Are we beginning to see a major paradigm shift, steadily moving away from the prevailing physicalist, materialist.mechanistic mindset?
Integral theory is one attempt to move beyond any narrow,exclusive views of reality proclaimed by representives of science, religion, philosophy, spiritual traditions or whatever. Jennifer Gidley writes about integral thinking and the evolution of consciousness here
There are periods in human and cultural evolution when humanity passes through such fundamental transformations that our reality shifts and new patterns of thought are required to make sense of the unfolding human drama . . . The profound transformation we are now witnessing has been emerging on a global scale over millennia and has matured to a tipping point and rate of acceleration that has radically altered and will continue to alter our human condition in every aspect. We must therefore expand our perspective and call forth unprecedented narrative powers to name, diagnose, and articulate this shift… Integral philosopher Ashok Gangadean in the opening quotation encapsulates what many integral theorists have been voicing over the past decade. It is this integral research on emergent movement(s) of consciousness that I am referring to as the evolution of consciousness discourse This research points to the emergence of a new structure,stage(s) or movement of consciousness that has been referred to by various terms, most notably, post-formal integral and planetary.
Jude Currivan says that instead of big bang we have the big breath. The “outbreath” that gives rise to the physical unverse. Matter and energy are the products of information. The physical universe is in-formed as she puts it.
She discusses her views here in “Restating and reunifying reality: Our in-formed and holographic universe”.
This is part of an annual Mystics and Scientists conference promoted by The Scientific & Medical Network
The metaphor of the big bang conjures up images of a destructive explosion leading to chaos. But we should imagine the universe as a birth of order and organisation and this is more in keeping with a breathing process by which we communicate compositions of song, poetry and prose. Evolution is the creation of order out of chaos.
So are we seeing a movement to a more integrated, holistic understanding of reality where, rather than being a mere by product of a particular arrangement of matter, consciousness plays a primal, central role? The cosmos is breathed into existence, the out-breathing Word, the Logos, creates the living universe. Consciousness is the alpha and omega.
I don’t think there is a shift in paradigms, at least not the ones described in the OP.
If anything, it’s the opposite.
In my view, the main obstacle at the root of the problem is the Copernican Principle – that the Earth and us are nothing special.
According to the math applied to relativity, the universe should be expanding much, much faster.This very fact is not just a minor miscalculation. It’s by 10 ^120.
At least some aspects of relativity have been experimentally proven to be wrong.
But, no one wants to entertain an idea of geocentrism, or going back to ether because it would mean that 400 years of physics and cosmology have been a failure… It’s a catch 22.
The frequent inconsistency between theory and observation is what drives science generally. As Isaac Asimov wrote, “the most important phrase in science is not ‘Eureka, I’ve found it’ but rather ‘hmmm…that’s funny'”.
“Dark matter” might or might not refer to matter at all. It’s actually a code phrase denoting the observation that galaxies don’t appear to behave as gravity (from observable sources) would dictate. Something is clearly insufficient and/or inaccurate in either our theory or our observations or both.
Most investigation today focuses on improving the quality of our observations, because it’s difficult to modify the theory of gravity to account for galactic motion while STILL explaining all it does — and would also explain galaxies IF there were some currently invisible gravitational source.
(And contrast this with Macfarlane’s stretched analogy. Those searching for dark matter are trying to explain anomalous observations. Exactly the reverse of searching for nonexistent observations to support a belief in something imaginary.)
Both dark matter and dark energy begin to resemble the discredited by Einstein’s relativity ether. In the current model of the universe-in the Copernican principle-ether could explain faster than the speed of light communication in quantum entanglement…
I don’t know enough to address this. My very limited understanding is that dark matter refers to galaxies not spinning apart even though the gravity associated with the visible stars isn’t enough to prevent it. I think there are other indications, like the gases in colliding galaxies behaving as though some force were acting on them beyond the gravitation attractions of the stars.
And my equally limited understand of dark energy refers to observations indicating that the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing, despite no known force that would cause or explain it.
Finally, I think these dark things are hypothetical agencies visible to us only through their side-effects, not (yet) detectable locally. I have not seen either one being associated with Einstein, Copernicus, or entanglement. Do you have some links?
Dark matter and energy are placeholders for stuff needed to balance equations. Kind of the way Neptune and Pluto were hypothesized to account for perturbations in orbits.
I think you got the fundamentals right.
The presumed existence of dark matter is based on the Keplerian gaiactic motion based on the assumption that gravity is constant throughout cross sections of
the galaxies that appear to be spinning too fast. Many critics feel that the current lack of understanding of gravity is responsible for the assumption that dark matter must exist…
Yep. It’s all based on the current big bang model.
