Ihre Browserversion ist veraltet. Wir empfehlen, Ihren Browser auf die neueste Version zu aktualisieren.

Arthur Schopenhauer to metaphysicsArthur Schopenhauer to metaphysics

 

The basic assumptions of physics, as taught to me, are:


1. At the beginning there was nothing
2. Out of nowhere, the world was created as a random product

 

It was concluded or made believe:
a. Matter is only with itself in energy interaction.
b. Only the world is real, which we can perceive, measure, find physically and/or see.
c. That the mind is a product of matter, where mind/spirit is equated with brain.
d. We are apathetic (passive) observers as part of the universe.

 

It should be said that, if one of the assumptions is wrong, then it must necessarily everything else be wrong which is built logically on these assumptions. In the course of this analysis, we are able to see that the two basic assumptions are wrong.

 

Justification of Metaphysics No. 1 (General knowledge of physics): In the Duden is to be read, what is to be understood as science:, (A justified, orderly, considered for secured) knowledge-producing research activity in a certain area '.

It can be assumed that a science cannot really have an ordered, for sure respected knowledge if there is one or more inconsistencies in the corresponding theories or beliefs.

If we look at the current physics, we have the impression that it has a fairly well-secured knowledge. Does it really have that? It cannot be denied that physicists are currently searching for a world formula that can virtually describe reality in a realistic way. Can physics do that if it does not have uniform models yet?

The fact that the physicists work with different cosmic models can be read in general. One can also read that the models are all not yet consistent and therefore still have any inconsistencies. If that were not so, we would have the so-called world formula and this would of course already on everyone's lips. But we do not have this world formula yet. So obviously we do not have any secure knowledge yet. Let's look at the general level of knowledge of physics!

Stephen Hawking, in his books, says that physics cannot say whether the material world is a real world or an imaginary world: Quotations:

 

“This might suggest that the so-called imaginary time is really the real time,

and that what we call real time is just a figment of our imaginations.

… So maybe what we call imaginary time is really more basic,

and what we call real is just an idea

that we invent to help us describe what we think the universe is like.”

                           Stephen W. Hawking in: a brief history of time

 

“In real time, the universe has a beginning and an end at singularities

that form a boundary to space-time and at which the laws of science break down.

But in imaginary time, there are no singularities or boundaries.”

                         Stephen W. Hawking in: a brief history of time

 

Note: If the General Relativity Theory (GRT) predicts the big bang by means of mathematical models, but cannot describe the big bang itself because of the singularity because of the failure of mathematics, does the GRT then have a real consistency and can it then convey a secured knowledge?

 

“However, from a positivist viewpoint,

one can't ask "which is reality - brane or bubble".

They are both mathematical models that describe the observations.

One is free to use whichever model is most convenient.”

                         Stephen W. Hawking in: the universe in a nutshell

 

"... So maybe we think we live in a four-dimensional world

because we are shadows cast on the brane by what is happening in the interior of the bubble. ..."

                         Stephen W. Hawking in: universe in a nutshell.

 

"Gödel 's theorem, together with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and chaos theory, form a corset of limitations to scientific knowledge, that came to be appreciated only during the XX-th century."

                          Stephen W. Hawking in: the universe in a nutshell

 

These are quotations from which we can assume that they reflect the general state of knowledge of physics. We do not have a secured knowledge yet!!! It is also clear where the boundaries of the previous sciences lie. It is not that there is no way out of this dilemma. Well-known scientists have always provided indications for this way out. Quotes:

 

"The recognition of truth can only be guaranteed by a determined step into the realm of metaphysics."

                         Max Planck

 

"I want to do for metaphysics what Newton did for physics"

                       Kurt Gödel; Austrian-American mathematician

                       and one of the most important logicians of the 20th century

 

“The perceived multiplicity is only an illusion, it consists not in reality”

                      Erwin Schrödinger (one of the fathers of quantum physics):

                      My World View, Hamburg-Vienna 1961, p. 40.

 

Now, if we work with the merely physical explanation of the sciences, around which there is obviously a corset of scientific knowledge limitations, what sense does it make to base our exploration on this explanation? The results will then always be such that one can never say that it correspond to reality. They can be as much a mere figment of imagination that has to do with imagination.

