image description image description

LATEST DIALOGUES Gnostic Science and Literalist Science (1/2)

Science and Gnosticism may seem unlikely allies, because science is commonly believed to be the opposite of Gnosticism. It is assumed that science proposes a Materialist philosophy which teaches that matter is all that exists. But nothing could be further from the truth. None of the great physicists who have shaped our modern scientific understanding of the world – such as Newton, Einstein, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, De Broglie, Jeans, Planck, Pauli and Eddington – were Materialists. Quite the opposite. They were self-professed mystics or Gnostics.

Scientific research has found that it simply doesn’t work to conceive of the universe as a giant machine made of matter. On the contrary, science has discovered that the best way to understand the universe is as a giant thought arising within awareness. Sir James Jeans, who made important contributions to the dynamical theory of gases, the mathematical theory of electromagnetism, the evolution of gaseous stars, the nature of the nebulae and so on, writes

‘Today there is a wide measure of agreement which, on the physical side of science approaches almost to unanimity, that the stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality: the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears as an accidental intruder into the realm of matter; we are beginning to suspect that we ought rather to hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter – not, of course, our individual minds, but the mind in which the atoms out of which our individual minds have grown exist as thoughts.’

Sir Arthur Eddington, who made important contributions to the theoretical physics of stellar systems and was a leading exponent of relativity, announces:

‘The idea of a universal Mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory.’

‘I assert that the nature of all reality is spiritual, not material nor a dualism of matter and spirit. The hypothesis that its nature can be, to any degree, material does not enter into my reckoning, because as we now understand matter, the putting together of the adjective “material” and the noun “nature” does not make sense.’

The Nobel Prize winner Erwin Schroedinger, whose work became the heart of modern quantum mechanics, claims:

‘The overall number of minds is just one. I venture to call it indestructible since it has a peculiar timetable namely mind is always now.’

‘We do not belong to this material world that science constructs for us. We are not in it; we are outside. We are only spectators. The reason why we believe that we are in it, that we belong to the picture, is that our bodies are in the picture.’

The great scientists reject Materialism because it is a flawed philosophy. It is a soulless vision of an outside with no inside. It just doesn’t make sense. Of course more exists than we can sense and measure. This idea we are considering right now, for instance, has neither weight, nor place, nor any tangible qualities. As Eddington quips

‘If those who hold that there must be a physical basis for everything hold that these mystical views are nonsense, we may ask: What, then is the physical basis of nonsense?’

Science describes the world in terms of mathematics, but numbers have no material existence. Scientific ‘laws’ are formula which, although they inform physical reality, have no physical existence themselves. You can search the physical universe forever, but you will never find a single ‘law of nature’. They are not things within the physical world. They are the information which shapes the physical world.

The scientist Rupert Sheldrake has suggested we stop thinking of science as revealing the ‘laws of nature’, which is an analogy taken from the Christian idea of a creator God who decrees the laws which govern the universe. We should think instead of science as revealing the ‘habits of nature’. When we discover the so-called ‘laws of nature’ which underlie physical reality, we are exploring the primal habits of awareness which define the nature of the life-dream.

Materialists claim that, because matter is all that exists, consciousness is a sort of side effect of the brain. But the fact is, even if someone knows what every neuron in your brain is doing, that won’t give them access to a single one of your thoughts. This is because thoughts don’t exist in the world. They are not things. They are not made of matter. This leaves Materialists with a fundamental duality between mind and matter they can neither explain nor avoid. And this completely undermines their claim that matter is all that exists.

Gnosticism, however, is able to resolve the duality of mind and matter very easily. If we take awareness, rather than matter, as the ground of reality, everything exists as an experience within awareness. Some of our experiences are private thoughts and feelings. Others are sensual experiences of our shared world. There is fundamental polarity here, but like all polarities it is an expression of an underlying unity. Our mental and sensual experiences are qualitatively different, but they are both experiences which exist in awareness. And awareness is only conceptually different from what it is aware of, so this polarity also resolves to an essential unity.

