From duality to unity 1/3

Objectivity and subjectivity : the unified perception


« How can the « illu­sion » of an out­side world lead to an effec­tive science ? »


If I stick to my expe­rience (see My sto­ry), 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

microscopeThe 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. » [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 us 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 (see the uni­fied field theo­ry). 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. » [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 (see the articles on quan­tum theo­ry in this regard). 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. » [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 the unit

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 (see the article The frac­tal and holo­gra­phic uni­verse). 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 and 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 ? (Quantum mecha­nics : a theo­ry without a view of the world?) 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.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be publi­shed. Required fields are mar­ked *

©2018–2023 My quan­tum life All rights reserved