Objectivity, the blind spot of science
FEBRUARY 12, 2019 (updated on February 8, 2024)
“How can the “illusion” of an outside world lead to an effective science?” [1]
Table of contents
If I stick to my experience, the question of an outside world does indeed arise. For in the state of presence, objectivity and subjectivity are indistinguishable. There are no longer any borders between the inner and outer world. The sense of unity I achieved dissolved the artificial separation created by the mental, simply because it dissolved the mental.
If taking the illusion of an outside world for a reality obviously does not lead to an effective science – judging by the current separation of our physics – following the path of unity can lead, according to my research, to a theory of unification.
Experimentation / Inner Experience
A science approached in relation to consciousness cannot seek to be objective. In fact, the notion of objectivity fades away by itself when we talk about consciousness. For objectivity presupposes a separation between subject and object, whereas consciousness rests on unity. A conscious science does not start from the illusion of separation, but from the consciousness of unity. Conscious science has nothing to do with objective science.
Yet it is the search for objectivity that is currently guiding science. It involves the use of the scientific method, and in particular experimentation, not in the sense of immediate perception – the inner experience – but as an experimental device. This implies separating the subject from the object, erasing the subject, ideally completely, or at least as much as possible.
Scientists also use repetition of observations and the use of statistics to subtract their own influence from what they observe. These methods are thus supposed to guarantee that scientific knowledge describes an “objective reality”, independent of the knowing subject [2].
The blind spot of science
The French philosopher Michel Bitbol reminds us that conscious experience is the prerequisite for objectification. Indeed, we need consciousness to conceive the world as being composed of separate objects, without any relationship with us. This is why, according to him, the negation of the subject in favour of objects represents the “blind spot of science” [3]. For him :
“There is the eye of science, but the eye of science does not see itself.”
MICHEL BITBOL [4]
The most obvious aspect of reality – the inner experience – is lost in favour of its objects. Theories of physics are therefore developed that are either a mirror of nature (“a faithful representation of reality as it is in itself” [5], or a faithful record of observed phenomena), or a projection of the mind (“we (…) superimpose our concepts and views on our image of nature” [6]).
Isolated systems Vs Interdependence
I also consider this to be a major problem. In short, a science is objective if it describes the real, if it conforms to reality. Let’s suppose that we put aside on the one hand what reality is and on the other hand the only thing that allows us to apprehend it, namely true perception (see on this subject what penetrating vision is). So let’s assume that we’re simply basing ourselves on a consensual reality, but the fact remains that science is unable to conform to that reality.
For example, our physics is based on isolated systems. An isolated system is “…a physical system that does not interact with its environment: it does not exchange energy, matter or information” [7]. I can well imagine that such a system exists and that it would be the logical reason why our physics would be based on it.
On the other hand, I cannot endorse the coherence of our scientific approach if the definition goes on like this: “Truly isolated systems do not exist in physical reality. There are always interactions with the environment (e.g. gravity operating between the mass of the system and the external masses)” [8]. So we are aware that an isolated system does not exist in reality, but we still base our physics on it… Where is the objectivity in this approach? It’s pretty inconsistent, isn’t it?
And even if it is explained to me that “however, a real system can behave like an isolated system with a good approximation” [9], un système réel n’est pas un système isolé. Ce n’est pas la réalité, et encore moins la réalité dont nous sommes conscients. Alors pourquoi ne tentons-nous pas une autre approche ?
Everything is constantly interacting…
Nassim Haramein himself went through this questioning… and, fortunately, tried another approach. By making the most complex and constraining a priori choice – that of considering systems as interdependent – it finally leads to one and only one theory of physics, simpler, more efficient and more objective. For him, it was seeing things as separate from each other that implied that :
“We have not understood the electron and the atom. Because the electron and the atom – and everything in the universe – are interdependent. Nothing like isolated systems… When you begin to understand [that everything is continuously interacting], then you can design a really elegant theory. At that point, we can correctly imagine the subatomic particles.”
NASSIM HARAMEIN [10]
…from the infinitely small
This is also the opinion of Michel Bitbol, which he expresses in other words. Indeed, he considers that physics really made progress when we started to think in terms of relationships rather than intrinsic properties. The switchover took place with the advent of quantum physics, because at that time it was no longer possible to reason on the basis of classical physics and assume that bodies had an existence and intrinsic properties. This is according to him one of the fundamental teachings of quantum physics:
“Perhaps quantum theory has revealed to us that nature has no intrinsic nature, perhaps this is THE true revelation of quantum mechanics.”