Science is commonly assumed to give us a down-to-earth understanding of the world. But science has actually undermined our common-sense view of reality, and replaced it with an extremely weird and wonderful account of the universe. Common-sense tells us that the things around us, such as this book you are holding, are solid objects. Science has discovered that ‘solid objects’ are actually mostly empty space and mysterious quantum particles. Ideas don’t come much stranger than that!

Scientists and Gnostics both suggest that our common-sense ideas are not adequate and suggest radically different ways of seeing things, which at first seem extraordinarily bizarre. When Galileo suggested that the earth goes around the sun it was ridiculed. Yet, although this idea is more difficult to understand than the notion that the sun goes around the earth, it actually gives us a simpler and more elegant understanding of the cosmos. In the same way, although the Gnostic idea that the world exists in awareness can be difficult to understand and contrary to common-sense, it actually gives us a much simpler and more elegant understanding of reality.

The insights of science harmonize with the insights of Gnosticism. Gnostics say that time and space are a sort of illusion. Science has found this to be true, because if we could move at the speed of light, these fundamental dimensions would cease to exist. Just as Gnostics teach that from the I-perspective of awareness there is oneness and eternity, science has found that from light’s point of view there is no space and no time. Physics has wrestled with the paradox that light sometimes appears to be made up of particles and sometimes to be a wave. This is comparable to the Gnostic observation that from the it-perspective each individual is a discrete ‘particle’ of consciousness, but from the I-perspective individuals are like waves on one ocean of awareness.

This article by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy is an excerpt in two parts from The Laughing Jesus: Religious Lies and Gnostic Wisdom. Part two of this excerpt will be posted next week.

Related Dialogues

Please select the social network you want to share this page with:

We like you too :)
T!m Freke is a philosopher and author of more than 30 books, which have been translated into 15 languages, including a top 10 international bestseller and Daily Telegraph 'Book of the Year'. In his latest book "The Mystery Experience" he articulates a revolutionary 'paralogical' approach to spiritual awakening, which is free from superficial woo-woo and sits alongside deep science to inform human understanding. Tim has been exploring the deep awake state since he was 12 years old and is able to guide others directly to it. He presents experiential mystery experience retreats and entertaining evenings of standup philosophy throughout the world. Tim is a passionate and playful communicator with a contagious enthusiasm for exploring the mystery of life, who has often been featured in documentaries and interviewed by the global media, such as the BBC and the History Channel.

49 Responses to “Gnostic Science and Literalist Science (1/2)”

  1. February 08, 2015 at 2:58 am, Eric Mcoo said:

    Excellent article. I agree with every word. However I would like to point out that it has been widely accepted for some time the reason a particle is detected in the double slit experiment is something called Quantum decoherence and nothing to do with a human consciousness / observer.


    The decohered elements of the system no longer exhibit quantum interference between each other, as in a double-slit experiment. Any elements that decohere from each other via environmental interactions are said to be quantum entangled with the environment. The converse is not true: not all entangled states are decohered from each other.

    The whole idea if consciousness affecting matter is based on the double slit. It never made any scientific or spiritual sense (not that I noticed myself !).

    This article removes superposition and collapse of the wave function entirely.

    • May 14, 2017 at 9:05 am, don salmon said:

      Actually, Adam, most philosophers of science no longer use the word “materialism” because so much of the physical universe is non-material. Th term now is “physicalism.”

      Nobody appears to be able to agree though, on what “physical” means, so they simple define it as whatever physics studies, which means, essentially, it’s meaningless.

      What the philosophy you’re supporting actually is, is anti-mentalism, or anti-Awareness-ism, to use Freke’s term. I’ll shorten it to aAi.

      What does aAi believe?

