Sunday, August 31, 2014

Science is slowly understanding the metaphysical

I've been learning a lot about physics lately, and the more I hear or read from physicists, the more I see that the metaphysical concepts that I've been writing about and have come to understand, is similar.  The concepts of quantum mechanics makes clear sense to me, what it is referring to, while I know those who are materialists will scoff at my interpretations as being a "mystical misinterpretation", as if the word "mystical" can't be applied to quantum physics.  Any misinterpretation is relative to their own personal interpretations, since everyone must interpret what they hear or read (see my post "Truth is in the eye of the beholder").  Still, the more I read, the more I see that everything physics is talking about or studying is related to the metaphysical concept of Light/Energy, or in religious terms, the Spirit.

Before I get into this, I know some physicists and many pseudo-physicists (as opposed to the label "New Age magical quack" for those who accept the metaphysical perspective) will have their own opinions on this matter, some saying I don't understand physics, and others saying I'm mixing mysticism with "real" science, but that's ok.  Anyone can say "this is true!" or "this is rubbish!" and come up with our explanations on why this is the case, some believing more strongly in their own explanations than others.  We all have our own beliefs, and my only intention is to create some openness in thinking about things in a way that isn't so limited by what we consider "real".  What I hope doesn't happen is that people who are very knowledgeable about physics won't get hung up by the minutia of detail, and miss the bigger picture (to quote Bruce Lee, "don't focus on the finger or you'll miss all of the heavenly glory").  I've read enough pseudo-physicists shoot down anything outside of scientific jargon just because people make claims without any justification.  By justification, I mean some type of scientific explanation.  But that isn't necessary to understand the implications.  You don't have to be a physicist to grasp what I'm trying to say.  I don't have to explain every little detail to "get the idea" of something, but many pseudo-physicists are stuck on the idea that unless you know "everything" about something, you cannot know anything about it (by "everything" they usually mean current knowledge, even if it is wrong or "unproven").  It's only because someone already has their own ideas about what is real and what is true that they put down any other point of view that conflicts.  Sometimes, having too much "knowledge" hinders people from seeing and thinking beyond the obvious (what is observed).  A perfect example is "black holes swallow everything, including light".  What isn't so obvious is the fact that black holes exist at all and that they exist in all galaxies.  From a metaphysical point of view, it isn't black at all.  Instead, it is a source of the raw energy that constantly creates this physical reality.  This is a perfect example of a claim without justification, but from my point of view, the "why" question for black holes in a universe that consists only of energy explains that black holes purpose is tied to the health of the universe, unlike the sensationalists who believe it is the source of destruction with its only purpose to destroy.  In any case, I hope that everyone, even those who are much more knowledgeable about the subject of physics than I am, will have an open mind to these metaphysical concepts because an open mind is the only way to move beyond what we are today and ironically, not be held back by the past (the whole purpose of science is to advance humanity, but it isn't a lack of knowledge that holds us back, but instead our prejudices, dogmas, assumptions, and preconceived notions that keeps people stuck.  This is true for the religious and non-religious).

Just like in the movie The Wizard of Oz, the wizard that controlled the kingdom of Oz worked behind the scenes, and what the people saw was just a facade; an illusion.  In the movie, the citizens of Oz never bothered to look behind the curtain.  They fell in awe of what they saw, and never realized there was something else behind the scenes.  Science, on the other hand, is more inquisitive.  They are trying to understand what the wizard is that is able to do all this fantastic things in Oz.  But just like the normal citizens, the scientists are merely looking at the illusion and trying to figure it out.  They don't want to believe that a man stands behind a curtain controlling the illusion.  In the same way, consider what life is - that somehow, at some point in time, in some way - we came to be.  And for some reason, everything comes and goes - there is a cycle.  Philosophically, everything can be questioned because people do not understand how the experiences we have can even exist.  But just like in Oz, the people within the kingdom do not bother to look behind the scenes, either out of superstitious fear, unsubstantiated biases, or indifference.  What is behind the scenes is the "truth", and from a metaphysical perspective, that "truth" will always reflect back to each individual: "I think, therefore I am".

In metaphysical terms, I and many other spiritualists have said that everything is the materialization of thought.  That thought is our energy that is actualized into form.  The energy is a term that represents the action of what we are, and what we are is Light.  Light is both energy and identity.  It is energy because it does work and in quantum physics terms is the wave property of duality where there is no form and is in the probabilistic realm.  It is identify because we know ourselves and we are one, but is also composed of many individuals.  That identity in quantum physics terms is the particle property of duality where from a probability, the light becomes an actuality, turned into a single "observable" particle of something discrete (discrete meaning it can be identified as something separate and individual).

