The Meta-Modern Science of Spirit…

[Guest guest]

" Are Physicists Smart? " by Professor Denis G. Rancourt

 

Dear All,

 

Below is an article titled " Are Physicists Smart? " in which Denis G. Rancourt

(Professor of Physics at the University of Ottawa) questions society's

assumption that physicists as a group are really smart! He is not meaning that

they are 'not smart' when it comes to the subject of physics with their

knowledge of black holes and worm holes into parallel universes, however he does

state that physicists never read nor study psychology, pedagogy, philosophy,

history, politics, sociology or art as part of their professional training.

Inspite of never reading these other subjects... Prof. Rancourt states that

physicists nevertheless generally believe that all the branches of all the

sciences and all the branches of all the arts, are ultimately physics anyway!

 

He states that 'to the physicist'... communication is data transmission and not

the subtleties that can only be captured by the right configuration of social

and emotional attributes; that 'the physicist'... deals in hard bits and not in

the imperceptibles that determine our animal and social lives; and that 'the

physicist'... is unaware of his blindness and glibly confident in his perception

of himself as a systematic unraveller of the truth.

 

i am pretty sure that Shri Mataji would have to agree with what the professor

has written in the article (appended below.) Shri Mataji says that science is

not the truth, because its hypotheses are frequently challenged and what is

truth today is not truth tomorrow. Shri Mataji also says that it would be very

interesting for a scientist to ask himself: " Who " was created first, before

" they " started this creation on Earth? Of course... this is a question that goes

beyond the boundaries of the physical; beyond physics. This question can only be

answered by metaphysics, a science that is beyond the physical; beyond physics.

 

The Pure Knowledge of the Spirit that Shri Mataji has given... is... according

to Her... not only beyond but also above modern science. Shri Mataji calls it

the " Meta-Modern Science of Spirit " . Here then, are Her Words on this subject:

 

" Science is not truth. Today it might appear, tomorrow it disappears. Today

you may think it is correct, but every hypotheses is challenged, every law is

challenged. That's no law! " (Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi - Brahmapuri, India -

December 29, 1989)

 

" But to begin with if I say... " Before starting all this creation Who was

created first " it is most interesting and may not be very congenial to the mind

of a scientist. It is much beyond science I am talking now; that much (was

created) before anything was created on this Earth. " (Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi -

Delhi University in Feb. 1979).

 

" This is meta-modern science (of Spirit), above modern science. But do we who

are Indians know we have this heritage of ours? We believe more in the English

language and knowledge. We should believe in our own culture and our own

knowledge. Sahaja Yoga is very ancient. Nanak has said, 'Sahaja samadhi lago.'

Every saint has described it. Spirit is what we have to be. That's the ultimate

goal of our life. All the rest of them fall in line, and that's what we have got

from every scripture, from every incarnation, from everywhere. Let us now just

think that: 'Let us become the Spirit and then let us become a realized soul, a

master.' (Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi - Madras Public Program - December 7, 1991)

 

I just have to say that the mystical experiences of Kash, Arwinder, and Lalita

reveal that it is the Spirit that is the " knower " and the " experiencer " of what

scientists can only ascertain from a physical and external point of view. i

believe that as people seek to become their Spirit... and then become their own

master, then they, too... will become the " knowers " and the " experiencers " of

the truth of the " Meta Modern Science of Spirit " .

 

(BTW... Shri Mataji said something most interesting in the last sentence of the

quote above. She said: " Let us become the Spirit and then let us become a

realized soul, a master. " (Wow! So... as realised souls... we first have to

become the Spirit before we can ever hope to become our own masters! It makes a

lot of sense to me!)

 

Anyway, here is the article by Denis G. Rancourt, Professor of Physics at the

University of Ottawa.

 

best wishes to all,

 

violet

 

 

Are Physicists Smart? By Prof. Denis Rancourt

 

It is generally assumed that physicists are smart people. Even some chemists

look up to physicists. Physics is reputed to be a difficult subject, the stuff

of nightmares in high school. The greatest scientists that come to mind are

often the physicists Einstein and Newton. The inventors of the atomic bomb are

held in awe, as are the cosmologists that gave us black holes and worm holes

into parallel universes. The proverbial rocket scientists are physicists. It is

generally assumed that anyone who has studied quantum mechanics and can work-in

the concept of entropy at a cocktail party is pretty smart.

