KARL JASPERS FORUM FOR TARGET ARTICLES
Target Article 7
SCIENTIFIC PARADIGM SHIFTS AND PRIMACY OF CONSCIOUSNESS
by Henry Swift
31 March 1998, distributed 7 April 1998
SWC web site: http://www.swcp.com/swc/
[1]
ABSTRACT
Paradigmatic shifts in the panorama of past scientific
revolutions have both expanded the domain of science and
forced major shifts in man's view of himself. They have
affected both his view of his place in both the world, and his
spiritual life. These revolutions are reviewed for
commonality and to assess their impacts on science and
society. This review enables us to see that changing the
metaphysical basis of science from the primacy of materiality
to that of consciousness is a natural next advance that follows
a pattern of past paradigm shifts. This change allows
expansion of the realm of physical science from relationships
among inert material objects into the life science region, as
well as into the realm of spirituality. This revolution differs,
however, from the previous ones. The difference is that for
completion it requires change not only in mental concepts, as
required in earlier ones, but also change in the psyche of man
-- to the transpersonal. The new science can proceed,
however, only with an intellectual acceptance of its premises,
providing time for more complete acceptance to develop.
[2]
The term paradigm was originated by Leibniz and
popularized by Thomas Kuhn (1962). A paradigm is a fixed
conceptual framework that most scientists accept and work
within, which then becomes a filter for seeing, interpreting,
and correlating experience. According to Kuhn, "normal"
science consists of work within this paradigm. History
shows, however, that anomalous phenomena arise that defy
explanation within the current paradigm. For a while these
misfits can be "swept under the rug" by considering the
offending experiential data to be nonfactual and unreal, but
the accumulation of paradoxes and/or anomalies builds
pressure for finding an alternative paradigm that will
encompass not only all of the older, "explained phenomena",
but also include the newer, anomalous phenomenon.
Although Kuhn dealt with scientific revolutions, the impact
of those revolutions on human culture was also
revolutionary, as to be expected since fundamental physical
and metaphysical concepts have been involved. The current
paradigm for science has two main tenets. The first is that the
material world is the primary reality and all else is either
derived from that or illusionary. The second tenet is that the
process of observation does not influence the observed. The
first tenet relegates consciousness to be an epiphenomenon of
materiality, e.g. it is an outcome of brain tissue. This nearly
400 year old paradigm became an unquestioned belief system
that was strongly entrenched by the Copernican revolution.
[3]
The first paradigm shift was from the idea of a flat earth.
When this was replaced with a round earth men's horizons
were enlarged, and exploration of the earth's geography
rapidly developed. The effect of this paradigm change on
science was to extend the domain of mathematical geometry
to spheres. We then look at the Copernican revolution, which
had a profound effect on the future conduct of science, and
proceed to the advent of quantum mechanics (QM) in 1928.
Then comes the Science Within Consciousness described by
Amit Goswami at this conference. We hope to see thereby
what is historically common among the numerous scientific
revolutions, and be able to credibly extrapolate beyond the
current scientific paradigm into the future.
[4]
THE COPERNICAN REVOLUTION
The Copernican Revolution required a wrenching conceptual
change from a geocentric, to a heliocentric universe, and was
mightily resisted by the church authorities of the day.
Galileo, who taught the ideas of Copernicus, was convicted
of a "vicious suspicion of heresy" in 1633, and confined by
house arrest for the final years of his life. This conflict
between the church's hubris and Galileo's arrogance
ultimately led to science strictly confining its activities
thereafter to the material world, leaving spiritual, and
subjective matters to the church. This division continues to
this day, but with scientists now rejecting subjectivity data as
valid, as opposed to its original goal of search for truth
wherever is found -- and with the church having no scientific
method to investigate spirituality. As science proved the
church dogma wrong in so many material matters, the church
lost credence in the western world, even in its legitimate,
subjective domain. Then as science gained dominance it
developed its own hubris, claiming that science was the only
valid source of truth -- the current virulent social disease
called "scientism". As psychologist Abraham Maslow put it
(1969), as a result we now have a half-religion, and a
half-science. The impact of the Copernican revolution on
human culture was quite significant. Man, from living at the
center of the universe, was demoted to being on one of
several planets subservient to the sun, and the church was
shown to be fallible. Also again shown to be fallible was the
evidence of our senses, e.g., the sun no longer traverses the
sky daily from east to west.
