Selected Correspondence Peter

‘There are moments when one feels free from one’s own identification with human limitations and inadequacies. At such moments one imagines that one stands on some spot of a small planet, gazing in amazement at the cold yet profoundly moving beauty of the eternal, the unfathomable; life and death flow into one, and there is neither evolution nor destiny; only Being.’ Albert Einstein.

Good old Albert, hey. Many still regard him as a scientist who contributed to our understanding of the physical universe, rather than the Mystic he was.

He is famous mostly for theoretical postulations as to what could happen to matter, space and time if the speed of light is exceeded or if infinity is measured finitely. No wonder after some 80 years his theories still remain theories. I heard a scientist use the word ‘Guru’ the other day as he pondered on which current proposer of theories to follow.

Normal human experiencing of the physical universe is that ‘I’, as a non-physical entity parasitically residing in a physical body, thinks and feels the physical universe to be an alien and fearful place (contrary to anthropocentric/ geocentric thinking, the physical universe is not limited to what is out there, it includes this planet and its oceans, clouds, earth, trees, animals, human beings, rivers, cities, buildings and so on). It is only because human beings think and feel themselves to be separate from the physical world of the senses that they have long imagined and felt that there is an underlying reality the physical world – an underlying reality that is metaphysical in nature.

When you take this on board it is clear that Einsteinian subjective relativity is but the latest in a long line of mathematical/philosophical/mystical theories that propose that there is a metaphysical underlying reality (a timeless, spaceless and formless reality) to the physical matter and space that is this infinite and eternal universe.

I take it from what you have written that you have a pure consciousness experience whereby you have directly experienced the infinitude of the actual universe. If this is the case, you would know by your own direct experience that it is only ‘me’, the parasitical entity, who thinks and feels himself to be separate from, and alien to, the physical universe … and when ‘I’ am temporarily absent in a PCE all feelings of separation and alienation disappears.

Perhaps I can put it this way – a PCE is the direct sensate experience of the actuality of the physical universe because ‘he’ of ‘she’ who desperately seek a metaphysical underlying reality to the physical universe, is temporality in abeyance. This is the antithesis to an altered state of consciousness whereby the supposed underlying metaphysical reality of the universe is imaginatively and passionately revealed because ‘I’ think and feel myself to be a part of the illusionary underlying metaphysical reality (or in some cases even the creator of this Reality).

Nor am I. Whether people think this underlying reality is religious or mystical or mathematical in nature does not interest me at all. It’s their fantasy after all.

What is on offer on this mailing list is an actual freedom from the human condition including a freedom from all of the fantasies that propose that there is an underlying metaphysical reality to the physical universe. And the very first step in becoming actually free of the human condition is to abandon all of these religious or mystical or mathematical fantasies and start to come down-to-earth to the world of the senses where we humans actually live.

A very sensible approach – and this is the approach I took. When I first came across Richard there were many things that jarred with ‘me’ but it soon became obvious that the only way I could find out if what he was saying was factual was to conduct my own investigation as to the nature of the human psyche (including its innate cunningness to do whatever it can to survive) – otherwise I was relying on either believing what others say or rejecting what others say, pathetically dependant upon ‘my’ own beliefs and predilections.

Einsteinian relativity theory relies upon imagining that time is a fourth dimension to the three dimensions of space, thereby allowing that time can be an abstract entity (t) having a hypothetical numerical value in abstract relativistic mathematics. A PCE experientially reveals that time is not an abstract dimension because a pure consciousness experience is the direct experience that this very moment is the only moment that is happening and that this very moment is perpetually happening. Whilst past moments did happen and future moments will happen, only this moment is actual – one is perpetually locked into this seamless moment of time as it were. It is always this moment of time, one cannot actually experience any other moment of time but this very moment.

This is not an esoteric or philosophical wisdom as one can also become aware of this fact in one’s normal daily life – in fact the actualism method is specifically designed to bring one’s attention to this fact as an on-going experience. As an example, if you care to remember back to the moment when you first opened this post and began to read it, it is obvious that when you did so you could experience that the opening of the post was happening in this moment and now that you are reading these words it is also this moment. As Richard puts it – this very moment is the arena in which actual events happen.

To keep with this practical observation, if you look at the computer monitor that you are reading these words on you will see that it has three spatial dimensions – width, length and depth – and that your observation of this is happening in this moment. The very spontaneity and instantaneity of this very moment gives vibrancy to the things and events that one sensately experiences in this moment of time. In short, in actuality, time is not a fourth dimension, space and time are not a continuum, space is not bent, nor is it expanding – all of these concepts and theories are nought but impassioned (subjective) fantasies.

To get back to your comment, I take it that you are aware that the theoretical subatomic particles described in quantum physics are mathematical suppositions that have no material existence. Quantum physics deals with abstracted models of hypothetical subatomic realms in exactly the same way that relativistic cosmology deals with abstracted models of hypothetical universes that have no material existence.

For me, once I understood that much of science masquerades theory as being fact and imaginary models as being things that actually exist, I also understood the absurdity of calling an internally-logical subjective theory an objective scientifically-verifiable fact. But then again, I have no emotional investment in supporting relativistic theory because I was not indoctrinated into believing that it is true, and nowadays I know by direct on-going experience that there is no underlying metaphysical reality to the universe. My ongoing objective attentiveness reveals that this is the only moment I can experience and this objective observation itself makes a nonsense of Einsteinian relativistic subjective observations and theoretical calculations.

The actuality of the infinitude of the physical universe compared to the fantasies of metaphysical beliefs is such a good subject to contemplate upon.

Who knows, it may even provoke the males of the species to get out of their heads and in touch with their feelings – after all taking such a step is an essential prerequisite to beginning to become free of the insidious grip of the instinctual passions.

