisenberg’s uncertainty, is not inherent in the phenomenon being observed but in the observer or the process of observation itself which is dependent upon the consciousness of the observer or the observed phenomenon. If the consciousness of the observer is enhanced, the uncertainty can be correspondingly reduced and in the limit the true reality can be observed with no uncertainty. The ‘Ghost in the Atom’ is due to the limited consciousness of the observer. As the observer becomes fully conscious, the ‘Ghost’ might be realized to be the ‘Host in the Atom’, which reveals the ultimate scientific or universal reality with all uncertainty dissolved. The very characterization of the spontaneity in nature as a ‘Ghost’ reflects the serious lack of awareness or conscious ignorance of the fundamental spontaneous force or energy in nature.

It needs to be realized that what is considered to be the objective observation method in science and works well for the classical or inanimate matter phenomenon, is actually highly subjective as regards to the measurement of the quantum and below-quantum-scale phenomena. Unless this barrier of subjectivity is removed, scientific observations will remain devoid of the objectivity that is crucial to its success in achieving the Theory of Everything or in disclosing the ultimate universal reality. The classical reality revealed by science is only a milestone on the path to the ultimate reality that can only be reached via an enhanced observation process that properly integrates consciousness of the observer. The classical reality is not the end of science; it is only the beginning. Some scientists believe that the end of science has been reached and the ultimate theory of everything is almost here. This author believes that the pursuit of the classical reality and adherence to the orthodoxy of the classical method of observation (mistakenly taken to be objective rather than subjective) alone has driven the modern science to a dead end with irresolvable paradoxes and unanswered questions. For the future advancement of science it is necessary to integrate consciousness in the observation process to make it truly objective as regards to the observation of the universal reality rather than the classical or material reality alone. The author refers to such an approach that integrates science with consciousness as the Scienciousness.

The approach followed in the work described herein is based on the application of the laws of conservation on a non-local basis. A theory that fails to satisfy the laws of conservation of energy and momentum on a universal basis may provide weird and unexpected results in its prediction of a phenomenon on a local level. Predictions and observations of some quantum phenomenon such as quantum entanglement is one such example. Similarly, quantum mechanics prediction of virtual particles appearing from nothing (vacuum) is another example that appears to violate locally the mass-energy conservation laws. In classical mechanics, it is a widely used practice to use the free body diagram or analysis of a body separated from its environment to analyze the motion of the body. Similar philosophy is employed in the use of inertial frames of reference in Newtonian method, assuming that the inertial frames of references are entirely independent of each other and exist in a fixed space-time. While the inaccuracies induced by these assumptions are minimal at relatively low velocities (V/C <<1), they become excessively large at high velocities experienced by quantum particles such as photons leading to singularities and weird results that do not match observations.

To avoid such problems and inaccuracies, the approach used in the current work is based on a universal energy balance rather than the classical and separated free-body force-displacement model for predicting motions. Keeping track of the energy balance on a universal basis avoids singularities and unexpected or weird predictions lacking a credible physical basis. Moreover, this approach leads to simple, physical and comprehensible solutions that match experiments and observations of the universe. The results also provide a bridge between the Newtonian mechanics, theory of relativity and quantum mechanics explaining their differences as well as supporting their agreements. The spontaneity inherent in the observed wave-particle duality behavior of a quantum particle is well established in scientific theories. The inclusion of a mathematical representation of such spontaneity of a decaying mass (particle) into energy (wave) and vice-versa helps build this missing bridge and fill in the physics inherent in nature but missing in the current theories.

From a philosophical point of view, an important outcome of the current work is to bridge the gap between science and religion via the Scienciousness, which integrates scientific method and consciousness. The perceived gap is due to the ignorance of consciousness. In general, science has tried to address only the material reality while the non-material aspects of reality are left to be addressed by religion(s). This partition or duality of the two realities is not inherent in nature, hence the conflict and an unending debate between science and religion goes on. As discussed earlier, science searches for reality via fragmenting the matter into smaller and smaller fragments (particles). Similarly, sectarian religions define the ultimate reality or Truth by fragmenting human consciousness and experiences into multiple sects, rituals, beliefs and moral laws. Approaches of both science and religions are divisionary rather than integrative leading to the conflict that often has led to wars of words or real wars and violence among humanity. A holistic and consciousness-based approach to both science and religion may be useful in resolving the divisionary conflicts between them.

This work is motivated by the observed scientific evidence that the ultimate universal reality is non-local such as the universal laws, which are indivisible and not subject to the censorship or the speed of light barrier. Scientific evidence supports the notion that the universal laws such as the laws of conservation of energy and momentum are eternal and omnipresent in the universe. Hence, the ultimate reality that science and religion are seeking is the one whole universal reality. If science and religion properly address this reality, the two will become harmonious with each other dissolving their apparent conflicts or differences caused by their current pursuit of the fragmented (material versus non-material) reality. The basis for science is knowledge and the basis for religion is belief. Because of this basic difference, the two have not been entirely compatible with each other. Integrating consciousness, which is the basis for universal reality, can eliminate this incompatibility. The ultimate impact of this work will hopefully lead to an integrated approach, the Scienciousness, that would replace the current division between science and religion. There would remain no difference between the approaches of a fully conscious scientist and a saint, since both would perceive the same one whole universal reality. Such integration would bring compassion, peace, purpose, and order back into the currently perceived fragmented, chaotic and meaningless universe marred by the endless cycles of time and evolution.

Let me say a few words regarding the venues I explored for a scientific peer review of this work. When I contacted a few institutions of high learning with regard to their possible review of this work, their response was mostly negative for reasons of their institutional policy. Publication in well-known science journals and magazines requires breaking the whole work into small (no more than a few pages) articles or papers due to the limitations imposed on the length of articles accepted for publication. Peer review process then involves a review by a few selected experts in the limited subject matter of the short paper. Hence, the review process requires fragmenting not only the whole theory into pieces, but also the review itself is performed by experts limited to one specific area. Such a fragmentary and limited review process can never do full justice to evaluate the correctness or completeness of this work impacting a wide range of areas of science such as relativity, quantum mechanics, astronomy, cosmology and astrophysics etc. Moreover, the fragmentation into smaller pieces would weaken the demonstrated strength of the holistic approach to predict a wide range of observations ranging from the behavior of small particles to the whole universe. If it were deemed necessary to publish this work in smaller fragments, so that it could become accessible to a larger scientific community, the author would do so with reluctance and extreme caution.

Another important aspect of this work is a potential revolutionary rather than evolutionary change in the way several well-known scientific concepts are understood by classical or orthodox science. Well-known and widely accepted scientific concepts that are subject to new interpretation in this work include- speed of light C, Cosmological Constant, classical versus quantum behavior, uncertainty versus determinism, dark matter versus dark energy, relativity versus quantum mechanics, vacuum versus Zero-point energy etc. A well-trained and orthodox scientist may need extra-ordinary open-mindedness, contemplation and patience in accepting and adapting these new and revolutionary ways to look at the widely established concepts over the history of science.

Finally, the approach recommended by several individual professionals for achieving a proper and balanced peer review was to publish the whole work in its entirety so that it could be made available to a wider community. If any deficiencies are found or questions are raised, they can be addressed in a follow on revision to the initial publication. Due to the significant mathematical content, this version of the publication is aimed for a scientific audience familiar with the basic concepts of the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics, and cosmology.

Avtar Singh
avsingh@alum.mit.edu

Dear Desh, thank you, you have a point when you say that it will be difficult to take hard science along.

Yet, I think except for the Oneness of All There Is - which is full and empty yet empty and full, which I also call as Nature-understood-in-all-its subtleties" and which can fully only be 'known' through self-experience, through Spinozian Experience of "Unity with Nature", we should be able to explain all else in rational,consistent and observable way; and where direct observation is not possible it should at least be inferrable by what can be observed as a consequence. We need not use the words faith, God anywhere.