[5]
THE NEWTONIAN REVOLUTION
Then Isaac Newton reduced the mysterious planetary
motions to the mathematically rational result of gravitational
attraction between inertial masses. More generally, however,
he established the concept that the operation of the universe
was subservient to a set of laws, which when applied using
reason, predicted the future positions of objects from
knowledge of their initial positions and momentums. The
mysterious universe ruled by God was now replaced by a
universe that ran like clockwork, requiring from God only a
source of initial energy to start it going. God was now
unneeded in the affairs of man, and writers on sociology,
psychology, and related fields (e.g., Appleyard 1993) have
blamed Newtonian science for the de-spiritualization and
resulting inhumanity of man to man in the modern age. There
is validity to this accusation, and a philosophical movement
to discredit science in these times has developed, presumably
for that reason. With Newton's physics we had a general
method not only for deriving planetary orbits, but for
predicting the motions of any mechanical system. The
Newtonian revolution extended the domain of science
beyond merely planetary orbits, to any mechanical system, in
any portion of the universe. It also demoted man from his
honored place at the center of the universe, and eliminated
both mystery in the operation of the universe, and the
corresponding need for God. The Newtonian science also
required the (then) new mathematics of calculus in order to
be expressed.
[6]
THE EINSTEINIAN REVOLUTION
Next, in 1905, came Albert Einstein's relativity theory. His
theory differed from Newton's when there was relative
motion between the observer and the observed. The formerly
constant parameters of mass, distance, and time changed
therein by an amount depending on the ratio of the relative
velocities to that of light. Again man's common sense and the
evidence of his senses were drastically violated, to be
replaced by the uncommon sense of science. Einstein's
predictions that light paths would be bent when near a large
mass, and that mass and energy were interchangeable were
inconceivable and incredible to scientists and layman of that
day. It took measurements during an ellipse of the sun of the
apparent position of a star whose light passed close to the sun
to provide conclusive and coercive proof of the correctness
of Einstein's new concepts. The measured shift in position of
the star's image was about the amount Einstein predicted! If
Einstein was correct, as had now to be accepted, then the
other consequences of the theory had also to be accepted.
The bombing of Nagasaki in World War II dramatically
demonstrated to the world another of his conclusions -- the
equivalence of mass and energy.
[7]
According to Einstein, when a mass travels with a high
relative velocity, its mass increases, and distance and time
also changed. According to both Newton and daily
experience these factors were always invariable, so why had
these odd effect never been noticed before? To answer that
we must look at the magnitude of these changes. We shall
look at mass only, as distance and time increase or decrease
by the same factor. According to Einstein's theory a mass
increases in mass value, when traveling at a high velocity (as
observed from a stationary platform). This increase depends
upon the ratio of it's velocity to the velocity of light. For a
stationary mass, the increase is zero. At the speed required
for a space ship to leave the earth's orbit of about 7 miles per
second, the mass or weight of the space ship calculates, per
Einstein, to be increased by only six parts in one thousand
million. So NASA relies for its space orbit calculations much
more on Newton than on Einstein. The principal effect of
Einstein's modification of Newton's equations was to extend
the applicability of Newton's equations into the domain of
higher velocities -- those comparable with the speed of light,
where Newton could not go. Newton's mechanics is thus a
"limiting case" of relativity theory -- in the limit of zero
relative velocity Einstein and Newton's theories are identical.
Also, we note that ,as with previous paradigm change,
Einstein's general relativity theory required a new geometry
(Riemann's), in order to be expressed.