 

I'm a physicist and I've trained physicists and I'd like to advance a different

view: That generally, physicists, as a group, are pretty stupid, and certainly

no smarter than any other group of self-centered and self-serving professionals.

 

Physicists limit themselves to physics, to simple phenomena that are amenable to

manageable mathematical descriptions or to more complex phenomena that are

reduced to simplistic descriptions via appropriate filters that are said to

" capture the essential features " . Physicists study only what they can, given

their specific and limited methods, possibly more so than in any other natural

science discipline.

 

This in itself is an efficient and productive approach but physicists go much

further. As a matter of professional culture, physicists believe that their

methods could eventually lead to a deep and thorough understanding of all

phenomena (including human consciousness, learning, politics, etc., for

example), given time, dedication, sufficient funding, and powerful enough

computers. Physicists believe that all sciences and all branches of human

knowledge are physics, ultimately. They arrive at this conclusion having never

read or studied psychology, pedagogy, philosophy, history, politics, sociology,

art, etc. as part of their professional training.

 

Indeed, the modern professional physicist has usually subjected himself (less

often herself) to extreme specialization, to be able to handle the technical

side of the profession. This training is also largely about adopting the culture

of the professional physicist: Examples and examples of what are " good problems

– good questions " and what are " bad (= `unmanageable') problems " ; and examples

and examples of how one tames a new problem and fits it into the mould of what a

physicist can do. The physics student learns to bridle his curiosity and to

restrict himself to what is doable, publishable, useful, profitable; using the

unique methods of physics and providing " answers " that other professionals could

not. That is the name of the game.

 

A broader education would not be compatible with this strategy – just enough

reading outside of the field to spot new physics opportunities is the most that

is recommended. A broader education might also cloud one's professional identity

and one's professionalism: Eighty percent of physicists in North America work

for the military, in the world's largest military economy [1]. But of course

physics students are drawn to physics because all can be understood via the

physics portal and because worm holes are neat. Students search for meaning and

social status and find military and corporate service, often in an environment

that maintains the neat-problem mental bubble first cultivated in sci-fi and

electronic game land.

 

If you're already smarter than everyone else (as is generally the working

assumption in most professions), then you don't really need to venture out into

other fields – that are so primitive and qualitative and descriptive in

comparison to physics.

 

Other fields...? Other methods...? Complexity...? Professional physicists have

so buried themselves into their culture of the doable, the mappable, the

reducible, the solvable, the codable, ... that they are largely unable to

perceive complexity.

 

Students are drawn to physics by its promise of a manageable mathematical

description, an objective method to own the world, to organise and predict the

outside. Emotional immaturity, a need for an objective solution to uncertainty

or a need to escape reality, draws students to physics and accompanies them in

their professional development. The same naivety that couples so well with the

physics culture also blocks perception of the complex.

 

That is the main reason, in my view, that physicists are stupid: They are unable

to perceive complexity, a complexity of the real world that goes far beyond what

physics will ever be able to handle in any universe. They are unable to even get

a glimpse of the textures and subplots that may be intrinsically incompatible

with mathematical description. To them, mathematics is the language of reality,

not a mere human invention or genetically delimited _expression. To them, the

objective mind is all-powerful and able to open all doors. To them, useful

perception is physiological and does not benefit from the uncertainties of one's

emotional state. To the physicist, communication is data transmission, not the

subtleties that can only be captured by the right configuration of social and

emotional attributes. The physicist deals in hard bits, not the imperceptibles

that determine our animal and social lives. The physicist is unaware of his

blindness and glibly confident in his perception, especially his perception of

himself as systematic unraveller of the truth.

 

If at least he was harmless!

 

Denis G. Rancourt is Professor of Physics at the University of Ottawa

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/

index.php?context=viewArticle & code=20060904 & articleId=3140