User blogs
How Consciousness Creates Reality (by Claus Janew)
In essence, Steven E. Kaufman’s work shows how self-relational Consciousness produces and interacts with reality. But to appreciate the important work done by Kaufman, one needs to read the whole 325 pages of this Focus Issue of JCER covering his work. Our goals with this Focus Issue are: (1) bring broader awareness of Kaufman’s work by scholars and all genuine truth seekers; and (2) promote scholarly discussions of the same through commentaries and responses to commentaries in the future issues of JCER. In so doing, we hope that all of us may benefit in our endeavor to reach higher Consciousness within ourselves and build a genuine Science of Consciousness.
Relating the Relational-Matrix Model of Reality to Space-Time and Physical Reality (by Steven E. Kaufman)
This article is a continuation of Kaufman’s work previously published in SGJ Vol. 2, No. 3 (2011), in which work the relational-matrix model was developed and described as a dynamic structure composed of existence involved in a defined set of relations with itself. The purpose of this article is to relate the relational-matrix model, as a dynamic structure, to what we apprehend as space-time by demonstrating that certain fundamental behaviors and aspects of physical reality can be explained in the context of the defined set of relations of existence to itself that were previously described as composing the fundamental structure of reality conceptualized as the relational-matrix. Specifically, within the context of the relational-matrix model, we will account for the following aspects of physical reality: (1) the relationship between space and time, including the basis of temporal relativity, as well as the precise nature of time as a function of the dynamic aspect of the spatial structure; (2) the basis of the speed-of-light constant, including why the frequency and wavelength of electromagnetic radiation are inversely related as a function of that constant; (3) the basis of Planck’s constant, including why the energy associated with electromagnetic radiation exists in discrete amounts, or quanta; (4) the nature of gravitation, including why matter and gravitation are always associated and why gravitation is universally attractive; (5) the equivalence of the gravitational and inertial forces; (6) the relationship between electromagnetic radiation and gravitation; and (7) the nature of energy. Using the relational-matrix model to explain these aspects of the behavior of physical reality will establish a conceptual basis for understanding how physical reality extends from the structure of space. By the end of this article, we will also have established a conceptual basis for understanding why nothing can truly be separated from anything else—i.e., why nothing can be said to exist independent of all other things..
The Quantum Illusion-like Nature of ‘Reality’ & the Buddhist Doctrine of ‘Two Levels of Reality’ Part I: Deconstructing Reality (by Graham P. Smetham)
The Buddhist metaphysical conceptual analysis of the nature of reality has always been founded upon the basis of a rigorous employment of scrupulously coherent conceptual analysis, which is in turn based upon an empirical observation of experience in a manner appropriate to the time, although one major difference between the empirical attitude of Western science and philosophy during the age of science and that of Buddhism was the Buddhist development of rigorous techniques of meditation in order to explore the structure and nature of consciousness. In this paper I will use the Buddhist philosopher Dharmakirti‘s imaginative deconstruction of reality, in the context of quantum theory, to try to answer the question which seems to be posed by quantum theory: Is 'Reality' really real? In our search for the ultimate nature of reality we have to leave behind the 'seeming' appearances of the everyday world, however persuasive the appearance may be, and break through to a more 'ultimate truth' concerning the nature of reality. We shall discover that Dharmakirti's philosophical analysis, alongside other Buddhist insights, which lead to the 'ultimate' realm of 'empty' Mindnature, prefigures modern quantum discoveries.
In this paper I will use the Buddhist philosopher Dharmakirti‘s imaginative deconstruction of reality, in the context of quantum theory, to try to answer the question which seems to be posed by quantum theory: Is 'Reality' really real? In our search for the ultimate nature of reality we have to leave behind the 'seeming' appearances of the everyday world, however persuasive the appearance may be, and break through to a more 'ultimate truth' concerning the nature of reality. We shall discover that Dharmakirti's philosophical analysis, alongside other Buddhist insights, which lead to the 'ultimate' realm of 'empty' Mindnature, prefigures modern quantum discoveries. http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/127
God of the Gaps (by Himangsu S. Pal): Abstract: If God created this universe, and if God wanted man to be the master of Its creation, then God would willingly choose to be the “God of the gaps”. So it is quite logical that a God who will create man with some purpose will always prefer to be the God of the gaps. http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/129
Specifically, within the context of the relational-matrix model, we will account for the following aspects of physical reality: (1) the relationship between space and time, including the basis of temporal relativity, as well as the precise nature of time as a function of the dynamic aspect of the spatial structure; (2) the basis of the speed-of-light constant, including why the frequency and wavelength of electromagnetic radiation are inversely related as a function of that constant; (3) the basis of Planck’s constant, including why the energy associated with electromagnetic radiation exists in discrete amounts, or quanta; (4) the nature of gravitation, including why matter and gravitation are always associated and why gravitation is universally attractive; (5) the equivalence of the gravitational and inertial forces; (6) the relationship between electromagnetic radiation and gravitation; and (7) the nature of energy. Using the relational-matrix model to explain these aspects of the behavior of physical reality will establish a conceptual basis for understanding how physical reality extends from the structure of space. By the end of this article, we will also have established a conceptual basis for understanding why nothing can truly be separated from anything else—i.e., why nothing can be said to exist independent of all other things. http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/126