[8]
THE REVOLUTION OF QUANTUM MECHANICS
Next came the revolution caused by quantum mechanics. The
word 'quantum' comes from the discovered fact that many
physical quantities are not infinitely divisible, as previously
believed, but are quantized -- provided only in minute
"packets" called quanta. Max Plank found this concept
necessary to explain anomalous spectral phenomena in the
emission of light, and Einstein used it to explain spectral
anomalies in photoelectric emission. The success in these
fields led in 1928 to the mathematical theory called quantum
mechanics, which applies to elementary particles where
Newton's theory no longer works. It is important to recognize
that in every application of QM in the nearly seven decades
of it existence, it has given correct answers. Since it works so
well, it must speak truth -- at least a partial truth. Quantum
mechanics is a difficult theory to accept as its consequences
are extremely counter-intuitive (i.e. weird!). For example,
sufficiently small particles can be either a wave or a particle,
depending on the experimenter's decision of which to look
for. Also, matter is conceptualized in QM as waves of
probability and becomes manifest in our space-time world
only when an observation is made by a sentient being. It is
important, however, to note that QM approaches identity to
Newton's theory for objects composed of many atomic
particles -- objects we can readily see.
[9]
Let's take a small object such as an atom to show how this
seamless merging comes about, in a analogous manner to
how Einstein's physics merges into Newton's for objects
moving slowly. All objects are composed of quanta of matter
or energy, and thus are subject to the rules of QM. Does this
mean that each particle of an object could be anywhere in the
universe when unobserved? The answer is a resounding no!
What happens instead is that the "quantum waves"
representing each of the particles superimpose and interact,
similar to the way water waves cancel and reinforce each
other. In this case, they combine so that the high-probability
envelope for the object's location becomes identical to that
foretold by Newton. The larger an object, the more closely
does it act as Newton says it should. So there is no
significant difference between the predictions of the new and
old physics, when applied to objects made of many atoms, --
those that the naked eye can readily see. QM merges into
Newton as object sizes increase from atomic dimensions. As
before the new does not invalidate the old in the domain for
which it was developed. Also as before, QM required a new
use of the mathematics of probability theory in order to be
expressed. The metaphysical implications of QM are a
drastic change, relative to Newton's mechanics. The regular
and predicable universe of Newton was replaced by a world
with uncertainty at its core, and the observer is intimately
involved in what is observed. The effect on science is that,
although Newton's laws work fine for prediction of events
that humans deal with daily life, it goes badly awry at the
sub-atomic level, and QM must then be used.
[10]
SCIENCE WITHIN CONSCIOUSNESS
We pass to the Science Within Consciousness concepts of
Prof. Amit Goswami, as reported in this conference.
Goswami was the first to introduce the primacy of
consciousness into science, and to fully develop the details of
the result. His new concepts were a rejuvenation of rejected
ideas of the genius mathematician John von Neumann
(1955). Goswami first published his new ideas in a physics
journal (1989) and later for the layperson in his book (1993),
wherein he formulated what he now calls Science Within
Consciousness, (or SWC). He has described applications of
the new science in academic journals in psychology and
biology (see references), and in the internet home page at
www.swcp.com/swc. The recognition of the primacy of
consciousness and it's significance to science appears to be
growing. This is demonstrated by both the naming of this
conference, and by the recent publication of E. R. Close's
1997 book, Transcendental Physics. If QM was considered to
be difficult to accept, then SWC follows the
historical pattern of increasing counter-intuitiveness of new
paradigms. Its basic premise is that of the Perennial
Philosophy, as described in Aldous Huxley's 1958 book of
that name. This is that consciousness is the ground of all
being. Consciousness thus is the source for everything in the
universe, both seen and unseen, material and immaterial.
Consciousness can neither be sensed, defined, nor
described;
it just is. Consciousness is the primary reality, there is only
one consciousness, and the material universe arises out of it
as an epiphenomenon, as will be shown later. Quantum
mechanics (QM) is a mathematical procedure that defines the
possibilities inherent in a particular physical situation.