Mr. Einstein was among the first to gain Guru status in the ‘modern’ world of meta-physical science, a position he was uncomfortable at first with, but as the numbers of believers swelled and popular acclaim spread, he quickly settled into the role with great aplomb. As an aside, it is curious that, some 80 years on, Einstein’s famous Theory of Relativity still remains a theory and has yet to become the Law of Relativity. Basking in the glory of its very own mega-star Guru, science was then able to well and truly break free from the shackles of measurable observation, reasonable assumption and practical common sense, and the re-born metaphysical sciences have enjoyed a unprecedented level of popular acceptance, kudos – and funding – ever since.

It behooves an actualist in discerning what is belief and what is fact to make the distinction between physical science and metaphysical science. The mentioning of the word theory is always a good clue, for theory is to metaphysical science what belief is to mysticism – something they fervently wished to be true. Both the Guru-mystic and the Guru-scientist have vested interests in fostering and maintaining their beliefs – their fame, their position and livelihoods, and a very personal investment in a ‘somewhere- else’ other than here and a ‘sometime-else’ other than now. As Fred Hoyle, a contemporary of Einstein, said of science –

I have always thought it curious that, while most scientists claim to eschew religion, it actually dominates their thoughts more than it does the clergy. The Mind of God, Paul Davies

In what way is, say, Einstein’s physics inconsistent with actual observation of the actual universe’s behaviour?

Einstein’s physics has no relevance at all to the actual objective observation of either the matter that is this actual universe or to the qualities of that matter and this glaring anomaly is explained away by Einsteinian physicists with the glib dismissal that Einstein’s physics do not apply to ‘locally-observable phenomena’ ...

So what’s the problem? The theory states that it does not apply to locally-observable phenomena, and you take this statement of the limits of its relevance to be a refutation?

Perhaps if I put it this way, the disclaimer to cosmological theories that they do not apply to locally-observable phenomena struck me as an indicator of how far-out-there their thinking is.

I don’t have a ‘problem’ at all, as you put it, I simply offered the observation because for me this was yet another reason to dismiss Einsteinian physics as being irrelevant to me as I live in a world were the empirical science of Newtonian physics explains and makes sense of the objective observation of the matter and explains and makes sense of the qualities of that matter that is this physical universe. To create a whole set of theories based on subjective mind-game scenarios, abstract thinking and conceptual mathematical theorems, all of which are based on an a priori principle that the universe was created out of nothing seemed to me at the time to be the antithesis of what I understood science to be. Nowadays it is simply an absurdity, and a widely accepted absurdity to boot.

*

...or to any conditions that we can experience on earth lat alone those that we can sensibly relate to our everyday lives. Local phenomena and objective observation are not the realm of Einstein’s physics – a sure sign that His physics have nothing to do with actuality. Einstein apparently has such a Guru status within the scientific community that few dare to question his theories for to do so would be to dare to challenge the accepted current status quo of science itself.

Obviously.

Then perhaps you will begin to understand why it is impossible to have a sensible discussion about a theory that is so abstracted that it has nothing at all to do with any conditions, events or circumstances that we can experience on earth let alone that we can sensibly relate to in our everyday lives. As Paul Davies revealed, Einsteinian physics relates to ‘toy universes’, not the physical universe of galaxies, stars, planets, moons, rocks, mountains, rivers, oceans, trees, animals and human animals.

But how does that imply a flaw in the theory, as the theory itself says that this is the case?

Which only begs the question as to why such metaphysical theories are popularly taken as being valid theories about the actual universe?

Metaphysics – The branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including such concepts as being, substance, essence, time, space, cause, and identity; theoretical philosophy as the ultimate science of being and knowing. Oxford Dictionary

Metaphysical – Based on abstract general reasoning or a priori principles. Oxford Dictionary

*

Better still, so as not to get too far off track, how is it inconsistent with what one experiences in a PCE?

In a PCE, there is no psychological or psychic faculty present to be interested in, let alone capable of, indulging in imaginative scenarios or fanciful thinking about the nature and properties of matter and energy. What does become startlingly apparent about the nature and properties of matter is that the matter that is the universe is not merely passive – the very matter that is this universe is in a constant state of change and transformation, often imperceptibly slowly, sometimes dramatically evident. I have had a more detailed correspondence about this subject which may be of interest to you.

In a PCE, the direct sensual experience of this non-passivity is experienced as a vibrancy that is magical in its immediacy and one is free to gaze around in wonder at the fact that all this is happening in this very moment.

Indeed. That’s one of the things I find most interesting about Actualism. I thought the cosmological stuff was secondary, but I was apparently wrong.

You are not the first to have become grounded on the rock of creationist theories, by whatever name and in whatever form, and you will certainly not be the last. This is what I wrote to another correspondent ten months ago –

No 38 – The nature of the universe is hardly an everyday matter …

Well, it may not be to you but the nature of the universe is an everyday matter to me. I am left wondering where it is you live?

Do you regard the universe as being ‘out there’, somewhere in the sky? Do you think the universe somehow stops at the edge of the earth’s atmosphere and that this planet is separate from the universe? Does the universe stop at the edge of ‘your’ world or do you see that it might well include the city or town you live in, the trees and cars and dogs and people in the streets, the house or apartment you live, the room you are sitting in, the very chair you are sitting on reading these words.

You, as a flesh and blood body, can touch the stuff of the universe, smell the stuff of the universe, hear the stuff of the universe, taste the stuff of the universe – the ‘everyday matter’ of the universe. In fact you, as a flesh and blood body, are made of the very stuff of the universe – a finite arrangement of living cells that was produced by the process of a single cell being impregnated by another cell, neither of which were part of what has become you, but each of which were the stuff of the universe.

The only reason human flesh and blood bodies continue to exist is by breathing in the very stuff of the universe – ingesting the very stuff of the universe – the everyday matter of mineral matter, animal matter and vegetable matter. By contemplating on the actual nature of the universe you may well find that it is everyday matter.