“The theory of relativity didn’t disprove aether, but it provided a simpler explanation that didn’t require an absolute omnipresent medium for the motion of light. Einstein proposed that light traveled at a constant speed through a vacuum, and that everything is moving relative to everything else. An aether wasn’t needed as a fixed reference framework for the universe because time and space were relative, part of one continuum. Spacetime was the new aether.
In that sense, the Michelson–Morley experiment wasn’t a failure at all, but a titanic turning point in the way scientists considered the very nature of time and space. Twenty years later, Michelson became the first American scientist to win the Nobel Prize in Physics, for developing instruments used to accurately measure the speed of light.
Soon after special relativity, French physicist Louis de Broglie proposed another revolutionary theory. He found that electron particles may also have the properties of a wave, and matter on an atomic scale has the same dual nature as light. This groundbreaking hypothesis led to the theory of quantum mechanics, which also had no need for aether…
More recently, the spirit of aether has even come back into the discussion of the cosmos, thanks to the mysterious discoveries of dark matter and dark energy, the elusive force believed to be the cause of the accelerating expansion of the universe. It’s not hard to see the parallels between the aether of yore used to fill in the gaps of understanding and this new invisible, imponderable energy. In fact, a form of dark energy proposed by physicists in the 1980s was dubbed “quintessence” after the fifth element of antiquity.
The new quintessence has been described as a fifth fundamental force, after the four conventional forces of nature known to physics: gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear forces. Dark matter and dark energy can’t be readily explained by any known theories of physics, which is leading scientists to consider whether there is another, yet-unknown force. Might as well call it aether.”
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a23895030/aether/
This article is more detailed but it’s behind the paywall. I have it downloaded on my computer at the office, so I can emial it to you, if need be.
Einstein killed the aether. Now the idea is back to save relativity
The luminiferous aether has become a byword for failed ideas. Now it is being revived to explain dark matter and dark energy, and potentially unify physics
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24432543-300-einstein-killed-the-aether-now-the-idea-is-back-to-save-relativity/#ixzz69VgTbGqp
J-Mac,
Interesting stuff.
My hunch has been that there is something seriously flawed with relativity, but I think scientists are kind of loathe to go back and start from square one. They are kind of like the fake skeptics here, they just accept what they are told and go on from there, until some maverick comes along and says, “hey wait a second…” then all they sudden they are like “of course!”
You can find literally hundreds of papers on alternatives to relativity proposed to explain the same observations that led to the inferences of dark matter and dark energy. Your fatuous insinuation that scientists are resistant to starting from square one is a fantasy you’ve dreamt up.
There is not such need if the Copernican Principle model is abandoned…
Ahh yes of course, let’s abandon the idea that is implied by every observation in astronomy ever.
We look out into the cosmos and see galaxies, made of stars, which have planets around them in orbit.
We see that our own solar system is part of one such galaxy too, we see that the sun is just another star, that other stars have planets orbiting around them and so on and so forth. But no, this one planet, placed halfway out in the spiral arm of this average galaxy, is the literal center of everything.
Other planets orbit their stars. Other stars orbit their galaxies. Other galaxies orbit their clusters, yadda yadda.
True for everything else. But not us. Here, the relationship is reversed. The closest star orbits the planet, indeed the entire galaxy does. Attached at some arbitrary point in one of it’s spiral arms, at some lunatic angle, it sits there and spins around that point in it’s arm. But not only that, you can now extend that to the entire fucking cosmos.
This idea is so fatuous no sane person can entertain it for more than a microsecond.
Many aspects of relativity seem to work but current spacetime theory can’t account for such things as quantum entanglement, which is faster than the speed of light.
So, in relativity, there is a desperate need for a new or another theory of spacetime, at least.
No need for anything if sanity is abandoned.
OK, here’s where I have problems. Neither dark matter nor dark energy have been “discovered”. These are place-holder phrases denoting a set of observations inconsistent with current theories. Indeed, neither one has been discovered despite considerable searching. So we’re back where I started: either something is lacking in our theories, our observations, or both.
True. But same should apply to science, if the theory doesn’t match observations, no?
I couldn’t agree more…
It seems relativity and gravity have some inconsistencies.
On the other hand, quantum mechanics has never been proven experimentally wrong, so in what direction should the progress be headed?
Does quantum mechanics predict the observed results of the Eclipse of 1919?
All you are really saying, is that relativity isn’t a “theory of everything.”
I don’t see any reason to get worked up about that. We will probably never have a successful theory of everything.
The Newtonian mechanics also predicted the bending of light. Why was Newtonian mechanics replaced by Einstein’s relativity then?
Einstein prodicted that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light and called quantum entanglement spooky. He was wrong about entanglement. Why should Einstein’s spacetime be above quantum mechanics, if it’s been proven wrong by countless experiments?
Where do I say that exactly?
This is your predicted solution?
Why even bother commenting?
Hitchhiker’s amendment to the encyclopedia entry.
Nothing useful travel faster than light.
Neither matter nor information.
Stupidity apparently has no limits… Can it travel faster than light? What do ya think?😉
To the best of my knowledge, both relativity and quantum mechanics have passed every experimental or observational test yet devised for them. So I agree with current thinking that progress should be headed in the direction of improving our observation techniques. It’s well known that these two theories are incompatible at some level, but exactly how either or both could be improved will need to wait for relevant observation, which probably means suitable instrumentation — with the problem that instrumentation design is guided by theory, so this enterprise is circular (and always has been).
The necessary instrumentation is always impossible.
Until it isn’t.
Please don’t start this “until it isn’t” Munging crap.
The ability of GR to more accurately predict the amount of deflection, as well as the ability to account for the precession of Mercury , to start.
True.
Seems like it, the question is, do you have a model that is better about the stuff Einstein was right about?
Just asked if quantum mechanics could predict the amount of deflection of the light, any thoughts?
We’ve been through QM entanglement and Faster Than Light signalling before, but you asked for my comments in Sandbox so I will try one more time.
First, you have to separate Special Relativity and General Relativity, and not just talk about relativity.
GR and QM are not compatible in extreme gravitational conditions like black holes. We don’t have a unified theory of quantum gravity.
But QM and Special Relativity have been unified. That’s what Quantum Field Theory is. So the constraints of SR still apply in QM and QFT.
Hence, you cannot send signals faster than light. That’s the meaning of the Communication Theorem; it is proved from mathematical statements of QFT: “it is not possible for one observer, by making a measurement of a subsystem of the total state, to communicate information to another observer”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem
So our best theories prohibit FTL communication. I know the author of the article uses that word in the paragraph you quote in Sandbox. But he does not mean the ordinary sense of the word, for in a later next paragraph he gives an explanation of why quantum measurement of entangled systems cannot be used to send a signal.
Still, you are right to think that entanglement means we have to rethink our metaphysics of spacetime. Einstein knew that but he wanted to avoid it, calling it “spooky action at a distance”. He wrote his EPR paper to suggest one way to avoid that consequence; he said QM was incomplete and needed hidden variables. Bell showed how to test that idea, and the tests show Einstein’s hope fails to materialize.
So instead, we have to deal with “spooky action at a distance”. A standard metaphysics suggestion is that entangled systems lack “state separability”. That means that knowing separate state of each of two entangled particles particle A, B is not enough. There is more information available only from the overall state AB. That’s the quantum correlation of entangled systems.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physics-holism/#StateT
Relativity failed at quantum entanglement even though some still insist it has not.
This fact makes many people nervous that such a good theory could be incomplete, or even dead wrong.
QM has past all the tests so far. Will QM be compatible with dark matter or energy, if they are ever found? Ether seems more probable due to the reality of quantum entanglement that allows the teleportation of matter and can no longer be swept under the rug…
The new or another theory of spacetime is a must.
True.
If the Copernican Principle is correct.
There are some… if ether is going to be to make a comeback.
Back to ether and if QM is compatible with it…
Since QM is mainly about probabilities, for now, it’s unlikely, until the new spacetime theory is constructed…Then, anything is possible 😀
Nope. QM theory, namely the Schrodinger equation, is deterministic.
The Born probabilities come into play after decoherence.
Dechoerence mostly explains what we see in measurement. .It does explain why we never see superpositions, only classical states. But it does not explain why we need probabilities to explain the results of decohered (ie measured) systems.
To approach the nature of these probabilities, you need to select a QM interpretation. In two of the three main realist interpretations, and in the non-realist interpretations, the probabilities are in us, not in reality. That is, the probabilities reflect gaps in our knowledge in some sense, somewhat like probabilities in classical mechanics..
Only in the GRW interpretation are probabilities part of reality.. But GRW requires changes to the Schrodinger equation.
And with that, I’m going to say that is it for me in my attempts to explain QM in response to your posts. I’ve reached my pontification max.on that topic.
Perhaps, but for sure it won’t be coming from you will it? You are just another person who knows for sure what is wrong but who has no idea what is right.
And the world is full of them, no more needed thank you.
If if if. All you do is say If X then Y and then act as X was proven.
When will your paper regarding ether be published? Where?
“In modern physics, the double-slit experiment is a demonstration that light and matter can display characteristics of both classically defined waves and particles; moreover, it displays the fundamentally probabilistic nature of quantum mechanical phenomena.
phenomena => measurement
It’s okay, Macfarland was just giving his impression of these places from his experience of them. He was not intending to be blasphemous about science 🙂
When Macfarlane asks Christopher why he is searching for dark matter he replied, ‘To further our knowledge and to give life meaning.’
Christopher stated further:
For Christopher his subterranean lab is a place of faith. I doubt that he would be spending his life searching for something if he did not have faith in its existence. His faith in God has been replaced by a faith in matter.
We are all looking for answers and I would much rather people were enthusiastic and passionate in their undertakings than apathetic. Having completely different and even opposite philosophies of life does not prevent people from having a religious attitude in their search for meaning. This attitude need not involve being dogmatic about it.
IMO religion should be about the will of the individual, self determination in a way that is of benefit to others. Each person becoming selfless through their own volition. Science should be about gaining and sharing knowledge. Religion should be personal, each to his or her own. Science should be shared. Scientific knowledge disseminated and not treated as though it were a personal possession that others have no right to have access to. Religion, personal betterment through the will. Science, gaining universal concepts by means of thinking.
Of course life gets in the way of these ideals. Both religion and science fall short, Each domain interferes in areas where it does not belong. And the conflicts resulting from this have their source as inner conflicts each of us have to wrestle with. Plato’s allegory of the chariot comes to mind here.
No it doesn’t. It looks like scientists engaging in science as it should be. Making observations, looking at inconsistencies and thinking about how they can be resolved.
History tells me that paradigms shift all the time. I believe there are the attempted beginnings of shifts seen in organisations such as the following:
The Third Way of Evolution, The Scientific & Medical Network, Schumacher College in the UK and The Nature Institute in the USA. It is my hope that these places, no matter how imperfect and insignificant they might appear to be, are the delicate shoots that will result in new growth.
It’s up to us whether we are plunged further into materialism/physicalism or we begin the ascent to the heights that thinking can take us. Either way we will get the future we ourselves have chosen.
They do. However, there is always a lot of resistance to change…
Someone once said: ” Science progresses one funeral at the time…”
Same could apply to worldviews, because the issue is not about science. It’s about the change of worldviews that progressive science requires. So, the paradigm shift is about worldviews that need to be changed, or adjusted, due to progressive science that contradicts those paradigms…
How would that change the measurement of the location of the star relative to the Earth or the measurement of the deflection?
We have sent probes throughout the solar system, seems like “ether” might of been detected. Not sure how ether model explains the deflection or predict accurately the amount of it.
But thought quantum mechanics was the Holy Grail.
Then it seems like at the present time the most useful model is the present one rather than some undefined possibility.
It’s probably buried in the tychonic model, which applies to gravity due to the circular motion of galaxies…
Not necessarily.
Michelson–Morley experiment was killed by Einstein’s relativity. Do you know how?
It’s not. Something is missing…
True but it looks less and less useful…
How cute, you provide a citation to yourself quoting someone saying something that does not support you.
Now is the time for an actual citation. Do you know how?
For once, we are in agreement. Something is missing J-Mac, you are missing something quite significant.
Whereas of course your internet meanderings are “useful”.
CharlieM,
And just like that, you double down on your pathetic attempt to drag us down to your petty religious level of infinite gullibility. Ha! Nice try but no cigar. But of course you’re free to keep telling yourself that crap, after all that’s what your worldview is all about, convincing yourself of whatever gives you the warm fuzzies regardless of whether it’s true or false, or whether it makes sense at all.
And what’s with you guys and figurative speech? Hint: that’s what Macfarlane is doing when he says that his faith in god has been replaced by a “much changed form of faith”
If it works for Charlie, why not? What’s the harm?
Rather than warm fuzziness, the feeling that I cannot live up to my responsibilities is frightening.
Macfarlane didn’t say this, Christopher (the physicist he was interviewing) did.
I don’t mind CharlieM believing whatever he wishes, but the very fact of his participation here suggests a keen interest in having the rest of us recognize the validity of his beliefs.
Speaking for myself here, I find such an immense conceptual and linguistic gulf between myself and CharlieM that discussion is almost impossible. I try to keep my interventions in these discussions to a minimum so as to minimize my own frustration.
CharlieM has some weird ideas. But I can still be friendly to him, without taking his ideas too seriously.
It is harder with the J-Mac style of weird ideas.
The harm is that these guys can vote 🙄
Well, sure! But the issue isn’t belief, it’s using and abusing a political system to enforce compliance in some religious doctrine such as banning abortion or gay marriage. Until a group takes that route, secularism has to allow that freedom of thought, surely.
Sharing an idea or belief isn’t a bad way to be obliged to justify or reconsider it, no?
Just to be clear, I stand behind their right to belief that bullshit, whether it’s Steiner or J-Mac’s quantum woo, but it’s still a problem because when too many people have stupid beliefs in democracy, bad things happen. These anti-science crackpots are a threat to (mainly state funded) science
You don’t need to tell me. Boris/Brexit!!! 🙁