|
A Suspension of Disbelief |
 Belief, it's a funny old thing isn't it? I mean, do you ever stop to consider that practically everything you decide upon, is helped along by good old belief. Some go far as to say, that life is just one decision after the other. I can't decide if I agree with that. Believe it or not!
There are a myriad of beliefs out there, some practical, some esoteric, some wild, some just plain silly, and of course there is the belief that some that are plain silly is silly, and so we go on. What puzzles me, and in all honesty, it has done since I was able to think clearly about such matters, is why we react to each others' belief so wildly?
Is belief a hallucination? Strictly speaking no one else shares your experience? Regardless, why do we react the way we do, to each others views? Let's start the ball rolling with a belief system that I've spotted. It's not just me that has spotted this, many others have also. The trouble is with this, is we're in the persecuted minority, see what I mean about reactions to belief! What I'm talking about is scientism, which isn't science, it's the strongly held belief that science can, or will, resolve all questions, and mysteries. Or at least that's the way they preach to their flock. Science should be about exploration not denigration. Don't get me wrong, in an odd kind of way, I respect science. I respect it, even though it's let me down a few times, and I like it despite some of it's outspoken members. On the whole I still find it interesting.
I'd be more forgiving of scientism, if it didn't keep trying to stick it's nose in to the world of the anomalous and stirring up a hornets nest. It seems that they are trying to convert everyone, the likes of Dawkins and their ilk are a prime example. Or those who holler at the slightest whiff of dare I say, paranormal? It gets their blood boiling! Someone like Dawkins for example, equates any belief system contrary to science is inherently wrong, and should be mocked and slurred as part of a scientific crusade.
On the flip side of that, at the other extreme, what is there? Creationists ? People who decry the evidence of science, and point toward a creator, God usually, or gods. Ironically, the end thinking is not so different, I'll explain why.
Without going into detail (again) (again in a further article) there's a theory in science, of the "cosmological constant".What that very roughly states, is that the "perfection" of this universe, in terms of the forces that shaped and created it, is very oddly, extremely precise. If any one of the four forces, had differed by a tiny fraction, the universe wouldn't look like it does, and importantly be conducive of life. The fraction is minuscule, and the odds of all those forces being precisely at the right amounts, are millions to one. Ah we told you so, say the creationists. God created it, because you can't explain it is so precise, it suggests a designer ! God!
Science, couldn't have that could it ?
OK, what if there isn't just one universe says science. What if.. erm.. yeah I know, what if there are infinite amount of universes, where the four forces (gravity being the weirdo of the pack) are in varying combinations, and therefore by the laws of chance at least one of those universes (ours) has the right set-up ! Think fast, we need a name for it. Errr... Omniverse? nah too old fashioned Googleverse, nah too trendy. :) Multiverse! By the way did anyone notice that? I was mocking ! I apologise, but it's to stress a point rather than to belittle. The point is, that the "belief" in multiverse, is just that, a belief. There's no proof, well it seems it can't be proved, how do you propose proof of a separate universe, when you're living in this one?
Hmmm.. Tricky..
Could it be, and just an idea folks, that multiverses - or incursions from - could be proved by listening to people who see some anomalous phenomena? (sound of a million scientism followers fainting). Because if crossovers are possible, then the results would by definition be anomalous. Especially if things were just a "little" different . What a bizarre world this is!
Which brings me to the title of this piece. A suspension of disbelief, what is that ? Why is it so important?
Before I answer that, consider this. It was once said that the sign of real intelligence, is the ability to entertain two possibilities for a belief simultaneously. Multiverses could exist, or they could not. If you can accept both may be possible etc. you get the idea. Suspension of disbelief is slightly different, it's the belief version of ridding the prejudice about a particular subject. This can be temporary, permanent or fleeting, in any case it can lead to some very interesting life experiences, regardless of where your inner navigator, your GPS brain, wants to take you.
That's wherein the trick lies my friends, in my view anyway (back to those beliefs). I'll tell you why, firstly you see people smile more (always good) although not initially, first there's the shocked stage ! Lightness aside, a suspension of disbelief in scientism (note not science which on the whole is good) can result in anomalous experience.
Let me use an analogy, in one of Terry Pratchetts books (colour of magic I think) there's a wizard, a barbarian and a dwarf. They're all trying to escape the enemy, and the wizard suggests they all board some "belief dragons". These things only exist if you believe in them. So the wizard hops on one immediately. The dwarf takes a little time to find one, and manages to fly off but half of it keeps disappearing, and the barbarian is stuck because he can't find one at all. :)
In that analogy, and if we use ghosts as an example. A difference in belief may result in you either never seeing them, maybe seeing one or two but not sure, or seeing them daily. The question is, do any "belief dragons" exist in "reality" or are they projections.
Some argue the mind can indeed directly affect "reality", I go along with that personally. Can the mind directly affect reality to the extent it can be measured by science? So far the results are promising, or vague depending on your stance. Is there a question "should they be measured by science" ? Doesn't one rule out the other? After all if mind affects reality- which is suggested by quantum physics- then the minds of the experimenters, could distort results? It's also been suggested for years by those in alternative research.
Quantum physics suggests that at the smallest level, the observer influences the outcome. An observer is suggestive of a consciousness, and guess what, the field is wide open on what consciousness is. Perhaps the biggest mystery is not what we don't understand, it's the fact that we are able to understand so much. What's that mean? Well, why should we? what kind of advantage does it give us as a species? It's far in excess of survival, and just about any sociological thesis could describe. Is consciousness reducible to biological agents? Depends on what you believe, doesn't it? again !