And, if you take this contemplation a step further, you will find that what you regard as ‘your life’ is but an everyday event of everyday matter – getting out of bed in the morning, doing whatever it is that you do including the essential breathing in and ingesting bits of matter and then going back to bed to go back to sleep. The utter simplicity of the events of everyday life as the everyday matter of the universe does beg the question as to why one should waste so much of one’s life being unhappy and feeling malevolent when there is now an alternative available. Peter, List AF, No 38, 2.4.2003

*

This direct experience of the inherent properties of the matter that is this universe is only possible because ‘I’ have vanished from the scene along with ‘my’ atavistic mystical/spiritual/religious beliefs, fears and fantasies.

In other words, in a PCE the facts of matter are easily distinguished from the human beliefs about matter because there is no ‘me’ as an identity present to produce, maintain and cherish any mystical beliefs whatsoever. Due to ‘my’ absence this flesh and blood material body is no longer separated from the material universe.

*Peter [referring to No 60’s unwillingness to stop being ‘open’ to the big-bang theory] ‘You are not the first to have become grounded on the rock of creationist theories, by whatever name and in whatever form, and you will certainly not be the last.’

In order to give a considered response, I will have to break this down and respond to each of the points that you raise – no wonder I only get around to writing a few posts a week.

Peter’s false ideas: 1) The ‘big-bang’ theory is ‘creationist’ cosmology.

The facts: Just because the ‘big-bang’ theory originated with someone who was a ‘theist’ does not mean that it is necessarily tied to belief in God.

Indeed not, and this is why I said the following to No 60 –

When I looked into cosmology I came to understand it is, as it says it is, the branch of science devoted to studying the ‘evolution’*) of the universe. As birth and death is essential to the evolutionary process it became clear to me that cosmology is the branch of science devoted to the study of the birth and death of the universe.’

*) Evolution – A process by which different kinds of organism *come into being* by the differentiation and genetic mutation of earlier forms over successive generations, viewed as an explanation of their origins. Oxford Dictionary. Emphasis added.

Now whilst some cosmologists are upfront in saying that a God, by whatever name, had a hand in the supposed ‘Big bang’ event that created the universe, others are less circumspect, yet others make no mention at all of a creator God and yet others make no mention of a creationist event.

I came across an example of this last category when I typed the word Cosmology into the Encyclopaedia Britannica search engine –

‘The cosmology, as it was systematized by later Buddhists, included three different realms, all of which were within the confines of samsara (the ongoing cycle of birth, death, and rebirth) and were regulated more or less strictly by the law of karma, according to which good and pious deeds are rewarded while evil and impious deeds are punished. At the top of this universe is the arupa-dhatu (‘realm of formlessness’), which has no material qualities. This realm is inhabited by extremely long-lived brahma deities who are absorbed in the deepest levels of yogic trance.’ Encyclopaedia Britannica 1998

– an example of cosmology with out a God. (Mr. Gautama Buddha supposedly gave no answer as to how the universe was created.)

When I looked up Greek cosmology as a matter of interest, I came up with the following –

‘The cosmogonies (dealing with the origins of the world) and cosmologies (dealing with the ordering of the world) of the Hellenistic period centred around the problem of accounting for the distance between this world and the Beyond, or on accounting for the evil nature of this world and its gods.’ Encyclopaedia Britannica 1998

This then led me to think that I should have used the word cosmogony instead of the words ‘creationist’ cosmology in reference to the Big Bang theory. But then I came across the term relativistic cosmology in the Encyclopaedia Britannica and lo and behold the article clearly and unambiguously explained that the ‘Big Bang’ theory came out of Einstein’s relativity theory … so my use of the term cosmology does seem appropriate according to at least one authoritative reference source. Are you hanging in with me on this? I just needed to check if I had used an appropriate term when I used the term creationist cosmology to describe the Big Bang theory.

So back to your point, yes I would agree with you that the ‘Big Bang’ theory is not necessarily tied to the belief in God. In fact I made the following statement to No 60 so as to leave God out of the ‘Big Bang’ theory altogether –

‘the ‘Big Bang’ theory – a theory that would have us believe that the matter that is this universe is not constant, as in being in a constant state of change and transformation, but that it ephemeral – i.e. was born (apparently out of nothingness) due to a miraculous thus-far-inexplicable event and will therefore eventually die (apparently into the very same nothingness again), again due to a miraculous thus-far-inexplicable event.’ Peter to No 60, Metaphysics, 1.2.2004

The facts: Some other factor must be established like for example that belief in God is a necessary part of the ‘big-bang’ theory.

If I said that the ‘big-bang’ theory is ‘Creationist’ cosmology (with a capital C) then I would be clearly making a statement that the belief in God is a necessary part of creationist cosmology, whereas I used the term creationist to mean that it was created – as in it had a beginning, it originated, it was produced, it came into being. Now for me a ‘miraculous thus-far-inexplicable event’ that is said to have created the universe at the very least requires it to be a metaphysical event in which, whilst one doesn’t necessarily have to believe in a creator God, at least one has to believe in miraculous thus-far-inexplicable forces.

The facts: There are plenty of physicists who do not believe in God – and not agnostic – but are atheists – who also think the evidence (red-shift, 3K radiation, etc) for the big-bang is overwhelming. This demonstrates that there are plenty of physicists that are led to endorse the big-bang theory based upon the evidence (as they see it) rather than using belief in God as evidence.

You would probably be aware that I am on record as saying that Richard was the only thorough-going atheist on the planet, so we are going to get bogged down on this point straight away. Stephen Hawkins, a self-declared atheist when asked if he believed in God is on record as saying ‘I do not believe in a personal God’ – a somewhat equivocal statement, and Einstein is on record as saying ‘I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings’ and I can think of none of the major players in the formulation of the Big Bang theory who did not believe in some form of mysticism or did not have some type of spiritual or religious belief.