      Paul Davies, the physicist, sums it up quite well. It is clearly, as you can see, a fundamentalist religious faith, entirely unsupported by any empirical findings:

      How the Universe Works – Scientists Baffled by Laws of Nature

      Physicist Paul C. Davies comments, “…to be a scientist, you had to have FAITH that the universe is governed by dependable, immutable, absolute, universal, mathematical laws of an unspecified origin. You’ve got to BELIEVE that these laws won’t fail, that we won’t wake up tomorrow to find heat flowing from cold to hot, or the speed of light changing by the hour. Over the years I have often asked my physicist colleagues why the laws of physics are what they are? …The favorite reply is, ‘There is no reason they are what they are–they just are.'”5


      think about this for a moment:

      If you adopt the faith of aAi: you can’t account for:

      * The emergence of order out of nothing
      * the persistence of order
      * the fact that this order does not radically change every moment, or simply cease to exist.
      * the emergence of sentience from apparently non-sentient (only apparently) matter.
      * the emergence of consciousness, emotion, reasoning, perception, and all sensations.

      If you wish to view the universe from a strictly aAi perspective, you must eliminate

      and much more

      Now, try to describe such a universe.

      You can’t.

      Therefore, aAi is not even wrong.

  2. February 08, 2015 at 3:01 am, Eric Mcoo said:

    I wouldn’t be so miserable if I didn’t know that quantum entanglement does make scientific sense and provides a real bridge between science and spirituality.

  3. February 08, 2015 at 4:06 pm, Adam said:

    This article was deeply flawed in every way. The problem behind this whole article is the false premises it is based on. It claimed science has found describing the world in materialist terms hasnt worked when in fact the opposite is obviously true or science wouldnt have been the humongous success it is today. Also as far as using authority figures to prove a point, even great scientists can be wrong about something. Newton was right about some of his laws but he also thought the bible had secret number codes and was an aspiring alchemist. Both of these things are wrong lol. Im also reasonably sure they never said those things about the collective mind of the universe. Einstein was at most a diest and he surely didnt believe in a personal god. As for dualism its been refuted time and time again. There is no evidence for dualism. Ask any of the greatest philosophers of our day and they all agree materialism has the strongest supporting evidence.

    Wanting something to be true does not make it true.

    • February 08, 2015 at 4:08 pm, Adam said:

      Also gnostic science is an oxymoron. Science needs to be able to be tested and quantified and be able to make predictions. Gnosticism and spirituality do none of those things and are therefore not scientific.
      It also goes onto say that materialism doesnt make sense but they dont say why it doesnt make sense. Just saying something is senseless does not make it so. It also goes on to say well of course there is more than materialism but never go on to show anything supporting that wild claim. Theres never been anything solid to support that idea. There has been a ton of evidence in support of materialism on the other hand.

      • February 08, 2015 at 4:08 pm, Adam said:

        They also go on to say if you were to image a brain and see every neuron you wouldnt be able to know what someone is thinking because thoughts exist outside of the physical world. Well this idea has been disproven over and over. You learn why this is wrong in first semester philosophy class. We have imaged the brain and can accurately tell what people are thinking. This has already happened because of science and is more evidence in support of materialism. So this article is full of misinformation.

        But for a moment lets assume thoughts dont happen in the brain. Why does our brain show activity when we think ? What is the mechanism that allows a nonphysical thing to interact with the physical. Dualists dont know. There are a ton of absurdities in logic in this article.

        • February 10, 2015 at 7:15 pm, Simon Hodges said:

          Glad you brought this up. In that same class it would be made clear that the brain image IS NOT the thought. It is inferred but not directly experienced. From what you’re saying I think we agree on the unity of mind and matter (thank goodness). I’m just concerned that a purely materialist stance is limited. It’s almost silly since there is more to life than learning its mechanisms. The experience of driving a car IS NOT the mechanics of the car, the wavelengths of light experienced, endorphins produced, neurons firing from the hands to grip the wheel and feel the sensation of the wheel. How incredible that all these things go into it. But the thrill and the images that are produced are more than the mechanics behind it. There is an awareness that experiences these things, has relationship to them but is independent of it.

          • February 10, 2015 at 7:23 pm, Adam said:

            Why isn’t the brain image the thought? If we see all the neurons and brain activity is this not a thought occurring before our eyes? The person stops thinking and the areas that were lit up go dark. This is direct evidence showing that thoughts are just processes in the brain. Again if thoughts were somehow non physical why do they manifest within the brain? How would non physical interact with the physical?

