The Ostrich and the Elephant

A blog on spirituality, science, philosophy, ETs, and mental health

Tag: Science

  • Enlightenment, The Ultimate Perspective

    Yin Yang: An image that perfectly encapsulates the paradoxical “half-truth” nature of reality

    I’ve been mulling over the most recent article I wrote – “The Illusion of Free Will” for a couple of weeks now, and the thing is – I don’t really agree with it. At least, not fully.

    This is going to be an article where you don’t get any set, defined answers, so if you don’t like articles of that kind, skip over this one now.

    The question of whether humans – or any sentient being – has free will was one of the first big philosophical questions I ran into in my undergraduate science degree.

    At the time, I had an assumed belief that humans had free will, that we were ultimately responsible for the decisions we made, and should be held accountable for our actions. The more I looked into this belief, however, the less it seemed to make sense.

    In order to really explain my “position” on this, I’m going to have to get quite deep. Think ultimate nature of reality deep.

    I think the best way to do that is with a diagram. This will obviously be limited too, but it’s the best way I know how to convey my perspective.

    The Three Levels of Reality

    At the ultimate level, there’s the Source of all existence. The ultimate One. The Infinite reality.

    This is beyond the dualistic mind of humans. Beyond good and evil. Beyond right and wrong. Beyond this versus that.

    As the Heart Sutra of Mahayana Buddhism states: “Gate gate paragate parasamgate bodhi svaha” which translates to “Gone, gone, gone beyond, totally gone beyond.”

    Welcome to reality. This is the annihilation of the separate self. The ultimate perspective on reality. The eradication of distinction.

    Not everyone wants this. Even those on the spiritual path, not many of those truly want ultimate truth – they want to just make their lives a little better.

    That’s fine. Everyone has their path to walk, walk it freely as long as you choose!

    I think this is the path I have chosen, however. Do I know that for a fact? No. It’s quite possible to me that I could stop short of this so long as my life was enjoyable.

    There’s a part of me that feels I won’t be satisfied until I know the ultimate perspective however. Time will tell as far as that’s concerned.

    Which brings me to the point of this post, which is kind of a rebuttal against my last post.

    Even though ultimately everything is one, and ultimately everything comes from the same source, there is still simultaneously distinction. The Infinite reality can split itself up as much as it likes and still remain infinite.

    And that’s what humans are. A splitting off of infinity.

    Life is simultaneously all one and yet has distinctions within it.

    Which is where the question of free will, along with the existence of the self, becomes a bit blurry.

    Ultimately if there is only one and no separation, then obviously there can’t be any true free will or true separate self.

    But within that reality, there exist the *appearance* of distinction. And those appearances are still relevant. They still have their own unique makeup. Their distinct preferences.

    This is where, from my perspective, life becomes not a simple yes or no answer, but more like a three-layered answer.

    There’s the ultimate perspective. Then there’s the unique individuation. Then there’s the mental construct or ego level of identification.

    The third layer, the ego layer, is the one that I think is entirely illusory and that humankind would be much better off getting rid of entirely.

    But that still leaves the unique individuation level. The level where life is seen from the ultimate perspective but acknowledges the distinct manifestations of that ultimate one.

    And that’s where it could be said that “free will” is not an entirely erroneous concept.

    If a unique individuation has a desire, and the freedom to act upon that desire, then for all intents and purposes that could be said to be a free choice.

    The issue is not so much about answering a question definitively as it is about removing set belief systems.

    The belief in true free will is problematic, just as the belief in no free will is problematic. The question instead becomes “from what perspective are you asking that question?”

    Because the answer differs depending on what perspective you’re asking the question from.

    So, do we have free will? Yes and no. Does the self exist? Yes and no. Is this answer going to satisfy you? Yes and no.

    In love and light,

    Will.

    For more stories like this, including mental health, extraterrestrials, and spirituality, please subscribe to my blog, or follow my Facebook page “The Ostrich and the Elephant”, or find me on Twitter @willkenway, Medium @willkenway, or Instagram @will.kenway. Thanks!

  • The Problem With Science

    Do you want the good news first or the bad news first?

    I agree, always start with the bad news first.

    Okay, so, here’s the bad news:

    As a former science student myself, I have a great respect for science itself and the principles behind science. The problem here is not so much with science itself, but with scientists. They’re human after all, and us humans always try to understand things, so we inevitably make assumptions about the world based on what we think is real. A lot of this we then turn into being just a collected body of knowledge we hold onto as “the way things are”. Scientists really do their best to try and avoid this, but they are definitely not immune from it. The psychological need for understanding runs deep, so when something is unclear, we usually latch onto whatever seems most reasonable.

    And well, things are not always as they appear. The very foundations of the type of science many scientists fall back to by default — the Newtonian, cause-and-effect type of science — has been on tremendously shaky ground for over a century since the advent of quantum physics. You see, the deeper you look into our universe, the stranger it becomes. Cause does not always precede effect. Things appear to not really be things at all.