I guess the only way one could establish that your fact is a fact is if one conducted in-depth interviews with each of the ‘plenty of physicists’ that you know to be atheists to determine whether they are thorough-going atheists, i.e. that they hold no metaphysical, mystical, spiritual or religious beliefs whatsoever. But then again, when I say that the Big Bang theory is creationist cosmology I am not saying that the formulators or supporters of the theories all believe in a creator God, for to do so would be silly. As an example there may well be Buddhist scientists who support the theory and I have heard Buddhists declare themselves to be atheists in that they do not believe in a Christian God.

Peter’s false ideas: 1) The ‘big-bang’ theory is ‘creationist’ cosmology.

*Peter [referring to No 60’s unwillingness to stop being ‘open’ to the big-bang theory] ‘You are not the first to have become grounded on the rock of creationist theories, by whatever name and in whatever form, and you will certainly not be the last.’

My ‘false idea’ that the ‘Big Bang’ theory is a creationist cosmology is based on the theory being what it says it is, and this is how I translated the theory into down-to-earth terms –

‘the ‘Big Bang’ theory – a theory that would have us believe that the matter that is this universe is not constant, as in being in a constant state of change and transformation, but that it ephemeral – i.e. was born (apparently out of nothingness) due to a miraculous thus-far-inexplicable event and will therefore eventually die (apparently into the very same nothingness again), again due to a miraculous thus-far-inexplicable event.’ Peter to No 60, Metaphysics, 1.2.2004

That the Big Bang theory has its roots in Albert Einstein’s relativity theory, he who believes in Spinoza’s God, and was championed by George LeMaître, a Catholic cleric, is of but anecdotal interest for those on the list who might be vitally interested in the extent to which religion, spiritualism and mysticism continue to permeate and influence the world of science. In fact as I recall, I never mentioned Einstein or LeMaître in connection with the ‘Big Bang’ theory to No 60, the only person I did mention was Paul Davies and I only did so because No 60 had raised the issue. In other words, I never used the evidence in my posts to No 60 that you claim I used in making the point that I didn’t make that you now claim to be false.

As for Charles Darwin, what I find telling is that he agonized for years about publishing his discoveries because he thought he would be damned by other theists – as he was, and still is in some quarters. In fact some education establishments still refuse to teach the evolutionary process, whilst mainstream society have adopted the evolutionary process as being a sign of God’s work.

The facts: It is reasonable to note that beliefs (specifically belief in God) can influence theory, but that is far from establishing in each instance that it actually has.

But then again it would be sensible not to let this reasoning get in the way of allowing that beliefs have influenced theories in a particular specific instance.

If this is the summary of your statement of fact it appears you are using this reasoning to establish that beliefs have not influenced theory in this particular instance as a ‘fact’ – thereby proving ‘my idea’ to be false. From where I stand this reasoning is far from impartial – as far as I can ascertain you are establishing a rule of reasonableness and saying that what I am saying is false because it does not fit your rule.

*

Peter’s false idea 3) That ‘Einsteinian physics’ relies on ‘an a priori principle that the universe was created out of nothing.

3) Fact: Einsteinian physics – if by that you mean relativity (special and general) by no means relies on ‘an a priori principle that the universe was created out of nothing.’

This is the full text of the passage you are referring to –

Einstein’s physics has no relevance at all to the actual objective observation of either the matter that is this actual universe or to the qualities of that matter and this glaring anomaly is explained away by Einsteinian physicists with the glib dismissal that Einstein’s physics do not apply to locally-observable phenomena’ …

So what’s the problem? The theory states that it does not apply to locally-observable phenomena, and you take this statement of the limits of its relevance to be a refutation?

Perhaps if I put it this way, the disclaimer to cosmological theories that they do not apply to locally-observable phenomena struck me as an indicator of how far-out-there their thinking.

I don’t have a ‘problem’ at all, as you put it, I simply offered the observation because for me this was yet another reason to dismiss Einsteinian physics as being irrelevant to me as I live in a world were the empirical science of Newtonian physics explains and makes sense of the objective observation of the matter and explains and makes sense of the qualities of that matter that is this physical universe. To create a whole set of theories based on subjective mind-game scenarios, abstract thinking and conceptual mathematical theorems, all of which are based on an a priori principle that the universe was created out of nothing seemed to me at the time to be the antithesis of what I understood science to be. Nowadays it is simply an absurdity, and a widely accepted absurdity to boot. Peter to No 60, Metaphysics, 1.2.2004

Yep. You have got me nailed on this one. Loose terminology and sloppy thinking. The conversation with No 60 had been shifting around between discussing creationist cosmology and Einsteinian physics, so much so that I obviously lost the plot a bit.

In hindsight, t’would have made much more sense and would have been much more accurate if I had have said –

The theory that the universe was created out of nothing was based on an a priori principle based on a subjective thought game that led to a mathematical theory that the space of the universe is expanding which lead to a mathematical process of regression whereby the universe was assumed to have had a beginning point, and this whole set of theories based on subjective mind-game scenarios, abstract thinking and conceptual mathematical theorems seemed to me at the time to be the antithesis of what I understood science to be. Nowadays I know it is simply an absurdity, and a widely accepted absurdity to boot.

Fact: Einstein’s theories were proposed around the turn of the century – a good 25-30 years or so before big-bang theory got its start. In my readings about relativity, I have never read that Einsteinian physics relies on creation out of nothing. I can agree that ‘creation out of nothing’ is absurd – but the notion that Einsteinian physics (relativity) relies on such an absurd idea may be even more absurd. **

**Peter [referring to ‘Einsteinian physics’] ‘To create a whole set of theories based on subjective mind-game scenarios, abstract thinking and conceptual mathematical theorems, all of which are based on an a priori principle that the universe was created out of nothing seemed to me at the time to be the antithesis of what I understood science to be. Nowadays it is simply an absurdity, and a widely accepted absurdity to boot.’

