Article Part 1
The First Unified Theory
It’s fundament
(8 minute read)
Introduction
It started with a heated discussion between Einstein and Bohr in the 1920s. The big question was whether causes had disappeared from the world of physics. By the end of the 1980s, the causal problem had spread to a number of branches of science. In 1988, physicist David Bohm made the surprising proposal to try “a spirit principle” in the role of cause and “matter” as effect.
The prerequisite for investigating this possibility and coming up with something other than a new unverifiable religion was to adhere strictly to the rules of science. That is, collect unexplained phenomena and paradoxes, develop the “spirit principle” into a set of characteristic assumptions, and examine whether the new set of logical rules solves the problems. The theory presented here was developed by following these guidelines.
The First Unified Theory is a new reductionist master theory that explains all types of phenomena, fits all known physical laws and is confirmed by experiments. Among the most striking consequences for physics is that the elementary particles of the atom are elementary ideas and the elementary forces are the attraction toward joy. The most important consequences for most people are the discovery of a surprisingly high level of joy and the law of spin-off ideas.
Background
The atom is not a fundamental element, but a fundamental idea. The registered elementary entities comprising the atom are not material particles, but the concepts from which the fundamental idea is constructed. The forces measured in the depths of the atom are not forces without quality, but the attraction toward joy. The driving force of our reality is joy maximization.
The statements above are taken from the new reductionistic governing theory we’ll cover in a moment. But first, why launch such a crazy proposal for a Great Unifying Theory?
The answer is science’s requirement for rationality (reason). Rationality is not a static, unchanging property. It’s adopted from the ideas we believe are best suited to understanding reality. In science, such notions are called theories. It’s a theory’s superior ability to explain reality that gives it the right to dictate what is rational. Read More
Today’s material governing theory has fundamental problems explaining all types of phenomena with its form of logic. We need a new governing theory with a logic that, compared with today’s, is crazy enough to solve the problems and give us a new and better rationality to live by.
Description versus understanding
Albert Einstein is known far beyond scientific circles as the originator of the theory of relativity, E = mc2 and his contribution to quantum theory. “But,” says physicist Brian Greene on his website The Elegant Universe (previous edition), “…many people don’t know that his greatest theory was never completed.” (….) Einstein’s crowning achievement would have been a theory of the ‘unified field’, an attempt to ‘read God’s mind’. Einstein was simply ahead of his time. More than half a century later, his dream of a unified theory has become the Holy Grail of modern physics.”
Physics’ contribution to solving Einstein’s Quest is definitely impressive. The insight into parts of reality, especially those found deep within the atom, has become extremely detailed. Fulfilling the quest for a master theory whereby we understand reality should have more hope of success than ever before. But from the perspective of a couple of non-physicists who take science’s measure of success literally, a different impression emerges.
Reductionists summarize the hopes and requirements science has for a Theory Of Everything / Grand Unified Theory thus: “If you understand everything about the ingredients, (….) you understand everything.” The phenomena science chose to constitute the ingredients were physics’ elementary material particles and forces. Although these oddities are described with acute precision, not a single person on the planet understands anything about them. For example, science has described gravity but understands nothing about why separate bodies are pulled towards each other. It has described the u-quark with incredible accuracy, but understands nothing about where the strange properties of quarks come from. The same goes for all the other ingredients. They are accurately described, but none of them are understood. If we take the reductionists at their word, we can summarize the situation quite simply: Since we don’t understand any of the ingredients, we don’t understand anything.
Stephen W. Hawking seems to have come to the same conclusion, and then some. He states science has abandoned its efforts to solve the Great Riddle. In A Brief History of Time, he puts it this way: “We find ourselves in a confusing world. We want to make sense of what we see around us and ask: What is the nature of the universe? What is our place in it, and where do we come from? Why is it the way it is?” But in practice, Hawking says, that’s not really what science is concentrating on finding out: “Actually, we have redefined the mission of science to be the discovery of laws that will enable us to predict events (….). But the question still remains: How and why were these laws for the initial state of the universe chosen?” And most pointedly: “So far, most scientists have been so busy developing new theories describing what the universe is that they have not asked why.”
What exactly is Hawking talking about here? He’s talking about what everything is made from – group I) Elementary physical phenomena. The elementary particles, the elementary forces, the quants (energy packets), plus gravity.
He tells us the law of gravity, for example, describes in detail how the force of attraction between separate bodies depends on mass and distance. But also that science has no explanation as to why there is such a things as the attraction between separate bodies.
According to Hawking, science is not currently in the business of developing understanding. It’s focus is on developing description. Solidly verified descriptions are excellent, per se. But verified descriptions cannot be used as verification of understanding. Physics’ contribution is therefore very different than most have thought. What many have thought was a solid solution to the Great Riddle is only an extremely accurate description of the smaller riddles that make up the Great Riddle.