In physics, we know about various laws that govern our physical universe.  These laws have been misunderstood and mis-characterized throughout the centuries because they were only seeing the effects of a more fundamental cause.  Once science began delving into quantum mechanics, they started to see where the fundamental cause comes from, and so they went in search of the unifying laws that tie all of the past observations into a single understanding.  However, just as science has misunderstood the underlying fundamental cause for all natural observations, the materialists are trying desperately to discount or disprove any correlation between quantum mechanics and consciousness ("the man behind the curtain").  I believe, in time, science will also come to understand that what is observed in the quantum level is the effects of consciousness.  This cannot end any other way because if you were to break down any conscious being through quantum mechanical laws, you'd find that the physical form itself has no way to interact at the quantum level.  Only consciousness can make the observed quantum laws work the way it does.  What I mean by this is that the end-product, which includes our body and anything physical, cannot obey the laws of quantum mechanics since it IS the end-product (the "effect") of obeying the laws of quantum mechanics, not the source of these laws.  There must be something else that isn't a part of the physical universe to make the physical universe.

The most often touted theory about the universe's creation is the Big Bang theory.  On the surface, it isn't very far off from actuality.  But the problem people have in reconciling that theory is how did it get started?  This is the same question asked by the atheists about God of religion.  Any time you have something related to time, which is what we observe in the physical universe, it is a paradox.  Time is related to space, but according to the Big Bang theory, space didn't exist until after the big bang.  Space is what was "created" once the singularity expanded, and so with it we have time.  But before then, if there is no space, there is no time.  You might ask "where, then, did the Big Bang occur" if there is no space beforehand?  Without space, then the question of "where" does not make sense.  In any case, the singularity concept is no different from the idea that a wave turned into a particle through observation, and that particle could just as well be that singularity!  In metaphysical terms, this is no different than me saying "the universe is the actualization of the Light".  In fact, the universe IS light because we observe the properties of Light (which is also a physics term) in the full electromagnetic frequency spectrum.  This is not in reference to the tiny portion of the visible frequency spectrum that we also call "light".

When we think of matter, we think of atoms and molecules.  At the quantum level, there is no atom or molecule, but only forces of energy.  An atom is simply different types of energy combined into a pattern.  That pattern has no form until its observed.  Why are there different types of energy -  protons, neutrons, electrons, etc.?  What makes them different?  What makes a human different from an animal, a plant, mineral, or gasses?  The different variations of molecule patterns is the same thing as the different energy patterns that make up particles and forces.  When you think of an atom, you think of a nucleus with electrons revolving around it.  In a way, the force that attracts an electron to a nucleus is the same as the "gravitational" force that holds solar systems together.  You could think of our sun as the nucleus and the planets as the electrons.  The more planets, the more mass the solar system has.  I bring this up because physics at the macro level really isn't any different than the micro level.  What we think of as Newtonian physics is really the end-effect of the quantum physics, just as what we think of as gravity is the end-effect of charged attractive forces.  But more fundamental than that is the question of "what is a force?".  In metaphysics, a force is simply action, the will to do something.  When physics describes fundamental forces, they categorize them based on matter interactions.  But if you take away matter would these forces exist and if so, what is creating them (e.g. would gravitational forces exist without large bodies of mass)?  Fundamental particles themselves are simply energy and it is assumed that this energy is naturally an invisible wave that may or may not exist as a probability, and if only one type existed, then how could any variety exist?  This goes into the metaphysical idea of consciousness and the infinite possible variations that exist.

All of the perceived properties of matter can be related to the properties of light.  But in order for light to be actualized into a particle state, something must be measuring (observing) the wave function to "collapse" it into a particle.  The classical "two slit" experiment demonstrates this wave/particle duality.  Whenever a photon interacts with matter, it became a particle and was detectible.  The interference pattern that occurs beyond the slits onto a board, without an "observer", the board becomes the observer after the wave interference occurs.  There is an interference pattern because each crest of the wave becomes "observed" by the board into particle form.  Whenever an "observer" such as a camera or eye or other visualization tool was introduced, the wave collapsed into a particle as well.  But when nothing "sees" it, it remains an invisible wave.  So how, then, does a wave collapse into a particle creating matter?  Since there are two ways that the wave collapsed in this experiment, either interacting with matter, or by observation by consciousness (someone must see the board or camera image or any result of the experiment), then one of these two must also exist for matter to continue to exist.  But matter cannot have existed at the beginning since matter is the product of light turning into a particle.  So it must be that only consciousness exists.  Only consciousness can turn something into reality because reality has no meaning to anything else.  But this means everything material must be conscious also or we would not observe the interaction of waves with matter as an interference pattern.  In other words, photons would remain an invisible wave, even when interacting with things like walls or cameras and nothing would actualize the photon into a particle if something conscious wasn't observing.

