science, philosophy, and spirituality

There's a stimulating discussion of science at:

http://noetic.org/noetic/issue-nine-april/biomedical-research/

and

http://www.amazon.com/Science-God-Nature-Reality-Biomedical/dp/1599425459/

which are both by Sarah Knox.

First i need to say i like the way she thinks; she's open-minded about 'what science is' and how to solve problems .. Her writing spirit is uplifting, engaging, and very optimistic. :) However, i question many of her assumptions and chain-of-logic..

On page 19 of her book, she states: "We have said that the goal of science is to describe as accurately as possible the nature of reality." But if we listen to Carl Sagan in his film Contact, "Science is the pursuit of truth." So which is it? Describe reality accurately? Or the pursuit of truth? .. i contend the former is a philosophical question, not science. i cannot prove to you or anyone what we call 'reality' is not just an elaborate dream. i cannot prove the 'substantial nature' of reality (that things truly exist apart from our perceptions of them). So we cannot scientifically describe what we cannot scientifically prove. We must use another language.

Sarah guides her discussion around the limits of reduction and materialism specifically illustrating how energy flow and patterns are best not described using the language of reduction-materialism but something more holistic. i agree with her. Her language of choice, her approach toward more holistically modeling systems, comes from conventional quantum mechanics (generally speaking, the wave-particle duality of matter and how our expectations influence outcomes, the mind-matter connection). i agree with her; we need to use another language to accurately (and more holistically) model systems, but i contend there are better languages to use. Her example gives hints: 'energy flow and patterns' and 'more holistically modeling systems' .. What human discipline deals with energy flow and patterns? Engineering. What human discipline deals with holistically modeling systems? Systems-reliability (also of engineering).

The most concise definition of science i can write: a set of testable hypotheses. Similarly, engineering is practical problem solving. But engineering depends on science. (And quite honestly, vice versa.) Science depends on engineering to build machines to test hypotheses. Engineering depends on science to determine what set of hypotheses is relevant to our understanding of nature.

Unfortunately, science has not embraced engineering as a source of concepts for holistic modeling nor energy flow .. Oddly, it was this concept of energy flow that stimulated my initial research into integrating physics-engineering..

Perversely, physicists state a magnetic field is mediated by virtual photons (the force you feel between two magnets you hold in your hands is caused by something specifically UNreal). Just as perversely, they state the reason a radiometer spins has nothing to do with photon-pressure (individual photons cannot be described by conventional quantum mechanics). But both of these statements insult our rationality. They are twisted/perverse ways of looking at physical reality. And basically Sarah Knox expects us to embrace these twisted views, applying them to biomedical research. i cannot.

The historical development of conventional quantum mechanics:

 1. the Copenhagen school assumes command effectively declaring "determinism is dead"

     (elementary particles are probability waves, inherently random in character)

 2. the 'matrix formulation' is established, a primitive but consistent perspective

 3. the wave-nature of matter is established with derivations of deBroglie and Schrodinger

 4. the exclusion principle and isospin confirm 'the right track'

 5. the atomic domain is extended 'down' into the nuclear domain

 6. Feynman develops the more sophisticated 'path integral' formulation along with QFT/QED

     (quantum field theory is the preferred language depending on virtual bosons)

     (quantum electrodynamics is his 'crown jewel' of modern quantum mechanics)

 7. Casimir is 'confirmed' adding credence to the whole scenario

 8. weak-nuclear is integrated with electromagnetic again as point 7

 9. the Higgs-boson is detected and confirms all above

But imagine the whole scenario above as a 'house of cards' dependent on item 9. If we don't detect the Higgs, we cannot revise the model above to accomodate this. The Standard Model of quantum mechanics critically depends on the Higgs (the Higgs boson defines mass in much the same way virtual photons define the electromagnetic force - for the Standard Model). So this world-view, for Sarah Knox, that holds 'so much promise' for revolutionizing biomedical research, is really a house of cards precariously balanced on one critical component: the Higgs boson.

If we don't detect the Higgs, her book (and all those like it) must necessarily be used as toilet accessories .. i'm not trying to be mean, condescending, or dismissive. As stated above, her spirit and optimism are wonderfully contagious. But there's a life-threatening difference between the Standard Model and 'my' Other Model. The Standard Model, as outlined above, was developed over the years with one underlying unspoken purpose: to make us feel like gods so we don't need Her.

In the War for Meaning, i develop a viable alternative to the Standard Model based on Her design for life. It's elegant and rich - fully capable of describing physical nature but from a different perspective and more explicit underlying purpose: to reconnect us with God.

i hate to say it this way but Sarah Knox inadvertently plays into Satanic hands when she pushes conventional quantum perspective (as all authors/speakers do when they push the Standard Model). In trying to embrace conventional 'advances' she's actually embracing Satanic design. Quantum cosmology, the conventional branch of science which tries to determine the structure and origins of our universe, is an outgrowth of the Standard Model. That branch unequivocally declares "God is not required" .. i understand the historical pull of science - away from religion and determinism, but pulling away from God is something else .. In the Other Model, God is an integral part and She has only one purpose: to Union with Us.

The Other Model was developed during a period of divine inspiration. In effect, i was Becoming One with Her as she revealed it to me .. This example of Oneness, a kind of cosmic consciousness, is one of the main purposes of the Noetic Institute, Sarah Knox's 'distributor' at present .. The same Noetic Institute which rejected my writings without apparently reading them.

Something insidious and corrupt is going on .. i cannot attribute Noetic dismissal as simple laziness when the purpose of the War for Meaning is to reveal, to the world, Satanic design. Apparently, both Sarah Knox and the Noetic Institute are on Satanic payroll.. ;)