Regards, Harb

Dear DK,

Your warmth and thoughtful approach to this topic is refreshing. I believe that LOVE is the unifying force of all intentions and that we were all stardust at the dawn of creation unfolding together in this place and time. Love is the core of our being and consciousness & spirit transcend the forces of the universe. We are only bound by the physical in our current state. If we live from the soul our spirit in union with the spirit of God can reveal to us truth of who we are. To me Science makes God dance. As we understand the universe more we can begin to embrace the miracle of the ordinary. Science can teach us how we co-create a world with our thoughts, prayers and actions.

Science teaches us how to make best decisions. Einstein, (relativity –special and general) Heisenberg (uncertainty), Prigogine, (Dissipative structures theory) to new work in complexity theory. These foundations of thought and practice continue to evolve and is the foundation for sound scientific reasoning. I think you are on to something by analyzing the forces of the universe and their relationship to our understanding of self. However, we need to approach each step from a semi-firm basis or by sound scientific principles. I would be happy to further share with you some frames of reference to take this work further and I hope that we all live in the awareness of the infinite love that dwells within us and all around us. Thanks. –Thomas S

Harb/DK:

Its not just that it will be difficult to take hard science along but it is the mindsets that one will have to unfruitfully challenge. As for the "knowledge" of hard science - that should be our guiding factor.

You have pointed it very rightly - that beyond a certain point observational evidence in the search for truth ends. Something that is beyond time, space and causality cannot be explained within it. So logic - which essentially preys on cause and effect becomes a useless companion on that journey after a certain point.

The question is then how do we approach this issue ? I agree the hocus pocus of the religions should be eliminated. The rules/codes/morals etc of religion should at no point be mixed in this exploration. What was supposed to be a "recommended" approach in the journey of a Spiritual Master quite quickly becomes his "edict" unwittingly! So that is of no use.

At some level I am convinced that the ONLY reasons why we cannot get to truth is because:

1. We are not ready to believe what we know but ready to believe what we "think" we "should know" and so we run away from questioning our inferences
2. We cannot extend the FULL ramifications of ONE piece of "truth" to its maximum scale!

For example, every scientist knows that at the micro level there is no matter. This is no hocus-pocus. It is a fact. It is also a fact that the creation and destruction of those sub particles is not completely understood. These facts are "hard" facts.

What inferences can we draw from these at a macro level? The questions and debate is regarding THE "extrapolation" of the micro facts to the macro level!

I say forget - for a moment - the idea that "intelligent consciousness" brings about the structure from the probable waves... and just concentrate on the very question as to WHY should indeed a structure .. and a coherent one at that - in auto pilot - should emerge out of infinite probabilistic world??!

Lets try and chalk out all the possible ways that a world of Darwin be born out of Infinite Waves interacting with further Infinite waves?

Yes, what we see is "HARD" reality - but WHY should such a "hard" reality be a reality given its micro TRUE REALITY??

Where Dr. Chopra and several of the other "New Agers" falter, IMHO, is they try to PROVIDE an ANSWER! Instead of answers the need of the hour is to provide QUESTIONS. Questions that help every mind think and search for individual answers.

Think for a moment.. the inherent "smugness" associated with the person who provides a "readymade" answer to something esoteric will never give him/her any credibility in a world of skeptics.. would it?

I am arguing that SKEPTICISM is an ALLY in the quest for Truth not FAITH! By providing "an" answer.. we unwittingly yearn for "Faith".. dont we? My question is Why should we?

Yes, the Grandmasters of Spirituality have provided various answers... butu each one of them those Masters were inconsistent too if you were strong enough to question and compare teaching 1 with teaching 99. What they provided was .. again.. "an" answer.. not necessarily the "right" answer! In themselves, NO book or Master has ever provided the "Truth".... the only way you can understand the basic direction of Truth is by connecting "dots" left by multiple Masters..

The question that I have often asked myself has been - could these Masters not give a consistent "Truth" because they were not competent or inherently dishonest?

The only answer that I have been able to discern is - that it is NOT POSSIBLE to be CONSISTENT and COMPLETELY logical throughout within the Framework of CAUSALITY. It is just not possible! For example, in a dream you see things and "do" stuff that is nonsensical.. and you know it as the Dreamer and not as the Dreamed. As the actor within the dream it all looks "fine"... until the Dreamer (who is dreaming) QUESTIONS!

So, a simple conclusion from me - no one and no book can ever.. EVER be consistent and comprehensive within the the CAUSAL World!

Having said that, we who are just as well in the throes of Causality as the Masters were. There is no faculty of human knowledge that we can say we are consistent in at the COMPREHENSIVE level... not even Physics and mathematics. We reduce the area of scrutiny and make ourselves feel as though we are consistent.

Therefore, if were to provide answer, consistent we will not be. That I forward as a given. In my view, the best way forward is to formulate Questions.. Questions that have benefit of the wisdom of the Masters but not an overbearance of their sure answers!

Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com

Dear Desh,

All real masters experienced the same One Truth. The reason they explained it differently was that they belonged to different eras.

In fact they too were bound by my forces theory. In Age's childhood they explained it as (Heavenly) Father a la Christ, in youth, as Lover, a la Nanak etc, in adulthood as What Is Is, a la Ramana etc and in old or wisdom Age as You Yourself a la Buddha.

It is just as a son would describe his same one father in his childhood in one way, in his youth in an other way, in his middle years in yet an other way and so on.

AS to questions or answers I am of the view that the final stage is beyond both. You are left with no questions and hence in no need of answers. But it belongs to each one's own realization not discuss-able in public. I remained in this stage for long time but then Scheme of Things again kicked me below into the ego/question-answer realm simultaneously as it provided me with the insight for my book. Perhaps because, as I see it, it wanted somthing out and found me handy in some way.

As regards your other points I am trying to write a summary and hope it will take care of them.

Regards, Harb

Well said, Thomas, we really began from star-dust as per my book/four forces theory being discussed here. And of course thanks to Unified Force of Love!

Harb

Dear Avtar,

I know your understanding of Truth is true, but I find myself unable to accept that mathematics can take us there.

Moreover, consciousness at that level of Truth is really unimaginable in human terms. That stone lying in front of me too has that consciousness, now imagine how it would be like in it? It is like that at that stage of Truth.

Regards, Harb

It does seem a struggle, and yet an innate feeling - this longing to reconcile science and spirituality.

dear Desh,
I no longer seek to find the answers, and Desh I do agree - the Asking becomes the journey - that leads to amazing discoveries, and as Rilke, the writer poet offered in advice - learn to love the questions themselves - and so much will be revealed.

Our American founding fathers,
said 'We hold these truths to be self evident'
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...

If we learn to
share resources,
and break down barriers,
Stop fighting, communicate without
bickering and manipulating,
Imagine
....
I do,
and so I never find myself
bickering or fighting
and it's
Heavenly!

Dear DK,
Is the quest to live an authentic life,
does it require the seal of scientific approval?
I do not believe so, though we are the beneficiaries of knowledge from science, and industry, computer technology and sharing of ideas and goods.
AT some point, and certainly at death of the body, all these objects and ideas will be discarded.
What remains ....

Love

~ Kate

Dear Harb:

I agree that the final point is beyond questions and answers.. but my argument is that if the "new" discipline is to push mankind to the "Truth", then it has to be based on Questioning as opposed to Answers; Skepticism as opposed to Faith; and Exploration as opposed to Scriptures and Gurus.