How Consciousness Creates Reality (by Claus Janew): Abstract: We will begin with seemingly simple interactions in our daily lives, examine how they originate on a deeper level, come to understand the essentials of consciousness, and finally recognize that we create our reality in its entirety. In the course of this quest, we will uncover little-heeded paths to accessing our subconscious, other individuals, and that which can be understood by the term "God". And the solution to the classical problem of free will constitutes the gist of the concepts is thus revealed. The present text is a very abridged version of a book I wrote out of the desire to examine the structure of our reality from a standpoint unbiased by established teachings, be they academic- scientific, popular- esoteric, or religious in nature. http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/125
Stephen Hawking’s Hotchpotch (Himangsu S. Pal): Abstract: Atheist scientists usually say that as there is no evidence for the existence of God so far, so it is reasonable to believe that there is no God. Here I will clearly show that neither there is any evidence so far that something can come out of nothing. On the basis of this lack of evidence we can also say that it is reasonable not to believe that the universe has actually originated from nothing. We can also demand that atheist scientists should immediately stop deceiving us in the name of science. If atheistic scientists cannot believe in the existence of God due to lack of evidence, then it is equally true that due to this same lack of evidence we cannot also believe that the laws of gravity and quantum theory were already there at the beginning of our universe to govern that beginning. So how did Hawking particularly come to know that these two laws governed the beginning of our universe? Is he all-knowing God? http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/128
WALTER KOHN – NOBEL LAUREATE IN CHEMISTRY
Nobel Prize: Walter Kohn (born 1923) won the 1998 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work on the development of the density functional theory, which fundamentally transformed scientists’ approach to the electronic structure of atoms and molecules.
Nationality: Austrian; later American citizen
Education: Ph.D. in physics, Harvard University, 1948
Occupation: Professor of Physics at the University of California, San Diego (1960-1979); Director of the Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara (1979-1984); Professor of Physics at the UCSB, Santa Barbara (1984-1991); Professor Emeritus of Physics and Research Professor at the UCSB, Santa Barbara (1991-present).
1. In the interview, entitled “Dr. Walter Kohn: Science, Religion, and the Human Experience” (July 26, 2001), Dr. Kohn stated:
“I am Jewish and have a strong identification with Judaism. I would say I see myself as religious simultaneously in two ways. One is that I have found that religion, specifically the Jewish religion, has very much enriched my own life and is something that I have conveyed to my children and feel their lives also have been enriched by.
Secondly, I am very much of a scientist, and so I naturally have thought about religion also through the eyes of a scientist. When I do that, I see religion not denominationally, but in a more, let us say, deistic sense. I have been influenced in my thinking by the writings of Einstein who has made remarks to the effect that when he contemplated the world he sensed an underlying Force much greater than any human force. I feel very much the same. There is a sense of awe, a sense of reverence, and a sense of great mystery.” (Kohn 2001a).
2. To the question, “When you refer to yourself as a deist, I understand deism to mean the belief that some divine force set the universe in motion, but after that it’s basically a hands-off relationship. Is that what you mean by deism?” Dr. Kohn replied:
“It includes that. I see no reason to believe that every once in awhile the laws of nature, that as scientists we study, are suspended by divine intervention. But at the same time I do not see the universe as necessarily proceeding in a simple, totally predictable, mechanistic fashion. There continue to be very deep epistemological questions about the significance of sharp scientific laws like the laws of quantum mechanics and the laws that govern the nature of chaos. Both of these fields have irreversibly shaken the 18th and 19th centuries’ purely deterministic, mechanistic view of the world.
These are my reactions to your question as to how I see deism and your statement - to paraphrase what you said – that the world is set in motion by some divine force and now it runs on its own. I’m trying to say it’s not quite so simple. It’s incredible, one struggles for the right word. One feels awe and reverence for the world of experience and the world of science.
In any case there’s a sense of a world that to an amazing extent yields to our comprehension, but fundamentally remains incomprehensible. And because it is manifestly such a wonderful thing, it leads one – I follow here in Einstein’s footsteps – to sense some Force that can take responsibility and credit for it.” (Kohn 2001a).
3. To the question, “What do you think should be the relationship between science and religion?” Walter Kohn replied: “Mutual respect. They are complementary important parts of the human experience.” (Kohn 2002).
4. And to the inquiry, “What do you think about the existence of God?” Walter Kohn gave the following answer: “There are essential parts of the human experience about which science intrinsically has nothing to say. I associate them with an entity which I call God.” (Kohn 2002).
5. In his lecture Reflections of a Physicist after an Encounter with the Vatican and Pope John Paul II (April 20, 2001, University of California, Santa Barbara) Dr. Kohn said:
“Certainly science, especially physics and chemistry, is a very important part of my identity. But I also consider myself a religious person, and in two senses: one, based on my liberal Jewish upbringing which I have passed on to my children; the other, a kind of non-denominational deism which springs from my awe of the world of our experiences and is heightened by my identity as a scientist. It also includes a conviction that science alone is an insufficient guide to life, leaving many deep questions unanswered and needs unfulfilled.” (Kohn 2001b).
