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!
Leave a Reply to Discover More Cancel reply