The Masters - all perhaps - were in that zone where they were One with the One.. but if you read/listen/study any of them.. the contradictions in their teachings and the applications of their teachings is quite apparent. I would not go into the contradictions here because it will stray into another "religious dialog" but you just need to pick up any scripture and see that the principle mentioned in one chapter is violated in principle in another. And that also tells us an important thing - that the salvation of your Master has no possible affect or possibility of affect on YOU! You are really on your own! THAT is something I want every human being to know. You are alone.. and yet allOne!

Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com

Dear DK and Desh
I see it this way.All human beings grow bodily into adults but same does not happen mentally.Everybody is different on that plane because,as Dr Deepak Chopra writes in his book'The path to love',there is immense scope for personal evolution in human beings.

When you grow from a child to adult mentally,science teaches you to question everything and this slowly leads to death of faith in 'faith' that every child inherently posseses otherwise.

However,sometimes a 'spark' or 'whatever' suddenly someday tells you that 'beauty'is beyond the realm of science.Then you begin exploring the 'faith' route again by 'unlearning' your scientific spirit in search of that beauty.And if you are a consistent seeker,you discover'Love' on this route.

That's why I think this monumental effort to discover Love thru scientific route is a wastage of energy.I earn my bread and butter by practicing science and especially mathematics.But I think we are stretching scientific spirit a bit too far.It is just not its forte.To explain beauty in terms of mathematical symbols is a very crude way of understanding it.A 'poem' can do the job a lot more satisfactorily.

Truth is pure awareness at the core of your being. It is alive and beyond all forms and phenomena. It is available to us all even the least among us. Truth consciousness burns away the transitory forms that take shape for a time being. If one views all scientific inquiries through through (living) truth all things eternal will be revealed as well as that which is illusory.

Having read all of the posts on the "Unified Force, Sub-nuclear Physics & Love of Rumi" thread, and also this thread, and the "The Story of Creation" pdf file, I can only say--beautiful!

Good stuff

I know of an experiment. That will help to meet the requirements. It is repeatable and quite the revelation and stepping stone.

Related to the merging of science and spirit, or the tangible & intangible, seeing beyond the appearances and understanding the functionality of the universe and the creation of experience.

Of course like most great discoveries, it was by accident.

It can be done casually by everyone, however it will take some funding to delve deeper into what it implies and also determine the results of the experiment when more than one observer is involved. Many other experiments can be built upon it.

We can discuss it later.

Here is a new revelation.

I wrote here before several weeks ago about my theory (which is an adjunct to my other one, not yet fully disclosed) that the Universe is Stateful and my premise that the Big Bang did not actually have to happen in the tangible realm but in fact only needed to happen in the intangible realm. Which means technically it did not have to happen; if that implies that something must be observable to have "happened". What I am implying is that scientists assume the need for cause and effect. I am assuming that this is not a requirement. Sort of like beyond Karma.

Still I search for the continuity factor I think this is most illusive.

Well I was reading yesterday about CDT (Casual Dynamical Triangulation) another approach to the Theory of Everything.

Well guess what, what they did to the computer model to get it to work finally (it did not work at first), supports my Stateful Universe Theory. They removed a requirement for cause and effect in a certain area, and then it worked.

This is encouraging because it gives support to the concept of the Universe being stateful.

Another interesting thing that comes from CDT is that not many theorists will not try to tackle it because it does not transfer well to pen and paper or a blackboard.

I think many of the new advances will take a special type of mind with a less common neural framework. That of the “programmer”. Most minds are not structured to entertain hugely complex systems, with many objects and relationships. However what we find with programmers and system architects is that their occupation results in the creation of such a neural framework. Which means some things that may be beyond the scope of comprehension of your average scientist may be graspable by these individuals.

It is true that much insight and knowledge can be produces by the subconscious mind which is much more powerful than the conscious linear mind. I wonder if the product of the subconscious mind, if the subconscious mind arises from the “holographic” in contrast to a “linear” product of the neural framework, might be different in individuals that spend there day creating complex systems.

Of course I have also found programmers that have also no grasp of business concepts or the big of holistic system picture for example, which can impair their ability to program without detail direction.

So we may be looking more for system architects then just programmers.

This may also later apply to such things as understanding global economics. It may even lead to new education methods where conceptual frameworks are entrained in the brain resulting in physical infrastructure to support certain types of thinking and problem solving.

I think our current education systems and "intelligence" transfer are effective but somewhat outdated, built on 200 year old technology.

Ved:

I am not talking about "discovering" Love thru science. I dont think it is possible. I think science is the work of the Jnana Yogi and Love is the domain of the Bhakti Yogi. One who thinks from the mind and questions cannot "love" deliberately! Love has to spring out of one's consciousness.

If we are to look to science to get us to the Truth, then Love - which will inherently be deliberate - will be out of the equation as part of the journey.. yes, that is where you will end up with even then at the highest point.. but that will not be your companion guide.

Kate: Thanks! I agree with you Ma'am!

Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com

Another thought comes to mind as it relates to the Scientific Roadblock and the Theory of Everything.

Based on the fact that that CDT (Causal Dynamical Triangulation) has been around in some form for ten years, yet has not been fully embraced by many theorists because it is hard to map to pen and paper and is hard to get a handle on. A computer though can grasp it with ease, but to some this is uncomfortable because they can’t “see it” or “hold it” Which has an interesting correlation with ------MYSTERY------ and the unobserved aspects of the universe.

It might not be that the human brain cannot grasp it, but more like all the detail cannot be grasped at once. Perhaps the human brain can process it, but we as observers and thinkers can only see the product, not the internal workings. The internal workings that might be what produces insight, solutions, and what some might call "psychic" ability, and things like precognition. I have always though precognition is the subconscious minds ability to not predict what would actually happen but what is most probable based on numerous factors that cannot be processed with linear thought. Also is there is an information connection with the other “will” or “decision” making components that together for the resulting actualized event, this would be a scientific basis for the ability to predict the future. Being that it was not some supernatural talent but a very scientific one.

Maybe we should create a new concept called “SUPER SCIENCE” beyond the observable.

This may mean that the theory of everything is beyond the scope of a single brain. That the theory of everything may actually be produced by a network of computers, that can encompass all the facets, functions, and forces.

Still humans will need to embed the all the detail intelligence in the model so that the network can produce or manifest the final working product.

In fact if we look at the vast complexity of the universe and the universal or collective intelligence behind it

Then again the universe may not need to have been created much like the square root of 49, it exists simply waiting to be realized.

Another facet to this is a little “signature” I once created “Mind took form and they called it brain”. The human brain could be a tangible representation of the intangible collective mind. In other words the human brain is really a symbol. This goes in line with my thoughts that the tangible is really a bunch of symbols representing what exists in the intangible realm. We can in fact use the tangible symbols to manipulate or interface with the intangible realm so that it becomes realized from an unrealized state.

Maybe we should create a new concept called “SUPER SCIENCE” beyond the observable.

Since the intangible universe is not observable, only it's resulting symbolic tangible representations are when through crystallization (wave collapse), events and objects are actualized.

Along the lines of thought a new field of SUPER SCIENCE

We have science and we have scientific method, which has proven to work very well with the observable universe. What about the unobservable universe? We have run into problems. In conventional scientific methods we use tangible instruments for measurement and to achieve objectivity which is crucial to the scientific method.

In SUPER SCIENCE we are dealing with the unobservable intangible universe, the one best instrument to measure that is the human mind. But how do we achieve objectivity?

Large numbers of instruments, the product of a collective data set would be objective with maybe a slight caveat, yet that caveat, could actually shed light on the fabric of reality vs. Reality with a big R. The caveat would involve for example The Media or data viewed by the participants.

If we have super science then we need to have a new super scientific method, a modified approach. What would a super science experiment look like?

Well the premise that the observer is involved in the creation of reality or collective experience, event and physical manifestation, is an aspect of Super Science. So what we might do is ask a large group, perhaps an entire nation to submit data related perhaps to their thoughts, and feelings each day. Then map and correlate that to say other “event data” something like cold medicine purchases or weather.

