User blogs
Giordano Bruno on GOD & Wisdom (compiled by Tihomir Dimitrov)
GIORDANO BRUNO (1548-1600), Italian philosopher, astronomer, and mathematician, founder of the theory of the infinite universe
1. “Wisdom is most manifest on the surface and body of all created things, for everywhere Wisdom crieth and on all sides her voice is heard. For what are all those things which we see, stars, animals, bodies and the beauty thereof, but the voices and echoes of Wisdom, the works of the Divine Being that shew forth his lofty providence, in which as in a book may be read most clearly the story of Divine Power, Wisdom and Goodness? For the invisible things of God are discovered through those things which are understood. This thou hast from Scripture.” (Bruno, as cited in Singer 1950, 60-61).
2. “God, that most fertile Mind, will indeed send Wisdom, but what sort of Wisdom? Only such as can be adapted to our mental vision, in the shadow of light; as from the Sun who cannot be reached nor apprehended, who in himself continueth mysteriously and steadfastly in infinite light, yet his pervasive radiance descendeth to us by the emission of rays and is communicated and diffused throughout all things.” (Bruno, as cited in Singer 1950, 59-60).
3. “The One Infinite is perfect, in simplicity, of itself, absolutely, nor can aught be greater or better. This is the one Whole, God, universal Nature, occupying all space, of whom naught but infinity can give the perfect image or semblance.” (Bruno, as cited in Singer 1950, 61).
4. “The Universal Intellect is the innermost, most real and essential faculty and the most efficacious part of the world-soul. It is the one and the same thing, which fills the whole, illumines the universe, and directs nature in producing her species in the right way. It plays the same role in the production of natural things as our intellect does in the parallel production of rational systems.” (Bruno 1962, 81).
Michael Persinger (1993, 2010a & 2010b) and his Research Group are known for the "God Helmet". He is a pioneer in the field of experimental studies of mystical experiences.
In 1999, Wired Magazine published an article entitled "This Is Your Brain on God" in which the author, Jack Hitt stated that "Michael Persinger has a vision - the Almighty isn't dead, he's an energy field. And your mind is an electromagnetic map to your soul."
Persinger states at his website that "[a]s a human being, I am concerned about the illusionary explanations for human consciousness and the future of human existence. Consequently after writing the Neuropsychological Base of God Beliefs (1987), I began the systematic application of complex electromagnetic fields to discern the patterns that will induce experiences (sensed presence) that are attributed to the myriad of ego-alien intrusions which range from gods to aliens. The research is not to demean anyone's religious/mystical experience but instead to determine which portions of the brain or its electromagnetic patterns generate the experience. Two thousand years of philosophy have taught us that attempting to prove or disprove realities may never have discrete verbal (linguistic) solutions because of the limitation of this measurement. The research has been encouraged by the historical fact that most wars and group degradations are coupled implicitly to god beliefs and to the presumption that those who do not believe the same as the experient are somehow less human and hence expendable. Although these egocentric propensities may have had adaptive significance, their utility for the species' future may be questionable."
Our own theoretical and experimental studies (see references at the end) have shown that: (1) Consciousness is prespacetime (non-spatial and non-temporal) and not in the brain; (2) brain is an interface between Consciousness and the external world; (3) quantum spin is the mind-pixel; (4) magnetic field is manifested by the internal world based on the Principle of Existence. Therefore, altered states of consciousness such as sensed presence and out-of-body experience whether they are produced by magnetic, electric or other stimulations or circumstances can be most effectively explained as the changes of the relative contents and/or intensities of the test subjects’ neural quantum entanglement with their surroundings etc. (including possibly spiritual environments or information!).
Thus, interpreted from the perspectives of our own findings, Persinger's "GOD experiments" might not have proven that GOD and/or mystical experiences are a mere phenomenon localized in the material brain but can be explained as the non-spatial and non-temporal Consciousness through the brain quantum-entangles with his/her environments possibly including the spiritual environment, thus, experiencing sensed presence, out-of-body etc!
For readers interested in more details, please read the below and the articles listed in the Reference.
In a recent article Persinger and his colleague(s) summarize their results as follows (Michael, 2010a):
Quantitative EEG data indicate that a sequence of stimulation by between 1 and 5 uT fields at the scalp’s surface with as little as 10% greater intensity over the right hemisphere compared to the left is associated with greater convergence of theta activity between the left temporal and right prefrontal region. Subsequent bilateral stimulation is associated with greater right-to-left temporal coherence. These two experimental conditions and quantitative EEG patterns are associated with reports of out-of-body experiences and the sensed presence, respectively. ....
