Part 1: Problems and Solutions
Problem #1: The Life-Entropy Problem
Problem #2: Maxwell’s Demon
Problem #3: Boltzmann’s Well-Ordered Universe Problem
Problem #4: The Big Bang and the Law of Conservation of Energy
Problem #5: The Baryon Asymmetry Problem
Problem #6: The Fine Tuning Problem
Problem #7: Human Psychology
Problem #8: The Observer Problem
Problem #9: Schrödinger’s Cat
Problem #10: Wigner’s Friend
Solution #1: Minds create reality
Problem #11: Laplace’s Demon
Solution #2: Reality is a crazy recording.
Part 2: Evidence
Part 3: Meaning
Why are we alive?
What happens after death?
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” Dr Richard Feynman Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, 1965
This book is all about a problem with reality. According to Standard Science, our universe shouldn’t exist. Scientists don’t mention this fact very often but it’s true; the Official Laws of Physics that describe our universe don’t actually fit with how our universe is. If we tried to create a universe using our Official Laws of Physics, nothing would appear. If we forced our universe to follow our Official Laws of Physics, it would cease to exist.
The hopeless disconnect between Scientific Law and reality doesn’t mean that our science is entirely wrong, it’s just that our official science is seriously wrong on several fundamental issues. The scientific community already knows this. Popular science books and magazines do touch on its fundamental problems now and then. They briefly explain the issues, admit that they’re still unsolved, and then move swiftly on to safer ground.
This book isn’t going to do that. It’s going to study these Big Problems, work out why they’re so gnarly, and then show a solution to them developed by several brilliant scientists and mathematicians, many of whom won Nobel Prizes. The solution is elegant, understandable and can transform our understanding of ourselves and the universe. Part 1 of this book will explain the solution that these brilliant minds came up with, and how they discovered it. Part 2 will then look at fascinating evidence that supports that solution. Finally, Part 3 will explore what all these evidence and theories can tell us about why we are alive and here in this reality.
Some readers might wonder that if there is a solution that solves so many Big Problems in physics, and it’s been developed by Nobel Prize Winners, then shouldn’t we have heard of it? Well, yes and no. Yes, we should but no, few of us are likely to have heard of it because our scientific establishment regards the solution they came up with as heretical. This is an ironic term to use, as the word ‘heretical’ is from the Greek word hairetikos, which means ‘able to choose’. Some of these scientists have also been called idiots because of the evidence they put forward flies in the face of the official line. Such an insult is also ironic, as the word ‘idiot’ literally means ‘a person who likes being on their own’. This is because, in Ancient Greece, socialising was regarded as very important, and so anyone who spent time on their own was seen as a fool. 'Heretical idiot' is therefore exactly what a scientist should be. Scientists would do well to pay attention to the words they use, as some of them can backfire. For example, the word ‘scientist’ itself is from the root word ‘scire’, which means to separate, from which we get words such as ‘scissors’, ‘sceptic’ and ‘shit’, which is someone’s separation. Scientists’ opinions are therefore, literally… full of shit.
Readers who have already read my earlier popular-science book, 'How Science shows that almost everything important we've been told is wrong' (I'm so pleased I've chosen a shorter title for this new book) may still enjoy this new book. I've made an effort to explain the quantum physics parts of it in a clearer way, or as much as one can. I've also tried to focus on the key physics and reality topics in this book, and their spiritual and scientific consequences, and not gone off in other directions.
The reason I'm giving this book away for free is because I think it needs to be read by as many people as possible; I think its ideas would help us greatly as a thinking species. I'm also giving this book away because it's not that long a book. In the future, if there's sufficient interest, I may write a longer version and sell that one but that's only a future possibility at the moment.
Anyway, here's the book for download.
In many ways, it doesn't matter if a person is taking hallucinogens, or not. Our body, in particular our pineal gland, is perfectly capable of manufacturing a whole host of tryptamines. It produces serotonin and melatonin regularly, to enable us to be awake and to sleep and dream.There's no doubt it can produce DMT (di-methyl-tryptamine) and other potent hallucinogens if it feels in the mood. Meditation, yoga, focussed mental effort and other practices can stimulate our pineal gland to produce these exotic tryptamines without any need to ingest anything. Nevertheless, Terence's experiences seem to have given him a deep understanding of identity, ego, spirituality and the nature of reality. Definitely recommended.