Or perhaps more fun would be to submit data on daily synchronicities in conjunction with this. We would need a way to categorize types of synchronicities. Then we also might do an experiment where we ask a large group to place their attention on a vision, if not create an intention and hold it in mind. Then use our tangible instruments, or pure data instruments, to measure the results.

If we map smaller synchronicities we maybe be able to correlate them to the creation of larger events for example.

"Lucky for us we had to capture the lizard that crawled in there" we discovered a loose fuel connection, the shuttle would have blown up. Was it luck, or collective intelligence and intent?

Even luckier was that senior engineer persisted in that the lizard be saved from certain death rather then submitting to the consensus that it should be allowed to perish. Had he not been so compassionate many lives would have been lost.

Well it is an idea. What we achieve is objective results using subjective instruments.

What kind of device might SUPER SCIENCE produce?

The space confabulator

This device contracts and expands space. Rather than trying to affect the physical we manipulate space, perhaps dark matter / energy plays a role here. I suspect that space requires far less energy to manipulate then physical objects, since it has no “apparent” mass. The thought comes to mind that solidity is space evenly distributed making it unobservable, and what we call observable space, is space pooled. One question is what is space evenly distributed with?

The Goal.

Using a point and click handheld device I move a ten ton block with ease.

To some this may seem preposterous. Yet if we take into account PTT, which is that new theory at the onions core, it is feasible. So is warp drive and traveling to other galaxies because one does not travel at light speed or sub light speed to these destinations. Why because that which is traveling does not need to occupy all the points in-between.

That last sentence another stepping stone.

Hey All!

This is mind-boggling! Although I rather enjoy
the education, it is obvious to me, this is not my cup of tea.

To all who know what you're talking about...Bravo!

There must be many, many bridges to the same place.
Happy and content shall I remain on whichever one that is.
One could perfect laziness and still end up where
everyone else is headed, and they would have the
same right to say, "I led a full and fruitful life!"

Sometimes we seek, sometimes we hide...
it still takes TWO to play the game.

All this talk on FOUR forces, Trinities, etc.
makes one lean in the direction of Theosophy.

And...if we ever get even one Absolute, provable Truth,
it will be so simple that Me2 can understand it!
.

Richard, Jung used the word unconscious instead
of subconscious for a good reason, imho.

Plato loves you from wherever he is currently.

There are more than a few beautiful minds at work here.

I extend my gratitude in every direction.

Trees do that!

Dear Harb and Fellow Intentbloggers:

It is not clear what the purpose of tying love with the science of the four forces is. Is it to help science to solve its paradoxes or to explain dynamics of love using science? In either case, mixing the two puts you in the position of responsibility to meet all standards of communication of scientific results – mathematical model, data validation, or suggesting experiments to validate the so-called metaphor - Four Forces and Rumi’s Love, in terms of Dr. Deepak Chopra as well as my interpretation. Please stop calling it a theory, which means entirely a different ball game. If you limit your exercise to a Socratic Dialogue to share individual experiences of love, beauty, oneness etc., there is no logical or rationality issues. But meddling with science puts a huge burden on you to call it a theory.

Secondly, I agree fully with the materialistic science of the inanimate matter to be a mindset. But a science of consciousness integrated into the materialistic science is a different story. From, the comments I see at the intentblog, this difference in the current science vs. what I am proposing has been seriously missed or overlooked. But before you throw the baby of the science of consciousness with the bathwater of the materialistic science of the mainstream today and keep complaining about the mindset of all science, let me make you aware of the inherent mindsets I have observed in pushing this so-called Forces-Love theory:

Mindset 1: Truth, love and beauty can not be understood thru science and mathematics.

My experience of last six years is consistent with the fact that Einstein realized beauty, compassion, and truth of oneness thru his mathematical description of nature and the universe:

“A human being is a part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feeling as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.”

In your quest for relating love and beauty to four forces of nature you are essentially trying to achieve the same except that you have been unable to go into the depth of mathematics. Each equation in my book is emanating from the same beauty and oneness of the truth, sorry that you are unable to see it what I can see. Each equation to me is like verse of a poet revealing the depth of consciousness, oneness, love, and compassion. If you are unable to see it, do not a priory assume it to be untrue.

Mindset 2: Your experience of love is absolute and is the same as the Rumi’s love or ultimate universal love.

Love comes in many colors – relational or worldly love, love of nature, love of God or spiritual love etc. Within each category, the experience of love is different from person to person. Ten people talking about love mean different love. How do you convince yourself that your experience of love is the genuine love and not a belief, conviction, hallucination, or image reflected in the mind. Without verifying it against an alternative measure such as the observed nature, it could be merely a blind belief that you have imposed on yourself. Questioning the authenticity of an experience to be genuine is in itself a scientific process that you can not ignore. Buddha and Nanak questioned the authenticity of their mind and its perceptions for years comparing against the known nature of the universe at their time – either thru vedas or else. After years of questioning thru meditation, Nanak’s finding that – Jo Brahmande Soi Pinde was his revelation of this ultimate oneness between the universe, nature, and body/mind. The assumption that your experience is absolute is a blind belief in itself.

Dear DK:

My exposure to intentblog is only about a month so far, and what I see that it is more of a monologue than a dialogue. A true Socratic dialogue should involve a balanced representation from all sides, but I see why many a scientific oriented participants would soon realize that they are wasting their time in engaging in a monologue. That is when all reality is lost leading to the buildings of castles in the sand of unvalidated, unverified, and so-called unquestionable metaphors. This is not a healthy situation leading to Dr. Chopra’s and my concerns of pseudo-science etc.

I have submitted two main entry posts more than two weeks ago that are relevant to this discussion. Could you please tell me how the posting is scheduled or prioritized? Could you please expedite their publication to help the dialogue here.

You have a major challenge to keep it a dialogue rather than a monologue. I really appreciate your patience and humility in all this. Good luck.

Regards,

Avtar Singh

Dear Avtar,

You are confusing ordinary love - which has an equal amount of hate in it being the product of electromagnetic interction or of the interaction of attraction and repulsion at the same time - with the Love which is beyond all interactions.

While ordinary love is the result of the focus of one's dhyana (consciousness) on the opposite sex/others, while even the love of ordinary mystic is the result of the focus of his dhyana on the 'opposite' whole world, the all-inclusive Unified Love is the result of the focus of one's dhyana on oneself, is the result of one's asking oneself "who am I?

Finding that "I" AM ALL, no wonder he then finds himself even in minerals, plants, animals...a la Rumi!

This Unified Love rather houses all interactions and is the final goal of all knowledge, though it can finally only be reached through self-experience.

Science/mathematics cannot reach it because it is rather concerned with WHO is trying to reach it through science and mathematics than WHERE.

The purpose of discussion of relating the unification of forces of physics to the above all-inclusive Unified Love here is to show the former that finally THIS is their goal. Spirituality has always shown science/reason its next goal.

I have no interest in presenting a 'scientific' theory par se but the discovery of basic forces by science is now not anybody's copyright and everybody has the right to understand things through them in his/her own way if one can. You can say that it is my personal view. Anyway, I am not putting my theory (this word again is not a copyright of anybody)before some Nobel Prize awarding committee. Such a committee is more likely to consider yours and I don't know really why you don't put yours before them or before peers if you have really unified everything including even consciousness through MATHEMATICS. Even though I have not much knowledge of it I can undertand that if you have really unified all through mathematics you would have already won the Nobel. Really I am unable to understand.

I would rather think that Einstein experienced the all-inclusive Love/Beauty in oneself first before seeing it in mathematical equations. Thanks to the Love we are discussing here it should be by now clear that all beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder!