The results and approaches of our research and those of Olaf Blanke both show that out-of-body-experiences and the sensed presence can be generated experimentally by stimulating either one or the other of the hemispheres within specific regions. The quality of the experiences, although direct comparisons have not been made, appears to be similar and the quantitative or meaningful intensity reveal similar values for individual salience. ....
[We] reviewed and re-analyzed the approximately 20 experiments involving 407 subjects that have demonstrated the experimental elicitation of either the sensed presence or out of body experience. [Our] re-analyses clearly showed the specific magnetic configurations and not the subjects’ exotic beliefs or suggestibility was responsible for the increased incidence of sensed presences. The subjects’ histories of spontaneous sensed presences before the experiment (and exposure to the magnetic fields) were moderately correlated with exotic beliefs and temporal lobe sensitivity. The side attributed to the presence at the time of the experience was affected by the parameters of the fields, the hemisphere to which they were maximized, and the person’s a priori beliefs.
In vivid terms one test subject in Persinger’s experiment reported “I felt a presence behind me and then along the left side. When I tried to focus on the position, the presence moved. Every time I tried to sense where it was, it moved around. When it moved to the right side, I experienced a deep sense of security like I have not experienced before. I started to cry when I felt it slowly fade away ([Persinger] had changed the field patterns)”.
Also in vivid terms, another test subject reported an out-of-body experience stating “I feel as if there was a bright white light in front of me. I saw a black spot that became a funnel....no tunnel that I felt drawn into. I felt moving, like spinning forward through it. I began to feel the presence of people, but I could not see them. They were along my sides. They were colourless and grey looking. I know I was in the chamber but it was very real. I suddenly felt intense fear and felt ice cold.”
Persinger and colleague (2010a) reasoned that: "Our primary assumption is that consciousness and its variants of mystical states can be expressed as quantum phenomena. If consciousness and thought are coupled to electron movements, then a macroscopic manifestation should be congruent with the magnetic field strengths associated with neurocognitive activities. Access to the information within the movements of an electron, its fundamental charge, and the photon emissions associated with changes in electron movements, would allow mystical states and the information with which they are associated to have alternative interpretations that recruit the fundamental properties of space-time and matter."
Persinger et. al.’s above experimental results can be best explained by the spin-mediated consciousness theory for the reasons stated below:
First, the primary targets of interactions for the weak pulsed magnetic field used by Persinger’s Group are the nuclear and/or electron spins associated with the neural membranes, protein and water etc. Indeed, neural membranes and proteins contain vast numbers of nuclear spins such as 1H, 13C, 31P and 15N.
Second, as we have experimentally demonstrated (Hu & Wu, 2006a-c), pulsed electromagnetic fields (photons) carries information through quantum entanglement from external substance (and environment) which they interacted with.
Third, nuclear spins in the brain form complex intra- and inter-molecular networks through various intra-molecular J- and dipolar couplings and both short- and long-range intermolecular dipolar couplings. Further, nuclear spins have relatively long relaxation times after excitations (Gershenfeld & Chuang, 1997).
Fourth, quantum spin is a fundamental quantum process with intrinsic connection to the structure of space-time (Dirac, 1928) and was shown to be responsible for the quantum effects in both Hestenes and Bohmian quantum mechanics (Hestenes, 1983; Salesi & Recami, 1998).
References
Persinger, M. A., Vectorial cerebral hemisphericity as differential sources for the sensed presence, mystical experiences and religious conversions. Psychological Reports, 1993; 76: 915-930.
Persinger, M. A. et.al. The Electromagnetic Induction of Mystical and Altered States within the Laboratory, JCER, 2010a; 1(7): 808-830.
Persinger, M. A. & Lavallee , C. F., The Electromagnetic Induction of Mystical and Altered States within the Laboratory, JCER, 2010b; 1(7): 785-807.
Hu, H. & Wu, M. Spin-mediated consciousness theory. arXiv 2002; quant-ph/0208068. Also see Med. Hypotheses 2004a: 63: 633-646.
Hu, H. & Wu, M. Spin as primordial self-referential process driving quantum mechanics, spacetime dynamics and consciousness. NeuroQuantology 2004b; 2:41-49. Also see Cogprints: ID2827 2003.
