Physics, Philosophy, or Enlightenment: Is One More Valid than Another? (cont.)
Prof. Kuhlmann: (cont.)
“For many physicists, that is enough. They adopt a so-called instrumentalist attitude: they deny that scientific theories are meant to represent the world in the first place. For them, theories are only instruments for making experimental predictions. Still, most scientists have the strong intuition that their theories do depict at least some aspects of nature as it is before we make a measurement. After all, why else [engage in] science, if not to understand the world?”
“Acquiring a comprehensive picture of the physical world requires the combination of physics with philosophy. The two disciplines are complementary. Metaphysics supplies various competing frameworks for the ontology of the material world, although beyond questions of internal consistency, it cannot decide among them.”
“The union of the two disciplines is especially important at times when physicists find themselves revisiting the very foundations of their subject. Metaphysical thinking guided Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, and it is influencing many of those who are trying to unify quantum field theory with Einstein's theory of gravitation. Philosophers have written libraries full of books and papers about quantum mechanics and gravity theory, whereas we are only beginning to explore the reality embodied in quantum field theory. The alternatives to the standard particle and field views that we are developing may inspire physicists in their struggle to achieve the grand unification.”
Prof. Meinard Kuhlmann (Scientific American Article)
Thank you for your inquiry regarding this article. Good stuff to review. In his article, Prof. Kuhlman recognizes that there is a problem with how we understand the underlying Reality of life and the universe, but like most scientist, he continues to fall prey to the idea that the study and inclusion of another scientific discipline (other than physics) – philosophy in particular – will lead to an enlightened understanding or a “grand unification” theory of the universe, as scientists call it, but it will not.
Concerning the nature of Consciousness or more specifically, AWARNESS in Consciousness, I previously wrote that “Science [will never] describe that which can only be REALIZED from within by means of AWARENESS ITSELF. Today’s scientific paradigm will remain incomplete until Consciousness is recognized as the underlying Source out of which all physical phenomena appear. Absent Consciousness, no-thing appears.”
To add another discipline of study to that of physics in an attempt to alter the scientific paradigm, whether it is philosophy, theology, or a study of the art of meditation, does not, in itself, bring about enlightenment. It does not bring greater “levels” of AWARENESS to life. THE STUDY OF SUBJECTS INCREASES ONE’S KNOWLEDGE, WHICH IS THE CONCEPTUALIZATION OF THOUGHT, BUT IT DOES NOT BRING ABOUT A “KNOWING” IN THE NOW.
The definition of “philosophy” from “The American Heritage Dictionary” is essentially, “… the pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline … Inquiry into the nature of things based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods … The critique and analysis of fundamental beliefs as they come to be conceptualized and formulated …The synthesis of all learning.” The problem with philosophical study, therefore, as with all other disciplines, is that concepts and the process of reasoning arise out of Consciousness and as such, are an aspect of Consciousness, but are not the whole of Consciousness Itself. The whole of Consciousness cannot be contained, defined, or circumscribed within a thought, theory, or idea. Consciousness, and more specifically AWARENESS in Consciousness, is beyond all that. Thus, it is impossible to “think” or study our way to enlightenment or “back to Awareness in Consciousness,” if you will. This is why there is no “journey” that will take us there, nor place where Consciousness “resides” or where it is "found,” nor object – like a “God Particle” – where Consciousness is more highly developed or specialized in some way different from the rest of universal expression.
Consequently and unwittingly, scientists in general keep searching for the next best “thing” that will complete the puzzle in their eyes, which is their view of the universe built formulaically out of mental constructs of mind. They continue to search for the next great concept, theory, or idea that will render all their math problems, solved. One more discovery and we’ll have it, they say. Another “Supertron” conductor should do, and we’ll find out if some “things” travel faster than light, which might explain why a particle seems to be in two places at once because enigmas such as this do not make sense from a “world as thing" point of view, absent understanding of the true nature of Consciousness, as a Whole. Yet, no matter what topic is studied, or how much it is studied, or how elusive the particle, scientists will never be able to “explain,” “define,” or “describe” Consciousness from a “particle” or “thing” point of view. For example, determining the properties of a so-called “God Particle” does not bring about enlightenment because AWARENESS of the Wholeness of God is not contained in a particle.
A clue that points to the fundamental problem with scientific inquiry that is noted in Prof. Kuhlmann’s article is that, “Although the [quantum field] theory tells us what we can measure, it speaks in riddles when it comes to the nature of whatever ENTITIES (emphasis added) give rise to our observations.” “Entities” are “things,” are “concepts” of “things,” and things do not “give rise to our observations.” Consciousness observes and gives rise to all “things,” including entities. So to discover more particles, properties, entities, or laws is NOT to realize that Consciousness is not a “thing” or an “entity” that can be discovered no matter how we go about discovering it. Higher “levels” of Consciousness are only realized through the unfolding of greater conscious AWARENESS from within, which is to be enlightened absent “things” or “entities” coming into play.