            You just assume that there is an awareness independent of action but without the action and the brain you wouldn’t experience anything. Conscious awareness is directly linked to the physical world by the brain and eyes. We know this to be true because when the brain or eyes are damaged people lose that mode of awareness. We know and can predict how people’s personalities will change by which part of the brain is damaged.
            This is extremely strong evidence that the brain creates consciousness and awareness as a way to make sense of the sensory input we receive through sight, smell ,touch ,hearing etc.

          • February 10, 2015 at 7:33 pm, Simon Hodges said:

            No. Because you can measure brain activity but that is not the same as experiencing the thought yourself.

          • February 10, 2015 at 7:57 pm, Adam said:

            Just because you yourself are not experiencing the thought does not make it any less physical.

          • February 10, 2015 at 8:07 pm, Simon Hodges said:

            OK – so thoughts are physical. Why does the elephant I am imagining right now not have a physical presence?

          • February 10, 2015 at 8:09 pm, Adam said:

            There is obviously a difference in that you don’t have a physical elephant in the room with you. The laws of physics still apply you cannot just materialize an elephant, but this does not mean your thought is not occupying a physical space in your brain, which it is.

          • February 10, 2015 at 8:33 pm, Simon Hodges said:

            How do those laws of physics have physical reality?

          • February 10, 2015 at 8:38 pm, Adam said:

            When I drop a ball it will always fall at the same rate. Throwing a ball will produce a parabolic curve neglecting air resistance. The physical reality is in the action. If the laws of physics didn’t exist in our physical reality we wouldn’t be here to discuss this.

          • February 10, 2015 at 8:39 pm, Adam said:

            The mental image of the elephant is still a physical process that takes up space in your brain.

          • February 10, 2015 at 9:47 pm, Adam said:


            This most aptly applies here

          • February 10, 2015 at 7:34 pm, Simon Hodges said:

            I do not assume there is an awareness simply independent of action. Such an awareness must be unified with the action. But awareness is not the action. In that sense it is independent of it.

      • February 10, 2015 at 7:49 am, Simon Hodges said:

        Disagree. The statements above given as Gnostic, though poetic, are verifiable. We can see if they accord with experience in the same way we can within scientific theories.

        • February 10, 2015 at 1:05 pm, Adam said:

          In what ways? Please detail an experiment gnostic “science” can do where the same conditions can be set up and controlled , where multiple different people can replicate the experiment and acheive the same result.

          • February 10, 2015 at 6:42 pm, Simon Hodges said:

            The experiment of life being lived, shared with other human beings, whose reflections can be integrated to be deepened and shared. I’m not interested in a definition of science. I am interested in quality of life. I want to steal lessons from any field I can: science, poetry, gnosticism, spirituality. In my experience, materialism seems a cramped and unlivable vision of life. It represents only a fraction of what must be the full picture, if we are to be fully alive, joyful. imaginative, intelligent and truthful beings. We need a lot of sources of inspiration for that. Empirical science is but one part.

          • February 10, 2015 at 6:54 pm, Adam said:

            I wouldn’t agree that simply living counts as a real experiment. Everyone does it differently and feels differently. Based on that we could suppose any number of thousands of things are how reality is. Your mistake in thinking lies in assuming there must be more to the universe when in fact the universe must not be anything. It simply, for lack of a better term is what it is. It does not need to dit your preffered belief. This is where materialism differs in that there is no preconcieved belief there is simply what we record as reality. It is plenty amazing and mysterious as is without adding extra non-provable hypotheses.

            I have to disagree in that I am an atheist and scientist and live an extremely full, joyful, imaginative and intelligent life. I derive joy from simply being alive and knowing that this is probably all there is so make the best of what I have here.

          • February 10, 2015 at 7:08 pm, Simon Hodges said:

            I believe we have a point of complete agreement: “when in fact the universe must not be anything”. You’re quite right.
            If the universe and living of life cannot be constrained by any belief (which would simply be a projection, like your attribution of a mistake in my thinking, not present in my responses, but I’m sure observed elsewhere) THEN we also cannot ascribe to it a purely materialist existence, as this too would be a set of beliefs.