    And this is why scientists are so confused by quantum mechanics — it’s because they’ve taken legitimate observations about how the world can behave in given circumstances (this is fine, there’s nothing wrong with this part of science), but then the problems start: They begin to construct models out of this for how the world is based on these observations, when there is no evidence for the models themselves, only for the observed phenomenon (our sense perceptions) behaving in a certain way.

    Scientists have thus built castles in the sky.

    But look, you can’t blame them. We actually need these castles to a degree. Even though it makes absolutely no sense from a quantum physical standpoint, when you turn the handle of a door, it almost always opens. It’s pretty magic the way that happens when you consider what’s happening at the quantum level of indeterminacy. It’s almost enough to make you think we live in an intelligent universe! (the anthropic principle is usually used as a rebuttal against this, but the probability of us standing on top of infinity is… effectively zero, so I wouldn’t exactly call that a strong argument)

    But as I was saying — we can’t walk around all day not using any constructed models otherwise we’d be non-functional. But as humans — and scientists are almost always humans — our minds grasp for understanding. We think if we understand the world better then we can make it a more enjoyable place to live. At a very subconscious level, we look for security in understanding. And we can achieve that to varying degrees. I still think the answer to true happiness lies within each and every one of us, not in the external conditions, but the external conditions are still relevant to a degree.

    So, scientists, use your models, make your predictions, engage in behaviour in accordance with these predictions, but just don’t make a belief system out of them. Beliefs are the antithesis of science — they are what form when you’ve decided you have an answer and stopped looking at any more evidence — but it’s what humans default back to almost every time. The reason being is that not having belief systems is very unsettling; it feels like we’re on very shaky ground (which we are). We need to get used to that. The future of physics is not going to get any simpler to understand — time and time again quantum weirdness has reared its head and it’s here to stay. We have to accept that our brains most likely didn’t evolve to have the capacity to understand our universe at its deepest level. Our Newtonian brains can’t stretch that far.

    So, have some humility. Admit that we might just not be able to understand how the universe really works, but give thanks for the fact that even though it makes absolutely no sense from the perspective of quantum mechanics, at the level of the world humans generally interact in, things still seem to work as though they do, more or less, make sense.

    In other words, become a true scientist. A Not-knower. A Maybe-so-er. Someone who observes the universe and attempts to make predictions based upon those, but who never says they understand the way something works, because you know what, around the next corner there could be something that says, “nah, I don’t behave like that. I don’t fit that model.”

    And that is what has happened for the last 100 years. In the early 1900s, the universe said, “nah, you guys don’t get me.” And the scientists responded with, “Yes we do, yes we do, just let us think this over some more.” And the universe said, “nah, you really don’t get me.” And scientists have been struggling to pretend ever since.

    I’m not saying stop trying. Definitely keep trying. I’m just saying I don’t think our brains evolved to be able to understand the universe at its deepest level. We’ll just be encountering weird shit that makes absolutely no sense to us, and we’ll just have to throw our hands up in the air and say, “Well, fuck, this science tool is really useful, but it’s not going to give us the ultimate answer to life, the universe, and everything.”

    Because how could it? How could an investigative method *within* the system it’s investigating ever claim absolute knowledge about the nature of the system itself? It’s a logical impossibility.

    So I think it’s time for scientists to acknowledge this and say, yep, we won’t ever get ultimate answers, but at least what we’re doing here is pretty damn useful for us.

    There’s a great video on what I’ve discussed here by a youtuber called CollegeBinary where he does 3-minute videos on various philosophers and their theories. The one he does on David Hume is exactly what I’m trying to say here. It’s a great video; very entertaining and very short. Well worth a watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3QZ2Ko-FOg

    Or, for a more detailed look at Hume’s work, here’s a video by The School of Life: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HS52H_CqZLE&t=28s

    And now for the good news (alright!!!)

    There is a solution to all this, and it solves all these dilemmas — it’s called the “biocentric” (or consciousness-centric) universe, championed by Robert Lanza, whom the New York Times called one of the three most important scientists alive today. His approach — coming at the universe from a consciousness standpoint instead of a inanimate physical/energy standpoint — explains away every single problem quantum mechanics has thrown at physicists for the last century. As Lanza says: “It becomes clear why space and time, and indeed the properties of matter themselves depend on the observer.”

    His book, “Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness Are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe”, is a fantastic read and in my opinion one of the most important books ever written. He’s not a great public speaker, so I’d really suggest buying his book (it’s very easy and enjoyable to read), but for those who don’t, here he is at the Science and Nonduality Conference giving a talk on this subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI_F4nOKDSM&t=259s

    And I’ll let Robert Lanza take over from here…

    Thanks for reading, and happy sciencing!

    For more stories like this, including mental health, extraterrestrials, and spirituality, please subscribe to my blog, follow my Facebook page “The Ostrich and the Elephant”, or find me on Twitter @willkenway, Medium @willkenway, or Instagram @will.kenway. Thanks!

Pin It on Pinterest