2. I have no objection to your thinking my experience as hallucination. It may as well be so. Still this need not stop me from seeing the whole evolution in terms of four basic forces, which really I am ding and not starting a new religion lol. Relax a bit yaar, science was before us and will be there after us...

Regards, Harb

Dear Avtar,
Thanks to Deepak for inviting you to join the Intentblogging team and thank you for your participation. It is so refreshing to read everyone of your posts. I just love every word in them.
Yes, you can indeed experience that Love and Beauty whenever you make a scientific discovery or compose a beautiful poem and more easily so, when you sing or listen to a melodious peace of music. People may realize that experience by different means, science, mathematics, poetry, music, on and on.
About the Mindset 1 in your post above, we are not using language very carefully on this site. (In fact, I complained once before that Deepak uses the same word consciousness to mean different things and that really causes confusion.) So, for example, in a phrase like "science does not understand Consciousness or Love " speaking just for myself, I mean science cannot fit them into a scientific formula to somehow measure them again and again because they are immeasurable. But they can be realized and experienced!
I am reading your paper on the link you gave and hope to get to the end sometime in the not too distant future.

Desh - “I think science is the work of the Jnana Yogi and Love is the domain of the Bhakti Yogi. One who thinks from the mind and questions cannot "love" deliberately!”

I think this distinction arises because of ignoring what is being known and what is being loved. It is the same 'object'

Love is a kind of knowledge, in the way that what is loved is ‘known’ to us. We start to love something as we come ‘ in contact with’ or ‘to know about ’ it. Then the love flourishes and as we delve more in to the love, we know it more. A paraphrase for lovemaking is ‘He knew her.’ Likewise, what is known to us cannot but be loved. As we know more of it, we love it more.

The distinction is thus more of inclination or emphasis than of any fundamental difference. One who loves, knows it and one who knows, loves it.

Desh and Naj,
Since you are using the words "Jnana" and "Bhakti" from Vedanta, this is what I was told or understood from whatever exposure to Vedanta I had. The ultimate state realized by both Jnana and Bhakti are one and the same. They are simply different approaches to the same goal.
For example, one who worships the deity in a temple should realize that God is not just in that little statue but indeed everywhere. If not, such a blind Bhakta would love the idol of worship dearly but can be very insensitive towards others who are suffering because the ignorant Bhakta does not see God in a person dying out of hunger or sickness. So, realization of what "God" really means or who God really is, (this is called Jnana) turns a Bhakta into a Jnani and enables him to see God in all and everywhere and therefore brings out the universal Love in him/her. On the other hand, one who attempts to realize Truth by an analytical and interrogative approach that keeps questioning who Am I, why am I feeling miserable or excited, where is this I thought or any other thought coming from, and so on, will ultimately (hopefully!) see the Self everywhere and one always loves oneself. There is just love for everybody because everything is just Me! Ramakrishna Paramahamsa was not greiving that he could not eat when he had throat cancer, he told his disciples, I am not hungry because you are all eating, so,I do not need to eat.

Dear Harb,
I agree with everything that is in your post #44. (You did not think I would ever agree with you! Did you?)
Beautifully said. Yes, there is ordinary love and Love which is beyond all interactions. Sanskrit has different words for the two: the first one is Kama and the second is Prema. To have different points of view such as yours and Avtar's, on whether one can realize Love and Beauty thru mathematics, music, etc. or only thru self interrogation, is not new. The fact of the matter is (based on my modest exposure to Vedanta), one realizes the Beauty when one's mind is still. Since ages, Spiritual Masters have taught several ways and techniques to make the mind stand still. The well known music composer and Bhakta Tyagaraja wrote in his lyrics that Bhakti (love of God) mixed with music is the only way to realize God because Tyaga's mind came to a halt and he was absorbed in Bliss when he was singing praises of the Lord! On the other hand, J.Krishnamoorthy says what one needs to do is to stop all thinking and that any technique such as repetition of Mantra or Meditation of a form, image, sound, etc. or music, or mathematical problem solving cannot help. He says these are also thought processes; only they are focussed on fewer objects or the wandering area of the mind is smaller than usual. So, to me, the views of both of you seem rational.
Now I have questions: you say that your purpose of this discussion: "relating the unification of forces of physics to the above all-inclusive Unified Love here is to show the former that finally THIS is their goal."
Are you saying that the four forces will eventually evolve into just one, namely the all unifying Love?
Or
that the all unifying Love will show you or somebody how to unify the four forces?
Or
Because Love unifies all and resolves differences,
the four forces must really be one and soon this Truth will be proved scientifically?

Naj:

At the philosophical level what you are saying is right.. for both the paths involve leaving "I" behind.. in Love that happens automatically through the heart... in Knowledge that come through a series of lower-level realizations.

Its just that I want to point out that to provide a heart-based solution to an inherently mind-oriented person is not helpful just as vice versa.

Syamala: I agree. That is exactly what I was implying.

Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com

Dear DK and Fellow Intentbloggers:

Dear Syamala – Thanks for reading my paper. I am sure that anyone who reads it would understand where I am coming from to explain the unity of consciousness, spirituality, love, enlightenment, eternity, wisdom, gyan, bhakti, karam, eternity, omnipresence as one and only one truth. Only our schizophrenic mind divides and rules us as a fragmented person seeing many in one.

Dear DK:

Without going into one on one comments, let me try to focus on and integrate the overall theme of this post and try to make a proposal to move forward:

Mission: To establish a bridge between science and spirituality

I think the key reason for the non-convergence of our debate is because the title – Four Forces and Rumi’s Love is extremely limited and misleading. Science is not limited to four forces, but all inclusive of physics (relativity, quantum mechanics, Newtonian), cosmology, psychology, biology, and more. We all agree that the modern science that is solely based on the inanimate matter (disregarding consciousness) is limited due to its mindset on the inanimate matter alone. Our common goal is to propose enhancements to this material-only science to an integrated science of consciousness that represents spirituality or universal love (not only worldly, relational or relative love). In my book and published papers, I have given a new name – “Scienciousness” to this consciousness-integrated science (Richard- This may fulfill the need of what you call SUPER SCIENCE). Attached below is one of my earlier papers that describes the summary and approach of Scienciousness:

An Approach to Bridging Science & Spirituality

Avtar Singh, Sc. D.
avsingh@alum.mit.edu

The ongoing debate between science and religion or spirituality over the past few centuries has been led by the basic differences in the methods of science and religion to perceive reality. Science has searched for the ultimate reality by fragmenting the observed reality into pieces or tiny particles of matter. Religion, on the other hand, has ignored scientific observations and relied on faith to propagate the concept of a creator – the God. Science has ignored the inherent spontaneity/consciousness in nature, while religion has ignored the actual observations of the universe.

What is often ignored, however, is the fact that the differences or conflicts between science and religion are nothing but the brainchildren of the inherent deficiencies and inconsistencies within their individual domains. Science fragments reality into pieces, and is unable to put it back together because it looses the glue that seamlessly unites the pieces. Religion covers the reality under the rug of faith, wherein the doubts remain hidden and unresolved. Experiment is the religion of science and faith is the science of religion. Neither the experiment nor the faith is complete in providing the wholesome realization of the universal truth. Each experiment is a blind man’s touch of the elephant of reality and each faith is a tainted image of the truth in its own colored mirror. Unless both the experiment and faith transcend into the direct experience or realization (spirituality) of the truth, the incompleteness, inconsistency, and the ensuing conflict between science and religion will remain.