MICHEL BITBOL [11]
There is thus a very important point of convergence around interdependence, or, as Michel Bitbol would call it in the Buddhists’ words, “the appearance in dependence of the connoisseur and the known” [12]. According to him, we should think of a theory of physics halfway between the “mirror of nature” [13] and the “projection of the mind” [14], i.e. a theory that would be “the expression of an interaction between us and nature.” [15]
The movement of unity
A dynamic between expansion and contraction…
In Nassim Haramein’s theory, the movements of expansion and contraction are interdependent. The dynamic that unites them is a dynamic of feedback. And in my experience, it was translated by the fact that the movement that led me to touch the state of presence inside me had its external counterpart thanks to the favourable sequence of events, and in particular the presence of Madeleine. This in return influenced my inner experience. I also experienced the point of balance between the two movements: stillness – presence – the space where all the movements cancel each other out… because they are unified.
The expression of an interaction between outside and inside, between expansion and contraction, corresponds to what nature teaches us. At our level, we can observe this dynamic at the time of a birth for example. It manifests itself in its most tangible form during natural childbirth. Every woman who has given birth in this way, every baby born through this process, has experienced it: no expansion – no birth – without contractions. It is the contractions that trigger the dynamics of childbirth, through which the baby can be expelled and born. There is feedback between the mother’s experience and the baby’s experience.
The expression of an interaction between the inside and the outside, this could also correspond to what neuroscience teaches us about our learning process. Human beings learn by feedback, and they learn optimally if this feedback between them and the outside world is immediate [16]. Nassim Haramein considers that this learning process is constantly at work in the universe, at all scales, thanks to the feedback of information based on the dynamics linking the movements of expansion and contraction.
…which often only reveals the expansion
Seeing things this way challenges our current conception that the universe is only expanding. In doing so, it leads our theories of physics to consider only part of the movement. The counterpart – which Newton’s third law teaches us that “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction” – is completely ignored [17].
For Nassim Haramein, to consider only expansion is simply to miss out on half of the dynamics of the universe. Because expansion depends on contraction. Yet we do a lot of studies on what is expanding and very little on what is contracting… because our senses and our instruments do not allow us to observe contraction. From then on, everything happens as if it doesn’t exist. We focus only on the expanding part, and base our science on explosions and particle collisions. According to him, the constant feedback of information between expansion and contraction takes place more precisely between vacuum and matter.
This type of continuous feedback had already been envisaged as early as 1971 by the physicist David Bohm in his theory of the holographic universe, which is the subject of the next article!
Key points
- The negation of the subject in favour of objects represents the “blind spot of science”.
- Considering the interdependence of systems leads to simpler, more effective and more objective science.
- The universe is expanding AND contracting. There is continuous feedback between these two movements, from the quantum vacuum to matter.
Notes & references
[1] BITBOL Michel, Plongée dans les abysses de la conscience avec Michel Bitbol [Diving into the Abyss of Consciousness], In: Monde des grandes écoles et universités
[2] These remarks are inspired by Vincent Devictor’s thesis, L’objectivité dans la recherche scientifique [Objectivity in Scientific Research], 2011
[3] BITBOL Michel, La conscience a-t-elle une base matérielle ? [Does consciousness have a material basis ?] In : Fleurs du dharma, Mind and Life XXVI : Esprit, cerveau et matière, p.5, free translation
[4] Ibid.
[5] BITBOL Michel. (2013, January 18). La mécanique quantique : une théorie sans vue sur le monde ? [Quantum mechanics : a theory without a view of the world?] In : Fleurs du dharma, Mind and Life XXVI : Esprit, cerveau et matière, p.1, free translation
[6] Ibid., p.2
[7] According to WIKIPEDIA
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10] HARAMEIN Nassim. (2003). Nassim Haramein at Rogue Valley Metaphysical Library (1)
[11] BITBOL Michel, La mécanique quantique : une théorie sans vue sur le monde ? op.cit., p.7
[12] Ibid. p.2
[13] Ibid. p.1
[14] Ibid. p.2
[15] Ibid.
[16] See the work of Stanislas Dehaene, Professor at the Collège de France, Chair of Experimental Psychology, (November 7, 2013) Les quatre piliers de l’apprentissage, ou ce que nous disent les neurosciences [The four pillars of learning, or what neuroscience tells us]
See also the article How do we learn? for a more comprehensive view of the learning process.
[17] HARAMEIN Nassim. (2003). Nassim Haramein at Rogue Valley Metaphysical Library (1), op.cit.
On the same theme