In metaphysical terms, the light is the source of consciousness, and it is the source of energy, and it is the source of identity.  In physics, light is a concept of infinite frequencies that exists as probabilities.  The reason why light in physics is probabilities has to do with consciousness' ability to act through free-will.  Probability is merely the term used to define something that behaves in a semi-deterministic way (we can calculate some percentage of probability), but that definition of probability is simply because, from the physical point of view, we exist in a world of laws (rules that define the types of experiences available in a reality) and only a limited set of possible outcomes exist.  So how did these laws come to be?  In truth, the laws that govern the universe is a product of consciousness as the light, and it is why things behave the way they do in the physical world (although other laws can exist in other realities).  This means everything material exists and behaves the way they do, because it, as conscious light, chose that behavior, and so it becomes a "law".  If I choose to stand still, it's not because I'm a statue or something like that, but by my choice.  In the same way, our cells and organs have behavior because that is the conscious act of those particles of light.  Why doesn't light or other non-living things have behavior like human consciousness?  Because the light is not human.  Human consciousness is a particular type of consciousness.

Don't be confused by what I'm saying and what you're experiencing in life.  Just because you can build things, blow up things, eat things, etc., that does not negate anything I've said about everything being conscious and made up of light.  I already stated that things behave the way they do because they choose to follow "rules" of experience.  Everything you think you see or do or experience is an interaction of light at the quantum level, and that is translated as our perceived world at the physical level because we have physical senses for the abstract concept called "senses".  In a universe that seems to have time, but in reality, there is no such thing as time, then that which is constant is only an illusion (by this word, I mean something we think of, rather than actually being "real", and I've posted before that our senses only work because we have a mind to think).  If something is recreated so rapidly at every moment of experienced time, then what you think of as being fixed and constant is just an illusion.  This can be seen in the fact that only through observational measurement does a quantum particle actually "exist", of which all matter is composed.  This reality exists as a collaborative agreement, where each conscious individual identity agrees to "act" in a specific way.  In this world, time is experienced so it's hard to imagine consciousness "holding still for billions of years".  But consciousness is not the human ego.  What you call consciousness is simply a tool being used by the human ego to experience this reality.  Our true consciousness is outside the boundary of time and is always in communication with all other consciousness.  That is the nature of the "wave" duality.  Our ego, which is the "particle" duality, cannot understand what's going on except by what it experiences "outside" of it's "particle" state.  That is why we exist as a "particle", to experience things in order to gain insights beyond just "knowing".  That is the "feeling" portion that comes from experience.  It has been said that memories are created and stored through feelings, which is why it is such an important aspect of this reality.  We are experiencing this reality because of the laws created by an agreement so that each participant, whether in human form or a rock, can understand these feelings from experience.

When science observes properties or behaviors, it is seeing the result of these laws being created by consciousness.  In fact, knowing anything can only occur if information exists within everything, which means light and thus everything is information.  In physics, waves carry information, and so light is knowledge, which means it is consciousness, "to know itself".  When we see something, we "know" what we see.  Image recognition is not something that occurs through brain processing alone.  There is an inherent ability to transform the light energy into information, but that information is contained as the light energy.  The evidence is pretty clear: a law cannot exist without something to apply it to and without consciousness to observe it, laws have no meaning.  It's the philosophical question of "if no one sees or hears something, did it happen?".  Without consciousness, laws could not exist at all because even if it did, there would be nothing to recognize its existence.

You might argue that laws can exist, even without anything conscious, but if that's the case, it wouldn't matter.  It's like saying "when I die, I cease to exist" and if that is the case, then life is meaningless because any experiences you have had will disappear the moment you die.  You might argue that any association between something existing and something having observable meaning is a man-made philosophy (which is actually true), but in reality everything that exists has a purpose whether you know it or not because we create that purpose by its existence.  It's because most do not know the underlying purpose that they assume no purpose (like many doctors used to believe about the body's appendix), and so they claim physical things can exist without any consciousness being aware of its existence.  Hypocritically, the opposite argument is made for things that are non-physical.  Materialists will claim there cannot be a spiritual world because one cannot prove its existence.  This is saying "because I cannot consciously observe something non-physical, it cannot exist".  So if something that is not observed consciously, but is physical can exist without any observational evidence, then why is something non-physical impossible to exist without observation?  This hypocritical argument is clearly demonstrating the bias of a particular belief based on limited understanding of the world and reality.  Fortunately, science seems to be on the right track for discovering the true nature of reality.  I just hope this bias does not hinder progress due to dogmatic opposition to this notion that consciousness is in everything.

While all of this is my own belief and it sounds speculative, it makes sense logically, even if the what I'm saying sounds like unbelievable "mystical nonsense".

No comments: