Table of contents:
Background new theory
Description vs. understanding
The search for a crazy theory
Verification I and II
Verification through experiments
Theory - Article
The First Unified Theory
A contribution from a non-physicist
The atom is not the fundamental element of matter, but comprises the elements of a fundamental idea. The components registered are not material particles, but the concepts the fundamental idea is made of. The forces measured deep within the atom are not forces devoid of quality, but the attraction toward joy. The driving force in our reality is joy-maximation.
Background new theory
The statements above are culled from the new reductionistic governing theory we’ll cover in a moment. But first we must ask; why introduce a proposal for a Great Unifying Theory that's as crazy as this seems to be?
The answer is science’s requirement of rationality. It’s a theory’s superior ability to explain reality that gives it the right to dictate what is rational. (1) Today’s material paradigm has fundamental problems explaining all types of phenomena. We need a new governing theory crazy enough to solve the problems and dictate a new form of rationality.
Description vs. understanding
Albert Einstein is highly acclaimed as the originator of the Theory of Relativity and E = mc2 as well as for his contributions to Quantum Theory. “Yet”, writes physicist Brian Greene in an earlier version of his website The Elegant Universe, “many do not know that his greatest theory was never completed. (…) Einstein’s crowning work should have been a ‘unified field theory of matter’, an attempt ‘to read God’s thoughts’. Einstein was simply ahead of his time. More than half a century later, his dream of a unified theory has become the Holy Grail of modern physics.”
Physics’ contributions toward fulfilling Einstein’s Quest are impressive. Information about some parts of reality, particularly those found deep within the atom, has become extremely detailed. The search for a governing theory for understanding reality should have a greater chance of success than ever before. And yet - when viewed by a non-physicist who takes science’s own criterion for success literally – a very different impression emerges.
Reductionists sum up science’s aspirations and requirements for a Theory Of Everything / Grand Unified Theory thus: “If you understand everything about the ingredients,(…) you understand everything.” The phenomena slated to be the ingredients were physics’ elementary material particles and forces. They are very accurately described, but not a soul on the planet understands the first thing about these anomalies. For instance, science has described both gravity and the u-quark with painstaking accuracy, but doesn't understand the first thing about why separate bodies are attracted to one another or where the quarks’ properties come from. The same goes for all the other ingredients. They’re accurately described, but we don’t understand anything about them. If we take the reductionists at their word, we can sum up the situation quite simply: Since we understand nothing about the ingredients, we understand nothing.
Stephen W. Hawking has determined that science has abandoned the task of solving The Great Riddle. In A Brief History of Time he writes: “We find ourselves in a bewildering world. We want to make sense of what we see around us and to ask: What is the nature of the universe? What is our place in it, and where did it and we come from? Why is it the way it is?” But in practical terms, that’s not what science concentrates on finding out, says Hawking: “In effect, we have redefined the task of science to be the discovery of laws that will enable us to predict events (….). The question remains, however: How or why were the laws and the initial state of the universe chosen?” and “Up to now, most scientists have been too occupied with the development of new theories that describe what the universe is to ask why.”
Hawking is saying science isn’t working on developing understanding. It’s working on developing descriptions. Solidly verified descriptions are excellent, per se. But solidly verified descriptions do not equate to the verification of understanding. As a result, the contribution from physics is different than many have thought. What many have believed is a solid solution to The Great Riddle is really nothing more than an extremely accurate description of It.
What makes science special as a method isn’t that it gathers information. Everyone does that. What makes it special is the obligation to verify all knowledge by examining whether the rules of logic characteristic for a hypothesis fit in explaining all types of phenomena. Today's ruling hypothesis consists of the assertion that reality is made from material elements. Therefore, the tools of logic we can build explanations with today are lifeless material elements, causes within time and space, blind physical laws, and coincidences.
After implementing these tools to explain the five main types of phenomena, the results look like this:
I ) Elementary/fundamental physical phenomena:None can be explained as having causes in time and space. Like miracles, they all pop up from nothing.
II ) Other central characteristics from Physics: Forces, the balance between force/counter-force, the accumulation of elementary phenomena to form atoms, mass, energy, relativity, the quantification of energy, etc. are acknowledged despite their each representing a breach with the original expectations of an understandable material world. At the present time, we don’t understand anything about what they are or why they are the way they are.
III) Intricate design: The first living cell, the development of species and the development of eco-systems must be explained as having arisen through coincidences – the property that above all else is characterized by its inability to produce complex and intricate design.
IV) Ordinary idea-based phenomena: The description of the ingredients doesn't help solve “the spirit/matter paradox”. Consciousness, intelligence, feelings, the formation of ideas, learning, memory retention, and more become miraculous phenomena springing from ingredients containing no trace of these qualities.
V ) Extraordinary idea-based phenomena: ESP, synchronicity, experiences of extreme Joy, near-death-experiences, miracles, etc. The rules of logic in today's current paradigm do not fit this type of phenomena. Based on todays established theory, phenomena like these are refuted as being impossible - whether they represent real phenomena or not.
The verification results are negative. None of the five types of phenomenon can be explained using the tools in the material paradigm’s toolbox. The logic leads to complicated or incomprehensible explanations, the phenomena are totally bizarre. It seems the reductionists are right. When we don’t understand the ingredients, we understand nothing. Verification is supplanted by belief and hope. We end up with an edict that forces the logic upon the phenomena and raises the hypothesis’ status to that of theory even though it has never been verified with positive results.
According to Thomas Kuhn (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions), this situation is the norm prior to a paradigm shift. Normal-science bases its work on the idea science knows what the world is. The scientific community is therefore less interested in unexplainable phenomena and verification. In fact, according to Paul Feyerabend (Against Method), the situation is probably even more serious. “…we must become clear about the nature of the total phenomenon: appearance plus statement. There are not two acts – one, noticing a phenomenon, the other experiencing it with the help of the appropriate statement – but only one, (...) describing a familiar situation is, for the speaker, an event in which statement and phenomenon are firmly glued together.” And this in no way reflects negatively on normal-science. On the contrary; continued support of prevailing hypotheses during periods of fundamental problems is crucial in establishing the paradigm’s true potential.
But if the problems persist, it’s time to take these unexplainable phenomena seriously and use them as the foundation for what Kuhn calls revolutionary-science.
The task, in other words, is to look for a hypothesis that can be verified with positive results. We’re looking for something that breaches the rules of logic that today define what is rational (reason). Or, as Niels Bohr once told his colleague Wolfgang Pauli: “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.”
Traditionally, efforts to solve the Great Riddle have followed two different strategies. One has dominated science up to now, and is referred to here as the matter-based strategy. The other has dominated religion and mysticism. For the sake of clarity, I call it the idea-based strategy. In the 1980’s physicist David Bohm suggested applying scientific methods to the idea-based strategy. The reason for this rather drastic proposal was the accumulation of anomalies /unexplainable phenomena. Normal-science had had ample time and resources to solve the problems, but hadn't succeeded. In his view, the time had come for revolutionary-science. And he put forth a specific proposal.
The Institute of Physics’ student association at the University of Oslo, invited Norwegian author Erik Dammann to open a discussion on this topic on May 3, 1988. There he introduced Bohm’s entreaty saying: “Indeed, one can say everything I’ve talked about points toward an inversion of the relationship between spirit and matter as it has been understood in science: While spirit has traditionally been discussed as being a result of material processes in the individual brain, now being discussed is a universal spiritual principle that is both unlimited and superior to material processes. According to David Bohm, it then becomes natural to imagine mankind’s spirit as having sprung out of, or as an expression of, one such spiritual principle. – ‘Let us take these ideas seriously’, says Bohm: ‘Let us explore it!’”
The search for a crazy theory
OK. Let’s look for a new theory the way Bohm proposes we should. I’ve formulated his “universal spiritual principle” as “an entity of infinite Consciousness and Intelligence”. I’ve also given it the status of Single Principle in anticipation of it embodying everything necessary to fulfill the requirement of being the cause for all effects. Here it is:
An entity of infinite CONSCIOUSNESS and INTELLIGENCE is THE CORE of REALITY. IT has always existed (2), will always exist, and is the cause for all effects.
Utilizing a similar starting point, religions’ efforts in explaining reality have produced good explanations for the following types of phenomena: intricate design (the first living cell, species, ecological systems, etc.), ordinary idea-based phenomena (consciousness, intelligence, ideas, feelings, etc.), and extraordinary idea-based phenomena (telepathy, synchronicity, healing, miracles, and so on). But when it comes to the specific riddles physics has described with impressive accuracy, they’ve fallen brutally short. If science is to employ this strategy, it must be discovered whether the new starting point has logical consequences that can help solve these problems.
(For the time being, take note of this: The assumption about THE CORE gives us a cause for the existence of the universe. This was one of the things the old theory’s logic couldn’t give us. To be better, a new had to have a logic that could.)
Having first said A, it’s simple enough to get to B: With CONSCIOUSNESS and INTELLIGENCE as the starting point, master ideas are formed. These master ideas are realized automatically and create reality. (They are realized automatically and create reality because they are reality. Reality is not material, it is the realization of an idea.)
Instead of this formulation, I will be using the extended version below. The reason needn’t be covered here
Consequence 1- Basic Function (Extended version.)