Incidentally, a friend told me that as a child he felt that what is experienced during physical sleep is real, and that what happens in the wakefulness of the body is a dream. His parents later told him that he had that opinion. He himself had forgotten how he had felt as a child. If the scientists are no longer sure what is real or what is imaginary, why should my friend at that time, when he still had his 'childlike' opinion, have been so wrong?

But now we are beings who are constantly in search of the truth. Is not this striving the strongest indication that there must be more than just the observed? We ask about the meaning of life and also about the basic principles of life. But without the inclusion of metaphysics, we will never go beyond the possibility of penetrating deeper into the mystery of our lives.

Although the sciences are cooped in the mentioned corset, they provide clues that there are more answers. They clearly tell us that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts:

X (sum of the parts) + Y (rest) = the whole

Where other than in the small-seeming rest Y> 0 can the answers be found of all our questions? I'm not satisfied with the spongy X, in which we do not really know if it's real or a fantasy. I want to know what's behind the Y.

Interestingly, even Stephen W. Hawking, who was considered a materialist, speaks by representing different cosmic models of how we humans could be shadows cast on the brane by what is happening in the interior of the bubble. Inside there would be something to suspect that we can call light (light-shadow-play). It is clear that there are no shadows without light.

Interestingly enough, by the way, is also the cave allegory of Plato (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave), also a light-shadow game).

The very idea of Stephen W. Hawking, if we take a closer look at the light inside the bubble, in the truest sense of the word, it provides another starting point for throwing light into the dark. Let us allow ourselves to be the 'runaway' mentioned in the Cave Allegory, who looks at the light. Let's be the runaway from the mainstream sciences, who in turn are content to just scratch the surface.

But as we go further into the depths of being there will be much more to discover. Then we will also be able to recognize that we are far more than we thought we hoped. Since this area is still often unconscious or hidden, we cannot avoid asking what is at home in this area: the light (= the spirit) of the higher order!!!

If physics seems to describe our world quite well, it does not mean that it necessarily can describe reality. This can be seen from the fact that physics works with models that no one has ever seen in reality. For example, nobody has ever seen an electron, proton or quark with his own eyes. Basically, force fields themselves are invisible. We can make visible only the effects of forces acting in the field. Furthermore it is not really provable that this world is real or an imaginary world (statement by Stephen W. Hawking). And an imaginary world can be something like a psycho-energetic Fata morgana. A Fata morgana gives the impression of being real, but does not have to be real. And so the material world can be quite a psycho-energetic Fata Morgana, which is quite conceivable from a scientific point of view. We cannot prove the opposite with the current knowledge of natural sciences. The models, on the other hand, because they are not identical with the reality to be described, have a lower degree of reality. And if then the reality to be described is itself something like a psycho-energetic Fata Morgana, the models are two times ‘away’ from the true reality.

Again, it may be true that the sciences are currently able to describe the world amazingly well. But they must be aware of the possibility, that they may only describe an illusion, not the reality. It is probably true that a Fata morgana has something to do with the true landscape (reality). And so it is logical that behind an illusory world (psycho-energetic Fata morgana) a real world has to hide. If it is conceivable that the material world is such a psycho-energetic Fata morgana, it is possible that there is a reality that has at least a higher degree of reality. These questions are not clear in the current state of knowledge of the natural sciences and are currently open questions that scream for answers!!!

So if science has the claim to convey secure knowledge, it is called upon to turn its attention to metaphysics. If it does not do that, or if it refuses, it does not really deserve the name science.

How can we come up with clarifying answers? It is obvious that there are aspects of the spirit that communicate to us. In the meantime, there is no denying that there are people with special gifts who are receptive to the messages of the spiritual world. Either they receive messages in the form of words or images, or they can penetrate their consciousness into the subtle realms to see with the magnifying glass. For example, Annie Besant and C.W. Leadbeater consciously moved into higher worlds and recorded what they saw. There are now countless books on the cosmic structure of man and the connections between the physical body and the subtle bodies, see, e.g. Cindy Dale: The Subtle Body: An Encyclopedia of Your Energetic Anatomy.

The established sciences have so far resisted and failed to engage with the higher levels of being. If they really want to serve science, they can’t help but deal with it.

