Secret_History

xxiv
The Secret History of the World
But, isn’t that the point? That we search for that tiny clue that there IS a reality
beyond that which the materialist scientific view accepts as measurable?
Just as certain mechanical aids can augment the perception of certain ranges of
light such as infra-red, ultra-violet, x-rays, and radio waves, so might our so-called
psychic perceptions be similarly augmented. This was my theory at the beginning
of the Cassiopaean Experiment, though I never thought it would evolve into a
dialogue with “myself in the future”.
The brain is an instrument devised to focus reality in mathematical constructs --
interpreting waveforms as material objects. What I had in mind from the beginning
was a process of not only being able to perceive those ranges of energies that are
normally beyond the range of three dimensional perception, but to be able to do so
in a repeatable way with practical applications. By developing such a process, the
implication is that we can not only perceive the effects of myriads of waveforms,
but also, depending upon the amplitudes and energies, predict the outcomes of
certain motions, even, perhaps, in very precise terms.
Of course, it seems that the descriptions of the greater reality beyond three
dimensional space and time must be, in an essential way, difficult to describe
except metaphorically. So, I think we can assume that the finite nature of our
minds is self-limiting in a certain sense. It seems that all the instruments we can
create and build are probably incapable of penetrating into such realms because of
the simple fact that they are three-dimensional. The only material way we may be
able to go beyond our reality is through mathematics, which seems to transcend
time and space.
There is, indeed, a lot of research in physics that sounds provocatively like
ancient mystical teachings, yet the possibility is that the true nature of the reality
behind our world is beyond quantum mechanics and theory.
Ark: As Wheeler so succinctly points it out:
We have every right to assume that the universe is filled with more uncertainty than
certainty. What we know about the universe - indeed, what is knowable - is based
on a few iron gateposts of observation plastered over by papier-mâché molded from
our theories.
Popper makes these important observations:
“... all explanatory science is incompleteable; for to be complete it would have to
give an explanatory account of itself. An even stronger result is implicit in Gödel’s
famous theorem of the incompletability of formalized arithmetic (though to use
Gödel’s theorem and other mathematical incompleteness theorems in this context is
to use heavy armament against a comparatively weak position). Since all physical
science uses arithmetic (and since for a reductionist only science formulated in
physical symbols has any reality), Gödel’s incompleteness theorem renders all
physical science incomplete. For the nonreductionist, who does not believe in the
reducibility of all science to physically formulated science, science is incomplete
anyway.”
“Not only is philosophical reductionism a mistake, but the belief that the method of
reduction can achieve complete reduction is, it seems, mistaken too. We live in a
world of emergent evolution; of problems whose solutions, if they are solved, beget
new and deeper problems. Thus we live in a universe of emergent novelty; of