Instead, as the video explains, if one dedicates oneself to striving towards positive goals, and when one reaches them one immediately strives towards the next positive goal, then one will be living a life that has meaning and one's moments of real happiness will increase. This path is invariably difficult, as it's running entirely against the easier, and very popular path of hierarchical servitude and short-lived hedonistic pleasures. This path of pursuing meaningful and challenging goals also usually confers little social status upon oneself, but its difficulty only increases the sense of achievement and the deep happiness it can bring.
2) The intelligence and entropy conundrum of Maxwell's demon.
3) The existence of aliens conundrum of Fermi's Paradox.
4) The predictability paradox of Laplace's Demon.
5) Olber's Paradox, which is 'if the universe in infinite, why is the sky dark?'
Jim also adds in a few relativity paradoxes and a statistical paradox (the game show goats and car problem) to round off the list.
I am a big fan of popular science books; I find the good ones fascinating and they're a great way to learn about our universe. Unfortunately, our scientific establishment pushes a Scientific Materialist line. In other words, all 'thought' and 'life' is simply an illusory phenomena that comes about by the action of physical mechanisms.
As I've explained in many articles on this website, in particular the influence idea, as well as in my book how science shows that almost everything important we've been told is wrong, Scientific Materialism is scientifically impossible. Minds and spirits have to exist in order for living things to defy the law of entropy, for living things are constantly increasing order in the universe, when the Law of Entropy states that all physical things should become more disordered over time. Read More...
Dear Mr Orwell,
It was very kind of you to tell your publishers to send me a copy of your book. It arrived as I was in the middle of a piece of work that required much reading and consulting of references; and since poor eyesight makes it necessary for me to ration my reading, I had to wait a long time before being able to embark on ‘Nineteen eight-four’.
‘Luck’ by Adrian Ellis
Most people would like to be lucky; they’d wish that random events such as a lottery draw would swing their way and give them a windfall. They’d love to know that when they’d meet their future soulmate, they’d not - in the inimitable words of Alanis Morissette - then ‘meet his beautiful wife’. But everyone knows, at the end of the day, that the world is ruled by random chance. What happens is entirely beyond a person’s control and is simply pure chance.
Oddly enough, science can show us that the very opposite may be true. To explain this, we’ll need the help of a warmongering ex-Hungarian with a penchant for memorising telephone directories, a deeply uncertain cat and a man with a very large moustache. Read More...
Other people focus on the Christian story; a baby in a manger, along with a big, bright moving star and three kings or Magi who visit the infant, bringing gifts. This whole scene, oddly enough, is strongly connected to Ancient Egyptian beliefs. In Ancient Egypt, the star Sirius, associated with the god Osiris, the brightest star in the Northern Hemisphere, was 'born' at the beginning of the Egyptian Summer when it rose above the horizon. Its arrival was always accompanied by the Three Kings stars, a.k.a. Orion's Belt. Also, the word 'Magi' is the root word of 'Magician' and originates with the Zoroastrian religion popular in Persia in the centuries before Christ, a religion from which the cult of Mithra was born.Read More...
Your article 'Why do we move forward in time?" (Issue 3037, 5th Sept 2015, pg34) makes it clear that physics has no clear answer as to why time passes. The article reminded me of an ancient Zen Koan. Two monks were watching a flag flapping in the wind. One said to the other, "The flag is moving." The other replied, "The wind is moving." A Zen master, walking nearby, overheard them. He said, "It is not the flag nor the wind that is moving but your minds." The idea that our minds experience the four-dimensional 'landscape' of physical reality in a chosen time direction would explain the phenomenon of time passing without violating any physics. Perhaps the Zen master was right philosophically and scientifically?
The article concerned was one of a series of articles in the New Scientist that week (issue 3037) about aspects of physics that non one had yet solved. The tricky nature of time is definitely one of these big conundrums. We all experience time flowing; we do things, one after the other, day after day. Around us clocks tick and cars drive and birds fly etc. We can't seem to stop or alter this flow of time. We can't make time stand still. It can certainly sometimes seem as if time is flowing more slowly than at other times. For example, waiting to go into an exam can seem to last forever, but while you're doing the exam, time can seem to scream by. I remember once starting a strategy board game, then becoming completely engrossed and then looking up and finding out that two hours had gone by, as if in a flash. Read More...
“It is my fate to have to be the first decent human being. I have a terrible fear that I shall one day be pronounced holy.”
“It seems to me that for a person to take a book of mine into his hands is one of the rarest distinctions that anyone can confer upon himself. I even assume that he removes his shoes when he does so — not to speak of boots.”