[11]
Goswami introduced consciousness into physics via QM, by
assuming that it is the agent for the materialization of matter
from the potential state. We shall use the simplest possible
example of a physical situation in order to illustrate the
meaning of this statement (See Figure 1). Let's inject a small
object such as an atom into an empty space. The mathematics
of QM precisely defines its location following the injection,
but only in terms of possibilities -- with each possible
location having a particular probability of the atom being
found there. For instance, at point A the probability might be
2%, at B 3.4%, at C 13.%, and so on, throughout the whole
of space. When a measurement or observation of the object's
location is made something magical happens. The physicist
calls this magical moment 'waveform collapse' because it is
the quantum waveform that mathematically defines the
probabilities, but we will simply call it 'quantum' collapse.
When quantum collapse happens, the atom is manifested into
our space-time world at one particular location out of the
infinitely manifold set of prior possibilities. The cloud of
uncertainty has now 'collapsed' -- into a certainty. Whereas
the atom formerly could have been located at A, B, C, or
anywhere else, after 'quantum collapse' it then is somewhere
-- at a definite location. The conventional, academic
physicist will agree with this so far, but we now go further. A
different but equivalent way of looking at this is that before
quantum collapse the electron was actually nowhere in this
space-time world of ours. It then had a tendency to exist
somewhere -- but did not actually exist anywhere. After
quantum collapse, however, it actually did exist.
[12]
To the question, "Where was the electron before quantum
collapse?", QM provides no answer. We did know the
electron's location when we wrote the quantum equation and
injected the electron into space. It did exist in space-time
then, but it did not exist subsequently until a measurement
(observation) was made of its location. So quantum collapse
is the basic act of creation, and consciousness is the agent
thereof. Since the electron before its "creation" via
observation was not in our space-time world, it must
therefore have been in a transcendental region -- by the
definition of the word transcendental. It thus seems clear that
QM, per the SWC interpretation, provides us with an insight
link between the transcendental and the material world.
Furthermore, since the transcendental is not cognizable, the
fact that QM was a creation of that limited mind of man
indicates that intuitive inspiration must come into our
consciousness from the transcendental, rather than from brain
function. Since the Universe is a large assembly of small
particles such as atoms, and QM applies to each of them, this
then is the scientist's story of the creation of the universe. If
we equate the word God to consciousness (as seems
reasonable to do), then this story from science story agrees
with that in the Christian Bible. The universe instead of
being created in six days, however, is created each observing
moment of our lives, with both God and us needed. Since
both God and us (or some other aware entity) are co-creators
of the world, is that not what is meant in the Bible's
statement that God made man in his image?
[13]
Science Within Consciousness (or SWC) has been
marvelously successful in providing explanations for
anomalous phenomena. A semi-annual bulletin is published
describing some of these successes, such as in bridging the
gap between science and religion, in parapsychology, the
relation of East/West healing systems, death and
reincarnation, etc. These are all fields of experience that are
unexplainable by current materialistic science. The
introduction of consciousness into QM as an essential
element has spiritualized science, enabling it to no longer be
limited to phenomena of the material world of inert matter. It
now provides guidance in fields of the life sciences as well as
in the spiritual realm (see the SWC internet home page for
details). This explanatory power for anomalous phenomena
has historically been a potent argument for the acceptance of
a new paradigm in science. But acceptance has been slow in
coming in this instance, due to its conceptual assumption
involving consciousness. Science, after being burned by
Galileo' s treatment, has striven for nearly 400 years to
confine its activities to the objective and material world.
Consequently, allowing consciousness into science is
considered to be heretic. It is ironic that whereas the religious
establishment was the resistance to the "heretic" emergence
of science, it now is the scientific establishment that defines
as heretical that which has the power to unite science and
spirituality. Fortunately our psychologists freer to accept the
primacy of consciousness.
[14]
CONCLUSIONS, FOR CONSIDERATION:
1) THE OLD MATERIALISTIC PHYSICS IS DEAD. IT
OFFERS ONLY DERISION FOR
PROVEN AREAS OF HUMAN EXPERIENCE. IT
CANNOT EXPLAIN.