          • February 10, 2015 at 7:18 pm, Adam said:

            There is a difference between coming up with an idea that there must be more and believing it simply because it feels that way and accepting what we can observe. If we observe something we practically and tentatively accept what we observe. We may not believe it but if we observe it we have to follow the evidence where it leads.

          • February 10, 2015 at 7:38 pm, Simon Hodges said:

            That is a great approach. Completely agree. Also the humility that there is more to life than we observe. You didn’t really reply to my point though. Is not materialism also a set of beliefs that cannot really apply to the reality of the universe?

          • February 10, 2015 at 7:59 pm, Adam said:

            Being humble does not prove or even necessarily point in the direction that there is more to life than what we observe.

            No, materialism necessarily does apply to the universe because it is solely based on observation and extrapolation from the observation with further tests to prove or disprove the extrapolation.

          • February 10, 2015 at 8:12 pm, Simon Hodges said:

            OK – it can work to explain some things. but it still based on assumption. That assumption: that the essence of life is material. We already know it is not.

          • February 10, 2015 at 8:36 pm, Adam said:

            Well we do not know the essence of life is not material. That has never been proven.

            We know the building blocks of life are physical. Atoms and amino acids and proteins and carbon and DNA and RNA etc. These are all physical things which must be present for our organic brand of life to exist.

            So it would be an enormous assumption to say we know the essence of life is immaterial when the truth is we simply don’t know that.

          • February 10, 2015 at 9:27 pm, Simon Hodges said:

            So you are pointing at these building blocks and labelling them physical but theories exist that question they are physical in nature. So the burden of proof falls on you to say that they are physical. Sadly, I’m going to bring this to a close though I have enjoyed this discussion and the quality of your arguments immensely.

          • February 10, 2015 at 9:46 pm, Adam said:

            No, if you are referring to quantum mechanics that deals with the atomic and subatomic scales but these particles are not non physical. There is an uncertainty associated with quantum mechanics but there is no doubt they lie in a physical reality as does energy we can describe the particles with. Molecules, amino acids and DNA and even atoms can be seen under a microscope. That is the proof right there.

            The burden of proof lies on you to show how the mind is separate from the body and with what mechanism the non physical being interacts with the physical body.

            Thank you for keeping the discussion civil.

          • February 11, 2015 at 12:53 pm, Simon Hodges said:

            You keep pointing at everything and going “This is physical, this is physical” when these things can only be known and observed by a mind held by awareness. Why not then is the universe composed of intelligence? Or awareness? Your observations are valid but the physical nature of it has not been proven, nor indeed is it likely.
            You state that I need to prove the separation of mind and body, proving only your obsession with refuting dualism, not addressing the current discussion. I have repeatedly stated the opposite.
            Finally, this comes to a discussion of what can be known and not known. You claim to know that the universe is physical. I cannot know that, or make a claim as to what it exactly is. However I do know it responds to thought and intention, which makes the idea of a physical universe highly questionable.

          • February 11, 2015 at 2:31 pm, Adam said:

            We know the universe is physical because we are physical and can interact with it and observe it to be physical. There has been no evidence whatsoever to point to our life requiring non physicality. The universe is most likely not composed of intelligence because that is a higher order function. If you read the article you would’ve seen the explanation for why a description of a system is different from the experience but without the lower level description you wouldn’t have the experience so one defines the other and explains the existence of the experience.

            You would be incorrect to assume the universe responds to thought and intention. Please provide an example of how it does so. When we do experiments in the lab we set up a system and observe an effect. I can intend for one thing to happen all I want but it never will because my intention will not go beyond myself. For example people who pray for rain and then it rains is simply luck. Their intention and thought had nothing to do with the act of raining. What about all the times they didn’t want it to rain? Do those times not count then? To say we are able to control the events of the universe by simple intention is a ludicrous statement. So in conclusion not a reason to think the universe is nonphysical.

