A Pew Forum survey from December, 2009 reports that many Americans are mixing their traditional Christian beliefs with some more closely associated with Eastern religions. They seem to be attracted to the holistic spiritualism that was first championed by physicist Fritjof Capra in his 1975 bestseller The Tao of Physics and dubbed the "New Age."
Capra claimed to see a close connection between Eastern mysticism and modern physics, especially quantum mechanics, the revolutionary theory of atomic and subatomic phenomena that was developed in the early twentieth century. He declared that the reductionism of classical physics was passé and the world was approaching a holistic utopia in which everything was one, as taught by Buddha, Lao Tzu, and other ancient sages.
In the mid-1970s, the Indian guru Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, who had a physics background, introduced the idea of a "grand unified field" of cosmic consciousness into which our minds can tune (for a price) by Transcendental Meditation. Separating from the TM movement in the 1980s, physician Deepak Chopra began promoting a mixture of Eastern and Western self-help healing philosophies that has come to be called "quantum healing." The notion is that we can make our own reality, solve all our problems, and heal all our ills by just thinking about them. In recent years, this idea was picked up (and treated as newly discovered) in two highly successful films, What the Bleep Do We Know? and The Secret. In all cases, the proponents claim quantum mechanics shows that human thought can change reality by an act of will.
We can trace this new spirituality back to the early days of quantum mechanics when it seemed that fundamental phenomena such as light and electricity had two independent natures: wave and particle. In the eighteenth century light had been successfully described as an electromagnetic wave. But then in the early twentieth century light was also found to be composed of particles called photons. In the meantime, objects such as electrons that were generally particle-like were seen to also behave as waves. This became known as the wave-particle duality.
Furthermore, it seemed that whether an object is a particle or a wave depends on what you consciously decide to measure. If you try to measure a particle property, such as its position at a given time, then the object is a particle. If, on the other hand, you try to measure a wave property such as frequency or wavelength, then the object is a wave. The implication, then, is that your conscious mind is controlling the very nature of reality. As Chopra has put it, "The physical world is a creation of the observer."
Do you really believe that? Don't. Your mind can't control anything but your own body, here and now. The situation with respect to waves and particles is no different from one familiar to any engineer. Suppose an engineer is studying an electromagnetic signal from some distant source. She might move detectors around to determine its path. Then she is measuring the particle-like properties of the signal. Or she can send it into a spectrum analyzer and measure the signal's wave-like properties. In either case she is not deciding the nature of the signal, just using one of two complementary ways for analyzing it. In the university she learned how to mathematically move from one description to the other by means of what is called a Fourier transform. Quantum theory used Fourier transforms to move between the wave and particle pictures.
In short, a physical object isn't either a particle or a wave. These are just two alternative descriptions of the same object. You do not have to measure one property or the other exclusively. Observing a beam of light with appropriate apparatus, you find that localized photons are always present. The wave-like property of the light beam is found only in the statistical distribution the large number of photons it contains.
In the meantime, reductionism in physics has never been more firmly established. By the time The Tao of Physics was published in 1975, the standard model of elementary particles and forces had reduced all of familiar matter to three types of particles: the electron and two types of quarks. That model has agreed with all observations for over three decades.
However, you need not be a quantum physicist or an engineer to convince yourself that we cannot control reality just by thinking we can. We can see that with our own two eyes. It simply doesn't work. No one has ever become beautiful or rich just by visualizing it.
Not really. Its when you let go of controlling your reality, that it changes. Its not an act of will, in the normal sense. Then again, I have a different definition of will than you, I think. Fred Alan Wolf, who was involved with the "What the bleep do we know" movie, says on his website, that he is misunderstood by people who think he is talking about "magical thinking".
It is actually "not thinking" that transform reality. We are already, always creating our reality. What Castenada's mentor Don Juan called "stopping the world" is the result of quieting the mind. The world changes.
"But when the claims are testable, none of the paranormal claims pass muster."
As a rule. people who have those abilities as a result of spiritual practice don't make such claims. In fact they don't tell anyone.
"The extravagant claims made for our consciousness are often phrases in untestable ways"
The effects of spiritual practice are repeatable. Of course it is personal. Science helps us manipulate the physical world. Metaphysics and sprititual practice can transform a person's life.
And people who are skepical, want in words, an explanation of something that occurs, as a result of 'no words'. What Don Juan calls "stopping the internal dialogue", which he says is the crux of his teaching.. and which is in agreement with other paths.
this comment further below by goldenchoirboy is right on:
"Stenger's...theoretical construct & it's conclusions...constitute a paradigm that resists considering consciousness as a field with it's own ontological reality. If you read stenger's book (or the above article, closely), you see that his argument is more about theory than research or data, but you also see that he avoids the central theoretical question: can consciousness be a thing in itself, a field at the basis of matter, and how could this be verified?"
stenger isn't engaged in science, but polemics. when someone tries to use the weight and authority of science to promote personal beliefs and denounce others, it's intellectual bullying. a noble approach would be to ask, what is the evidence for Maharishi's unified field theory of consciousness? is it testable? is it a consistent and promising theory? what are its practical implications and benefits? but this approach requires setting aside personal bias and engaging in true critical thinking.
stenger's lack of scientific rigor reveals itself in gross and subtle ways in his writing, such as in his sweeping dismissals, or the parenthetical insertion above of the phrase "for a price" in reference to the tuition associated with meditation training. if stenger could overcome such cynicism and misunderstanding of his subject matter, he might make a more meaningful contribution to scientific discourse.