Yep. I did put the cart before the horse – it was Einstein’s theories that led to the Big Bang theory (hence the term relativistic cosmology) and not the other way around. My statement was, as you rightly said, absurd.

Thanks for your correction. At least it shows that someone is trying to follow this discussion and is trying to make sense of the subject. As I said in my post to No 60 –

I only needed to do a bit of reading about relativistic cosmology to come to the conclusion that I did – that relativistic cosmology was a metaphysical science and not an empirical science. It is only because other people have called me to task over the issue that I have been made to do a little more reading on the subject and this further reading only confirms my initial observations. Peter to No 60 Metaphysics 3.1.2004

So your correction is welcomed because no doubt the issue will be raised again and again over the coming years and whilst I continue to be asked to write yet more on the subject I obviously need to not only get my terminology right but also to avoid sloppy thinking.

And it is good to know that you are willing to be corrected – rather than doggedly hanging on to a personal (incorrect) thesis.

I have no trouble at all in admitting I am wrong – as I said I have never had occasion to immerse myself in the details of relativistic cosmology, as a brief overview was sufficient to convince me of its fallacies. But I do stand by what I say about relativistic cosmology and the more I look into it the more I see it clearly for what it is – an impassioned fantasy.

*

I would like to add a postscript to this post as something you recently said to No 53 struck a chord with me. You talked about how you came to no longer believe in the Christian God. I’ll just repost it again for reference –

... maybe a little personal background might be helpful here. I was raised a Christian – a Mennonite. I swallowed it all, hook, line and sinker for the first 20 years of my life or so. I even did a missionary trip to the Dominican Republic. During that time, I learned intimately the ins and outs of what it was to live a Christian life. I began to have doubts about the actual existence of the ‘lord’ as you are apparently referring to Jesus.

So I began to read – history, philosophy, religion, science – anything I could get my hands on. As I recall, one of the largest barriers to keeping my faith in Jesus was that I actually started to READ THE BIBLE FOR MYSELF.

I learned about the various contradictions in the Old Testament – the savage Old Testament God – Jesus’ insanity (dressed up as sanity – the man was willing to send the greater part of the human race to Hell) – the whole thing just didn’t make sense. There are 2 versions of Christianity – one from the Bible (which hardly any Christian believes) and another which is the ‘digested’ form preached from the pulpits where you simply look up certain verses and passages for support of what you want to believe. For most educated people, though not all, it’s only possible to remain a Christian if you don’t go straight to the Bible and ask questions. The more I learned, the more I realized that the reasons I thought were good reasons to believe in God and Christianity were simply mistaken. Not only that, but most people conspire out of wishful thinking to make the ‘evidence’ for God, Jesus, miracles, etc much better than what it actually is. Two examples of what I’m talking about are faith healing and glossolalia.

So, to directly answer your question – I have no Archimedean point from which I can say there is no God – no ‘absolute certainty’ and so forth.

But I do have the practical knowledge that any claim for the existence of a God is mere fluff – and relies completely on imagination and/or wishing it to be true. For me, that practical knowledge is what matters.

You could just as easily ask me how I know that Santa Claus doesn’t exist. The way I know is by the nature of what Santa Claus is – a fabrication.

Same goes for the ‘Lord.’ To No 53, How do you know, No 37, 3.2.2004

What struck me about this is that it is a straight forward matter-of-fact description of how you came to the conclusion you did. This was what I was trying to explain to No 60 in my post about how I came to understand that the belief that the universe is ephemeral, i.e. that it had a beginning. is nothing but an impassioned fabrication, a fantasy.

If I can be a little cheeky, I would like to juxtapose my conclusion about metaphysics into your words and the reason I do so is that it might help you in understanding how I have come to the conclusions I have.

‘Maybe a little personal background might be helpful here. I was raised at a time when popular science still regarded the universe as being infinite and eternal. I took this to be the case for the first 30 years of my life or so. Then I fell for Eastern spirituality and I even took up wearing the orange robes. During that time, I learned intimately the ins and outs of what it was to live a spiritual life. I began to have doubts about the actual existence of the metaphysical world and then I came across someone who said that the metaphysical world is a fantasy.

So I began to read – history, philosophy, religion, science – anything I could get my hands on. As I recall, one of the largest barriers to keeping my faith in the metaphysical was that I actually started to read relativistic cosmology for myself.

I learned about the various contradictions in relativistic cosmology – Einstein’s subjective ‘gedankenexperiment’, – his suspension of sensible down-to-earth objective thinking – the man was willing to imagine that space was bent and that time could flow backwards – the whole thing just didn’t make sense. There are 2 versions of creationist cosmology – one from the Bible (which hardly any Christian believes) and another which is the ‘digested’ form, taught in the schools and championed in the popular press where you simply watch certain television programs or read certain books and articles that support what you want to believe. It’s only possible to remain a believer in metaphysical theories and realms if you don’t make your own investigation into metaphysics yourself and come to your own conclusions as to its sensibility. The more I learned, the more I realized that the reasons I thought were good reasons to believe in metaphysics were simply mistaken. Not only that, but most people conspire out of wishful thinking to make the ‘evidence’ for all things metaphysical much better than what it actually is. Two examples of what I’m talking about are creationist cosmology and the so-called relativity theory.

So, to directly answer your question – I have no Archimedean point from which I can say there is no such thing as metaphysics – no ‘absolute certainty’ and so forth.

But I do have the practical knowledge that any claim for the existence of metaphysical realms or of the facticity of metaphysical theories is mere fluff – and relies completely on imagination and/or wishing it to be true. For me, that practical knowledge is what matters.

You could just as easily ask me how I know that Santa Claus doesn’t exist. The way I know is by the nature of what Santa Claus is – a fabrication.

Same goes for anything metaphysical’.

The reason I have juxtaposed my position re: metaphysics to your position re: the existence of God is that it may help you to appreciate that I too have no ‘Archimedean point’ (whatever that is) from which I can say there is no such thing as metaphysics. I simply put my initial understanding down to my practical life experience and the application of common sense … and it was this common sense thinking that led to the conclusion that then opened the way to me having an experiential understanding based on the direct experience of the infinitude of the actual universe which one has in a pure consciousness experience.

Interesting reading – as it is an account of a personal odyssey. I would add though that both relativity and the ‘big-bang’ are not necessarily as ‘metaphysical’ as you make them out to be. They may both be wrong – but if so, they are wrong because the evidence doesn’t support them – not because they are ‘metaphysical’. Let me reiterate – I am not saying that there are not metaphysical theories associated with the big-bang and relativity by some scientists – I am saying that they are not NECESSARILY metaphysical.

I am not making a philosophical argument as to the rights or wrongs of Einsteinian relativity or Einsteinian cosmology. What I did was make a down-to-earth enquiry into the subjects and what I found was that both were predicated on there being an underlying non-material reality to the material universe, i.e. both are theoretical systems based on the theoretical interactions of hypothetical particles that have no material existence.

From what you say, you appear to be arguing the agnostic case as in because you can never prove the existence of God, nor disprove the existence of God, one must remain open to all possibilities. As I said before, I have always found that it was unacceptable to me to remain open to all beliefs and, after I met Richard, I particularly found it impossible to remain an agnostic towards the universe – this very world of people, things and events.

By applying down-to-earth pragmatism I came to understand that I had two clear choices. If there was in fact an ‘underlying reality’ to the material universe then I had better stick with searching for the meaning of life within that ‘underlying reality’. If not, then I need to abandon the traditional spiritual search and set about thoroughly road-testing actualism in order to see if it works in practice – which, as you know, was the decision I took.

When I look back on my early discussions with Richard, what we broadly talked about was life, the universe and what it is to be a human being. In these discussions what emerged were a few clear propositions –

• life is what happens between birth (instigated by the fertilizing of an egg) and death (the cessation of bodily functions and the eventual decomposition of the body)

• the actual universe is infinite and eternal (there is no ‘somewhere else’, no ‘something else’ nor is there an ephemeral ‘underlying reality’ to the matter and space that is this universe)

• what a human being is a mortal corporeal flesh and blood body (the parasitical entity who thinks and feels it inhabits the physical body is but an impassioned illusion given authority by the ferocity of the instinctual survival passions, aided and abetted by the overwhelming relentlessness of millennia of cumulative social conditioning)

Over the course of a few months these very simple propositions made increasing sense to me such that I set off on my own course to discover for myself the facts of the matter – and taking on board the utter simplicity of the facts of the matter have drastically changed my life to an extent that was unimaginable to me when I first met Richard.

Which is why you and I are having this conversation about the latest of the cosmological theories.

Good, hey.

The mechanics of life within the planes of matter, energy time and space are bound by laws, many in the physical (physics) realm were discovered fairly recently. Many ‘discoverers’ added views such as Albert E, and more recently, Stephen Hawking, which can (relative to their field) appear to be ‘imaginary’, ‘metaphysical’ or mystical.

Neither Einstein nor Hawkins work in practical empirical science but in the field of theoretical sciences, dealing with things that can neither be seen nor measured. Both men are self-proclaimed mystics, searching for the meaning of life in mathematical equations and unfathomable theories.

One of the key elements in the wave of public attention that broke over Einstein at the end of 1919 was the alleged incomprehensibility of his new theory. <Snip>. But the world seemed to want their new hero to be incomprehensibly clever, and one popular story of the time (which Einstein encouraged) was that Einstein himself had once claimed that the general theory was understood by only twelve men (in 1919 it would have been taken for granted that no woman could possibly understand the theory).

But perhaps we can understand this public response to the new hero, since something very similar has happened to another cosmologist at the end of the 1980s and in the early 1990s. Stephen Hawking, hailed by many people as the greatest scientist since Einstein, wrote a book, ‘A Brief History of Time’, that became an international bestseller, in spite of (or, perhaps, because of the widespread story that nobody who lacked a PhD in physics could begin to understand it. Once again, the world had found itself a guru of incomprehensible genius, to admire and set on a pedestal. Einstein, A life in Science by Michael White and John Gribbin, Simon & Schyuster 1993

It is important to make a clear distinction as to what are physical laws – empirically measurable, clearly demonstrable and readily repeatable – and what is mere theory, postulation or assumption. I find it most telling that the clocks of the worldwide satellite navigation system were programmed according to Newtonian laws and not according to Mr. Einstein’s theory that suggests time somehow varies relative to the velocity of the clock itself. Similarly, all of the space exploration uses Newtonian physical laws and not Einstein’s esoteric theory.

A scientific theory ain’t a physical law – a theory is speculation or conjecture.

The reason I mention this is because I have discovered, without the brilliant minds that these guys were born with, as many others have, laws that transcend the ‘cultural laws’.

Theoreticians such as Mr. Einstein and Mr. Hawking and their ilk are human beings, exactly like you and I. As such, it is inevitable that they had an upbringing steeped in religious/ spiritual belief. Their theories are about the creation and ending of this eternal universe and about ‘other-worlds’, other than this infinite universe. The physical, actual universe, being eternal, has no beginning and no end and, being infinite, has no edge or outside to it.

It is important to make a clear distinction as to what are physical laws – empirically measurable, clearly demonstrable and readily repeatable – and what is mere theory, postulation or assumption. I find it most telling that the clocks of the worldwide satellite navigation system were programmed according to Newtonian laws and not according to Mr. Einstein’s theory that suggests time somehow varies relative to the velocity of the clock itself. Similarly, all of the space exploration uses Newtonian physical laws and not Einstein’s esoteric theory.

A scientific theory ain’t a physical law – a theory is speculation or conjecture.