 

Justification of Metaphysics No. 2: According to quantum physics, any atomic particles belonging to a specific atom somewhere in our body, can be everywhere in the universe at a given moment. But over a long period of time, it will be very likely in the vicinity of this atom, that is floating around there. While such an electron is on its way, it infinitely encounter many other micro-particles, which in turn also go their way. It is as if children go away from home without the supervision of their parents to explore the world. How could a child find back to the house, if it is without orientation?

It is similar with an electron belonging to a particular atom, which is on his expedition in the infinite universe and which is exposed on its way countless collisions and interactions. Without a leading, organizing or directing size, it’s hardly conceivable, that an electron always returns to its original place or corresponding vicinity. Hence in logical viewpoint, we have to postulate a leading, organizing or directing size for all quantum particles. But the pearls itself can’t represent such a size, rather the net of pearls (without the pearls). So we have to postulate, that the metaphysics or a part thereof, representing by the net of pearls, is such a leading, organizing or directing size.

 

Justification of Metaphysics No. 3: One of the key findings of physics now is the fact, that the universe is non-linear. This means that the universe as a whole is greater than the sum of its parts. We can illustrate this by the net of pearls. pearl netpearl netIn this Illustration the pearls represent all we can physically perceive or measure (= all parts of the universe). But if the whole is greater than what we can physically perceive or measure, the pearl network itself (without pearls) must be the invisible. In consequence there are more than we can see/ observe / perceive. We also can see, that this “more" makes up more in quantity than we can directly measure with our physical measurement techniques. For example, the physics have determined the percentage of matter to the universe and have found the following percentages:

 

- Matter: about 4%
- Dark Matter: approximately 23%
- Dark Energy: about 73%

 

In consequence, the invisible or a part thereof may be something which holds together the visible as a network. This invisible we call metaphysical, because it is not directly determinable physically.

 

Justification of Metaphysics No. 4: According to quantum physics, every little particle (quantum) has to do with the whole, just as the history of each particle has to do with the history of all particles. On the other hand, all quanta are separated spatiotemporally from each other. This means that there is neither an absolute connection of these particles nor an absolute separation of these particles. In order for this paradox to be resolved, a metaphysical size is needed that itself is not subject to any limitation of space and time. We can attribute this size to a space that is superior to matter-related space. This size could be in a so-called hyperspace.

A similar paradox exists in particle properties. Each of these particles (quanta) has both a wave property and a corpuscular property. Both properties are something like two half-measures, which make the particle into a whole, that is, they belong together. On the other hand, they can not be detected at the same time. Either we can only find one or the other property. It is as if they were neither absolutely separate nor absolutely connected. This paradox can be resolved by the following model.

At the gross material level, it looks like there is a separation between the particles and their properties. But over the higher metaphysical level, which itself is not subject to space-time limitation, these properties are connected to each other. 

 

Justification of Metaphysics No. 5: Results of quantum electrodynamics suggest that the universe must have more than 4 dimensions. For the infinite number of wavelengths the material world would directly collapse, provided that the propagation of the wavelengths were limited only to the 4-dimensional space-time-world, which it does not do. For this reason, the cosmic model of the universe has been extended in physics, from which the string theories or Branen models have been emerged.

In the brane-model described by Stephen W. Hawking, the universe can be represented as a kind of 10- or 11-dimensional sphere (bubble), where the surface (brane) of the sphere represents the 4-dimensional space-time world of matter. The inside of the bubble itself, which of course is also filled with energy, then has the additional 6 or 7 dimensions. Because the energies of the 6 or 7 additional dimensions can not be directly perceived, these energies also belong to the realm of metaphysics.

 

Bruce Lipton, epigeneticsBruce Lipton, epigenetics 

Properties of the metaphysical. Recent findings in brain research suggest that the brain processes are based on self-regulatory processes (analog heating control). This means that the brain is indeed suitable for programs but not for creativity. It not only responds to stimuli or impulses but also on our consciousness (how and what we consciously and unconsciously think and feel). The latest findings of the epigenetics indicate that the genes are read at any moment and that the reading of genes has to do with our attitudes, beliefs and internal programs. For example, we can produce 150000 proteins. For this, according to the ancient knowledge 150000 genes would be necessary. But we only have about 23000 genes. Experiments on stem cells show how much the field / area is responsible for the development of the cells. Thus, from stem cells, depending on the environment / surroundings it can be formed fat cells, muscles, bones and other body parts. The gene itself (without any information field) is not able to determine whether the cell is a muscle, fat or any other cell.