Hu, H. & Wu, M. Action potential modulation of neural spin networks suggests possible role of spin in memory and consciousness. NeuroQuantology 2004c; 2:309-316. Also see Cogprints: ID3458 2004d.
Hu, H. & Wu, M. Thinking outside the box: the essence and implications of quantum entanglement. NeuroQuantology 2006a; 4: 5-16.
Hu, H. & Wu, M. Photon induced non-local effect of general anesthetics on the brain. NeuroQuantology 2006b 4: 17-31. Also see Progress in Physics 2006c; v3: 20-26.
Hu, H. & Wu, M. Evidence of non-local physical, chemical and biological effects supports quantum brain. NeuroQuantology 2006d; 4: 291-306. Also see Progress in Physics 2007a; v2: 17-24.
Written by Huping Hu & Maoxin Wu in October 2011
James C. Maxwell on Science & Christ (compiled by Tihomir Dimitrov)
According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1997): “James Clerk Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th-century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions.”
1. “Almighty God, who hast created man in Thine own image, and made him a living soul that he might seek after Thee and have dominion over Thy creatures, teach us to study the works of Thy hands that we may subdue the earth to our use, and strengthen our reason for Thy service; and so to receive Thy blessed Word, that we may believe on Him whom Thou hast sent to give us the knowledge of salvation and the remission of our sins. All which we ask in the name of the same Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Maxwell, as cited in Bowden 1998, 288; and in Williams and Mulfinger 1974, 487).
2. “I think the more we enter together into Christ’s work He will have the more room to work His work in us. For He always desires us to be one that He may be one with us. Our worship is social, and Christ will be wherever two or three are gathered together in His name.” (Maxwell, as cited in Campbell and Garnett 1882, 312).
3. “I think men of science as well as other men need to learn from Christ, and I think Christians whose minds are scientific are bound to study science that their view of the glory of God may be as extensive as their being is capable of.” (Maxwell, as cited in Campbell and Garnett 1882, 404-405).
4. In a letter to his wife (December 1873), Maxwell wrote: “I am always with you in spirit, but there is One who is nearer to you and to me than we ever can be to each other, and it is only through Him and in Him that we can ever really get to know each other. Let us try to realise the great mystery in Ephesians V., and then we shall be in our right position with respect to the world outside, the men and women whom Christ came to save from their sins.” (Maxwell, as cited in Campbell and Garnett 1882, 387).
5. In a letter to his wife (June 23, 1864), Maxwell wrote: “Think what God has determined to do to all those who submit themselves to His righteousness and are willing to receive His gift. They are to be conformed to the image of His Son, and when that is fulfilled, and God sees that they are conformed to the image of Christ, there can be no more condemnation, for this is the praise which God Himself gives, whose judgment is just.” (Maxwell, as cited in Campbell and Garnett 1882, 338-339).
GOTTFRIED WILHELM LEIBNIZ (1646-1716), German mathematician and philosopher, founder of Infinitesimal Calculus
Leibniz invented the Differential and Integral Calculus (simultaneously with Newton).
1. In his central philosophical work The Monadology (1714), Leibniz wrote: “In God there is Power, which is the source of all, also Knowledge, whose content is the variety of the ideas, and finally Will, which makes changes or products according to the principle of the best.” (Leibniz 1898, No. 48).
2. “God is absolutely perfect, for perfection is nothing but amount of positive reality, in the strict sense, leaving out of account the limits or bounds in things which are limited. And where there are no bounds, that is to say in God, perfection is absolutely infinite.
It follows also that created beings derive their perfections from the influence of God, but that their imperfections come from their own nature, which is incapable of being without limits. For it is in this that they differ from God.” (Leibniz 1898, No. 41-42).
3. “God alone is the primary unity or original simple substance, of which all created or derivative Monads are products and have their birth, so to speak, through continual fulgurations of the Divinity from moment to moment, limited by the receptivity of the created being, of whose essence it is to have limits.” (Leibniz 1898, No. 47).
1. In his article “Modern Biology and the Turn to Belief in God” that he wrote for the book, The Intellectuals Speak Out About God: A Handbook for the Christian Student in a Secular Society (1984), John Eccles came to the following conclusion:
“Science and religion are very much alike. Both are imaginative and creative aspects of the human mind. The appearance of a conflict is a result of ignorance.
