November, 2010
Noel Huntley, Ph.D.

These two major impediments are quite different from one another: one is difficult to understand but easy to believe, the other is easy to understand but difficult to believe. The first of these major problems is how far the experimental method can be successful. Quantum physics exposed this many years ago. The confusion was that radiation, such as light, was either made up of particles or waves, depending on how it was observed. In other words, what was perceived, detected or evaluated was in the context of what was making the observation. The basis of knowledge and science, in particular, is that all energy and knowledge is contextual. This is fundamental to the proper evolution of knowledge and of life itself. Everything that is observed is in the context of who or what is doing the observing and from what viewpoint, station or perspective.

In the above quantum physics example it is the scientific set-up that is the 'what'. The 'who' also plays a secondary role in the form of physical senses (of the experimenter). The result of scientific method is thus based on the scientific instruments and physical senses.

What was the conclusion of the wave/particle puzzle, regarding the contextual variable, the scientific instruments? It was that the observer (scientist and instruments) must be part of the experimental system and not truly objective---to that system. But objectivity is the very basis of scientific knowledge. Without objectivity the value of scientific measurement is in question.

This problem is scarcely recognised within science, and certainly not understood---it is thus not taught other than to give the subject a passing comment. What does it mean for the scientific observer to be part of the experiment? Charles Darwin might have understood this better than most scientists today since he is known to have stated in a letter (and said in reservation of his theory of evolution, or anyone else's) that 'How could man judge (or understand) nature if man is part of nature?' This was a very profound statement and not understood properly today. However, Darwin didn't recognise what the explanation was or the solution. Much later quantum physics came up with this same problem in scientific methodology, as mentioned above.

This is all to do with references. In life, nature and the universe, references are informational levels (often fractal levels) that are knowingly or unknowingly taken as a zero---from which to make measurements, judgements, etc. These are contexts (all knowledge and energy is contextual).

When the observer is inside the context (part of the system), such as in the experimental method, the boundary of the setup is automatically and unconsciously taken as a zero (when in fact it will be found to be part of, or inside of, a larger system). This means that science is not measuring true physical constants but only relative values---nevertheless they are constant over a certain known range such as a fractal level (say, just 3D and not the greater-encompassing 4D).

A consequence of this is that it also means that most of our physical laws are not constant, and the limitations that they impose on us and on the universe are relative. They can all be bypassed. Einstein's relativity is an ingenious representation of the illusions of the third dimension with respect to its own context. It is correct as per (in the context of) the observations and measurements made. Anything will self-prove relative to its own context. It may not be true relative to a wider context. One of the keys to the foundations of knowledge is the relative zero, which is not recognised. If that sounds too mathematically abstract we can use the word 'context'.

When a context is unconscious or unknown its role as a reference point is assumed (unconsciously and incorrectly) to be a zero. A simple example would be the prejudiced mind.

We have examined the word 'what' in the expression 'who or what is making the observation'. The 'who' in this case of scientific methodology is the physical senses. The perceiving and detection system in the experimental system is achieved by the human senses and scientific instruments. Both these are within the same frequency band as the environment that is being measured, and thus are part of, or within the experimental setup.

In order to evaluate something the observer must be outside or 'above' that which is being observed (e.g., can't see the woods for the trees, therefore step outside the woods). However, by 'above' in this context we mean occupying a higher state of resolution---one wouldn't use a camera with a film that has a grain size large relative to the items being photographed.

Of course, in the experimental setup we are stuck with the physical senses and equipment limitations. Other ways of acquiring truth must be introduced into scientific methods but this will never be completely satisfactory as long as right-brain intuitive faculties are disabled and not given full reign.

Nevertheless, we may still ask why is the observer part of the system being observed? The universe functions on a system of orders; it is a fractal, holographic structure. The level of order reveals the true basic meaning of intelligence---the degree of order (coherence, unity, integration, harmony, coordination, interconnectivity, etc.). The experimental setup of scientific instruments and using physical senses is of a relatively low order. It can only detect (select or resonate with) its own level of order. This applies to all observing systems, instruments, consciousness in different forms, and even energy (frequency/wave) patterns.