Examples are parapsychological phenomena, east/west
healing systems, spontaneous evolution, life/death and
reincarnation, and consciousness itself.
[15]
2) THE PRIMACY OF CONSCIOUSNESS CONCEPT
FOLLOWS THE PATTERN OF ALL PAST
REVOLUTIONS, e.g.,
a) Each explains older phenomena, and also explains
phenomena anomalous to the old science.
b) the principal basis of each moves from the physical to the
metaphysical.
c) each utilizes new concepts that become increasingly more
counter-intuitive.
d) the expression of each new theory required a new
mathematics.
[16]
3) EACH SHIFT EXPANDED THE PURVIEW OF
"HARD" SCIENCE. (WITHOUT INVALIDATING THE
FORMER), e.g.,
a) spherical vs flat earth expanded geometry from planar to
spherical ( but we still use plane geometry for
surveying).
b) Newton expanded science from merely planetary motion
to motion anywhere of anything. (but epicycles still
explain planetary motion).
c) Einstein extended physics to the very fast (but NASA still
uses Newton for space navigation).
d) quantum mechanics extended physics to the very tiny (but
it approaches identity to Newton as mass increases from
atomic dimensions).
e) SWC expands science into the life sciences and spirituality
(but with no change in the old physics of the material
world).
Comment: The old science replaced, but was never
invalidated by the new in man's normal experience. The
eminent transpersonal psychologist Ken Wilber has
expressed a destructive misunderstanding of science when he
wrote (1984) that we cannot tie our spiritual understanding to
science because it is always changing. He sarcastically asked,
"would Buddha then lose his enlightenment?" He was wrong,
as has been shown herein, and erred because he did not
anticipate the advent of the new paradigm for science.
[17]
4) ACCEPTANCE OF THE PRIMACY OF
CONSCIOUSNESS FACES EGO RESISTANCE.
a) If materiality is a secondary reality, our material bodies
are not as "real" as we thought -- An ego threat!
b) If Consciousness is making all choices in the universe, as
per SWC, then what place for the ego? Free will is then
only an illusion. Ego on red alert!
c) A revolution is required not only in concepts, but also in
the psyche, -- toward spiritual awakening, i.e., follow
the difficult Zen path of "In the beginning the rivers and
mountains are real; Later they are not real; At the end
they are again real" (but cognized as appearances in
consciousness)
d) the new revolution can proceed with only general
intellectual acceptance based on its utility and
consensual pressure, allowing time for deeper psychic
acceptance.
[18]
5) SCIENCE WITHIN CONSCIOUSNESS, BASED ON
PRIMACY OF CONSCIOUSNESS, SUPPORTS A
UNIVERSAL RELIGION BASED ON SCIENTIFIC
REASON RATHER THEN BLIND FAITH. SUCH A NEW
RELIGION COULD INSPIRE A SECOND
RENAISSANCE, FREEING THE WORLD FROM ITS
CURRENT SPIRITUAL DARK AGE.
[19]
METAPHORIC SUMMARY
The course of science since its beginning can be compared
with that of a river, thereby providing a metaphoric summary
of the course of science. This description is adapted from the
1997 book by E. R. Close (1997). If we compare the course
of science with a river, it appears as a surging stream of
thought, flowing from the great minds of the past toward the
oceanic goals of universal knowledge and understanding.
The turbulence of its escape from the valley of religious
dogma nearly forgotten, it flows fairly smoothly out of the
last century, only to be churned into foaming rapids at the
conjunction of the two powerful tributaries, relativity and
quantum mechanics. Downstream we hear a deafening roar,
and billowing mists warn of a great precipice, an impending
plunge over a great waterfall. The impetus of the two great
tributaries drives us inexorably toward the frightful, yawning
brink. Some of us, seeing only the chaos and confusion, fear
for our carefully constructed theories. Others among us
seeing the great beauty in the wild scene, are too stunned to
be concerned about the coming turmoil, too much in awe of
the power of the new ideas. A closer look at the boat in
which we scientists are travelling tells us that the creaking
hull of the current paradigm probably will not survive the
pounding of the rapids leading to the falls. A great crack is
opening even now and the swirling waters of new concepts
are engulfing us. But downstream, below the falls, we can
see a glistening rainbow arching over the mists above an
even more powerful river that flows on, toward the tranquil
Sea Of Enlightenment.