We come to exist through a divine act. That divine guidance is a theme throughout our life; at our death the brain goes, but that divine guidance and love continues. Each of us is a unique, conscious being, a divine creation. It is the religious view. It is the only view consistent with all the evidence.” (Eccles 1984, 50).
2. In an interview published in the scientific anthology, The Voice of Genius (1995), Prof. Eccles stated:
“There is a fundamental mystery in my personal existence, transcending the biological account of the development of my body and my brain. That belief, of course, is in keeping with the religious concept of the soul and with its special creation by God.” (Eccles, as cited in Brian 1995, 371).
3. “I am constrained to attribute the uniqueness of the Self or Soul to a supernatural spiritual creation. To give the explanation in theological terms: each Soul is a new Divine creation which is implanted into the growing foetus at some time between conception and birth.” (Eccles 1991, 237).
4. In The Human Mystery, Eccles writes: “I believe that there is a Divine Providence operating over and above the materialist happenings of biological evolution.” (Eccles 1979, 235).
5. “If I consider reality as I experience it, the primary experience I have is of my own existence as a unique self-conscious being which I believe is God-created.” (Eccles, as cited in Margenau and Varghese 1997, 161).
6. Eccles described the so-called ‘promissory materialism’ thus:
“There has been a regrettable tendency of many scientists to claim that science is so powerful and all pervasive that in the not too distant future it will provide an explanation in principle for all phenomena in the world of nature, including man, even of human consciousness in all its manifestations. In our recent book (The Self and Its Brain, Popper and Eccles, 1977) Popper has labelled this claim as promissory materialism, which is extravagant and unfulfillable.
Yet on account of the high regard for science, it has great persuasive power with the intelligent laity because it is advocated unthinkingly by the great mass of scientists who have not critically evaluated the dangers of this false and arrogant claim.” (Eccles 1979, p. I).
7. With respect to ‘promissory materialism’, in his book How the Self Controls Its Brain (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1994), Eccles wrote:
“I regard this theory as being without foundation. The more we discover scientifically about the brain the more clearly do we distinguish between the brain events and the mental phenomena and the more wonderful do the mental phenomena become. Promissory materialism is simply a superstition held by dogmatic materialists. It has all the features of a Messianic prophecy, with the promise of a future freed of all problems - a kind of Nirvana for our unfortunate successors.” (Eccles 1994).
8. In his book Evolution of the Brain: Creation of the Self (London: Routledge, 1991), Eccles wrote:
“I maintain that the human mystery is incredibly demeaned by scientific reductionism, with its claim in promissory materialism to account eventually for all of the spiritual world in terms of patterns of neuronal activity. This belief must be classed as a superstition.
We have to recognize that we are spiritual beings with souls existing in a spiritual world as well as material beings with bodies and brains existing in a material world.” (Eccles 1991, 241).
9. “Since materialist solutions fail to account for our experienced uniqueness, I am constrained to attribute the uniqueness of the self or soul to a supernatural spiritual creation.
This conclusion is of inestimable theological significance. It strongly reinforces our belief in the human soul and in its miraculous origin in a divine creation.” (Eccles 1994, 168).
10. “As a dualist I believe in the reality of the world of mind or spirit as well as in the reality of the material world. Furthermore I am a finalist in the sense of believing that there is some Design in the processes of biological evolution that has eventually led to us self-conscious beings with our unique individuality; and we are able to contemplate and we can attempt to understand the grandeur and wonder of nature.” (Eccles 1979, 9).
Eccles’ teacher, the Nobelist in neurophysiology Sir Charles Sherrington, too, is a dualist; Sherrington maintains that our nonmaterial mind is fundamentally different from our physical body. Sherrington believes in an almighty Deity and Natural Religion. (See Charles Sherrington, Man on His Nature. The Gifford Lectures in Natural Theology, Cambridge University Press, 1975, 59 and 293). There are many other Nobel scientists, who have explored thoroughly the mind-body problem, and who are staunch dualists: George Wald, Nevill Mott, M. Planck, E. Schroedinger, Brian D. Josephson, Santiago Ramon y Cajal, Roger Sperry, Albert Szent-Gyoergyi, Walter R. Hess, Henri Bergson, Alexis Carrel, etc. (See Margenau and Varghese 1997, ‘Cosmos, Bios, Theos’; see also Popper and Eccles 1977, The Self and Its Brain).