So far, the nucleus was regarded as the brain of the cell. This is not so, because the cell can live without nucleus. The nucleus is only responsible for the reproduction of cells. Who or what then is the "brain" of the cell? It seems to be the cell membrane. The cell membrane determines which information passes into the cells. The signals pass through the membrane into the cell and change the proteins, which moves according to the information that arrives at the cell. This information determines how the gene has to be read. The gene is nothing more than the plan (blueprint), which can always be rewritten. So may be formed from 1 gene 30000 variants. Finally, the latest experimental results of the epigenetics point that our beliefs create a field that is responsible for how the genes are read and which proteins are formed.

The consequence of this is, that health and disease depend on how the genes are read. Further investigations revealed that the heart field interacts with the DNA and the DNA influences the reading of genes as well as the entire environment. Placebo effect or phenomena under hypnosis indicate, that forces act, that cannot be explained by purely physical understandings. So, the effectiveness of placebos makes it clear that our bodies do not distinguish between a chemical process and the thought of a chemical process. These described forces are presumed in the invisible (metaphysics or a part of it).

 

What does that entail?

1. The Invisible must be, for reasons of logic, at least in part, a leading and organizing size (-> intelligence).

2. The invisible must be capable, at least in parts, to steer in an energetic way (-> intelligence).

3. The invisible must be at least in parts even a creative size, which is solely attributable to intelligence. Matter itself can hardly have this function, because it doesn’t seem to be able to lead, guide or organize anything.

 

Related consequence:

1. The fact that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts,

2. The fact that observation is not possible without connection,

3. The logical requirement that a creative intelligence behind everything must be inserted,

leads to a further requirement, namely that the whole thing has a definite meaning and purpose. In this regard Stephen W. Hawking supplies an idea. In his book "universe in a nutshell" he writes: "So maybe we think we live in a four-dimensional world because we are shadows cast on the brane by what is happening in the interior of the bubble". This projections of shadows on the brane provide the idea, that there must be a certain reason. So, to recognize our meaning and purpose in our lives, the analogies could help us.

 

analogiesanalogies

 

 

Conclusions drawn from analogies:

1. Man just consists not only of the visible body, but also of an intelligent (not visible) part.

2. In terms of our world system, this means that our world can roughly be divided into two parts: visible and invisible.

This can be illustrated as follows. If we look at the universe, we see or we perceive the matter. It consists mainly of protons, neutrons and electrons. If we take the protons and neutrons closer look, we see that they are composed of quarks. If we perceive quarks, we do not perceive at the same time the protons and neutrons true, and vice versa. Thus, while the one kind of particle is visible or observable, the other is not visible or not observable. So, there exist two different areas, but we can observe only one of these two areas depending on the energy (depending on the viewing or standpoint). We have to note, that between these two areas there is no separation by space or time!!!

If we can have an even higher or closer look at quarks, we might still find higher forms of energy that we could call "ether" for example. And over the "ether" we might find more higher-energy areas such as the emotional, mental and spiritual realm, and so on, until we find a space at the end, which could represent the ground state of the whole universe. Then we would have arrived at something we could call God.

This idea therefore is not so far-fetched, because God is seen in the religions as the basis of life or the very basis of all things. We know the terms "world" and "underworld(s)" in religious writings and/or fairy tales. These are all indications that the world might have different vibration regions. In the Spiritual Science it is spoken of vibrational levels, which would be consistent with the brane theory from which Stephen W. Hawking spokes in his book “universe in a nutshell”. And thus, it is conceivable and logical to require quite possible that we have several areas or levels in the universe that could roughly be divided into visible and invisible sides (on both sides). So, we can view the world as a single world system which has different areas and from which we can only observe one of these areas at the same time, in which they are not separated by space or time. A perceptible separation is more a question of filter effects or the like.

 

Here the postulation of higher energy levels in detail (as pdf) .

 

--> To top.