Verification of the material theory
The thing that sets science apart as a method is not that it gathers knowledge. Everybody does that. What elevates science is its obligation to verify all knowledge by examining whether the logical rules characteristic of a hypothesis are capable of explaining all types of phenomena. In the case we’re examining, the hypothesis consists of the assumption that reality is put together from the smallest material parts. The tools of logic with which we are to explain things are inanimate material parts, causes within time and space, blind physical laws, and coincidences.
If we try to use these tools to explain the five main types of phenomenon, the results for each type (I – V) are:
I) Elementary physical phenomena: These consist of a handful of elementary particles, three elementary forces and the quanta (energy packets) of the atom, plus gravity. As Stephen Hawking stated, neither the attraction between separate bodies nor the other oddities from which everything is built can be explained using the logical tools at our disposition while adhering to material theory. All present themselves as miracles.
II) Other distinctive phenomena found within physics: The existence of forces, the balance/counterbalance of forces, collection and assembly of elementary phenomena into atoms, the phenomena of mass, energy, relativity, quantification of energy etc. are accepted despite their breaking with the original expectations of an intelligible material world. We understand nothing of what they are or why they are as they are.
III) Complicated design: The first living cell, the evolution of species and of ecological systems must be explained as arising from chance – the very property initially characterized precisely by its inability to produce complicated design.
IV) Ordinary idea-based phenomena: The description of the ingredients contributes nothing to the resolution of the “paradox of spirit and matter”. Consciousness, intelligence, emotions, ideation, learning, memory, and the like become astounding phenomena miraculously arising from ingredients with no trace of such properties.
V) Extraordinary idea-based phenomena: ESP, synchronicity, miracles, experiences of extreme Joy, near-death experiences, etc. The logical rules of the paradigm do not fit this type of phenomena. Such phenomena are routinely dismissed, declared impossible in reference to the current theory, regardless of whether they constitute real phenomena or not.
The verification yields a negative result. None of the five types of phenomena can be explained using the tools in the material paradigm’s toolbox. Its logic leads to complicated or incomprehensible explanations, rendering the phenomena as completely bizarre occurrances. It seems that the reductionists are right. When we don’t understand the ingredients, we understand nothing. Verification is replaced by faith and hope. We end up with a despotic system that imposes logical rules upon the phenomena and bestows the hypothesis the status of theory, despite the fact it has never been verified with positive results.
According to Thomas Kuhn (The Structure Of Scientific Revolutions), this situation is a common occurrence prior to paradigm shifts. The work performed by what Kuhn calls normal-science is based on the idea that it knows what the world is like. The scientific community is therefore little concerned with unexplained phenomena and verification. Indeed, according to Paul Feyerabend (Against Method), it is probably more serious than that. “We must come to terms with the nature of the total phenomenon: Registration + assumptions. There are not two actions – one that registers the phenomenon, another that assigns it an applicable assumption – but only one, (…) to describe a known situation is for the one who describes it an event in which assumption and phenomenon are fused.” And this isn’t saying anything negative about normal science. On the contrary. To explore the true potential of the paradigm, science must remain steadfast to current assumptions through periods of fundamental problems.
But if the problems continue, it’s time to take the unexplained phenomena seriously and use them as a basis for what Kuhn calls revolutionary-science.
The task then becomes to look for a new hypothesis that can be verified positively. An hypothesis which breaks the logical rules that currently define rationality. On this subject, Niels Bohr once said to his colleague Wolfgang Pauli: “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.”
Traditionally, attempts to solve the Great Riddle have followed two different strategies. There is the one that has dominated natural science until now, which we can call the matter-based strategy. And the one that has dominated religion and mysticism, which for the sake of consistency we can call the idea-based strategy. In the 1980s, physicist David Bohm proposed applying the methods of natural science to the idea-based strategy. The reason for this rather crazy proposal was the accumulation of anomalies/unexplained phenomena. Normal-science had had plenty of time and resources to solve these problems, without success. Bohm therefore believed the time had come for revolutionary- science. He drafted the idea to the Norwegian author Erik Dammann, who in turn presented it in his book along with a number of interesting unexplained phenomena (Bak Tid Og Rom Dreyers Forlag AS, 1987).
On May 3, 1988, Dammann was invited to the Physics Society at the University of Oslo to introduce a discussion on this topic. He introduced the core of Bohm’s call in this way:
“Actually, one can say that everything I have talked about points to a reversal of the relationship between spirit and matter as it has normally been understood in the natural sciences: While spirit has traditionally only been discussed as a result of material processes in the individual brain apparatus, a universal principle of spirit is now being discussed that is unbounded and superior to the processes of matter. According to David Bohm, it then becomes natural to think of the human spirit as arising from or as an expression of such a universal spiritual principle – ‘Let’s take such ideas seriously’, says Bohm, ‘Let’s explore it!”