As I say below:
"Hagelin worked on the grand unification team that later won the Nobel; his papers contain some of the most cited references in the physical sciences. The elite cadre of physicists working on unified field theory is not "a large population"—only a handful of quantum theorists publish on String Theory. Stenger isn't one of them. Could he intelligently comment on the challenging subtleties of the superstring or flipped SU5, of which Hagelin is a chief architect? Identifying the unified field as consciousness requires an expanded view of the physical sciences. Many scientists are wondering if the most fundamental field underlying the physical world can ever be adequately grasped via such forceful, physical tools as, say, the Hadron Collider. If the unified field is the ultimate source of everything, it's the source of consciousness. If it's omnipresent, as quantum theory requires, it's also present within consciousness. If it's within us, who can offer evidence that it can't be experienced directly with a refined, expanded consciousness? The fact is, it can be & there's evidence for it. This is the "powerful result" of Hagelin's work & perhaps the most important advancement in modern science. Consciousness is a field. It's not an epiphenomenon. This is the emerging paradigm. See http://www.hagelin.org/"
If you have a lab and employ some uninterested jocks to run the experiments while you’re on vacation, if you decide to measure the particle behavior of light but they by mistake set up the experiment for measure the wave behavior of light, the light will show wave-like behavior.
By the way, EXCELLENT post!!
You responded to me elsewhere and stated something to the effect that you'd rather have a conversation with a thinking rational atheist than a fundie Christian. ( I know that isn't exactly how you put it.....sorry.)
At any rate, I have said practically the same thing over and over!
So, in brief, let's be friends!!
You certainly deserve more than one fan!!!
{{fanned}}
oh -- the link -- http://www.sunofgod.net/ or www.sunofgod.net/
google has just dumped wave
in a year it will become a particle
then it will disappear in a flash
Much heated argumentation, trying to convince and proof viewpoints.
Might it be that our SCIENCE has become as much a sacred DOGMA as organized RELIGION, and is as flawed and limited? In fact, is our Science not the direct ANTITHESIS to religious thought? Is it not possible that it has boxed itself into its own limited niche of thinking and experience?
To all my skeptic friends, I suggest you try out some of the stuff that goes beyond the physical. By its very nature it is EXPERIENTIAL. You are missing out, guaranteed!
You can't "try" Nepal either, yet you take it on faith that because you have 'heard' (mental) that it exists, then it must. You take it on faith that it can be proved to exist. Yet to you, right here, right now, it doesn't exist and you cannot prove to any poster here, right now, that it does exists. You can only produce photos (again faith that they are accurate and not taken in the suburbs of St. Louis or Los Angeles) and anecdotes as your evidence of existence. You can even go there, return, bring back souvenirs (symbols, available at many airports outside Nepal) and still not "prove" that it exists to your friends. They must take your argument on faith that your arguments do indeed constitute proof.
It's mental!
Its all mental!
It might be - but it isn't.
"Is it not possible that it has boxed itself into its own limited niche of thinking and experience? "
It could be, but it hasn't.
Science is astonishingly nimble and undogmatic. There is NOTHING that scientists like more than disproving things are revolutionizing today's theories. That is what they live for. That is their way to a Nobel Prize and immortality.
Anyone who can't see that just doesn't know the scientific community. And to equate the constantly changing scientific project with the relatively stagnant field of religion...?
well and good. Science cannot be blamed for saying that its methods are not conducive to the study of this or that area of experience.
but science should be rapped on the knuckles if it automatically rejects such experience as valid, legitimate or real or when it attempts to place such events outside of the realm of actuality.
SCIENCE SHOULD NOT PRETEND THAT MAN'S EXPERIENCE IS LIMITED TO THOSE EVENTS THAT SCIENCE CAN EXPLAIN!
4:10 PM CST
Quote :
..."However, you need not be a quantum physicist or an engineer to convince yourself that we cannot control reality just by thinking we can. We can see that with our own two eyes. It simply doesn't work. No one has ever become beautiful or rich just by visualizing it."...
Excellent article. The only reality the chiefs of woo voodoo are altering is their bank accounts when selling their books.
J.B.
8/4/10
http://www.hulu.com/watch/94807/paranormal-tv-kgb-psychic-files
Chris Henderson
politguard.com
http://thinkunity.com