Although Dawkins can be demonstrably pompous and arrogant, perhaps he helps in a strange kind of way. Because there are charlatans, and hoaxers and the seedier side of the study of the anomalous. And yes, they do need to be weeded out. There are too many fakes out there, simply because they think they can make a quick buck from it. If that is your aim, then your time is limited. The advantage of the internet is word gets out quicker. I have no time for anyone wanting to make a quick buck. Which is different from having a genuine interest, and making a go of a career in it, those people I can't applaud enough, because they take very big steps.
Science is a useful measuring device, it's given us some great things, and some great insights, but at the end of the day, it's an invention. It doesn't exist "out there" it's our definition of what constitutes nature and the cosmos, as opposed to what really is out there. When you see star constellations, and name them. They don't exist out there as "constellations", it's just a label for us, and our human way of looking at things. It's sensible to bear that in mind, when scientism claims all the answers.
How close are we ? Well, it seems to me, scientifically we're at pretty loose ends still. There's so much we do, and still a whole lot we don't know. Surely in this age of technology and computing power, we'd "know" far more by now? As opposed to having the same, or more questions. What are Dark matter, Dark Energy, Black Holes etc.? Seems there are answers, but it depends on who you believe. Perhaps it will escape all "human" understanding, why should it conform to our ideas of what's possible to begin with anyway?
Because like all great belief systems, the closer you get to the truth. The more that opinion (or other beliefs) differ. It's the case for science, especially physics. The same for theology with the differences in spiritual "belief" etc. I don't know if we need to be looking at something that combines the two, that is as valid in one as the other. That combines the juicy details from each way of looking at "reality". So take something that has a theological feel (gods) and add some science (extra terrestrials). Hmm.. we're either ancient astronaut idea - feasible - or that E T's created us in some way ? - biological - virtual - genetic twiddling ? Alternatively, you could look at eastern mysticism and find descriptions very similar to what theoretical physicists are saying these days. Saying in terms of what "reality" is, or could be. There's a lot of supporting evidence for most of those scenarios.
Perhaps, it's just something we don't know yet, or maybe will ever know. What I think is observable, is that with the increased complexity of the computer (our invention), we are getting closer and closer to modelling what ordinarily constitutes the world around us. We're expressing it as formulae for lighting angles, and colour. For depth and what direction the sound is travelling. We're immersing ourselves in a 3D mirror on occasions. I genuinely feel that the day that computer reality, recreates the experience even closely, it will become more and more addictive for masses of people. This is a THoTH prophecy :)
If we can recreate reality to a basic degree, does this mean, that this reality has been created ? One doesn't necessarily follow the other I'll agree. Could the virtual world idea be a possibility? Of course it could, and it's not a new "matrix" idea, it's been around for centuries. People forget the wisdom of some sages from the past, which is a disappointing trend I see coupled to the etch age. Which is one of the reasons for Book of THoTH, to use the tech age to preserve wisdom old and new. How could we tell if we exist in a virtual universe?
OK, lets create a sims computer game 2078 edition. Following advice (a search on the human-net), it takes on some lessons from this article, and creates a system where people have different "beliefs" which alter the parameters of their interaction with others. Those others can through some actions, alter the belief of another player by using faith or evidence power ups. If you get a really good power up, you can get more people agreeing with you. Once your agreement meter is high enough, you become famous for an idea, and eventually a leader. All manner of influential things will affect your progress, you have to avoid the doubt debt for example. This can reduce your leader potential dramatically depending on your skills at avoiding, or a bonus for ridding it for good.
In the limited edition of the game, you can play online as either god, or a scientist complete with the unified theory, or your own, and influence the leaders of the previous games. Your choice of god is up to you, or you can create your own with the god editor. Want to throw some UFOs the scientists way? It's up to you! Better still, why not send some aliens down here, to test reaction. If you're an alien creator, it's a wise move. Progress can be big, but dangerous, they're a hostile bunch down there.
You play the game by wearing a device that manipulates your brain almost directly into a range of emotions,using harmless low level magnetic frequencies. After prolonged playing (which they always warn against) people start to confuse the two. Which could be suggestive of all that is around us now as being a projection, a simulation, a hologram of sorts?
Depressed? don't be. I'm not sure, but I can't imagine any kind of simulation where you as an individual, would be able to perceive that to be a theory within the simulation. Maybe it is, and maybe like the matrix, and earlier books on this (and there are lots) we take the red or blue pill. Meaning we either decide to live the 3D solely, or dip our toes into the "unknown".
What's so great about "the unknown" ? It shows we're still learning, because like it or not there aren't always scientific answers for the experience of the unusual, anomalous and paranormal. Despite massive protestations from some in the scientific community. Similarly there isn't always a ghost in a strange sound, or a UFO in what sometimes appears to be. Sometimes it is just something prosaic misinterpreted, no one is going to deny that. Maybe science should stop claiming all are prosaic misinterpretation, we should accept that science does have some sensible explanations too. How you develop, is based on what you believe, but how far you develop can be as a result of a suspension of disbelief as much as belief.
Because believe me ladies and gentlemen, there's some real fun to be had exploring ideas in suspending your disbelief. Whatever your background, I'm sure it will lead to more progress for all of us. Ever noticed in life that you tend to get what you want, just after you've given up hope of getting it. That time when you neither believe nor disbelieve you'll get it ? It's a clue, I'm sure.
Well, that's what I believe anyway!
|
|
|
Resources
Audio/Visual
Discussion & Chat
Information
Keep Up To Date
Fun & Games
Submitting
Spread The Word
Rules & Help
Personal
