An under-fabric of reality

Research and Sense-Making
1

Posting here not for comment on the physics and mathematical elements, but rather the philosophical conclusions. I recall reading that links elsewhere is permitted (n.b. this is not self-promotion, I am not selling any book, course or viewpoint - only inviting dialogue).

1 Like
2

As someone who has a degree in Physics and Philosophy, I find this potentially really interesting @Justin — however, to engage people, I wonder if you could summarise right here in a paragraph or two what your philosophical conclusions are?

1 Like
3

Thanks Simon. Actually I tried my best to condense the overall conclusions from a much denser paper but understand it’s still relatively inaccessible to general readers so will endeavour to break down the main philosophical implications below:-

  1. Reality has a deeper layer from which all things arise. Unlike static forms, however, it is defined by recursive relationships and ratios.
  2. This echoes out into the observable world. It explains the preponderance of certain repeating patterns and processes that we observe across scales.
  3. Whereas before the constants of physics could only be ascertained through observation, with some implications invoking the anthropic principle, we now have a working framework whereby they arise from a deeper structure and cannot be otherwise.
  4. Offshoots… and this is where it gets more speculative: could consciousness have some connection with the modular field? Might it be an expression thereof? Could it be the source behind why certain altered states of consciousness consistently see geometric patterns and a sense of interconnection and unity? (Even hinting at this in scientific literature would result in the paper being struck out)
  5. Cross-cultural pollination: many philosophies across the world hypothesise the existence of a kind of universal field from which all arises, often defined by order and symmetry. It’s known by many names, and I can go into this more if needed. If there is some connection with consciousness, it may explain why humans have developed such a prevalent and cross-cultural idea.
  6. Now let us postulate something that would be deemed outright nuts by my colleagues:-
    A) there are trillions upon trillions of stars in the universe;
    B) the chance of there being a species significantly more advanced/intelligent/complex than humans seems astronomically high;
    C) although it lies way beyond our means, and the physicality of the field is indirect, it is theoretically possible for it to be changed (i.e. at singularities) and perhaps through some connection to consciousness;
    D) could significantly advanced species already have done this, or (in a manner of speaking) ‘imprinted’ themselves on the field?
    E) if so might this be a plausible mechanism behind diverse accounts relating to experiences with entities (DMT experiences have this as a consistent theme, often articulated as beings within or as part of a deeper inherent geometry)? Might it also account for some (as yet unexplained) phenomenon currently bracketed within ‘the paranormal’?

Now I stress that these later points, especially 6, are about as speculative as you get. They are also not part of the theory expounded. I wouldn’t be comfortable airing them in any other forum and even hesitate here. It’s more on the level of knowing close acquaintances with these kinds of experiences and, to a level, having them myself. That doesn’t mean to say they are valid. Indeed, it’s actually more probable for them to arise from some quirk of biology. And yet, we have here an alternative possibility, grounded in something that science can - at least in theory - relate to.

On a more relatable level, if all arises from this level, and are expressions of it, then - far from the deeper reality being so complex as to lie beyond the bounds of human comprehension - we may actually understand it inherently, even intuitively, especially through certain states of ‘heightened’ consciousness. Thus we find the concept expressed across human history.

4

thanks @Justin that’s a fine length to get hold of! My very initial at-a-glance sense is that I’d want to look at what other competing explanations there may be for the phenomena you point to, and weigh up (from a varied perspectives) which make more sense to whom, and why…

1 Like
5

How does this compare to Bohm’s implicate order?

6

Excellent question. I had hoped someone here would be familiar with Bohm.

The short answer is: it may be precisely the same thing. Although perhaps the implicate order is more generalised.

2 Likes