Examine the lives of the best and most fruitful people and peoples and ask yourselves whether a tree that is supposed to grow to a proud height can dispense with bad weather and storms; whether misfortune and external resistance, some kinds of hatred, jealousy, stubbornness, mistrust, hardness, avarice, and violence do not belong among the favourable conditions without which any great growth even of virtue is scarcely possible.
The philosopher Schopenhauer, who Nietzsche admired, thought that life's difficulties should be avoided. Schopenhauer recommended people hide away. Nietzsche had the opposite view. He said; 'take the challenges on! You need them! They'll make you a better person!'
Nietzsche is saying a very similar thing to my article suggesting that life is really like Casablanca, which is cool, as it means that a famous philosopher agrees with me. Yes! Unfortunately, it's also clear what I thought was an exciting new idea has actually been around for nearly a century and it isn't new at all. Hey ho.
The problem of pain, in its simplest form was the paradoxical idea that if we were to believe in a higher power, we would, on the one hand, have to believe that "God" wants all creatures to be happy and, being almighty, can make that wish manifest; on the other hand, we'd have to acknowledge that all creatures are not happy, which renders that god lacking in "either goodness, or power, or both."
It’s a tricky question. In a nutshell, it is: ‘If God’s full of love, why’s he put us here in a place full of suffering, misery and pain?’
There are lots of possible answers to this question but here's three popular ones:
- God is good and he wants suffering in the world for a good reason. Unfortunately, we can’t understand why because God purpose is beyond our limited understanding. In other words, we’re too stupid to understand why we have to suffer.
- We’re fundamentally bad; it's our own fault there’s suffering. We basically deserve what we're getting.
- God doesn’t exist and the universe is what it is because of physics. There's no Big Reason nothing to ponder. This is the materialist or atheist solution and is fully believed by such academic luminaries as Richard Dawkins.
Unfortunately, none of the above answers are particularly positive. In fact, they’re all pretty depressing, which doesn’t improve the lot of anyone who's already unhappy about ‘the problem of pain’ in the first place.
But there is another answer! Hooray! If the Influence Idea is correct, then we, as thinking minds, are separate to physical reality and influence physical reality in order to make Life happen, including the functioning of our own bodies. This is a scientific idea, grounded in fact and logic, so there's no need to actually believe anything in order to say, with confidence that God exists (a.k.a. Original Mind, Tao or Atum) and there's Life After Physical Death etc.
But if we don't originate in this physical reality and we can leave it, why are we all going through all the suffering that comes as part and parcel of living our lives? What's the point? An answer may lie in reading the reports of people who say they've temporarily stopped living their physical life and visited the AfterLife…
Such an idea leads to a simple but highly meaningful question; ‘what should we do to improve ourselves?’ Most of us would agree that we want to become better people during our lives, to be more courageous, more compassionate, more charitable, but how would we go about it? If we were in Heaven, we could perhaps ask God to transform us into ultimately lovely people… but there’s a problem with that. If we did that, we wouldn’t have improved, we’d have just been changed into someone else by another’s hand. This is where living a physical life full of challenges and difficulties starts to make sense. By living such a challenging life and succeeding in it, we have really improved as people.
But what if the film had been different? What if Rick had asked a Higher Power, five minutes in, to transform him into a wonderful human being? The net result would have been the same (freedom fighter escapes, woman is forgiven, man shows he cares) without a lot of talking, wearing of raincoats and singing of the Marseillaise. But such a transformation would have been rubbish, false, pointless. For Rick’s story to touch our heartstrings and stir our souls, he had to face challenges in that story. He had to resist the temptation of stealing Elsa away for himself. He had to face the option of wallowing in self-pity and bitterness, but instead rise above that and do the right thing and it was hard for him to do it; he had to reach down and pull himself into a good place. The challenges he faced were tough and we, the audience, didn’t know, until right at the end, which choice he would make but when he did make the right choices and become a better person, it meant everything to him and to us. It gets me every time. I practically blub when they sing the Marseillaise.
The same ise true of our own lives. Deep down, many of us want to become better people through our own experiences, our own choices and actions. Just as with Rick, we have to experience all sorts of challenges to be sure we are great people. A wise person would say that we don’t know how good we are until we are challenged; it is only when we’re challenged that we find out. We can’t just ‘talk the talk’, we have to ‘walk the walk’ to be sure.