The search for a crazy theory
Let us answer his call and search for a new theory based on Bohm’s specific proposals. Here we’ve formulated his “universal principle of spirit” as “an entity of infinite Consciousness and Intelligence”.
At first glance, it may seem the opportunity to remain scientific has already been lost. But, if we accept the premise the cause of creation could never have been nothing, we must also accept that “something” must’ve been here all along. In the search for a new theory, we’ve assumed an entity of consciousness and intelligence is this “something”. In addition, it’s been given the status of Single Principle with the expectation it’s able to fulfill the requirement of being the cause of everything.
Single Principle
An entity of infinite CONSCIOUSNESS and INTELLIGENCE is THE CORE OF REALITY. It has always existed (2), will always exist, and is the cause of everything.
(For the time being, please note: The assumption about THE CORE provides a cause for the existence of the universe. At this point, we have no idea if it can live up to such hopes. We won’t know until the theory is verified. However, the lack of cause was one of the problems with the old theory that a new theory would have to solve.)
Religions’ attempts to use a similar starting point have provided good explanations for phenomena of complex design (the first living cell, species and ecosystems), for ordinary idea-based phenomena (consciousness, intelligence, ideas, emotions, etc.) and for extraordinary idea-based phenomena (thought transfer, synchronicity, healing, miracles, etc.). But, when it comes to the riddles physics has described with impressive accuracy, religions have fallen woefully short. If there’s to be any point in science adopting the idea-based approach, it’s important to find out whether the new starting point leads to logical consequences that can help solve the problems.
Once we’ve said A, it’s easy to get to B: With CONSCIOUSNESS and INTELLIGENCE as a starting point, master ideas are formed. These master ideas are realized automatically, thus creating reality. (Reality is not material, it’s the realization of an idea.) This starting point has been elaborated to:
Consequence 1 – Basic Function (Elaborated version)
Idea is Cause. With CONSCIOUSNESS and INTELLIGENCE as the starting point, master ideas are formed consisting of two parts. The first part describes the Intended Creation. The second describes the possibilities for its realization. As the master idea describes reality, so becomes the universe.
The essence of the assumption is that the ideas formed by THE CORE OF REALITY are realized automatically and are the cause of everything. This is the type of idea that comprise the fundamentals. They’re called master ideas.
Here we need to pause for a moment. After all, we have a lot of experience with ideas. As far as we can tell, ideas don’t create anything physical whatsoever. We need to understand the assumption in a way that doesn’t conflict with our everyday experiences. Let’s imagine two types of ideas.
One type of idea describes everything necessary to define a reality. Now, imagine that because it’s the only type of idea that describes a universe, it’s also the only type of idea that can be Causes, i.e. which can realize itself and create a universe. A master idea is thus a type of idea that describes and creates a universe.
The other type of idea describes what we need to know in order to navigate the reality our master idea has already defined and created. These may be ideas that say something about the dangers in this reality, for example, or the possibilities there, how to achieve goals, what is logical and what isn’t, what is enjoyable and what isn’t, etc. These ideas don’t create a reality, they’re just the effects that obediently follow as a consequence of our master idea. We can call this type of ideas spin-off ideas.
Spin-off ideas are easy to explain. They fit well with our everyday experiences.
Master ideas don’t pose any problems, either. We all know the physical reality we live in and the ideas we have about it reflect one another. With the old understanding, this similarity was explained by saying our ideas reflect the physical world. With the new one, we can explain it by saying the physical reality reflects the master ideas. We still don’t know for sure whether our reality is idea-based or not, but the proposed new understanding with its two types of ideas does fit nicely with everyday experiences.
(Notice how an old paradox disappears: Beyond the limits of everything we can see in the universe there must be something more, and beyond this more there must be something more still, and so on. In short, the universe can have no limit to its extent. An idea only outlines a state of affairs, a principle. Principles are limitless in extent).
Now. An important feature of reality is that it doesn’t change from moment to moment. The universe, as we know it, is stable. Since we’ve already assumed this stable universe is constructed by what we’ve called a master idea, it must be an idea with a specific content. This, of course, raises the big question. What kind of content would the infinite and omnipresent CONSCIOUSNESS and INTELLIGENCE choose to make a MASTER IDEA?
Being omnipresent, CONSCIOUSNESS and INTELLIGENCE becomes a participant in the reality it creates. It will choose the most joyful and fulfilling ideas to create reality from. We can take the step from B to C:
Consequence 2 – Governing Force
With CONSCIOUSNESS and INTELLIGENCE as the origin for the creation of ideas the attraction toward joy will become creation’s governing force and joy maximization its governing principle.
(Note: Forces are now explained ….. Another key phenomenon the old theory was unable to explain that a new theory would have to be better at explaining).
