It is possible that materialism, the doctrine that "life can be explained by a complex combination of physical and chemical laws," can be accepted for so long by most scientists. Perhaps the reason is that the emotional need to exalt the problem, which I want to devote all my life.
-Ezhen Wigner
Uncharted life is not worth living
-Socrates
Invisible matter, 10 invisible sizes, vibrating superstrings, swelling universes, unknown worlds 10E500, collapsing wave functions, antimatter, a particle of God, black holes, colliding multi-moon branes, big bangs, big clusters and hot deaths.
This is the world of modern cosmology. A field of thought that has lost its way - although few seem to notice.
While many of us are busy with everyday life, raising families, putting food on the table, corking, testing the latest electronic gadgets and following the romantic life of celebrities, our leading scientists have gathered a worldview that makes good science fiction, if it has not been written in college textbooks, taught to our children and was considered part of the scientific mainstream.
We gave the scientists an explanation of the world and with time, we assume that they will return with the appropriate answer.
Assigning this important task to scientists frees us from problems with big questions: who are we, what are we doing here and where is the world going.
This may not seem such a bad deal, except for one fact: we have only one life, and the transfer of control over our fundamental belief systems to modern science without any critical or independent review may seem a bit short-sighted, if not reckless.
Today, it is intellectually fashionable to attack the new Agras, the spiritualists, and the intellectual design movement in the name of Almighty Science, while the belief system of science is hardly questioned. This is because we have come to believe that science is the vanguard of reason, experiment, and truth, while spiritualism is practiced by those who cannot reconcile with reality.
And, of course, we can all accept this point of view and simply assume that, while we are on the side of science, we will win the argument.
But it is not so easy. It turns out that if we carefully consider the theoretical framework of modern science, we will find a fatal flaw. This disadvantage is that our modern scientific worldview is based on the concept of reality that scientists know is not true.
What is this dubious concept of reality?
That the self-sufficient world of matter and space exists independently of the mind and operates out of the control of the mind. This is a fundamental assumption for the whole modern theory of science, from medical science, which treats diseases as if they occurred in the body, into cosmology, which seeks the secrets of the whole universe far in the world, and not deep inside the soul.
Scientists have convinced themselves that they can not do science, not allowing an independent outlook. For example, the late Harvard biologist Ernst Mayr writes: “Despite the openness of science to new facts and hypotheses, it must be said that almost all scientists - in some way, as theologians - bring a set of what we could call the" first principles ", them to explore the natural world. One of these axiomatic assumptions is that there is a real world that does not depend on human perception. ” Lee Smolin, in his remarkable book The Problem with Physics, writes that, in his opinion, the mission of science is to “give an account of reality, as it would be in our absence.”
This “first principle” of science is connected with the well-known remark of the eighteenth century philosopher, Bishop George Berkeley, who made the completely opposite conclusion: in Berkeley, “matter” is just a mental construct that does not have an independent existence except reason. Being, Berkeley said, must be perceived. The world does not exist if someone does not perceive it. And who perceives the world, even when an individual does not look? Berkeley's Answer: The Eternal Spirit of God.
Modern scholars obediently mock Berkeley, as if the practice of science itself depended on Berkeley making a mistake. And scientific realism — the notion that the real world exists independently of perception — is in part a reflection against Berkeley. Science wants the world to be more than a product of the mind or a dream, but in the end the question arises whether this desire is a demand of science or just a comforting thought. David Hume (1711-1776), the great philosopher of the 18th century, after a critical study of this very problem, came to the conclusion that, since all that is ever present in the mind is perception, faith in a world independent of mind, has no rational or empirical but it is just a psychological demand of the mind. (A Treatise on Human Nature, Book 1, Section II).
As we shall see, it is this concept of realism — the undeniable certainty that an independent world exists outside of consciousness — leads to the fact that modern science goes astray and fails its theories. They do it at the same time as their leading theories of the physical world - quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity - believe that such a world, independent of the mind, does not exist. Thus, we can see the problems associated with this materialistic worldview.
The main conclusion of quantum theory is that the spherical universe, the world of self-sustaining particles, which exist independently of consciousness, does not define the “real world”. Many leading scientists agree:
- "The doctrine that the world consists of objects whose existence does not depend on human consciousness, is in conflict with quantum mechanics and with the facts established by experiment." D & Espagnat, Bernard, Quantum Theory of Reality, Scientific American, November 1979.