          • February 11, 2015 at 7:57 pm, Simon Hodges said:

            Because any experiment requires an observer and we know the presence of an observer changes what is observed. We also know water molecules change structure when exposed to different qualities of thought. There is more to life than experiment. In my own life I relentlessly observe intention being enacted and changing circumstances I should not have control of.
            Saying ‘it is physical because I am physical’ is tautology and not an argument at all. Who is to say the higher function of mind does not supervene in the physical state. Why is that not the preceding entity?

            Grateful for the exchange as it continues!

          • February 11, 2015 at 8:40 pm, Adam said:

            No thats an incorrect definition of the observer effect as it has come to be known in physics. This only occurs at the sub atomic level because when we measure single particles we need to hit them with a photon to measure it and the photon imparts energy which disturbs the particle. It has nothing to do with our intention or wishes for the particle. On the classical newtonian level the observer effect does not take place as on the quantum level. Also the water molecule thought experiment was shown to be falsified. Here is an article on it .

            Please provide examples in your own life where your intention actively produced an outcome thay could not have possibly happened any other way.

            Neurology provides a good explanation of the sum of lower functions coming together to create consciousness which is the higher function. There is no evidence to show any higher function than our own consciousness acting on us.

            To assert mind is nonphysical and intervenes presents the complex problem of how the nonphysical would be able o interact with us and why it chooses us instead of someone else and plenty of other issues. There is not yet a single reason to think mind precedes brain. You are not conscious of any sort of existence before you are born so what was it doing beforehand?

    • February 10, 2015 at 7:49 am, Simon Hodges said:

      Materialism has the strongest logic but it can’t cope with imagination. It seems so odd that everything is material as the things that make life worth living – love, beauty, relationship – are not. Moreover, if we’re saying that everything is material, how to even explain thought, or the awareness that gives rise to it? You say the article is flawed on every way but I see no substantial arguments from you to the points made within it.

      • February 10, 2015 at 1:04 pm, Adam said:

        Materialism explains consciousness and thoughts feelings imagination etc as the brains interpretation of complex electro chemical processes. Just saying it seems odd something is one way is not a good argument against it. Dualism has no proven or even logical way pf showing how non physical could exist or even interact with the physical.

        • February 10, 2015 at 6:59 pm, Simon Hodges said:

          We agree on dualism, yes and I agree mechanical/physiological processes are to some extent explained by science as it is, and I expect will continue to do so in ever-refined and expansive degrees. But a physicalist perspective does not capture the whole story, barely at all. Good science is wonderful, but it is not enough to deliver an expansive, liberating or true perspective on the living of a great life. I’m sure that’s obvious to you…?

          • February 10, 2015 at 7:11 pm, Adam said:

            No dualism is not a good explanatory mechanism. I am not sure what you mean by the capturing the whole story bit either. Also in what ways is science not expansive, liberating or true? You will also need to define what you mean by the good life. Dualism is not a good explanation for the good life either.

            In the above comment you said love, beauty and relationship is not material but here we disagree. Love comes from oxytocin and other chemicals in the body and brain. It’s just our way to explain what the feeling these chemicals produce, but it is a physical process. This is made clear by the physicality of love and the way your physically feel while in love. When we find something beautiful we usually adore it which follows similar processes as being in love also physical. Relationships require two physical people.

            The greatest failing of dualism is the lack of ability to explain how something could exist but be nonphysical and be nonphysical but interact with us physically. Dualism also lacks the ability t explain how the supposed non physical would even be able to act with the physical.

          • February 10, 2015 at 7:31 pm, Simon Hodges said:

            Hi Adam, you’re ascribing a position of dualism to me which I do not hold. I do not know what such a position is, or how I would hold it so you’re having a discussion with someone other than me. You’ll see in my other comment precisely the position you describe refuted. Yes, we can look at the processes involved in all life, but still not come to realising the essence of it. You do not fuck by reading a manual. You cannot say that knowledge of something is the same as the experience of it. The perspectives of so many other disciplines (I believe gnosticism to be one) are able to provide perspectives in the mysteries of experience that materialism has not and can’t. Talking about is not talking of. The existence of poetry, philosophy and spirituality and the requirement of so many people to engage in these fields should be evidence enough that materialism is not enough for huge proportions of the population. I am delighted it provides such nourishment for you, however, and such benefits for all of us. The precision of seeing what is there instead of abstracting through philosophy or religion has led us on in leaps and bounds. But ‘what is’ is not reduced to the material alone. It is throughout and beyond al of it.