I have read that Einstein’s theory has had many proofs over the last 80 years but, from what I can determine, the proofs offered relate to explaining phenomena that may relate to the original supposition, rather than providing empirical repeatable down-to-earth evidence that Einstein’s theory is a law that relates to the actual physical world. Whenever a scientist or engineer wants to do something practical, as opposed to theoretical, intellectual or mystical, they invariably revert to the laws, constraints and dictates that govern the physical universe and do not even consider the meta-physical theories. Whenever I had read anything of quantum physics, quantum mechanics, quantum cosmology, etc. in the past, I soon became bewildered and confused until I eventually realized that what they were saying had no relationship to common sense for they were not talking of the actual physical world.

Mr. Einstein himself is quoted as saying –

‘The skeptic will say: ‘It may well be true that this system of equations is reasonable from a logical standpoint. But this does not prove that it corresponds to nature’. You are right, dear skeptic. Experience alone can decide on truth. Yet we have achieved something if we have succeeded in formulating a meaningful and precise equation. The derivation, from the questions, of conclusions which can be confronted with experience will require painstaking efforts and probably new mathematical methods.’ Albert Einstein April 1950. Quotation from Scientific American April 2000

I find it telling that, according to Mr. Einstein, a skeptic is one who questions why relativity and quantum theory does not correspond to nature, i.e. the behaviour and actions of things we can see, touch, feel, smell and taste.

I have no interest in things metaphysical or theories about the extreme limits of measurability in the macro or micro ends of the physical world. Science has perennially pushed back the boundaries of our knowledge of both the small and the big, forever searching for a finite limit, an edge or a Complete Understanding. Lacking anything of substance to measure, for the theoretical scientists don’t work in real world laboratories, they rely purely on theories, imagination and mathematical equations and computer calculations. Their position is clearly analogous to the mystic or shaman, and indeed most of the theories of the last century borrow heavily from Eastern mysticism – theories of other worlds, uncertainty, non-determinism, the observers effect on material objects, solipsism, etc.

But, for what it is worth, here is my take on Mr. Einstein’s theory.

The central tenet of his theory is the unequivocal statement that the speed of light is constant, no matter what. As far as I can ascertain, this tenet is held to be the case no matter what medium it passes through and this constancy is held to be completely uninfluenced by the effects of any other objects or forces.

To quote from: Einstein, A life in Science

It is this constancy of the speed of light that leads to all the non-commonsensical predictions of Einstein’s theory, that a moving ruler shrinks and gets heavier, while a moving clock runs slow.

Similarly, time in our world is a shadow of an extension in four-dimensional spacetime. But because of the minus sign in front of the ct in the equations, the faster a clock moves, the more spread out its ‘shadow’ becomes, so that time runs more slowly, and if the clock could move at the speed of light, then time, as measured by the clock, would stand still.

None of these effects show up in any significant way until an object is moving, relative to the observer, at a sizeable fraction of the speed of light. Since the speed of light is so large – 300 million metres a second – the effects never show up in everyday life, which is why they do not seem to be common sense. One second in the time dimension is equivalent to 300 million metres (actually, minus 300 million metres) in any of the three length dimensions, so space and time only have an exactly equal footing when you are moving at 300 million metres a second – at the speed of light – and their equivalence only begins to show up for things moving at a respectably large fraction of that speed. Michael White and John Gribbin, Simon & Schyuster 1993

I always find it amazing that humans revere a theory whose effects no human can directly experience because humans cannot move at the speed of light because it is held to be impossible to do so by the very same theory. Does this not mean that the theory has no relevance at all to human experience in the physical world in which we live? Does this not ring a bell? Is this not the same with all metaphysical/spiritual theories?

But, to address your comments about the experimental proof of the theory by observation of short-lived particles. Again a quote from the same source as above –

The simplest way to see this is in terms of the behaviour of particles called muons, which are created high in the atmosphere of the Earth by the impact of cosmic rays from space. Muons move at a speed very close to the speed of light. But they are also very short-lived particles, and soon (in a couple of microseconds) decay into other kinds of particle. By measuring the number of muons found at high altitudes, using instruments on an un-crewed balloon, and comparing this number with the number of muons arriving at the ground, physicists find (the experiment was first carried out in 1941) that although the lifetime of a muon is too short, according to clocks here on Earth, for them to get through to the ground, in fact most of them do penetrate the atmosphere. The explanation is that time runs slower for the muons, because they are travelling at nearly the speed of light, and therefore they do have time to reach the ground before they decay. This experiment really has been carried out. It confirms that moving clocks run slow, that moving objects contract, and that any observers moving at constant velocity are entitled to regard themselves as at rest. Michael White and John Gribbin

And yet, I find it telling that when a clock orbiting the earth in a satellite used for precision navigation, the same calculated effects of this theory have been ignored. Does this not raise some serious doubts as to why these theories and explanatory proofs are not used in the empirical world of people things and events?

There are many more experimental confirmations of the special theory, but we will mention just one. It turns out, from Einstein’s equations, that an object travelling at less than the speed of light can never be given enough energy to make it accelerate to the speed of light (let alone to go any faster). You never can run alongside a beam of light at the same speed, and so the puzzle of how the waves would look if you rode with them does not arise. Instead, the more energy you put into a moving object, the faster it will go, but the extra speed it picks up is always less than the amount needed to take it past the speed of light. As you put more and more energy into a moving object, such as the particles that physicists whiz around in accelerators like the ones at CERN, in Geneva, the less each extra bit of energy increases the speed of the object. You get less return (in the form of extra speed) for the same investment (in the form of extra energy). But the extra energy must go somewhere, and the equations tell us that it goes into the mass of the particle, which goes a little bit faster but gets a lot heavier as it continues to accelerate and gets near the speed of light. <Snip>

Again, this effect has been measured, directly, in countless experiments at particle accelerators around the world. Michael White and John Gribbin

I watched a TV program about the work at Cern and was particularly unimpressed, or skeptical as Mr. Einstein would have it, as to the common sense of the gulf between what was actually observable and measurable and what was extrapolated as an explanation. I came to understand that the use of massive computing power was increasingly needed in the micro dimension as the mathematical equations become increasingly complex. In fact, it was obvious they weren’t trying to understand, or make sense, of what they were observing, they were trying to find justification for their theories from their observations, which is a completely different scenario. The theories derived from increasingly tortured mathematical formulas were primary, the actual observations were secondary. In fact, many of their suppositions were about speculative particles, energies, or whatever, that had never been observed and may never be observable. Does not all this postulating have a familiar ring about it?