Modern science, especially cosmology, is paralyzed with unresolved paradoxes (quantum gravity, dark matter, dark energy, and evolution of the universe etc.) and singularities (Big Bang, black holes etc.). The flagship theories of science namely Newtonian theory, relativity theory, and quantum mechanics suffer from unresolved inconsistencies among them that prohibit a generic representation of the observed universe behavior. These theories may explain results of individual experiments, but fail to predict observations at universe scale. Such failures raise doubts if these theories represent the universal laws accurately and completely. Similarly, religion is paralyzed by multiplicity of traditions and beliefs of different sects and ideologies. Even within a given religion, there may exist several sects each with their own sets of interpretations of God, truth, reality, and morals. The tragedy is that such differences have not been subtle and have led to widespread violence, suffering and death. If science and religion are fragmented and conflicting within their own domains, how can one expect them not to conflict with each other? How can they achieve reconciliation? It is important to realize that unless the internal conflicts and inconsistencies within science and religion are eliminated, a bridge between the two cannot be built.

The good news is that there is a common cause paralyzing both science and religion, and it is within our reach to eliminate this cause. This root cause is the ignorance of the inherent consciousness or spontaneity in the universe by both science and religion. The approach that is proposed herein is an enhanced scientific model that integrates consciousness into the current theories of science to address issues dividing science and religion, especially the question of what constitutes the ultimate or universal reality. Devoid of consciousness, the conventional science of today can reveal only relative reality constrained by the limits of the scientific method and not the ultimate universal reality because of the following reasons:

1. Limitations of experiments

Scientific method is designed or biased to reveal only the material reality that can be measured by experiments. Since all scientific experimental setup and instrumentation is situated in the classical fixed space and time, it can measure what is manifested in fixed space and time only, which excludes consciousness.

“Experiment is the religion of science, just as the faith is the science of religion.”

2. Ignorance of reality in any other form than matter

What cannot be observed or measured by experiments is not considered to be a physical reality. For example, pure energy is considered to be a philosophical entity unless it can be associated with a particle of matter. If a particle decays to become pure energy that cannot be represented by some other particles, such a hypothesis is not allowed as a valid physical assumption.

“What is god to a theist, particle is to a physicist. If it cannot be represented as a particle, it cannot be accepted as a scientific reality.”

3. Ignorance of consciousness or spontaneity in nature

Science consciously ignores spontaneity or consciousness in nature as observed in well-known physical phenomena such as the spontaneity of the universal laws, wave-particle duality, spontaneous decay of particles, spontaneous motion in the universe – its birth, evolution, and acceleration etc. Although motion is the key phenomenon investigated by scientific theories, science has yet to explain the origin of the spontaneous motion. The inanimate matter addressed by the scientific theories is incapable of originating a spontaneous motion or change on its own. The physics of spontaneity is missing from the well-established theories.

“There is no ghost but a host (the energy of the empty space) in the atom, which is not just a bunch of probability functions collapsed by a conscious scientific observer.”

“Spontaneity or consciousness is a physical phenomenon and not an epiphenomenon born of matter or brain.”

4. Fragmentation destroys the wholesomeness

Science fragments the reality into pieces in order to describe the building blocks of material reality. During this fragmentation process, it looses the glue that holds the individual pieces together as a wholesome physical entity. For example, a human being can only be described by science as a collection of its body parts made of material particles, such as atoms, molecules, genes, neurons, hands, legs, heart, and brain etc. Science is unable to describe what constitutes mind, emotions, thoughts, and the purpose of being.

“All physical entities are not reducible or divisible to fundamental particles.”

“Gravity may be (??) reducible to gravitons, but consciousness is not reducible to neurons.”

5. Scientific reality is evolutionary and diverging

The conventional science deals with material reality without any consciousness or free will. Since time and evolution are inherent properties of matter, material reality also evolves in time. So long as the theories of science are predominantly concerned with matter alone, they will keep evolving, changing and hence diverging. Newtonian theory that revolutionized science in its early renaissance was superceded by relativity theory and quantum mechanics and so on. Then, is the theory of everything just a pipe dream? Unless the theories of science integrate consciousness, which is a well-observed physical phenomenon in nature and the universe, a time-invariant theory of everything is not possible to be achieved.

Is the “Road to Reality” traveled by the conventional science a road to nowhere? The failure of modern science to reveal the ultimate reality is evidenced by the fact that so far the collective knowledge of science has uncovered only 4% of the universe in the form of visible matter. Rest is unexplained and mysterious dark matter and/or dark energy. Also well known are the irresolvable paradoxes and inconsistencies that persist among the well-accepted theories of science such as general relativity, quantum mechanics, and Newtonian theory.

Approach to Resolve Paradoxes and Unify Science and Spirituality

The questions and paradoxes of science described above are shown [1,2,3] to be caused by the missing physics of spontaneity or consciousness observed in natural phenomena, such as the spontaneous motion or acceleration of the universe, wave-particle duality, consciousness of the human mind, and conscious observations of scientific experiments. An integrated model is proposed in references [1], [2], and [3], which combines observed spontaneity with a simplified model of general relativity, which is shown to provide resolution to many of the questions and paradoxes. The model demonstrates that a common set of universal laws govern the behavior of the matter, mind and consciousness. Consciousness or the spontaneity in nature is shown to be a physical phenomenon and not an epiphenomenon. Its existence is a physical reality and not a metaphysical myth that can be excluded from a rigorous scientific theory. It also demonstrates that the existing paradoxes of the modern science and cosmology leading to an apparent absence of purpose in the universe are artifacts, rather than universal realities, of the missing physics of spontaneity in the modern scientific theories.

The integrated approach, referred to as Scienciousness, also closes the gap between science and religion or spirituality. The integration of consciousness into the physical laws of matter shatters the barriers dividing science and religion, and leads to a natural transcendence between their apparently opposing aspects such as evolution (time) and eternity, survival and revival, chaos and order, and meaninglessness and purpose in the universe. The integrated model demonstrates the inherent purpose and meaning via the prevailing eternity, omnipresence, wholeness, certainty and order in the universe. It confirms that the universe is not born out of nothing and it is not merely going to disappear into oblivion, and that the universe is a cosmos with order and not chaos. The model also unfolds the following universal realities and their apparent purposes:

• The purpose of the material or manifested universe is to provide an objective evidence to human beings to search for and find the un-manifested, eternal, and omnipresent universal truth, referred to as God, love, or consciousness.
• The purpose of human being is that thru it the eternity and truth want to be realized or manifested.
• Relativity, and not uncertainty, rules the universe, which represents relatedness, connectivity, and non-locality with no censorship or playing of the dice from God.
• Simplicity and beauty, and not complexity and confusion, love and not jealousy, are the dominant characteristics of the universe for human beings to enjoy and cherish.
• Time and evolution are relative realities of matter only. Since matter is a small fraction of the total mass-energy of the universe, the universe as a whole has no time, beginning, or ending. The clock ticks in the domain of matter only.
• There is only one single whole universe, which encompasses multiple sub-universes representing various relativistic (matter-energy-space-time) states of the one whole, eternal, and omnipresent Zero-point energy, commonly referred to as God, love, truth, or consciousness.
• What exists now always existed in the past and will exist in future. Nothing can come out of nothing without violating the laws of conservation. Nothing never existed, nor will ever exist.

In summary, science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind, and without consciousness (truth, spirituality, love, enlightenment) they are both paralyzed.

References:

[1] A. Singh, The Hidden Factor: An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, Cosmology and Universal Reality, AuthorHouse, 2003.
[2] A. Singh, A New Theory of Spontaneous Decay Resolves Paradoxes of General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and Cosmology, The XXII Texas Symposium on Relativistic Astrophysics, Stanford University, CA, December 13-17, 2004.
[3] A. Singh, In Search of the Universal Reality and Purpose – A Scientific Investigation, presented at ‘Science and Religion: Global Perspectives’, June 4-8, 2005, in Philadelphia, PA, USA, a program of the Metanexus Institute (www.metanexus.net).