          • February 10, 2015 at 8:08 pm, Adam said:

            More or less the official definition of dualism as ascribed to reality and consciousness is that the mind and physical body are two ontologically different things. The mind is non physical but interacts with the body.

            If this is not the dualism you are talking about as applied to the problem of conscious experience then I don’t know what point you are arguing for.

            Knowledge of something and experience of something are two different physical processes but still ultimately physical nonetheless.

            The existence of different ideas such as poetry, philosophy and science still does not support or point to a necessary non physical component.

            You can’t just simply say the sum of anything’s parts is not enough. That doesn’t answer anything simply creates more issues and problems.

          • February 10, 2015 at 8:19 pm, Simon Hodges said:

            Then I am certainly not a dualist. There has to be essential unity. It cannot be otherwise. But that essence is not physical and not mental, though these are aspects of it. If we limit ourselves to only what is observed, all the exploration is taken out of life, the possibility drained out of it. We simply live a reproduction of “what has been observed”. My question to you therefore is: are you sure what you are observing is physical? Is not that a theoretical model telling you that? What are we observing really?

          • February 10, 2015 at 8:11 pm, Adam said:


            Read this carefully I think it applies well in this case.

    • March 06, 2015 at 6:59 pm, Just sayin... said:

      You are actually proving the article.

      • March 06, 2015 at 8:22 pm, Adam said:

        Thats funny lol

      • March 06, 2015 at 8:27 pm, Adam said:

        The article is just wrong. There is no way around it. The claims it makes are not backed up by anything and it attempts to argue from those points. There is no excuse for bad logic.

    • March 06, 2015 at 7:03 pm, Just sayin... said:

      You are actually proving the article to be true by your misunderstanding of the subject matter at hand. Nothing is all black or all white but combinations of many shades of gray (matter).

      • March 06, 2015 at 8:26 pm, Adam said:

        My misunderstanding? That’s funny lol, my career is physics it is what I study, so to say I misunderstand the material is laughable. Just because you want something to be true does not make it so. This article is full of unsubstantiated claims that have zero evidence to back them up. I have already presented a number of arguments on this page with Simon Hodges. Read those and try and understand them. You can’t just make a claim and use that as an arguing point. You don’t prove anything. You’re just throwing words around without any real basis in reality.

      • March 06, 2015 at 8:26 pm, Adam said:

        There is no way around it this article is just simply wrong on a number of different fronts.

  4. February 12, 2015 at 8:59 pm, JJ said:

    Everything is a form of the one Energy, like sparks from the fire, or drops from the ocean. Why the divisiveness as if nothing else is possible? We as Planet Earth are such a tiny, tiny speck in these massive Universes (or so we are told) that we may never know from our “physical” Planet Earth’s point of view what is so. All we know is what is now, and that’s so.

  5. December 20, 2016 at 12:45 am, Hiram said:

    Quantum Mechanics and the double slit experiment tell us particles simply do not exist when they are not observed but instead act as a wave function. Thus matter arises from consciousness.

    I will continue to put my faith in science and Gnosis as they are synonymous explanations of the ultimate truth.

Leave a Reply


The Fish, the Net and the Water

By Mauro Bergonzi Once the fish said to the turtle: “I have heard about a huge thing that is called ‘the ocean.’ Does it really exist? I am looking around in search of it, but I…


Suffering is Optional: video with Gail Brenner

Speaking at SAND18 Italy, Gail Brenner tells us that we don’t have to believe what our thoughts tell us about ourselves, about other people or about the world, and that at any moment we can bring…

image description image description

Thanks To Our Sponsors