See the chapters on George Wald, Nevill Mott, M. Planck, and E. Schroedinger in this book.
11. In his article “Scientists in Search of the Soul” (Science Digest, 1982), the science writer John Gliedman pointed out:
“Eccles strongly defends the ancient religious belief that human beings consist of a mysterious compound of physical body and intangible spirit. Each of us embodies a nonmaterial thinking and perceiving self that ‘entered’ our physical brain sometime during embryological development or very early childhood, says the man who helped lay the cornerstones of modern neurophysiology. This ‘ghost in the machine’ is responsible for everything that makes us distinctly human: conscious self-awareness, free will, personal identity, creativity and even emotions such as love, fear, and hate. Our nonmaterial self controls its “liaison brain” the way a driver steers a car or a programmer directs a computer. Man’s ghostly spiritual presence, says Eccles, exerts just the whisper of a physical influence on the computerlike brain, enough to encourage some neurons to fire and others to remain silent. Boldly advancing what for most scientists is the greatest heresy of all, Eccles also asserts that our nonmaterial self survives the death of the physical brain.” (Gliedman 1982, 77).
12. “We can regard the death of the body and brain as dissolution of our dualist existence. Hopefully, the liberated soul will find another future of even deeper meaning and more entrancing experiences, perhaps in some renewed embodied existence in accord with traditional Christian teaching.” (Eccles 1991, 242).
13. “I do believe that we are the product of the creativity of what we call God. I hope that this life will lead to some future existence where my self or soul will have another existence, with another brain, or computer if you like. I don’t know how I got this one, it’s a pretty good one, and I’m grateful for it, but I do know as a realist that it will disappear.
But I think my conscious self or soul will come through.” (Eccles, as cited in Gilling and Brightwell, The Human Brain, 1982, 180).
14. In his book The Human Mystery, Sir John Eccles said: “The amazing success of the theory of evolution has protected it from significant critical evaluation in recent times. However it fails in a most important respect. It cannot account for the existence of each one of us as unique, self-conscious beings.” (Eccles 1979, 96).
15. Sir John Eccles maintains that the will of the human beings is free, and that’s why he denies the so-called physical determinism: “If physical determinism is true, then that is the end of all discussion or argument; everything is finished. There is no philosophy. All human persons are caught up in this inexorable web of circumstances and cannot break out of it. Everything that we think we are doing is an illusion.” (See Popper and Eccles, 1977, 546).
16. “With self-conscious purpose a person has a great challenge in choosing what life to live.
One can choose to live dedicated to the highest values, truth, love, and beauty, with gratitude for the divine gift of life with its wonderful opportunities of participating in human culture. One can do this in accord with opportunities. For example, one of the highest achievements is to create a human family living in a loving relationship. I was brought up religiously under such wonderful conditions, for which I can be eternally grateful. There are great opportunities in a life dedicated to education or science or art or to the care of the sick. Always one should try to be in a loving relationship with one’s associates. We are all fellow beings mysteriously living on this wonderful spaceship planet Earth that we should cherish devotedly, but not worship.” (Eccles, as cited in Templeton 1994, 131).
17. In his letter to Erika Erdmann (December 19, 1990), Eccles said:
“You refer to protection of our Earth as the most urgent goal at present. I disagree. It is to save mankind from materialist degradation. It comes in the media, in the consumer society, in overriding quest for power and money, in the degradation of our values (that used to be thought as based on love, truth, and beauty), and in the disintegration of the human family.” (Eccles 1990).
18. “I repudiate philosophies and political systems which recognize human beings as mere things with a material existence of value only as cogs in the great bureaucratic machine of the state, which thus becomes a slave state. The terrible and cynical slaveries depicted in Orwell’s ‘1984’ are engulfing more and more of our planet.
Is there yet time to rebuild a philosophy and a religion that can give us a renewed faith in this great spiritual adventure, which for each of us is a human life lived in freedom and dignity?” (Eccles 1979, 237).
1. In his lecture Existentialism Is a Humanism (1946) Sartre described his atheistic existentialism thus:
“Dostoevsky said, ‘If God didn’t exist, everything would be possible!’ That is the very starting point of existentialism. Indeed, everything is permissible if God does not exist, and as a result man is forlorn, because neither within him nor without does he find anything to cling to. He can’t start making excuses for himself. In other words, there is no determinism, man is free, man is freedom.
