I must have been extra tired yesterday becaue I could have pointed this out. While re-reading the post about Bohm and his blackballing by the upper reaches of physics because his mathematical quest for truth, which is what theoretical physics is, he came to conclusions that there was something other than random-chance behind things - to put it in one word, "DETERMINACY" which in context implies the will of a mind, the Creator, God, shows an enormous inconsistency in the very ideology that the physicists, Robert Oppenheimer, Wolfgang Pauli, the circle of Neils Bohr, etc. were upholding in blackballing, ignoring him at the command of Oppenheimer, into obscurity to, they were confronting only one side of the double-edged sword that determinacy is for atheist-materialist-scientism.
The irony in that is that the same determinacy which is poison to the atheist-materialist-scientistic ideology of physics IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY IN THE BIOLOGICAL AND LIFE SCIENCE FOR ATHEIST-MATERIALIST-SCIENTISIM TO HAVE ANY PLAUSIBILITY BECAUSE IT REDUCES ANIMAL CONSCIOUSNESS WHICH CAN ONLY BE SIGNIFICANT, THE EXTENT TO WHICH IT ESCAPES THE CLOSED, POINTLESS MAZE OF MATERIALISM TO ABSOLUTE DETERMINACY.
The very same ideology that demands indeterminacy rule in physics lest these determined atheists may run into something that implies things are as they are by the will of the Creator, MUST have determinacy to, likewise, not be confronted with "the hard problem" of atheist-materialist-scientism, human and animal consciousness on the other end. In that, the ideology of materialism runs smack into itself as it did in the cosmologists' calculations that led to those enormous, truly enormous numbers requiring multiplying ten to very, very large powers to express concerning the improbability of our universe and its potential to generate intelligent life - the motive for high-end physics to invent jillions of universes either simultaneous in time or in an never ending universe bouncing in and out of existence, to make those numbers go away.
That, as Shedrake and Vernon and others have pointed out, demoting human minds to the condition of the program controlling robots destroys any confidence that our ideas, including those of Oppenheimer, Pauli, Bohr and their colleagues to meaningless artifacts of determinacy, including their insistence on blackballing a colleague for finding determinacy where it is not only inconvienient but poison to their ideology and their pretensions of finding some objective truth (it can only not be a pretense if their minds are free acting observers) may be what drove David Bohm to the radical form of free thinking of J. Krishnamurti, a freedom which, as well, corrodes the world of the atheist-materialist devotees of scientism. I don't know how far in that direction Bohm's engagement with Krishnamurti went or, in fact, how far Krishnamurti was willing to go with him, but it certainly presents the common received basic POV of a post-war physicist with an enormous problem.
No, science went wrong in the 19th century when it adopted an ideology unrelated to the strict observation of nature treated mathematically and confirmed by others performing rigorous observation of nature. That started in the 18th century, as the ideologies mentioned took hold in that most ironic of ideological namings "the enlightenment". That light has led farther astray as much as it led farther to the truth. Maybe if physics hadn't become such a steep hill to climb up and there was a requirement that its priesthood engage with rigorous philosophical discourse some of that might have been avoided. At least in so far as they were open to philosophy which didn't, as well, get so sidetracked. The atheist-materialist-scientistic world view may have started in the repute science gained for its common usefulness but its infuence infected a lot more than science, especially as other disciplines hankered after the repute, fame and resources that science attracted to itself. Lots of philosophy has descended into the same decadence, some theology, even.
No comments:
Post a Comment