- "[A]independent reality in the ordinary physical sense cannot be attributed to phenomena or organs of observation. ” Nils Bohr, "Quantum Postulate" and "New Development of Atomic Theory."
- "There is no way to interpret quantum theory without colliding with consciousness." F. Kuttner & B. Rosenbloom, Quantum Engima
- "The basis of quantum theory is even more revolutionary: it argues that an ideal objective knowledge of the world is impossible, because there is no objective world." D. Lindley, The End of Physics: The Myth of the Unified Theory 62 (The Basic Book (1993).
- "There is no conceptual concept of reality based on a picture or theory ... a physical theory or a picture of the world is a model ... and a set of rules that link the elements of a model with observations." S. Hawking and L. Mlodinov, The Grand Design.
Albert Einstein's famous theory of relativity also dealt a more subtle blow to the model of an independent world. Einstein showed that in our universe there is no absolute reference system; we are not placed in a fixed spatial infrastructure, a background of a scene that stays in place, regardless of the entire whirling, rotating, radiating movement occurring in the foreground. Rather, space and time are relative to the observer.
Materialistic science is thus in a hopeless contradiction: the materialists believe that they need an independent world to carry out the discipline of science, but at the same time, their two leading theories tell them that there is no such world.
As it turned out, the modern scientific model of the independent world led it to a number of deep theoretical difficulties, as scientists try to carry out a scientific method tied to a false model of reality. The following is a brief list of how the model of the independent world distorts science:
- The problem is something from nothing. The standard scientific explanation for the creation of the universe is the Big Bang theory. However, the main problem with this theory is that no one knows where the whole exploding case came from, or why it decided to form into the universe. This is quite a big problem, because there is nothing to blow up without matter.
This problem goes away if the world is created by consciousness, as we know, night dreams and daytime visions, mirages and hallucinations, that our mind is capable of summoning the real world out of nothing without the help of the Big Bang,
- Task order. The main dilemma with the objective world model is that when scientists separate the “objective world” from the mind, there is no reason to form exploding debris from the Big Bang into the mathematical harmony of nature - from crystals and snowflakes to the DNA molecule and the spiral of galaxies. This dilemma forces scientists to resort to one of two approaches: either they accept the laws of nature as given, either they don’t look for explanations, or they believe trillions on trillions of other universes exist, leaving us happy inhabitants of the universe with the right combination of particles and forces. (See Hawking and Mlodinow, The Grand Design).
The problem of order - and the need to imagine trillions of other universes - also quickly disappears if the world is created by consciousness, because the mind can always organize its own dream.
- 95% of the universe is missing. Since few people pay much attention to modern theories of modern cosmologists, it may seem like a surprise that 95% of the universe is virtually absent. What does it mean? This means that in order to take into account the current configuration of the cosmos, such as its spatial geometry, the formation of galaxies and the accelerated expansion of the Universe, cosmologists have suggested that the mysterious forms of invisible matter and energy make up 95% of all matter and energy in the Universe.
Again, the need for the hypothesis of the existence of trillions of tons of invisible matter disappears if the world is a dream; the configuration of the visible universe is a work of art, which is ultimately controlled by the mind's striving for order and beauty, and not by impersonal physical laws.
- Creating life from dead particles - the objective world model of science also creates chaos in an attempt to explain the origin of life. If there is a real world that does not depend on human perception, then this also means that the human body does not depend on human perception. This again means that scientists must invent a way for dead particles to come to life or become alive. The specific problem is that scientists must find a way for the Big-Bang residue to form into a highly specialized coded particle, known as a DNA molecule, without the aid of intelligence. Of course, scientists have not yet managed to create life in the laboratory.
This problem also disappears if the world is created by consciousness. Physical forms of life become vehicles through which the mind experiences its creation.
The concept of creating the world can be a radical concept for those modern scientists who have based their careers on materialism. But if we apply the scientific method objectively and without prejudice, it is not difficult to see that the worldview of the mind for the first time explains more than the worldview of the Big Bang. In accordance with the principles of science, this makes the first-order model a better theory. Isn't that important?
Are the last days of materialism?