With CONSCIOUSNESS and INTELLIGENCE as the starting point, master ideas comprised of two parts are formed. The first part describes Intended Creation. The second describes the possibilities for its realization. As the master idea describes reality, so becomes the universe.
The principle underlying this assertion is that the ideas formed by THE CORE OF REALITY are realized automatically and are the cause of all effects. The ideas about the fundamentals are called master ideas. But here we must stop for a moment. When it comes to ideas, all of us have a lot of experience. As far as we can tell from those experiences, ideas are incapable of creating anything tangible. Before we can continue, we must be able to understand the assertion in a way that doesn’t conflict with our everyday experiences. Suppose then, there are two types of ideas.
The one type of idea describes everything necessary to define a reality. Now suppose, because it’s the only type of idea which describes a universe, it’s also the only type that can be Causes, i.e. it’s the only type able to realize itself and create a universe. A master idea, then, is the type of idea that describes and creates a universe.
The other type of idea describes what we need to know to navigate the reality the master idea has defined and created. It could be ideas that convey something of the dangers in this reality, of the possibilities it holds, how to attain one’s goals, what’s logical and what’s not, what’s enjoyable and what’s not, and so on. These ideas do not create a reality; they are just law-abiding effects of our master idea. We can call this type of idea spin-off ideas.
Spin-off ideas are no problem to explain. They fit in nicely with our everyday experiences.
The master idea actually poses no problem, either. It’s common knowledge that the physical reality we inhabit resembles our mental images of it. With the old theory, the explanation for the resemblance is that the physical world has made these images look the way they do. With the new hypothesis, the explanation is that the mental images made the physical world become the way it has become. At present, we don’t know whether our reality is idea-based or not. But at this early stage, we can see this proposal of a new understanding harmonizes well with our everyday experiences.
(Notice how an ancient paradox disappears: Behind the limits of everything we can see in the universe, there must be something more, and behind this “more”, there must be something more still, … . In short, the universe can’t be limited in its dimensions. And an idea simply outlines a condition, a principle. Principles have no dimensional limits.)
Now. One important characteristic of reality is that it doesn’t change from moment to moment. In this way, the universe as we know it is highly stable. Having put forth the assertion this stable universe is created from a master idea, we must also assume this idea must be one with a specific content. Which begs the question, what sort of content? What would the infinite CONSCIOUSNESS and INTELLIGENCE come up with to make a MASTER IDEA out of?
Because CONSCIOUSNESS and INTELLIGENCE automatically becomes a participant in the reality IT creates, IT will choose the most enjoyable and fulfilling ideas to create reality from. This brings us from B to C:
Consequence 2 – Governing Force
With CONSCIOUSNESS and INTELLIGENCE as the starting point for the formation of ideas, the attraction toward joy becomes the governing force and joy-maximation the steering principle for creation.
(Notice that forces are now explained; another central phenomenon the old theory couldn’t explain and that, to be a better theory, the new had to be able to explain better.)
Creating joy is something we know a whole lot about. To reach this end, we usually try to arrange our surroundings so it’s enjoyable for us to live in them. We see ourselves as kids and try to organize the world into an enjoyable playground. If we take a look at the world around us, it seems CONSCIOUSNESS & INTELLIGENCE maximizes joy by going creatively amok. IT acts as though all individuals share consciousness and are therefore capable of sharing the joy experienced by every other individual – IT maximizes joy by making joy-guaranteed KIDS and PLAYGROUNDS in myriads of forms.
If THE CORE not only creates the world from ideas, but from a MASTER IDEA that’s maximally joyful, then reality should be ultimately JOYFUL with no effort on our part. Experience tells us this isn’t the case. Very little can be done here without trials and tribulations, and the most salient feature of joy is its habitual scarcity. On this point, science is brutally explicit: Phenomena are everything. Theories are nothing. This leaves only two possibilities. Either this draft of an idea-based theory of reality has already proven itself wrong, or there’s something missing in its toolbox.
We’ve come to one of the biggest surprises of an idea-based reality: Master ideas create in their image. (Consistent with the master idea’s content.) We don’t usually think about it, but activity is the application of a specific idea. Activity - the application of the idea the goal is out of reach. Whereas applying the idea to wait and receive (a goal) – is practicing the idea the goal will be given us.
We were at C and can move on to D:
Consequence 3 – New Logic.
Only applied master ideas create reality. (Theoretical ideas, or master ideas which are not put into practice, create no reality.)
An idea-based reality is deaf and blind to theories or unapplied master ideas. It reacts only to ideas we use. And it doesn’t matter whether or not we know we have and are practicing a master idea. When we don’t understand the idea-based logic, we choose an active attitude with the intention of getting a hold of what we desire, hence we practice an idea where happiness is not here, but there – thus launching a reality where everything we desire is spread out, a scattered universe – a physical universe with time and space: