Loading ...
Sep
26
Reality Check
For Albert Einstein, arguably the greatest physicist of the twentieth century, everything in the physical world had to have an independent reality. That is, it had to exist independently of any observation or measurement of it. This applied to large objects as well as to particles, like the electron. This concept of an independent reality of the physical world originated with Galileo in the seventeenth century. He did two things which affected all subsequent science. First, he removed the entire divine world of Greek and medieval philosophy from science. Up to then, this had been a real world, though one which was quite independent of human participation. Its reality, therefore, had been objective, while the reality of the physical world, which did depend on human perception through the senses, was of subjective reality. After Galileo, the upper, divine world became one of belief only.
That left only the physical world for investigation. Galileo agreed with the Greek philosophers that the subjective nature of sense impressions made them so dependent on purely personal factors that they were unsuitable for any scientific investigation. This led to his second fundamental change: he divided all natural phenomena into two classes, or sets of “qualities”. His “secondary qualities” included the majority of what we perceive in nature, namely all that is known through the senses of smell, touch, taste and hearing. He felt that all these perceptions needed the presense of sense organs in human beings, so that they were hopelessly subjective and therefore had to be excluded from science. That left only his “primary qualities” as subjects fit for science. These primary qualities were very few in number and Rene Descartes later reduced them to just two, matter and motion. For Galileo, the matter and motion of objects persisted even without a human presence. He therefore felt that their reality was objective, even though they belonged to the physical world.
Although Galileo focused his new science of physics on just matter and motion, he thought that these two qualities alone could unlock all the secrets of nature and explain completely the behavious of all objects. Later thinkers agreed with him. Descartes famously said, “give me matter and motion and I will create the universe”. All Newton’s laws involved only matter and motion.
As time went on, physicists began to ascribe this independent, objective reality to everything physical, not just the matter and motion aspects of objects. By the end of the nineteenth century, for anything to be considered “real” it had to be physical and the only reality was the physical world. This exactly explains Einstein’s feelings and assumptions. He, the observer, was quite independent of the object observed, and his observations or measurements of the object did not influence or interfere with the independent existence of that object.
Most of us feel the same way as Einstein, in fact this whole argument up to now might seem to be belaboring the obvious. So here comes the point: modern quantum physics has shown that Einstein was wrong! There is no objective world of independently existing objects. All natural phenomena are perceived through our senses and thus have no more than a subjective reality. They are appearances, not realities. Galileo had made a fundamental philosophical error in assigning an objective reality to his “primary qualities”: he ignored the fact that you still needed the sense of sight to perceive matter and motion, so that these were just as subjective in nature as anything else perceived through any of the other senses. He was led to make this error by his genuine feeling that he, the observer, no longer had the kind of connections that the medieval man felt with observed nature. There was no more unseen but felt participation with the processes in the natural world. Galileo, the first modern man, saw nature analytically, as a specimen on a slab, to be examined with a view to finding a mathematical explanation for what was going on. As he put it: “The language of nature is mathematics”. Later thinkers, like Descartes and Francis Bacon, agreed with him. Newton’s laws were mathematical expressions of processes involving matter and motion which, to him, were enough to lay bare all the secrets of nature.
Later developments in physics in the early part of the twentieth century, when relativity and quantum mechanics showed the limitations of Newtonian physics, never addressed Galileo’s errors specifically, so that even a luminary like Albert Einstein (together with most ordinary people) still felt that the world had to be independently real. What finally broke the spell was the increasing dominance of quantum mechanics, a branch of modern physics that Einstein himself, ironically, helped to found. Its most vocal proponent, Niels Bohr, was engaged in a decades long argument with Einstein and the final proofs, giving Bohr the victory, did not emerge until the 1970s, after the death of both of these friendly rivals.
The implications of quantum mechanics are so outrageous and counterintuitive that physicists for the most part have ignored them and concentrated instead on the highly successful mathematical explanations of events and their experimental proofs. Quantum mechanics is the most successful system in physics today. None of its predictions has ever been proved wrong. It has become the bedrock of the modern science. Yet it states flatly that observation not only marks the behaviour of the object observed, it also brings it into existence. As one eminent quantum cosmologist put it: “No microscopic property is a property until it is an observed property”. Before the observation, there was no object, but after the observation the object existed for everyone else also. Furthermore, quantum theory states that events in one location can instantaneously “influence” events in another, even one far away, say in another galaxy. This runs counter to the accepted truism that nothing in the universe can be transmitted faster than the speed of light.
It is clear that these developments in quantum mechanics have a devastating impact on our sense of reality. Werner Heisenberg (the author of thePrinciple of Indeterminacy) put it this way: ” In the experiments about atomic events we have to do with things and facts that are just as real as any phenomena in daily life. But the atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.”
But the “things” or facts of daily life that Heisenberg refers to are merely accumulations of enormous quantities of elementary particles. If these particles are not real, how can the “things” of which they are composed be real? It is clear that the “reality” which Heisenberg refers to is the same as Einstein’s “reality”, that is the independent reality of physical objects.
If our observations are as important as quantum theory states, it is clear that any explanation of events in the physical world comes up against our consciousness, if we are trying to explain what is going on, that is to find the meaning of events. No mere interpretation of quantum theory can avoid the encounter with consciousness. As another thinker put it: “Useful as it is under everyday circumstances to say that the world exists “out there” independent of us, that view can no longer be upheld. There is a strange sense in which this is a ‘participatory universe’.”
All these conclusions and all this language of the latest quantum mechanical musings is beginning to sound eerily familiar. To start with, Galileo’s worldview (still reflected by Einstein), has now been decisively overturned by quantum mechanics. Before Galileo, the Greek worldview prevailed, right through the Middle Ages. This worldview was highly “participatory”, with man and nature connected in many ways. The latest physics is now returning to this view.
Modern physics has also overturned other Galilean axioms, like the one saying that mathematics is the language of nature. The Platonic view of mathematics was that is was purely a construct of the human mind, without any outside reality. This is once more the view of modern physics, which maintains that a hypothesis, no matter how many times it is proved right, will always remain nothing more than a hypothesis, which might be overturned the next day by new facts or arguments.
What we are seeing is that modern physics is showing a very complete agreement not with Galileo, the founder of the science, but with the very Greek traditions which Galileo was at such pains to overthrow in the seventeenth century. For the Greeks, all physical phenomena, perceivable through our senses, were not independent (that is objective) realities but merely subjective appearances. Using different language, modern physics agrees with this position.
Greek thinking about these “appearances” also included the concept that they were the “actual forms”, on earth, representing the “potential forms”, existing in the immaterial, objective world of the divine. The subjective, physical world had its origin in this objective, immaterial world. Heisenberg’s use of the word “potentialities” to describe the microscopic world, which is not “real”, is telling.
Physics has tried to find the origin of matter within our world of nature. For hundreds of years it has looked for the ultimate, irreducible matter particle, this origin of matter, by dividing matter into ever smaller particles. Classically, the atom was thought to be this ultimate particle. It was not. The proton was not. Finally, it was realized that the size of a particle really depended on the amount of energy that could be directed at it, to smash it into even smaller particles. The end of this process was not within this world of nature because, at a certain energy level, all matter and force particles would merge into an undifferentiated stream of energy. This realization led to the concept of the string particle, as the ultimate matter particle, by definition. The string particle is a one-dimensional particle which, as such, cannot exist in our phenomenal world of nature. If it is to be the origin of matter, however, it must be “real” in some fashion, which suggests a further convergence with Greek thought. If the string particle were to be the objectively real origin of matter, in an immaterial world, it would fit well into a long-established philosophical framework, with which modern physics agrees in every other way.
The other outrageous results of quantum theory also become manageable if the concept of both a subjective reality is used for the physical world of appearances and also one of objective reality for the immaterial world of origins and “potential forms”. This objective world could then be thought of as sustaining the physical world of appearances in our absence, without having to worry about what role our consciousness has to play in the creative process. Within such an expanded frame of reference, physics could perform its functions of dealing with the world in a practical manner without constantly bumping up against contradictory absurdities.
By: Werner Thurau
About the Author:
That left only the physical world for investigation. Galileo agreed with the Greek philosophers that the subjective nature of sense impressions made them so dependent on purely personal factors that they were unsuitable for any scientific investigation. This led to his second fundamental change: he divided all natural phenomena into two classes, or sets of “qualities”. His “secondary qualities” included the majority of what we perceive in nature, namely all that is known through the senses of smell, touch, taste and hearing. He felt that all these perceptions needed the presense of sense organs in human beings, so that they were hopelessly subjective and therefore had to be excluded from science. That left only his “primary qualities” as subjects fit for science. These primary qualities were very few in number and Rene Descartes later reduced them to just two, matter and motion. For Galileo, the matter and motion of objects persisted even without a human presence. He therefore felt that their reality was objective, even though they belonged to the physical world.
Although Galileo focused his new science of physics on just matter and motion, he thought that these two qualities alone could unlock all the secrets of nature and explain completely the behavious of all objects. Later thinkers agreed with him. Descartes famously said, “give me matter and motion and I will create the universe”. All Newton’s laws involved only matter and motion.
As time went on, physicists began to ascribe this independent, objective reality to everything physical, not just the matter and motion aspects of objects. By the end of the nineteenth century, for anything to be considered “real” it had to be physical and the only reality was the physical world. This exactly explains Einstein’s feelings and assumptions. He, the observer, was quite independent of the object observed, and his observations or measurements of the object did not influence or interfere with the independent existence of that object.
Most of us feel the same way as Einstein, in fact this whole argument up to now might seem to be belaboring the obvious. So here comes the point: modern quantum physics has shown that Einstein was wrong! There is no objective world of independently existing objects. All natural phenomena are perceived through our senses and thus have no more than a subjective reality. They are appearances, not realities. Galileo had made a fundamental philosophical error in assigning an objective reality to his “primary qualities”: he ignored the fact that you still needed the sense of sight to perceive matter and motion, so that these were just as subjective in nature as anything else perceived through any of the other senses. He was led to make this error by his genuine feeling that he, the observer, no longer had the kind of connections that the medieval man felt with observed nature. There was no more unseen but felt participation with the processes in the natural world. Galileo, the first modern man, saw nature analytically, as a specimen on a slab, to be examined with a view to finding a mathematical explanation for what was going on. As he put it: “The language of nature is mathematics”. Later thinkers, like Descartes and Francis Bacon, agreed with him. Newton’s laws were mathematical expressions of processes involving matter and motion which, to him, were enough to lay bare all the secrets of nature.
Later developments in physics in the early part of the twentieth century, when relativity and quantum mechanics showed the limitations of Newtonian physics, never addressed Galileo’s errors specifically, so that even a luminary like Albert Einstein (together with most ordinary people) still felt that the world had to be independently real. What finally broke the spell was the increasing dominance of quantum mechanics, a branch of modern physics that Einstein himself, ironically, helped to found. Its most vocal proponent, Niels Bohr, was engaged in a decades long argument with Einstein and the final proofs, giving Bohr the victory, did not emerge until the 1970s, after the death of both of these friendly rivals.
The implications of quantum mechanics are so outrageous and counterintuitive that physicists for the most part have ignored them and concentrated instead on the highly successful mathematical explanations of events and their experimental proofs. Quantum mechanics is the most successful system in physics today. None of its predictions has ever been proved wrong. It has become the bedrock of the modern science. Yet it states flatly that observation not only marks the behaviour of the object observed, it also brings it into existence. As one eminent quantum cosmologist put it: “No microscopic property is a property until it is an observed property”. Before the observation, there was no object, but after the observation the object existed for everyone else also. Furthermore, quantum theory states that events in one location can instantaneously “influence” events in another, even one far away, say in another galaxy. This runs counter to the accepted truism that nothing in the universe can be transmitted faster than the speed of light.
It is clear that these developments in quantum mechanics have a devastating impact on our sense of reality. Werner Heisenberg (the author of thePrinciple of Indeterminacy) put it this way: ” In the experiments about atomic events we have to do with things and facts that are just as real as any phenomena in daily life. But the atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.”
But the “things” or facts of daily life that Heisenberg refers to are merely accumulations of enormous quantities of elementary particles. If these particles are not real, how can the “things” of which they are composed be real? It is clear that the “reality” which Heisenberg refers to is the same as Einstein’s “reality”, that is the independent reality of physical objects.
If our observations are as important as quantum theory states, it is clear that any explanation of events in the physical world comes up against our consciousness, if we are trying to explain what is going on, that is to find the meaning of events. No mere interpretation of quantum theory can avoid the encounter with consciousness. As another thinker put it: “Useful as it is under everyday circumstances to say that the world exists “out there” independent of us, that view can no longer be upheld. There is a strange sense in which this is a ‘participatory universe’.”
All these conclusions and all this language of the latest quantum mechanical musings is beginning to sound eerily familiar. To start with, Galileo’s worldview (still reflected by Einstein), has now been decisively overturned by quantum mechanics. Before Galileo, the Greek worldview prevailed, right through the Middle Ages. This worldview was highly “participatory”, with man and nature connected in many ways. The latest physics is now returning to this view.
Modern physics has also overturned other Galilean axioms, like the one saying that mathematics is the language of nature. The Platonic view of mathematics was that is was purely a construct of the human mind, without any outside reality. This is once more the view of modern physics, which maintains that a hypothesis, no matter how many times it is proved right, will always remain nothing more than a hypothesis, which might be overturned the next day by new facts or arguments.
What we are seeing is that modern physics is showing a very complete agreement not with Galileo, the founder of the science, but with the very Greek traditions which Galileo was at such pains to overthrow in the seventeenth century. For the Greeks, all physical phenomena, perceivable through our senses, were not independent (that is objective) realities but merely subjective appearances. Using different language, modern physics agrees with this position.
Greek thinking about these “appearances” also included the concept that they were the “actual forms”, on earth, representing the “potential forms”, existing in the immaterial, objective world of the divine. The subjective, physical world had its origin in this objective, immaterial world. Heisenberg’s use of the word “potentialities” to describe the microscopic world, which is not “real”, is telling.
Physics has tried to find the origin of matter within our world of nature. For hundreds of years it has looked for the ultimate, irreducible matter particle, this origin of matter, by dividing matter into ever smaller particles. Classically, the atom was thought to be this ultimate particle. It was not. The proton was not. Finally, it was realized that the size of a particle really depended on the amount of energy that could be directed at it, to smash it into even smaller particles. The end of this process was not within this world of nature because, at a certain energy level, all matter and force particles would merge into an undifferentiated stream of energy. This realization led to the concept of the string particle, as the ultimate matter particle, by definition. The string particle is a one-dimensional particle which, as such, cannot exist in our phenomenal world of nature. If it is to be the origin of matter, however, it must be “real” in some fashion, which suggests a further convergence with Greek thought. If the string particle were to be the objectively real origin of matter, in an immaterial world, it would fit well into a long-established philosophical framework, with which modern physics agrees in every other way.
The other outrageous results of quantum theory also become manageable if the concept of both a subjective reality is used for the physical world of appearances and also one of objective reality for the immaterial world of origins and “potential forms”. This objective world could then be thought of as sustaining the physical world of appearances in our absence, without having to worry about what role our consciousness has to play in the creative process. Within such an expanded frame of reference, physics could perform its functions of dealing with the world in a practical manner without constantly bumping up against contradictory absurdities.
By: Werner Thurau
About the Author:
Werner Thurau was born in December 1927, in Havana, Cuba. In 1929, his family returned to his father’s native Germany. He spent the entire 1930s in Berlin, but came to England in 1939 and was then further educated in that country, ending with an engineering degree from London University. His further career took him all over the world on technical projects, moving first to Mexico and then to the United States, where he lives now. At school in England, he was exposed early in life to the world of ideas. Some of his teachers were friends of C.S. Lewis and Lewis’s Oxford group, the Inklings, and his father was a philosophical bookworm. Werner combined this background with a lifelong interest in physics, especially modern physics after it breached the atomic barrier. This interest extended to Galileo, the founder of our age, and what made him so different from others of his time, as well as to the effect physics has had on other related sciences, such as evolutionary theory (and its polar opposite, creationism). He came to see that the latest developments in physics bring in subjects not normally associated with a book on that science, such as consciousness, reality concepts and even ethics.
For my book on this whole argument and its implications, visit: http://www.galileoshadow.com
For my book on this whole argument and its implications, visit: http://www.galileoshadow.com
Werner.
Popularity: 1% [?]
Sep
23
Concepts of Reality
Is personal awareness of reality a physical, a religious or a spiritual experience? One’s personal awareness of reality is at the same time, personal, societal, religious and a spiritual experience. Personal awareness of reality starts at one’s particular situation of birth and with one’s social capabilities received at birth. At birth one’s senses start operating. The sensation of touch and pain starts while the new body is progressing through the birth canal, followed by sensations of chill, hearing and sight. The sense interaction of one’s body with others starts while it is handled by those assisting in the birth or by the mother herself. It is a fairly common sensation for all creatures of the mammalian variety; but after birth one’s interpersonal activity begins to rapidly change and become more individual through interaction with mother, father, family, friends and the social and cultural climate in which one is born. This individualization is strongly demarcated by association of the parents to special groups such as religious groups, ethnic groups, and or humanist groups, followed by cultural and societal groups that include basic, intermediate and special and/or advanced training.
Each group of contact a child is immersed in makes the person’s reality more special and individualized from other children in other regions having different social, religious and cultural standards and settings. It makes a big difference whether one is born on a boat that is not only one’s house but also the family’s means of transportation and business or whether one is born and brought up in a mountainous region or in an inner-city social climate. Therefore, the reality each person envisions or is aware of as an adult is uniquely personal. We can thus be fairly certain that one’s personal reality is of a physical, religious and cultural kind.
Why does one’s awareness of reality have a physical component? That is easy. Say, a child is born numb, blind and deaf. The child is not even aware that it has entered a physical realm of being. It cannot ascertain that it has left the birth canal. It does not know whether it is a fetus or a child. It also makes a big difference if the child misses just the sense of sight or the sense of hearing. Its overall sense of perceiving its environment is greatly inhibited by the inability to hear or see, and maybe, because of it, some other senses are heightened in sensitivity.
The components of religion and culture in awareness of reality can also be easily verified. Religion is most of all forced indoctrination into a certain belief system. The religious setting is thus of a purely virtual kind. One cannot get physically in contact with the main premises of the belief system. They must be accepted as belief systems. Though religious belief can have physical consequences. Christians may happily be enjoying a ham sandwich, but Muslims, and maybe people of the Jewish and Hindu persuasion, may dump such a sandwich in the garbage when received–the taste of ham and pork in general is never realized and is missing in their understanding of reality. General education also is a system of severe indoctrination. One learns things in school that may be true or not, physically or spiritually, depending on the cultural, scientific and religious misconceptions of the authorities on topics learned. One’s indoctrination into a national setting is also mostly of the fictional kind and in America this indoctrination changes from generation to generation (every five years or so). Most of what a grown person knows consists of clever schemes of fictional indoctrination.
Our knowledge of science finds its beginning in mere suppositions/axioms on which the proofs of other suppositions rest. These suppositions are accepted as truth because they almost always work according to the laws defined on the basis of such suppositions. The more one knows it seems the more one is harnessed by laws, demarcations and regions where things will work and where not. All implements of use we manage to fashion are defined by inquiry, deduction and philosophy. These implements are not part of our natural understanding of reality but are forced into our awareness of reality through indoctrination. Whether these implements consist of the heaviest materials or are mere gossamer path of mental thought, they all are of the type of virtual reality that we have adopted as if part of the entire sphere of physical reality–and in such topics of science and religion, the adopted sense of reality is different for a doctor in science or theology and a housekeeper forced out of school to earn money for the family. So everyone has a different understanding of reality. Yet, we all accept a huge part of reality as integral: the physical universe. It can be observed and measured, analyzed and modeled. But is what we understand of the physical universe real as seen from a spiritual point of view?
As human beings we are forbidden to look into this matter because our senses and our brains lock us tightly in the physical arena. My sense of touch and sight convince me that a drinking glass is for real. Is that a correct conclusion of a sense-oriented observation in spirit? The existence of the glass is merely verified by senses that can only get in touch with or observe material things of a physical nature. Could it be that the substance of the physical universe and the substance of our senses were designed in a virtual setting to interact with each other in such a manner as to give these virtual physical creatures the idea that the things they observe seem to have a basis in a real-like physical universe? Could the entire interactive setup of creatures and physical universe be a working, interactive spiritual model or interactive display into which our souls, for some unperceived reason, have been mentally wired or cast? If so, are these souls aware in spirit or are they in some hypnotic state? Is their attention in the physical universe of a purely unconscious mental nature? Believe it or not, the Bible, and in particular, Jesus gives us the correct answer. If our understanding of physical reality is nothing more than a virtually perceived spiritual scheme may we then also presume with a high level of certainty that the kind of spirit that designed, created and continues to suspend the universe is of a virtual type also? What is the criteria of a virtual reality? Is a virtual reality not based on certain make belief supposition, like the suppositions we needed to materialize the physical realm from certain sense-derived perceptions of the body? The sneaky thing about our perceptions of our environment is that they are generally shared by all other creatures. I like to compare that with an instrument we are all familiar with, breath analyzers. Every breath analyzer is calibrated to sense alcohol or a drug in exactly the same manner. Analyzers are fabricated things. Since our bodies all produce, more or less, the same interpretations from sense detections received, are not our bodies a mass produced kind of virtual machine just like a breath analyzer? The analyzer does not naturally belong in the physical realm, but it always just has had a potential to exist in the physical universe.
My next question is: Is the potential for a manufactured material object in physical reality for real or is it of a virtual nature? When does a virtual concept of the implement seem to convert from a virtual apparition to a solid working physical object; or, was there an actual conversion at all? Can the working analyzer still be considered a virtual object? Is the conversion from virtual potential to real object just caused by a wrinkle produced in our brains? For similar reasons I question whether hetero- and ********** attractions in humans (and also in animals) are virtual or real experiences. They are actuated by the mere flow of hormones in the animal-type body. The hormone flows are triggered by mere virtual control mechanisms that are part of the growing and functioning body (like the functioning of the breath analyzer) We cannot help but to smell, see, hear, touch and taste. We are forced to do so. We lack the ability, unless we forcibly disconnect our senses like receiving drugs, pinching the nose, etc. to have a choice. Sexual attractions and aversions are caused by some biological clock that is differently programmed but operates in the same manner for each species and race. These time clocks must be of a virtual nature like programs on our computers that control functions in the computer but also beyond the confines of the computer like keeping the temperature in a building or a swimming pool constant.
If human animals are mere spiritual virtual perceptions in a virtual spiritual display, so must be all creatures on earth and so must be the system of physical reality itself. All animal and plant creatures must be animated by exactly the same kind of souls as in humans. What criteria are the same and what criteria can possibly be different between human souls and animal souls? It seems to me that human animals are of a higher order, a newer order, than creatures in raw nature. What can newness of soul have to do with the difference between souls associated with humans and those associated with creatures in brute nature? I believe that all (identical) souls are associated with creatures and things in the physical universe because they were cast out somehow from spirit. Spirit is the true reality. Souls in spirit must have believed a lie about the realm of their native truth, so they lost interest in their native god and also in the realm provided to them in that realm of native truth. Souls having believed a lie have no place to be, so they can only exist in a virtual reality constructed while souls lie in a spiritual type of lie-induced coma. They cannot be aware of the spiritual environment because of a system of lies believed about it.
A physical person in a coma is in a state of mind adopted by that person after it went through a very traumatic event and it refuses to be mentally present again in physical reality; so it adopted a state of a permanent dream environment as an alternate reality to be in. The person refuses to wake up although all the systems in the body indicate that there is no reason for it not to wake up. The traumatic trauma that caused the coma is only an isolated event and can be considered an anomaly or a mere virtual event in the ordinary existence of human life. The souls in comatose humans have made a choice based on an isolated incident and refuse to take into account the general situation of life. It believed a lie about the reality of which they were a part. So the dream state it now mentally adopts is a state based on a lie believed.
If a spiritual lie believed can tumble someone away from the normal state of awareness in one’s native spiritual realm, many lies believed will tumble the believers of such lies into ever deeper states of virtual existence.
From the natural progression of things I can thus conclude that reality as perceived by physical creatures is based on the amount of lies absorbed in the mind of soul. The more systems of deceitful propaganda a soul believes the deeper it tumbles into the reality of the physical universe. The longer a soul is associated with the physical universe (and thus the more deceit it holds as truth), the more degenerate the state of the soul. It can only accept a physical existence compatible with that spiritual state of deranged mind–the mind of simpler construction such as those in animals that have lost all contact with their spiritual aspect as souls in spirit. Since there is an untold number of species and their associated races in earth, there must be an untold number of events of lies believed that correlates with each class of animal and plant life. The more lies believed and held in soul as truth the more brute type of animal is associated with that soul.
I like to bring up the nature of creatures that exist thousands of feet deep in the ocean. They can be blind or have the ability to see by the luminance of their own body. We have moles who have eyes but are blind as bats. We have moles and bats that are blind yet have eyes. Have the eyes adopted another means to sense the environment in conjunction with the ability to throw channeled beams of vibration ahead of them to locate and catch insects in flight? Are blind creatures, yet still having eyes, in a spiritual mental state of moving from that state into states where sight has become unnecessary because due to spiritual mental atrophy the eyes are eliminated altogether? Are they, henceforward, limited to only experience their surroundings and thus be aware of reality, absent the capability of sight? Is their sightlessness a necessity placed on them because of lack of light in there realms of darkness or is it a spiritual necessity because of the systems of lies believed by souls inhabiting such types of bodies? We can thus presume, by an alternate means of analysis, that a certain kind of spiritual atrophy occurs in souls when it has entered into association with the virtual physical display of reality that omits the absented sense of awareness because of lies believed about it previously held state of awareness.
The more the soul atrophies the more brute type of virtual existence it can have in earth. This atrophy probably will cause a soul, eventually, to enter the state of accepting inert material as habitation. I believe that Hindus understand that principle also, but mine comes from a place of spiritual philosophical origin. It does not come from association with belief systems that are part of the heritage of the earth. Reality in the physical sphere is a commonly accepted understanding among a set (and all kinds of different sets) of creatures as to what constitutes the environment in which they experience life.
Reality does not furnish a reason and a purpose for being. It forces from creatures an urge to continue to be. The thing that appears basic for any creature is the undefined, compelling drive to be (exist) and continue to be, at whatever cost and effort to oneself and/or others. This drive is a consequence of experiencing reality from one’s spiritual place determined by the number of systems of lies believed. We do not seem to know the reason for this drive other than that it has its origin in anxiety and fear. In order to be we must exert, channel, reflect or absorb (imbibe) power (energy of some sort). I claim that the need to manipulate power over others, and even just to elements in the environment is an expression and outworking of evil. It seems that we experience environment as given to us; but I assert that environment and all things in it, our common sense of reality, is a false belief system enforced on us from an evil spiritual source on high (the god of the universe) which sense of reality we also must enforce on each other. We enforce this system of deceit on each other simply by being a part of it and interacting with each other in it.
We, the unaware, are in effect of an enveloping virtually designed reality and we are the cause of its acceptance among other member of our society and of general nature. The source of that belief system is what we refer to as god or higher power (power is proof of evil). Belief in truth comes to souls naturally, but a belief in a system of lies is forced on us through deceit in the form of propaganda issued to us from a source we consider authority. Where there is effect there is a cause. The cause of the universe always seems hidden or is shrouded behind a cloak of respectability. When stripped from its cloak, the cause, again, is evil–a malicious system of deceit that some power of mind exerted and we adopted. Evil always comes in the disguise of an angel of light–a person just had to believe the deceit because it seemed so good and wholesome. The way I understand physical life is that it is the outworking of a curse, the reason and purpose for the curse is not any longer known to us. We seem to be thrown together by an unseen hand or power and made to compete, deceive, kill and exploit each other in the undefined compelling force to just be, and to do so with the least effort, in the greatest of comfort and at the expense of other creatures. In one way or another, we all want to be king of some small or greater hill.
I want to summarize that all truth (believed about a soul’s native realm paradise) constitutes true spiritual reality, and that lies believed about one’s naïve spiritual reality reconstitutes personal reality into a physical type of perceived virtual reality; that reality is also determined by the severity of spiritual atrophy of the soul due to the total amount of all systems of lies believed.
By: Hans VanKrieken
About the Author:
Each group of contact a child is immersed in makes the person’s reality more special and individualized from other children in other regions having different social, religious and cultural standards and settings. It makes a big difference whether one is born on a boat that is not only one’s house but also the family’s means of transportation and business or whether one is born and brought up in a mountainous region or in an inner-city social climate. Therefore, the reality each person envisions or is aware of as an adult is uniquely personal. We can thus be fairly certain that one’s personal reality is of a physical, religious and cultural kind.
Why does one’s awareness of reality have a physical component? That is easy. Say, a child is born numb, blind and deaf. The child is not even aware that it has entered a physical realm of being. It cannot ascertain that it has left the birth canal. It does not know whether it is a fetus or a child. It also makes a big difference if the child misses just the sense of sight or the sense of hearing. Its overall sense of perceiving its environment is greatly inhibited by the inability to hear or see, and maybe, because of it, some other senses are heightened in sensitivity.
The components of religion and culture in awareness of reality can also be easily verified. Religion is most of all forced indoctrination into a certain belief system. The religious setting is thus of a purely virtual kind. One cannot get physically in contact with the main premises of the belief system. They must be accepted as belief systems. Though religious belief can have physical consequences. Christians may happily be enjoying a ham sandwich, but Muslims, and maybe people of the Jewish and Hindu persuasion, may dump such a sandwich in the garbage when received–the taste of ham and pork in general is never realized and is missing in their understanding of reality. General education also is a system of severe indoctrination. One learns things in school that may be true or not, physically or spiritually, depending on the cultural, scientific and religious misconceptions of the authorities on topics learned. One’s indoctrination into a national setting is also mostly of the fictional kind and in America this indoctrination changes from generation to generation (every five years or so). Most of what a grown person knows consists of clever schemes of fictional indoctrination.
Our knowledge of science finds its beginning in mere suppositions/axioms on which the proofs of other suppositions rest. These suppositions are accepted as truth because they almost always work according to the laws defined on the basis of such suppositions. The more one knows it seems the more one is harnessed by laws, demarcations and regions where things will work and where not. All implements of use we manage to fashion are defined by inquiry, deduction and philosophy. These implements are not part of our natural understanding of reality but are forced into our awareness of reality through indoctrination. Whether these implements consist of the heaviest materials or are mere gossamer path of mental thought, they all are of the type of virtual reality that we have adopted as if part of the entire sphere of physical reality–and in such topics of science and religion, the adopted sense of reality is different for a doctor in science or theology and a housekeeper forced out of school to earn money for the family. So everyone has a different understanding of reality. Yet, we all accept a huge part of reality as integral: the physical universe. It can be observed and measured, analyzed and modeled. But is what we understand of the physical universe real as seen from a spiritual point of view?
As human beings we are forbidden to look into this matter because our senses and our brains lock us tightly in the physical arena. My sense of touch and sight convince me that a drinking glass is for real. Is that a correct conclusion of a sense-oriented observation in spirit? The existence of the glass is merely verified by senses that can only get in touch with or observe material things of a physical nature. Could it be that the substance of the physical universe and the substance of our senses were designed in a virtual setting to interact with each other in such a manner as to give these virtual physical creatures the idea that the things they observe seem to have a basis in a real-like physical universe? Could the entire interactive setup of creatures and physical universe be a working, interactive spiritual model or interactive display into which our souls, for some unperceived reason, have been mentally wired or cast? If so, are these souls aware in spirit or are they in some hypnotic state? Is their attention in the physical universe of a purely unconscious mental nature? Believe it or not, the Bible, and in particular, Jesus gives us the correct answer. If our understanding of physical reality is nothing more than a virtually perceived spiritual scheme may we then also presume with a high level of certainty that the kind of spirit that designed, created and continues to suspend the universe is of a virtual type also? What is the criteria of a virtual reality? Is a virtual reality not based on certain make belief supposition, like the suppositions we needed to materialize the physical realm from certain sense-derived perceptions of the body? The sneaky thing about our perceptions of our environment is that they are generally shared by all other creatures. I like to compare that with an instrument we are all familiar with, breath analyzers. Every breath analyzer is calibrated to sense alcohol or a drug in exactly the same manner. Analyzers are fabricated things. Since our bodies all produce, more or less, the same interpretations from sense detections received, are not our bodies a mass produced kind of virtual machine just like a breath analyzer? The analyzer does not naturally belong in the physical realm, but it always just has had a potential to exist in the physical universe.
My next question is: Is the potential for a manufactured material object in physical reality for real or is it of a virtual nature? When does a virtual concept of the implement seem to convert from a virtual apparition to a solid working physical object; or, was there an actual conversion at all? Can the working analyzer still be considered a virtual object? Is the conversion from virtual potential to real object just caused by a wrinkle produced in our brains? For similar reasons I question whether hetero- and ********** attractions in humans (and also in animals) are virtual or real experiences. They are actuated by the mere flow of hormones in the animal-type body. The hormone flows are triggered by mere virtual control mechanisms that are part of the growing and functioning body (like the functioning of the breath analyzer) We cannot help but to smell, see, hear, touch and taste. We are forced to do so. We lack the ability, unless we forcibly disconnect our senses like receiving drugs, pinching the nose, etc. to have a choice. Sexual attractions and aversions are caused by some biological clock that is differently programmed but operates in the same manner for each species and race. These time clocks must be of a virtual nature like programs on our computers that control functions in the computer but also beyond the confines of the computer like keeping the temperature in a building or a swimming pool constant.
If human animals are mere spiritual virtual perceptions in a virtual spiritual display, so must be all creatures on earth and so must be the system of physical reality itself. All animal and plant creatures must be animated by exactly the same kind of souls as in humans. What criteria are the same and what criteria can possibly be different between human souls and animal souls? It seems to me that human animals are of a higher order, a newer order, than creatures in raw nature. What can newness of soul have to do with the difference between souls associated with humans and those associated with creatures in brute nature? I believe that all (identical) souls are associated with creatures and things in the physical universe because they were cast out somehow from spirit. Spirit is the true reality. Souls in spirit must have believed a lie about the realm of their native truth, so they lost interest in their native god and also in the realm provided to them in that realm of native truth. Souls having believed a lie have no place to be, so they can only exist in a virtual reality constructed while souls lie in a spiritual type of lie-induced coma. They cannot be aware of the spiritual environment because of a system of lies believed about it.
A physical person in a coma is in a state of mind adopted by that person after it went through a very traumatic event and it refuses to be mentally present again in physical reality; so it adopted a state of a permanent dream environment as an alternate reality to be in. The person refuses to wake up although all the systems in the body indicate that there is no reason for it not to wake up. The traumatic trauma that caused the coma is only an isolated event and can be considered an anomaly or a mere virtual event in the ordinary existence of human life. The souls in comatose humans have made a choice based on an isolated incident and refuse to take into account the general situation of life. It believed a lie about the reality of which they were a part. So the dream state it now mentally adopts is a state based on a lie believed.
If a spiritual lie believed can tumble someone away from the normal state of awareness in one’s native spiritual realm, many lies believed will tumble the believers of such lies into ever deeper states of virtual existence.
From the natural progression of things I can thus conclude that reality as perceived by physical creatures is based on the amount of lies absorbed in the mind of soul. The more systems of deceitful propaganda a soul believes the deeper it tumbles into the reality of the physical universe. The longer a soul is associated with the physical universe (and thus the more deceit it holds as truth), the more degenerate the state of the soul. It can only accept a physical existence compatible with that spiritual state of deranged mind–the mind of simpler construction such as those in animals that have lost all contact with their spiritual aspect as souls in spirit. Since there is an untold number of species and their associated races in earth, there must be an untold number of events of lies believed that correlates with each class of animal and plant life. The more lies believed and held in soul as truth the more brute type of animal is associated with that soul.
I like to bring up the nature of creatures that exist thousands of feet deep in the ocean. They can be blind or have the ability to see by the luminance of their own body. We have moles who have eyes but are blind as bats. We have moles and bats that are blind yet have eyes. Have the eyes adopted another means to sense the environment in conjunction with the ability to throw channeled beams of vibration ahead of them to locate and catch insects in flight? Are blind creatures, yet still having eyes, in a spiritual mental state of moving from that state into states where sight has become unnecessary because due to spiritual mental atrophy the eyes are eliminated altogether? Are they, henceforward, limited to only experience their surroundings and thus be aware of reality, absent the capability of sight? Is their sightlessness a necessity placed on them because of lack of light in there realms of darkness or is it a spiritual necessity because of the systems of lies believed by souls inhabiting such types of bodies? We can thus presume, by an alternate means of analysis, that a certain kind of spiritual atrophy occurs in souls when it has entered into association with the virtual physical display of reality that omits the absented sense of awareness because of lies believed about it previously held state of awareness.
The more the soul atrophies the more brute type of virtual existence it can have in earth. This atrophy probably will cause a soul, eventually, to enter the state of accepting inert material as habitation. I believe that Hindus understand that principle also, but mine comes from a place of spiritual philosophical origin. It does not come from association with belief systems that are part of the heritage of the earth. Reality in the physical sphere is a commonly accepted understanding among a set (and all kinds of different sets) of creatures as to what constitutes the environment in which they experience life.
Reality does not furnish a reason and a purpose for being. It forces from creatures an urge to continue to be. The thing that appears basic for any creature is the undefined, compelling drive to be (exist) and continue to be, at whatever cost and effort to oneself and/or others. This drive is a consequence of experiencing reality from one’s spiritual place determined by the number of systems of lies believed. We do not seem to know the reason for this drive other than that it has its origin in anxiety and fear. In order to be we must exert, channel, reflect or absorb (imbibe) power (energy of some sort). I claim that the need to manipulate power over others, and even just to elements in the environment is an expression and outworking of evil. It seems that we experience environment as given to us; but I assert that environment and all things in it, our common sense of reality, is a false belief system enforced on us from an evil spiritual source on high (the god of the universe) which sense of reality we also must enforce on each other. We enforce this system of deceit on each other simply by being a part of it and interacting with each other in it.
We, the unaware, are in effect of an enveloping virtually designed reality and we are the cause of its acceptance among other member of our society and of general nature. The source of that belief system is what we refer to as god or higher power (power is proof of evil). Belief in truth comes to souls naturally, but a belief in a system of lies is forced on us through deceit in the form of propaganda issued to us from a source we consider authority. Where there is effect there is a cause. The cause of the universe always seems hidden or is shrouded behind a cloak of respectability. When stripped from its cloak, the cause, again, is evil–a malicious system of deceit that some power of mind exerted and we adopted. Evil always comes in the disguise of an angel of light–a person just had to believe the deceit because it seemed so good and wholesome. The way I understand physical life is that it is the outworking of a curse, the reason and purpose for the curse is not any longer known to us. We seem to be thrown together by an unseen hand or power and made to compete, deceive, kill and exploit each other in the undefined compelling force to just be, and to do so with the least effort, in the greatest of comfort and at the expense of other creatures. In one way or another, we all want to be king of some small or greater hill.
I want to summarize that all truth (believed about a soul’s native realm paradise) constitutes true spiritual reality, and that lies believed about one’s naïve spiritual reality reconstitutes personal reality into a physical type of perceived virtual reality; that reality is also determined by the severity of spiritual atrophy of the soul due to the total amount of all systems of lies believed.
By: Hans VanKrieken
About the Author:
Hans van Krieken, author of “The Truth About Reality- -Beyond God and Religion
You can learn more from http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Hans_VanKrieken and his website http://www.sciencefictionofreality.com
c) Copyright – Hans van Krieken. All Rights Reserved Worldwide.
Popularity: 1% [?]