science, ph ilos ophy, an d s pi ritu ality

There's a stimulating discus sion of science at:

http://noetic.org/noetic/issue-nine-april/biomedical-research/
and
http://www.amazon.com/Science-God-Nature-Reality-Biomedical/dp/1599425459/
which are both by Sarah Knox.

First i need to say i like the way she thinks; she's open-minded about 'w hat science is' and how to
solve problems .. Her writing spirit is uplift ing, engaging, and very opt imistic. :) However, i
question many of her assumptions andchain-of-logic..

On page 19 of her book, s he states: "We have said that the goal of science is to describe as
accurately as possible the nature of reality."But if we lis ten t o Carl Sagan in his film Cont act ,
"Science is the pursuit of truth." So which is it? D escribe realit y accurately? O r the purs uit of
truth? .. i contend the former is a philosophical question, not science. i cannot prove to you or
anyone what we call 'reality' is not just an elaborate dream. i cannot prove the 'subs tant ial nature'
of reality (that things truly exis t apart from our perceptions of them). S o w e cannot scient ifically
describe what we cannot scientifically prove. We must use another language.

Sarah guides her discussion around the limits of reduction and materialism specifically
illustrating how energy flow and patterns are best not described using the language of reduction-
materialism but something more holistic. i agree with her. H er language of choice, her approach
toward more holistically modeling systems, comes from conventional quantum mechanics
(generally speaking, the wave-particle duality of matter and how our expectations influence
outcomes, the mind-matter connection). i agree with her; w e need to us e another language to
accurately (and more holistically) model s yst ems , but i contend t here are bett er languages to use.
Her example gives hints: 'energy flow and patterns' and 'more holistically modeling systems' ..
What human discipline deals with energy flow and patterns ?Engineering. What human dis cipline
deals with holistically modeling systems? Systems-reliability (also of engineering).

The most concise definition of science i can write: a set of testable hypotheses.Similarly,
engineering is practical problem solving. But engineering depends on science. (And quite
honestly, vice versa.) Science depends on engineering to build machines to test hypothes es .
Engineering depends on science to determine what set of hypotheses is relevant to our
understanding of nature.

Unfortunately, science has not embraced engineering as a source of concepts for holistic
modeling nor energy flow .. O ddly, it was this concept of energy flow that stimulated my initial
research into integrating physics-engineering..

Perversely, physicists state a magnetic field is mediated by virt ual phot ons (the force you feel
between two magnets you hold in your hands is caused by something specifically UNreal). Just
as perversely, they state the reason a radiometer spins has nothing to do with photon-pressure
(individual photons cannot be described by conventional quantum mechanics). But both of these
statements insult our rationality. They are twisted/perverse ways of looking at physical reality.
And basically Sarah Knox expects us to embrace these twisted views, applying them to
biomedical research. i c annot .
The historical development of conventional quantum mechanics:
1. the Copenhagen s chool ass umes command effectively declaring "determinism is dead"
(elementary particles are probability waves, inherently random in character)
2. the 'matrix formulation' is es tablished, a primitive but consistent pers pective
3. the wave-nature of matter is est ablished wit h derivat ions of deBroglie and Schrodinger
4. the exclus ion principle and is ospin confirm 't he right t rack'
5. the atomic domain is extended 'down' into the nuclear domain
6. Feynman develops the more sophist icated 'path integral' formulation along with QF T/QED
(quantum field theory is the preferred language depending on virtual bosons)
(quantum electrodynamics is his 'crown jewel' of modern quantum mechanics )
7. Casimir is 'confirmed' adding credence to the whole scenario
8. weak-nuclear is integrated with electromagnetic again as point 7
9. the Higgs-boson is detected and confirms all above

But imagine the whole scenario above as a ' house of cards' dependent on it em 9. If w e don't
detect the Higgs, w e cannot revise t he model above to accomodat e this. The St andard M odel of
quantum mechanics crit ically depends on t he Higgs (t he Higgs boson defines mass in much t he
same way virtual photons define the electromagnetic force - for the Standard M odel). So this
world-view, for Sarah K nox, that holds 'so much promise' for revolutionizing biomedical
research, is really a house of cards precariously balanced on one critical component: the H iggs
boson.

If we don't detect the Higgs, her book (and all those like it) must necessarily be used as t oilet
accessories .. i'm not trying to be mean, condescending, o r dis miss ive. A s stated above, her spirit
and optimism are wonderfully contagious. But there's a life-t hreatening difference between the
Standard M odel and 'my' O ther M odel. T he Standard M odel, as out lined above, w as developed
over the years with one underlying unspoken purpose: to make us feel like gods s o we don't need
Her.

In the War for M eaning, i develop a viable alternative to the St andard M odel based on Her design
for life. It's elegant and rich - fully capable of describing physical nature but from a different
perspective and more explicit underlying purpose: to reconnect us with God.

i hate to say it this way but Sarah Knox inadvertently plays int o Sat anic hands when she pushes
conventional quantum perspective (as all authors/speakers do when they push the Standard
M odel). In trying to embrace convent ional 'advances' she's actually embracing Satanic design.
Quantum cosmology, the conventional branch of science which tries to determine the st ructure
and origins of our universe, is an outgrow t h of t he Standard M odel. That branch unequivocally
declares "God is not required" .. i understand the historical pull of science - away from religion
and determinism, but pulling away from God is something else .. In the Other M odel, God is an
integral part and She has only one purpose: to Union with Us.

The Other M odel was developed during a period of divine ins pirat ion. In effect, i w as Becoming
One with Her as she revealed it to me .. This example of Onenes s, a kind of cos mic
consciousness, is one of t he main purposes of the Noetic Ins titute, Sarah Knox's 'distribut or' at
present .. The same N oetic Inst itut e w hich reject ed my w ritings w ithout apparent ly reading them.
Something i nsidious and corrupt is going on .. i cannot attribute N oetic dis missal as s imple
laziness when the purpose of the War for M eaning is to reveal, t o the world, Satanic design.
Apparently,bot h Sarah Knox and the N oetic Institut e are on Sat anic payroll.. ;)