[20]
Final Note:
This paper is scheduled for presentation at the end of April
1998 at a conference in Lisbon on 'Science and Primacy of
Consciousness'. The author would appreciate comment on
any or all of the contents. Although he was trained and
worked as a physicist he has been retired for 23 years, and
thus does not consider himself to be expert in any of the
several disciplines contained in this paper, and would
appreciate learning of his errors.
REFERENCES
1) Appleyard, Brian (1993),Understanding the Present, or
Science and The Soul of Modern Man. (Anchor Books).
2) Close, Edward R. (1997), Transcendental Physics,
Paradigm Press, P.O. Box 376, Jackson, Mo 63755, or
paradigmpress@mailexcite.com.
3) Goswami, Amit (1989), 'The Idealistic Interpretation of
Quantum Physics, Physics Essays, volume 2. number
4, 1989.
4) Goswamis, Amit(1990) 'Consciousness in Quantum
Mechanics and the Mind-Body Problem, J. of Mind and
Behavior, 11, 75, Winter
5) Goswami, Amit, with M. Mitchell (1992), Quantum
Mechanics For Observer Systems, Physics Essays, 5,
pages 525-529.
6) Goswami, Amit (1963), The Self Aware Universe; How
Consciousness Creates the Material World, ( NY,
Jeremy Tarcher/Putnam)
7) Goswami, Amit (1994a), Science Within Consciousness:
Developing a Science Based on the Primacy of
Consciousness; Research Report CP-7, Institute of
Noetic Science,
8) Goswami, Amit (1994b), Consciousness and Biological
Order: Toward A Quantum Theory of Life and Its
Evolution (U. of Oregon preprint).
9) Goswami, Amit, with Dennis Todd (1994c),
Consciousness and Biological Order Toward a Quantum
Theory and Epigenetic Mechanisms in Evolution (U. of
Oregon preprint).
10) Huxley, Aldous (1958). The Perennial Philosophy.
11) Maslow, Abraham (1969), The Psychology of Science,
(Gateway Edition, Henry Regnery Co.).
12) Nasr, Seyyed Hossein (1993), The Need For a Sacred
Science, (SUNY Press).
13) Neumann, J. von (1955), The Mathematical Foundations
of Quantum Physics, (Princeton University Press,
Princeton NJ),Chap. VII.
14) SWC Internet Home Page at www.swcp.com/swc.
15) Wilber, Ken (1984), Quantum Questions, (Shambala
Press).
Biographical Data.
Henry Swift obtained the PhD degree in experimental
physics from the Univeristy of Iowa in 1943 and worked on
military research and development during his 31 year career.
Since retiring 23 years ago he has traveled, studied eastern
religions and philosophy, etc. He edits and publishes a
semi-annual bulletin for Science Within Consciousness,
which can be accessed at http://www.swcp.com/swc/ This is a
new science based on the primacy of consciousness, rather
than materiality, the brainchild of Prof. Amit Goswami of the
theoretical physics division of the University of Oregon.
E-mail hswift@swcp.com
KARL JASPERS FORUM FOR TARGET ARTICLES
The texts of the Forum are available from
the following web site
http://www.mcgill.ca/douglas/fdg/kjf
by hypertext transfer from the table of contents.
Also available is a statement of purpose for
the Forum, and guidelines for contributors.
Abbreviations and Conventions (recommended):
TA Target Article;
C Commentary;
R Response;
N Short Note;
Numbers in brackets refer to paragraphs :
square brackets [1] in articles and responses,
pointed brackets <1> in commentaries and notes;
round brackets (1) point to the list of references.
Authors may use other formalities if they prefer;
in that case please define them at the beginning of
your text.
- HFJM