Peer Review Panel

I propose that intentblog setup a balanced panel including both spiritual and scientific leaders, such as Dr. Deepak Chopra, Shekhar Kapoor, Dalai Lama, Dr. Alan Wallace, and others who cover wide areas and open minded to science as well as spirituality and contemplative sciences of the mind. This will address Harb’s comment regarding submitting this to a peer review. My experience in dealing with the mainstream science is that all their peer reviews are biased by the Science of the inanimate matter that is not open to universal consciousness. Science has to protect its own territory and funding via closing and protecting their ideology of materialism. They need to be made aware of a viable mathematical approach to consciousness that has the potential to resolve the paradoxes of science and possible achieve the theory of everything.

Regards,

Avtar Singh

Daer Syamala, since you yourself are far advanced on the road to Truth I knew some day you will see through my limitations of speaking the intuited Truth through intellectual reasoning. Thank you.

As to your questions:

Are you saying that the four forces will eventually evolve into just one, namely the all unifying Love?

Yes, unify into One.

Or
that the all unifying Love will show you or somebody how to unify the four forces?

It has already shown me and the answer to question 1 is yes because of this.

Or
Because Love unifies all and resolves differences,
the four forces must really be one and soon this Truth will be proved scientifically?

Not my point.

Dear Avtar, I think our missions are different.

While you like science are moving from many to One (and may well have reached it, I do not deny), I, having experienced the One first, am now moving/seeing from One to many.

No wonder I am seeing the whole world as evolving in terms of the separating away of forces.

So, let my enjoy till you fill in the values of different variables in your unified equation and describe the whole dynamic world backwards.

Just to add, ultimate Truth is the same One, only described differently by science, philosophy and spirituality. I have no doubt that science's Supersymmetry/Superforce, spiritual master's One, God, Love, and philosophers Substance, Thing-in-itself point towards the same One Truth.

Which is in fact why I have coined one common word Mosc for it in my book.

Thus Mosc is
-Matter of spiritual category for spiritualists;
-Matter of Supersymmetric Category for scientists;
-Matter of substantial category for philosophers.

Regards, Harb

“Oh, grant me my prayer that I may never lose the bliss of the touch of the one in the play of the many.”

~ Rabindranath Tagore

"While you like science are moving from many to One (and may well have reached it, I do not deny), I, having experienced the One first, am now moving/seeing from One to many." ~Harb

Paraphrasing frespora: there are two ways in which one can EXPERIENCE THE INFINITE, THE ABSOLUTE, THE ONE - one can either expand one’s thoughts to include everything to experience the infinite or one can contract them so as to annihilate them to experience nothing.

Harb, I believe your(& Dr. Avtar's) missions are the same i.e. to experience, understand, reveal, attempt, search, or to know... the Infinite, the absolute, the One, or God.

Your methods may be different.

Your approach seems to be, One to Many(In a metaphysical way).
While that of Dr. Avtar's seems to be that ofMany to One as you put it.

Both seem rational.

The comment by Fresportra has an invaluable lesson. It seems to be possible to experience the 'Mystical' by following two contradictory paths at the same time!( Please read the cooment reproduced below) I believe it is possible to "experience" the Absolute, and this can be done only by having a clear understanding of both the paths: One to Many, and Many to One. Although they seem contradictory( as you have expressed), both are essential to the singular mission which is mystical rather than rational( as science is or reason is).

************
Repost of a comment(#16)by fresporta from DK Matai's Thread

URL
http://www.intentblog.com/archives/2006/10/intentblog_thou.html

“Oh, grant me my prayer that I may never lose the bliss of the touch of the one in the play of the many.”
~ Rabindranath Tagore

Mystified Mathematician

As the sun went, a young student ventured into the backyard behind the laboratory. There was a large maple tree waving its five palmate leaves in the gentle breeze.

This motion and the fluorescence of the brilliant red-orange color caught his attention in the fading light of the fall season.

Some primal instinct took over him in that instant and he attempted to climb the tree with the enthusiasm of a child.

He climbed to its fork by clinging to the grooves in the bark and inching up some five meters above ground. Up at the fork he chose fatter of two branches to climb comfortably to a convenient perch some fifteen meters above ground.

He felt a strange sensation in his barefoot - a forgotten feeling of flesh. And then he felt perfectly secure and comfortable on the tree.
It was drizzling and the drizzle is so fine it did not overwhelm the palms of the sheltering maple leaves with the weight of the falling rain.
In this leafy perch in the laboratory yard he listened to the honks, roars and clanks the many sounds in a cacophony, as a single sound, the sound of the modern city mound.

He noticed a cavity in the branch and inched his way up embracing the branch, to about a meter height.

He smelled a wild musky odor from the cavity. He heard the buzzing of the bees. He saw a few bees at the edges of the cavity protecting the hive inside it. Those soldiers were not alarmed by the intruder, and he felt that they sense his good vibes.

A gush of soft breeze blew the misty rain over him and he crawled down back to the comfort of the crotch on the perch.

There he rested and closed his eyes with thoughts in his head.

He thought about superreal numbers, infinities and infinitesimals, omega number and paradoxes with which he was occupied in his work for most of the day. He wanted to rest his rational mind. His let his thoughts run like a wild horse.

He realized that there are two ways in which one can find solutions - one can either expand one’s thoughts to include everything to experience the infinite or one can contract them so as to annihilate them to experience nothing.

He tried to do both simultaneously.

On one stream he headed towards Everything. The way of unity.

He expanded his space proximity to include his whole body, the branch of the tree, the bees, the backyard, the city and the open sky. He also expanded his time awareness to include the trajectories of the falling rain drops, the fluttering motion of the leaves, his last few thoughts, his childhood, the growth of the tree, the rotation of earth and the expansion of the universe.

On the other stream he headed towards Nothing. The inward way.

He ceased to identify himself with any one part of the space. He contracted his time awareness by letting go more and more of his thoughts about his identity and feelings, lessening his mental activity every moment.

On the whole, being a mathematician he visualized two spheres, initially of same size, one expanding towards infinity while the other contracting towards zero. They were continuously drawing apart.

But with a sudden insight he was convinced that the two spheres headed towards a collision – that some how the outward expansion and inward contraction would meet and merge. The point where Nothing is Everything.

In a momentary way one can perhaps experience Everything and Void, as nothing but one.
A long time passed before he came down that tree...With a single minded vision he emerged into a field of infinite possibilities.

16. Posted by fresportra on October 30, 2006 12:22 AM

"For us who are inquisitive, therefore, about that which is beyond all, yet the support of everything, which is most inconceivable and wondrous in nature, direct perception, inference and so on are not suitable means. For this purpose we accept only the Vedas, whose words are transcendental, which is the source of all mundane and transcendental knowledge, and which have been passed down in humanity through unbroken chains of succession since time immemorial." - Tattva Sandharba, Section 10.
Srila Vyasadev, in Vedanta Sutra 2.1.11, disqualifies reason as a valid method for this inquiry:
"11. Also in consequence of the ill-foundedness of reasoning."
(Ramanuja's commentary:) "The theory, resting on Scripture, of Brahman being the universal cause must be accepted, and the theory of the Pradhâna [undifferientiated nature] must be abandoned, because all (mere) reasoning is ill-founded. This latter point is proved by the fact that the arguments set forth by Buddha, Kanâda, Akshapâda, Gina, Kapila and Patañgali respectively are all mutually contradictory."
In othere words, reason can never prove anything beyond sense perception, and is therefore in invalid method for making any conclusion in spiritual matters.
Ramanuja further comments on the next verse, "A theory which rests exclusively on arguments derived from human reason may, at some other time or place, be disestablished by arguments devised by people more skilful than you in reasoning; and thus there is no getting over the objection founded on the invalidity of all mere argumentation. The conclusion from all this is that, with regard to supersensuous matters, Scripture alone is authoritative, and that reasoning is to be applied only to the support of Scripture."
Quite simply, DK Matai is cheating folks by presenting himself as some sort of an spiritual solicitor or a Holistic harmoniser on a subject for which he not only has no conclusive knowledge, but not even a sound idea of how to get that knowledge. Pandu

Respected Harbhajan Singh Ji (Dear Harb):

Let me emphasize with rigor (however, just a belief) that I share the same common experience of love, truth, consciousness as you may have. Another belief is that this common experience is genuine and not just a hallucination or mind trick.

