My dialog with physicist Elizabeth Rauscher continues. I’ve worked through the recording of our 2.5 hour chat in Boulder at ISSSEEM taking detailed notes. I’ve followed up on a bunch of items that came up and yesterday sent off a long letter with follow-up questions and various materials of interest.
Just now discovered a page of photos of a reunion in 2000 of some of the players in her Fundamental Physics Group at UC Berkeley from the late ’70 including Fritjof Capra, Beverly Rubik, and Russel Targ.
In another follow up from ISSSEEM, I’m most way through a careful reading of the most recent issue of Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing special issue from May/June (vol3, #3) devoted entirely to a comprehensive overview of the work of Robert Jahn and Brenda Dunne at the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research program that just recently shut down after a 25 year run.
Norm Shealy said Larry Dossey’s editorial in this issue was must reading. For me, the red meat here is in the details of the dedicated efforts Jahn and Dunne have made to develop a robust theoretical framework for their anomalous findings.
Of the many items of interest here, the one that is most directly relevant to my work here is their “Science of the Subjective” article from 1997. I’ll file a Yoga Science critique of the whole PEAR enterprise once I’m finished reading the entire issue.
What stands out this morning, however, is first, that the idea Kent and I came up with at our lunch meeting in April of a strong potential alignment between the three domains of my SummaTime Scale and his Special Systems seems to be getting more and more support.
Thus, it appears that complexity admits of three degrees: 1st degree is ordinary complexity, characteristic of material systems that display disspative self-organization in the outer STS domain; 2nd degree, aka “hypercomplexity,” is characteristic of autopoieitic/energy systems in the central STS domain; and a 3rd degree, that I’ve dubbed “ultra-hypercomplexity,” characteristic of informational reflexive systems in the innermost STS domain.
(For a good taste of this “ultra-hypercomplexity” interested readers should take a long look at contemporary mathematical physics.)
AND, more importantly, that “embracing and transcending” all three degrees of complexity is the radical simplicity of our “true nature.”
That which we “always already” are, in every moment, is a “singularity” that simultaneously admits and “cuts through” all these degrees of complexity and gives the Yoga Science its beauty, its elegance, its parsimony.
That “true nature” is Yoga, its fruit, realization, and most direct means.
The proposal here is that this “true nature,” our most fundamental existence, can be thought of as a “trans-Planckian” condition — an a-temporal position that at once is and is not in time.
A key consequence of this is the “pre-Planckian Entangelement” I wrote about here in late May.
This is, I propose, is how physics will become a genuine “endophysics,” turn our world “inside out,” and find a way forward into a “glorious new domain of scientifc exploration” as Jahn and Dunne put it in their article cited above.