| 2 |
Peter | 2 |
What is the
Difference between Actuality and the Truth?
Reality and Actuality?
Did You Have a
Belief System/a Theory
No Proof that
No Proof that God
Please note that the text below was written by the feeling-being ‘Peter’ while ‘he’ lived in a pragmatic
(methodological), still-in-control/same-way-of-being Virtual Freedom before becoming actually free.
Science: 1 a the systematic study
of man and his environment based on the deduction and inferences which can be made, and the general laws which can be formulated, from
reproductible observations and measurements of events and parameters within the universe; b the knowledge so obtained. 2
systematized knowledge in general. 3 a a particular branch of knowledge; b skill, proficiency. Oxford Dictionary
Peter: I do discern two strands of science:
physical science (which properly contains ‘pure science’ and ‘applied
metaphysical science (which properly contains ‘science fiction’ and ‘mystical
The scientific studies involved with studying the ‘big’
picture of the universe, the macroscopic – cosmology – as well as the study of the microscopic – quantum physics – both leave the realm
of reproducible observations and measurements of events and parameters within the universe. As science studies the cosmos, the
measurements very quickly become so huge as to be inconceivable, non-sensical (beyond what we can perceive with our senses) and immeasurable
– both in distance and time. Similarly, when science studies the sub-atomic, the measurements very quickly become so minute as to be
inconceivable, non-sensical (beyond what we can perceive with our senses) and immeasurable.
Science has great difficulty with both infinite and zero – both
figures make any mathematical equation instantly and irrevocably unworkable. Given the lack of any measurable factual data to work with, both
the macroscopic and microscopic sciences have developed into theoretical sciences – a field of study where reproducible observations and
measurements of events and parameters play no part and where theories, speculation, imagination and fantasy abound. Unfettered by any
physical considerations or restraints these sciences thus become metaphysical sciences and, as such, have conveniently co-opted many theories
from the mystical world.
Thus we have the ‘parallel universes theory’ (‘other-worlds’),
creation and doomsday events (God by any other name), particles that only exist when one is looking at them (an illusionary world), the
universal Theory of Everything (the Truth), etc., etc. The cute thing is that theoretical scientists quote the ancient mystics as validation of
their theories, and the modern mystics quote the theoretical scientists as validation for their fantasies – an infinite regression of
Mr. Einstein was among the first to gain Guru status in the ‘modern’
world of meta-physical science, a position he was uncomfortable at first with, but as the numbers of believers swelled and popular acclaim
spread, he quickly settled into the role with great aplomb. As an aside, it is curious that, some 80 years on, Einstein’s famous Theory of
Relativity still remains a theory and has yet to become the Law of Relativity. Basking in the glory of its very own mega-star Guru, science was
then able to well and truly break free from the shackles of measurable observation, reasonable assumption and practical common sense, and the
re-born metaphysical sciences have enjoyed a unprecedented level of popular acceptance, kudos – and funding – ever since.
It behoves an actualist in discerning what is belief and what is
fact to make the distinction between physical science and metaphysical science. The mentioning of the word theory is always a good clue, for
theory is to metaphysical science what belief is to mysticism – something they fervently wished to be true. Both the Guru-mystic and the
Guru-scientist have vested interests in fostering and maintaining their beliefs – their fame, their position and livelihoods, and a very
personal investment in a ‘somewhere-else’ other than here and a ‘sometime-else’ other than now. As Fred Hoyle, a contemporary of
Einstein, said of science –
[Fred Hoyle]: ‘I have always thought it curious that, while most scientists claim to eschew
religion, it actually dominates their thoughts more than it does the clergy.’ Paul Davies, ‘The Mind