We know a great deal about how to create joy. What we usually do is to try to arrange our surroundings in a way that we enjoy living in them. It’s as though we think of ourselves as kids and try to organize the world as a joyful playground. If we look at the natural world around us, it seems the CORE of CONSCIOUSNESS and INTELLIGENCE maximizes joy by going creatively amok. IT behaves as if all share consciousness and each individual is thus able to share in the joy experienced by others; that IT maximizes joy by creating KIDS and PLAYGROUNDS with an innate guarantee for joy in myriads of different and amazing forms.
If THE CORE creates the world not just out of ideas in general, but out of a MASTER IDEA that is maximally joyful, the world should be an extremely JOYFUL place without any effort on our part. Experience tells us this is not so. Very little here can be done without effort and worry, and the most conspicuous thing about joy is its habit of being scarce. On this point, science is brutally clear: Phenomena are everything. Theories are nothing. So there are only two possibilities. Either the rough draft of an idea-based theory of reality has already proved to be wrong, or something very important is missing from its toolbox.
We’ve come to one of the biggest surprises of an idea-based reality: Master ideas create in their image. (In keeping with the master idea’s content.) We don’t usually think about it, but activity is putting a particular idea into practice. Activity – is practicing the idea that the goal is out of reach. Waiting and receiving – is practicing the idea that the goal is delivered to us.
We were at C and can take the next step to D:
Consequence 3 – New Logic
Only master ideas that are practiced create reality. (Theoretical ideas, or master ideas that are not applied to our lives, do not create reality.)
An idea-based reality is deaf and blind to theories or master ideas that are not being practiced. It only responds to ideas we use. And it doesn’t matter whether or not we know we have and are practicing a master idea.
Without understanding idea-based logic, we choose an active attitude in order to get what we want, thereby practicing an idea where the goal we seek is not here and now, but there and available at some future time, – thus triggering a reality where everything we want is spread out, a vast universe, a physical universe with time and space:
Sketch of the situation after the Big Bang.
(Consequence of not understanding idea-based logic.)
When understanding the new logic, we choose a fundamental receptive attitude, acknowledging that the goal we seek is provided us, thereby practicing the only idea where joy is here – and triggering a reality where everything we want is together, a unified universe (possibly a universe without time and space):
Sketch of the situation before the Big Bang.
(Consequence of understanding idea-based logic.)
(Note: Science has described an event it has called the Big Bang that created our universe spread out in time and space. But they haven’t been able to explain why it took place. With the logic of the idea-based understanding, we’ve just found a solution to this pivotal component of the great riddle.)
The master idea we practice is a boomerang. It always comes back and hits us with a reality. By practicing the receptive attitude, we create an ultimate REALITY without separation. When practicing the complementary active attitude, we create a limited Reality scattered in time and space.
The key to both creation and joy is understanding. We’re not talking about understanding as in the theoretical acceptance of particular relationships. We’re talking about practiced understanding, understanding confirmed by our actions. Since joy is our ultimate goal, we can put it this way: When we understand the logic of an idea-based reality and act in harmony with that logic, joy is fully realized. When we don’t practice the logic of an idea-based reality, joy will be realized, but in a greatly reduced form.
In other words, we live in an idea-based reality but believe it’s matter-based. When the world seems to be so lacking in magic and joy compared to what we might wish, it could largely be because we’ve been practicing matter-based logic in an idea-based reality. Especially when it comes to our strategy for attaining a goal, which has to do with the second part of the master idea; the possibilities for realization. But because the master idea also has a part 1, Intended Creation, there’s also another way we can create different realities and miss out on joy. The moment we become less aware of the joyful Intended Creation, for example, then the master idea itself becomes less joyful. For every further reduction in understanding in our private version of the master idea, we trigger a private version of the shared reality that’s correspondingly reduced in joy.
Based on both the theory and the results from experiments with manipulating the practiced level of understanding (Experiments 1 and 2), it’s reasonable to assume a drop to a lower level of understanding results in a corresponding drop to a lesser degree of happiness and fulfillment. Also, to assume this has been a downward trend and what we call a “normal life” possibly represents the lowest levels to date. Our physical universe, which is a reduced version of the universe, could already at the time of the Big Bang offer at best a vastly reduced level of joy. Because we exist in this physical reality, it’s reasonable to assume any lasting improvements in our levels of understanding and joy are limited to the highest levels the physical version can offer.
With this, the draft of the new crazy theory is finished. It seems to fit well with our everyday experiences. The question is whether it’s “crazy enough” to explain all five types of phenomena, especially those within the depths of physics. It’s ready for the verification process, examining whether the new hypothesis’ logic is capable of explaining the different types of phenomena.
A theory’s logic is like the tools we can use to construct explanations with. The new tools we’re about to use are living consciousness and intelligence, idea-based causes, attraction toward joy and conscious intent.
To be continued at Article Part 2