If you feel that our missions are different or I am addressing worldly love vs. your universal love, you have either completely misunderstood my work or have not taken time to understand it (you have already said that you do not believe or like a mathematical approach). I believe that your misunderstandings would dissolve the moment you go deeper and understand the approach and results of my work. It is not hard, just only high school mathematics with deep philosophy.

I am not trying to find one from many. Just like you, I first studied and tried to get a thorough understanding of Guru Nanak, Buddha, and Adwaita teachings. I saw the light of simplicity, certainty, and oneness in the universe. However, I did not hold a blind belief that I had the same experience as Nanak and Buddha. I felt a need to verify and validate it. I resorted to science since it provided me a vast amount of data and universe observations to compare against the material manifestation of Nanak’s and Buddha’s insights. The miraculous thing that I came to realize was that everything small and large from quantum particles to the regions beyond the edges of the universe, human body, mind, and consciousness, all were governed by the very Hukum (laws) that Nanak had revealed. The next six years, I spent were to build an approach to express this revelation in the language of science – mathematics and empiricism. This culminated into the book – The Hidden factor and other publications.

The biggest revelation to me was that the truth has no direction – One to Many or Many to One. Truth is not a linear, creation, or evolutionary process; it is beyond space and time. Even today, I go back and forth between both the science (mathematics) and spirituality to clarify either new spiritual or scientific concepts. The truth exists eternally and omnipresently with no beginning or evolution or temporal forces. It is only the relative realities that are temporal, and begin and evolve. These are only relative to the diminished consciousness of the schizophrenic mind of the observer. A fully conscious observer sees only the eternal truth, just like a photon of light moving at the speed of light sees no matter because of a total dilation of space and time. Nanak’s Ek Onkar conveys the same reality as E=mC2 of Einstein and much more. The two are not inconsistent. Nanak, Buddha, and other great spiritual masters are many more times Einstein to me since they understood the physics of consciousness (96% of the universal reality), which we can call by other names such as God, love, enlightenment, Gyan, Bhakti, Karma etc.

One more note here to emphasize the unparalleled value provided by the mathematical representation of the science of consciousness. My experience alone would be one dimensional without the mathematics that has given me 20/20 vision to understand complex spiritual concepts such as ego, free will, purpose, meaning, happiness, contentment, creation, creator, mind, consciousness, suffering, enlightenment, life and death etc. clearly without any doubts and uncertainty. They are no more metaphysical or metaphorical entities to me. I would never gain the same depth of understanding of the wisdom of Nanak and Buddha had I not resorted to the mathematical formulations of the science of consciousness.

Most importantly, I would like you to realize that I am on your side with a common experience and objective to disseminate the truth, love, and beauty in consciousness. My constructive criticism of the proposed Four Forces- Rumi’s Love metaphor has been only motivated by the deep compassion to spare the embarrassment and ruthless attacks of the mainstream scientists when and if it was ever brought to them as a scientific theory. Believe me, I have been there. My natural will to disseminate the truth is not to win a Nobel prize but the same basic compassion to show the light to the mainstream materialistic science that seams to have been lost into the complexities and uncertainties of the particle physics and forces deviating from the path of simplicity and certainty. I would like to see that the healthy Socratic dialogue among all intentbloggers continues as always; there is nothing like sharing the experiences, especially the spiritual ones.

Love & Best Regards

Avtar Singh

Dear Avtar, with deep respect, I agree with every word you have said. I found your article close to perfection.

Interestingly just before I read your thread and saw the word Hukam in it, I was discussing the implications of my own findings with my family and used the phrase "Jit jit bhave tit tit lage..."

There were the times when I myself asked Nature/God or 'whatever you are' questions like "Who am I?" "Where have I come from"? "What is God," "What is good and bad"? and so on. Some voice from within would tell me that answers to all these questions are written in scriptures/holy books/guru granth sahib and to go and read them. But I would retort, "Why should I read/know the answers second-hand, why it was given to Nanak and others directly while I am being asked to read it second hand?" After many years of such struggle finally I was able to experience what I call "my first experience of oneness" (already described) which finally silenced me as to any questions and doubts. I have no doubt that you also must have had similar experience. I think after such experiences some natural scheme of things pushes us to look towards science, which is why you fell into proving what you saw through mathematics and I through evolution.

I think ultimate truth is really indescribable and no sooner we come down to describe it in whatever way we already lose some of it and to that extent we become deficient in our explanations. It is like Augustine's position if we equate Truth with Time: Said he: "What is Time? I know what it is if nobody asks. But if anybody asks I do not know."

Anyway, reverting back to Hukam, the problem may well become how to make the west world of science understand this, perhaps in this we may be able to complement/support each other in some way in future. I will some day read your book, though I find it very very difficult to read books any more. To me it is like reading books on "What is Love" or "What is sex" after the actual experience of Love or sex. I hardly feel motivated enough.

I even feel I am not very able to convey what I know through writing here. In fact I think that writing needs a 'point' of view which forces us to acquire a temporary 'point' very akin to "I"/ego which proportionately limits our perception of what we know and hence our description of it in whatever way.

Perhaps some day some wise man like DK will see through that if he is to really present the socratic dialogue of the new age it will need to be recorded audio/visually because for one, intelligence (as against intellect) speaks spontaneously and for an other, intelligence speaks with whole body. Which is in fact why you will not find many masters writing books, they can either speak spontaneously or they can sing songs or even write poems but not write in a systematic way which is really a property of intellect. I am waiting for the day when somebody will be talking to me directly.

I am feeling it difficult to even make a one page summary. My position really is like "he who can see through everything sees nothing." I dont know what to write and what to leave. I can give infinite details in support of what I know/say. I don't know where to stop. I may soon even go silent. I already came on the blog after about a year.

Regards, Harb.

Dear DK,
I have felt this also, only to - Love - fully, honestly

Dear Harb,
I bow to you, dearest one

Dear Avtar,
Thank you for your sharing

~ Kate

Dear DK,

With all love I must say that so long as there is 'tu'(you) there is 'mein'(I). So when the premise is dual, how can it be said to perfectly describe the non-dual?

The fact is that at the end one finds that the Hukam is really an impersonal universal scheme of things (driven by one unified force, manifesting differently as things progress)of which one is an indistinguishable part. Then one can neither say that 'you' do this or do that nor that 'I' do this or do that. Becoming one with the flow of things one just acts spontaneously...

Also, just as there are times when you say to your earthly father that you did this you did that and there come times when you become father yourself, similarly, there come Ages on the cultural scale when you address yourself to the heavenly father, like Guru Arjun Dev, and there come times when you discover the heavenly father in your own self like Ramana, LaoTze, Buddha. Then you don't addresss anybody outside in happiness or in suffering, you just look towards your own deepest within. Which is in fact why, none of the above said anything about heavenly father or God.

But you too may be right in this perfect scheme of things of the perfect One. Guru Arjun Dev may be addressing his own deepest self in the guise of 'tu.'And books can also be written spontaneously, in poetic flow. Did His Holiness Master Kirpal wrote books himself or he spoke and people around wrote them?

Love, Harb

Dear Kate, like beauty being in the eyes of the beholder what you see bow-worthy in me is actually in you.

Love, Harb

Dear DK, for me the indescribable stands described in your last post.

Much Love, Harb