To move on further into the realms of quantum supposition and theory, again from the same source –

Before we leave the special theory, though, we want to clear up one puzzle, which worries very many people when they first meet it. It is sometimes called the ‘twins paradox’, although it isn’t really a paradox at all.

It goes like this. Suppose you have a twin sister, exactly the same age as yourself. While you stay at home, here on Earth, your intrepid sister flies off in a spaceship, at a speed that is a sizeable fraction of the speed of light. After a while, she turns the spaceship around, and flies back. During the flight, her clocks must run slow, relative to your clocks here on Earth. She must, according to Einstein’s theory, age less than you have. But if she can say that she was at rest, and you were the one doing the moving, she will say that your clocks were running slow. You predict that your sister has aged less on her journey than if she stayed at home, while she says you must have aged less. Each twin predicts that the other one is younger!

The resolution of the ‘paradox’ lies in the fact that your twin had to turn her ship around in order to come home. She changed the direction she was moving in, not just through space but through spacetime. If she had kept on travelling in a straight line through space at a constant speed, she would have been travelling in a straight line through spacetime and both of you would indeed have been entitled to argue that the other twin was the younger one. But there would have been no paradox, since under those circumstances you could never again stand side by side and compare notes.

By coming back home, however, your twin has not kept to a straight-line journey through spacetime. Your own ‘journey’ is indeed a straight line, because you always travel at the same velocity, but in order to get back to you she has to travel around two sides of a triangle in four-dimensional spacetime.

In the familiar three-dimensional world, the distance from one point to another in a straight line is always less than the distance between the same two points along the other two sides of a triangle. The same is true of the distance part of your sister’s journey – she has indeed travelled more kilometres than you have. But this is not the whole story. Because of that minus sign in front of the ct in the equations of special relativity, the time difference between two points in space-time is always less if you go around the two sides of the triangle, instead of following the straightest possible line from one point to the other. The extra distance travelled by your sister is exactly balanced by the smaller time her journey takes, so that you and she both ‘use’ the same amount of spacetime and both start out and end up in the same place at the same time. So your twin sister who has been on the journey really is younger than you are when she comes home.

It may not be common sense, but at least you can see that there is a difference between the two journeys through spacetime, one in a straight line and the other round two sides of a triangle. And, again, this prediction of the special theory has actually been tested, using extremely accurate timepieces called atomic clocks, flown around the world on jet airliners and compared with identical stay-at-home clocks in their return to the laboratory (such tests were carried out for the first time in 1971). Even though the effect is tiny for journeys at such low speeds, compared with c , the clocks are accurate enough to measure the difference, which exactly matches the predictions of relativity theory. Michael White and John Gribbin

Again I do find it curious that the clocks in satellites moving at several hundred times faster than an airline, for years not hours, are evidently not compensated to allow for this experimental difference attributed to Einstein’s theory. There are two unrelated fields of science – the pure theoreticians and the empiricist engineer scientists, exactly as in the field of ontology there are two unrelated approaches – the metaphysical, spiritualists and the down-to-earth actualists.

And just to round up the horses into the coral, I’ll end with another piece on quantum theory from the Encyclopedia Britannica –

Although atomic energies can be sharply defined, the positions of the electrons within the atom cannot be, quantum mechanics giving only the probability for the electrons to have certain locations. This is a consequence of the feature that distinguishes quantum theory from all other approaches to physics, the indeterminacy (or uncertainty) principle of Werner Heisenberg. As was explained earlier in the article, this principle holds that measuring a particle’s position with increasing precision necessarily increases the uncertainty as to the particle’s momentum, and conversely. The ultimate degree of uncertainty is controlled by the magnitude of Planck’s constant, which is so small as to have no apparent effects except in the world of microstructures. In the latter case, however, because both a particle’s position and its velocity or momentum must be known precisely at some instant in order to predict its future history, quantum theory precludes such certain prediction and thus escapes determinism. Encyclopaedia Britannica

Thus, quantum theory has an inbuilt ‘indeterminancy (or uncertainty) principle’ which means it forever ‘escapes determinism’, as in –

‘determine : conclude from reasoning or investigation, deduce; fix or decide causally, decide on, select, choose; definitely locate, identify, or establish the nature of; ascertain exactly’ Oxford Dictionary.

No wonder I have no interest in quantum theory. Trying to have a sensible down-to-earth discussion about Einstein’s theory is analogous to talking to someone who passionately believes in the existence of God, and then insists you should prove He/She/It doesn’t exist.

‘To be sure, nature distributes her gifts unevenly among her children. But there are plenty of the well-endowed, thank God, and I am firmly convinced that most of them live quiet, unobtrusive lives.’ Albert Einstein

His firm conviction seems to have a familiar ring to it. Spiritualists are often convinced that there are Enlightened Beings who live quite unobtrusive lives, a conviction particularly held by those humble practitioners who fail to make it to the top of the spiritual heap.

As for Einstein, you may find this quote to be relevant to the subject at hand –

‘Although I am a typical loner in daily life, my consciousness of belonging to the invisible community of those who strive for truth, beauty and justice has preserved me from feeling isolated. The most beautiful and deepest feeling a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all serious endeavour in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind.

To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something, a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious.’ From ‘My Credo’, a speech by Albert Einstein to the German League of Human Rights, Berlin, Autumn 1932.

Actualism Homepage

Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless

Peter’s Text © The Actual Freedom Trust