This idea, that we are living physical lives to improve ourselves, has interesting consequences. For example, if Reality is a construction created by minds for personal improvement - a therapy environment - then the only things of real importance to us in Reality aren’t actually the physical things of reality at all - they’re just props. The only important thing in Reality is the state of our own minds. All extrinsic things like money, attractiveness, material goods etc are ultimately irrelevant and only of use if their presence helps us improve our minds. Anyone in Reality who is preoccupied with material things is akin to someone spending all their time playing a computer game because they're obsessed with amassing as many gold coins as possible. Such an attitude by game players often invites pity and ridicule but Reality is an artificial environment too, an immersive, affecting environment that we only temporarily experience.
It seems that Reality is the film 'Casablanca', only we don't know the ending. It is an immersive environment that we have all chosen to experience, from birth to death, and by doing this, by living our physical lives, we hope to rid ourselves of negative thoughts and negative reactions. Just as Rick had to face temptation, overcome bitterness and choose selflessness during the two hours of ‘Casablanca’, we are spending four-score-years-and-ten here because we want to achieve the same goals, only possibly with less raincoats…
p.s. Literally trying to live out 'Casablanca' is tempting too, but kind of dumb, but Woody Allen was very funny when he tried it in his film 'Play it again, Sam', which is definitely worth seeing.
There's no doubt that modern cosmology has several problems that it is current incapable of solving; here's a list of them below. The first two are mentioned in the article.
Boltzmann's 'Well ordered Universe' problem
Ludwig Boltzmann noticed in the late nineteenth century that the universe was in a very well-ordered state; in simple terms, it worked. The suns were stable and supplied energy, planets orbited them, supporting life. What confused Boltzmann was that he knew about thermodynamics and the Law of Entropy. It made no sense that a universe in which things always got more chaotic over time, it would be in this state after billions of years. It made no sense.
The fine tuning problem
The laws of the universe are extremely friendly to life. In fact, the ratios of the fundamental constants are incredibly, precisely, just right for stars and planets to form. If one or more of them were even a tiny amount different from their real values, we couldn't have atoms, never mind stars. Somehow, possibly by astonishing accident, our universe has just the right fundamental constants for atoms and stars to exist.
The baryon asymmetry problem
When the Big Bang banged, it should have produce equal amounts of matter and anti-matter. This is because, according to physics, the universe treats anti-matter and matter both equally. The only problem with this fact is that if the universe had treated them equally when it began, the matter and anti-matter would have cancelled each other out by colliding in a flash of light, leaving nothing but some radiation. Clearly, this hasn't happened and there is nothing in physics to explain why.
What's very interesting about this list of problems is that there is an answer that solves them all, that makes them all make sense. It is very simple:
The Universe is a construction
In other words, the universe didn't come into existence as a random event. The universe is a creation, made with a positive purpose and designed so that it is stable. That is why its settings (its laws, constants and ratios) are astonishingly fine-tuned so that suns and solar systems can form. That's also why our universe is filled with matter, whereas a universe that was created as a random event from nothing should have produced equal amounts of matter and anti-matter.
The strange conundrum then becomes, if that's the only logical answer and it solves all the existing conundrums, why hasn't it been accepted and widely disseminated?
The reason, in a word, is materialism. The dominant belief in modern science at the moment is materialism. Materialists believe that only inert matter exists. Even our minds are not real. According to materialists, they are simply a sensory phenomenon, like a rainbow. Materialists only believe that our universe came about as a random event, an event without any bias, an event where there was no tendency or movement towards a particular goal. It's worth noting at this point that materialism is purely a belief; it is not based on any scientific evidence. Some scientists may think that science has proved materialism but there are many experiments made by senior scientists that negate this view. These experiments have been dismissed on spurious grounds because they don't agree with materialism. Ironically, it's a lot like the Renaissance Vatican priests refusing to look in Galileo's telescope.
In case someone is thinking that I'm making a case for religion, I'm not. The fact that the universe is a construction doesn't mean that it was made by God (or a god). The evidence doesn't indicate who or what constructed our universe, or how or why it was done. Our universe might have been created by a single entity, it might be a technological creation by an extremely advanced civilization, it might be a huge, collaborative, consensual illusion. The evidence doesn't help us work this out, but it sure is an interesting question.
If any readers would like read a related idea of mine, that also explores how life exists, please have a leaf through the Influence Idea. There's lots of attractive illustrations and pictures of famous scientists and some sheds.
I've sent the New Scientist magazine a letter about this cosmological conundrum, pointing out that all the problems they mentioned are solved if we accept that the universe is a construction. They've been very kind to publish my letters in the past, so it may turn up in the magazine at some point. Here's hoping! :-)
They have published my letter. Hooray! That is very good of them, as any scientific view that's even a little non-materialistic can get some serious flack. Thank you, New Scientist magazine.