On the other hand, if God does not exist, we find no values or commands to turn to which legitimize our conduct. So, in the bright realm of values, we have no excuse behind us, nor justification before us. We are alone, with no excuses.” (Sartre 1957, 22-23; see also Sartre 1988, 78).
2. “First of all, man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself. If man, as the existentialist conceives him, is indefinable, it is because at first he is nothing. Only afterward will he be something, and he himself will have made what he will be. Thus, there is no human nature, since there is no God to conceive it.” (Sartre 1957, 15-16; see also Sartre 1988, 75).
3. Nevertheless, Sartre underwent a very surprising change of mind towards the end of his life; in fact, he came very close to theistic commitment. The magazine National Review (June 11, 1982) reported it thus:
“Throughout his mature career, the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre was a militant atheist. Politically, although he quarreled with Marxist materialism, his rhetoric was often indistinguishable from the most heavy-handed Stalinist boiler-plate.
However, during the philosopher’s last months there were some surprising developments. In 1980, nearing his death, by then blind, decrepit, but still in full possession of his faculties, Sartre came very close to belief in God, perhaps even more than very close.
The story can be told briefly, and perhaps reverently. An ex-Maoist, Pierre Victor, shared much of Sartre’s time toward the end. In the early spring of 1980 the two had a dialogue in the pages of the ultra-gauchiste Nouvel Observateur. It is sufficient to quote a single sentence from what Sartre said then to measure the degree of his acceptance of the grace of God and the creatureliness of man:
‘I do not feel that I am the product of chance, a speck of dust in the universe, but someone who was expected, prepared, prefigured. In short, a being whom only a Creator could put here; and this idea of a creating hand refers to God.’
Students of existentialism, the atheistic branch, will note that in this one sentence Sartre disavowed his entire system, his engagements, his whole life.
This is the yearly occasion to give thanks to GOD. We thank GOD for all things - from light, air, water and the food on the table to health, peace, prosperity and family! May GOD's Grace shine on mankind forever!
Top Down & Bottom Up Control of Personal & Collective Consciousness (by Iona Miller)
There is a pre-physical, unobservable domain of potentiality in quantum theory. It is the basis of fundamental interconnectedness and wholeness of Reality. The human body is not an object in space, but seamlessly welded to spacetime. We are not merely a phenomenal body of flesh, but one of awareness, of consciousness, a living interface of inner and outer field phenomena. The brain is not confined to our skull, but permeates our whole being through the intracellular matrix and sensory system, as well as the strong EM fields generated by the beating heart. Archetypes are rooted in or emerge from the holographic source field as attractors, chaotic systems having fractal or reiterative structures that repeat at all levels of observation. They never settle into equilibrium, periodicity, or resonance. Transpersonal experience creates a new interpretation, or perspective on reality. Systems arise from positive feedback and amplification. Thus, archetypes introduce erratic behavior that leads to the emergence of new situations, including creative insight.
Yet, we must have hope in a hopeless situation and try to help even if we feel helpless. So, let us pray GOD for peace in the Middle-East and urge our respective governments to broker said peace - for, GOD willing, peace is attainable even if it appears impossible.
The Possibility of Metaphysics (by Graham P. Smetham)
Although the title is ‘The Possibility of Metaphysics’ the first part has as its focus not only metaphysics in general but Buddhist metaphysics in particular. This is because the motivation for this focus issue was sparked by an email from a colleague who asked for my opinion of a book written by Robert Ellis. The aspect of the ‘experimental metaphysics’ of quantum theory is examined in detail in the first article "The Matter of Mindnature" The Buddhist metaphysical viewpoint tells as the nature of ultimate reality is best understood as a fundamentally interrelated and interpenetrating field of Mind-like energy, or Mindnature, and such a view is clearly supported by the quantum violation of Bell’s inequalities. In this article I examine Ellis’s notion of the impossibility of metaphysics in the light of both philosophical considerations and the implications of the quantum evidence. The next article "Taking the‘Meta’ Out of Physics" is Ellis’s response to my criticisms of his work. I leave it to readers to come to conclusions without further comment from me. It is my hope that there will be feedback concerning the issues raised as I am personally convinced that Ellis’s position is untenable but am curious to know whether my viewpoint is widely held. Certainly the last two articles from James Kowall, ‘What is Reality in a Holographic World?’, and Brian Whitworth, ‘Introducing The Virtual Reality Conjecture’, seem to support my position..