The 'observing' context collapses the wave function to give data commensurate with the reality of the interacting 'viewpoint'. Thus scientists are unwittingly quantum reducing higher order (higher truth) aspects of the universe to correspond to their own contextual order. See book: The Emerging New Science for a more in-depth account of this.

Let us now take the second major stumbling block, much easier to understand but difficult to believe. We can begin with a simple analogy. Imagine a group of investigators encounter an old motor car, but that they have no knowledge of such a machine---in fact this machine is being used as an analogy for a region of the universe or environment to be researched and understood. They proceed with their scientific evaluation---we can have the engine in running condition to help the analogy. They might note and record the following (upon which new scientific principles might be based): six cylinders, say, three cylinders active and the remaining three cylinders inactive or 'blank'. Let's say they consider that this is supposed to be how the engine functions (only three cylinders firing), and they formulate physical and mathematical principles or laws based on this incorrect conclusion. Similar, other malfunctions of the motor car are taken to be correct and natural.

We are actually implying that regions in our local universe are similarly malfunctioning. Clearly if laws and principles of science are based on this they also will be flawed, and further since there is a symbiosis between science and consciousness, there will be corresponding distortions within consciousness, affecting genetics and subsequently evolution.

Our galaxies, in general, which are primarily dual-vortex systems, have a balanced white hole, black hole system. This has a frequency of oscillation from one pole to the other pole. This is normal. However, our scientists have discovered that our Milky Way galaxy has a predominant black hole at its centre, and consider this as typical of all normally functioning galaxies---maybe they will find out it isn't typical.

However, science recognises some flaws in the universe, in particular, that our solar system is unexpectedly chaotic with wrong orbits and spins of planets. Also Earth is tilted approximately 21.5 degrees, which is not exactly a harmonic mathematical proportion.

Probably the most important, well-established misunderstood mechanism of life is the DNA. Over 95% of the DNA in all species has an absence of base pairs and subsequently is considered 'junk' DNA. Unfortunately when the first geneticist discovers what the junk DNA is they will likely be ridiculed, attacked, and it will be a bigger cover-up than the UFO scene, since it will alter our whole view of the history of evolution and consequently the prospects of our future evolution.

Further, the particle and antiparticle annihilation is not understood, or perhaps we should say misunderstood, due to the above-mentioned impairments in some physical processes. Where nature is functioning as per its original harmonic blueprints the particle and antiparticle combine in the evolutionary process to form a unity---a higher frequency particle, which then merges into the next inner-fractal level as it divides again into two new particles related as per the new fractal dimensional level. This particle interaction is fundamental to evolution.

Scientists, however, do encounter in the laboratory a different outcome, particularly in which the particles annihilate one another as matter and antimatter in a burst of energy. This automatically assumes a wrong zero or context from which 3D processes are measured. Whereas when the two particles combine to form a greater unity, this merges into the next fractal level, which is a new context or zero reference (until the latter is shown to be part of a still higher context). Thus there are polarities (like positive and negative, and particle and antiparticle) within polarities, within polarities in a holographic system. Subsequently science again becomes misdirected in endeavouring to formulate absolute laws, that is, ones more global and universal, and is merely discovering laws pertaining to local and relative contexts only.

Science only recognises the first fractal layer, like detecting only the twigs on a tree and not being aware of its connectivity through increasing integrations of branches to the single source, the trunk. The twig is carried by and is within the contexts of the higher-fractal branches, as is our 3D 'carried' by 4D, 5D, etc., which are dimensional spectra or wavebands.

Thus these are the two main impediments to scientific discoveries, knowledge and invention, which will subsequently limit human abilities and steer evolution off course.

Return to Home Page