The nature of truth. I began this book by writing that it contains my truth. I can now explain more fully what I meant by my truth. I believe what I have written in this book is true, because I believe the concepts and principles on which the book is based are internally consistent. They are consistent within the book and, I believe, consistent within the “great web of all truth.”

The concepts included were selected because of their consistency with basic commonsense principles of philosophy, religion, science, and economics. This consistency seemed to give them a natural ring of truth. That said, I doubt this book will be embraced by many of the fundamentalists of philosophy, religion, science, or economics. Fundamentalists tend to view the world quite narrowly. However, I expect it will ring true to a wide range of thoughtful and insightful people who have dared to develop their own understanding of the world about them. This book will ring true to the common sense of reality of those who dare to think, feel, and sense reality for themselves.

Humans seem to have a natural tendency to defer willingly to some higher human authority on the most important issues of life. Throughout most of recorded history, people deferred to kings to tell them what was right and wrong or good and bad. If the king decided for them, they didn’t have to decide for themselves. If the king decided wisely, their lives would be good, and if their lives went wrong, they could always blame the king. Some nations are still ruled by monarchs or dictators, either by choice or by default. The people of such nations defer to someone else’s truth to rule many aspects of their lives.

Even in democratic nations many people defer to the higher authority of government. Their moral and ethical behavior is defined by laws and government regulations. If the law allows it, it must be okay, so they rationalize. If something goes wrong, they blame the government. Increasingly, however, people are deferring, in their ethics and morality, not to their king or government but to the “monarch of the marketplace.” In conflicts between government and the economy, they choose to be ruled by the economy. If it’s profitable, it’s inherently good, and thus it shall be done. In fact, even monarchs and dictators are frequently overruled by economic fundamentalism: The greatest greed brings the greatest good – the free market is actually the king. Their truth is determined in the marketplace.

As with religious fundamentalists, economic fundamentalists tend to be very selective in what they are willing to accept as truth. The truths of fundamentalists of philosophy and science likewise are very narrowly defined. Philosophy, as an academic discipline, has become a study of historical philosophies and philosophers, rather than a search for truth. Mainstream science is willing to accept as truth only those aspects of reality that can be validated using the historic “scientific method.” For example, most scientists show little regard for the emerging concepts of quantum physics, perhaps because it casts serious doubts on the very foundations of so-called modern science.

The so-called truths of fundamentalist religion, economics, philosophy, and science are often in conflict. However, truth cannot be in conflict with truth. Thus, the best evidence of truth within the various concepts of philosophy, science, religion, and economics is found in their internal consistency. Truth cannot be in conflict with truth.

The truth of reality. Quantum physicists shook the scientific world in the early 1900s when they discovered that reality is not absolute but exists only as potentials or probabilities, at least at the subatomic level. Over time, they have proven that reality, at least in the conventional sense of the word, actually does not exist until something is observed. Quantum physicists are able to make statements about what they are likely to observe, but there is simply no way of knowing for sure what they will find until the instant they observe it. My concept of reality is far more consistent with this quantum reality of potentials than with the scientific reality of absolutes.

Various experiments have shown that everything in quantum reality is interconnected and simply cannot be separated or isolated. As a result, what is observed depends on the method of observation and on the observer. They are all interconnected. Through extensive experimentation, for example, physicists have concluded that light has the potential to be either particles or waves, although it cannot possibly be both. Whether scientists observe particles or waves depends on their chosen method of observation. In addition, once light is observed to be one, it cannot later become the other. So the observer, by choosing a method of observation, determines which of the two potentials ultimately becomes real.

Thus far, scientists have been unable to resolve the differences between the absolute reality of classical physics and the potential reality of quantum physics, although they continue to try. Most scientists today conveniently assume that the principles of quantum reality simply don’t apply to their larger world of ordinary scientific observation. Absolute reality seems to have served scientists quite well over the centuries in answering questions related to the mechanistic world of minerals, chemicals, gasses, and energy. So most scientists don’t worry too much about quantum reality.

However, absolute reality has worked far less well in addressing questions in the living world of microorganisms, insects, plants, animals, and people. In the living world, outcomes of experiments can never be predicted with absolute precision or certainty. In the biological and social realms, everything is interconnected; scientists can never completely separate or isolate specific causes and effects. They must report their conclusions in terms of probabilities rather than certainties. Sometimes their conclusions are grossly in error, as we have seen with recent economic and financial models.

It seems that the absolute reality of classical science may well be the exception rather than the norm for the world as a whole. Or, more likely, interconnections in the mechanistic world are simply weaker, making predictions of future outcomes quite accurate but inherently somewhat imprecise. Thus, classical physics seems to explain the nonliving world, at least well enough for most purposes. In their quest to be “real scientists,” those who explore the world of living biological and social systems have accepted the mechanistic paradigms of classical scientists. The inevitable consequences are occasional gross errors, at a time when humanity cannot afford many more gross ecological or social miscalculations.

The concept of reality as potentials most certainly is not new. Aristotle debated this idea with other scholars as early as the 300s b.c.[1] As Aristotle pointed out, for the concept of reality as potential to be meaningful and useful, potential occurrences must be limited. For example, water has the potential to be a liquid, solid, or gas, depending on its temperature. But water does not have the potential to explode, like gasoline, or become a metal, like gold. A healthy person has the potential to walk or run but does not have the potential to fly, at least not unaided. The potentials of reality are always limited.

Some religions and philosophies of the East also view reality as potentials. Taoists, for example, express their views of reality using terms such as yin and yang – opposites that exist at the same time. Opposites can exist simultaneously only as potentials or possibilities, not absolutes. Hindus see reality as an illusion or “play of consciousness,” which is consistent with the experience of reality being distinct from concrete or absolute reality.[2] In his classic book The Tao of Physics, Fritjof Capra explores many parallels between quantum physics and Eastern mysticism.[3]

Traditional scientific thinking seems to be the greatest stumbling block to the acceptance of reality as potentials, rather than as absolutes. If we accept the proposition that reality exists as potentials, we must separate our individual experience of reality from the absolute existence of reality. Our individual experiences of reality may appear absolute to us, but absolute reality, which must be the same for everyone, exists only as potentials.

This separation resolves many of the apparent inconsistencies found in philosophy and religion as well as science. For example, in the early 1700s, George Berkeley put forth the proposition that reality exists only as ideas – only in the consciousness of humans.[4] He argued that since two people who experience the same phenomenon may have very different experiences, the phenomenon cannot be real or absolute. As a result, he argued, all things exist only in the ideas or perceptions of those who experience them.

However, if our individual experience of reality is accepted as being only one of several potentials of reality, two people can have very different experiences of the same reality. They simply experience two of its different potentials. Their differences in perceptions are limited in scope, as suggested by Aristotle, but the two people are not restricted to identical experiences. For example, a child may see a dog as being large, and an adult may see the same dog as small, but they both see a real dog, not a cat. With respect to the seemingly conflicting religious concepts of free will and predestination, our individual potentials are predetermined but probabilistic; our individual experiences of those potentials are discretionary but to us are absolute. Accepting that reality exists only as potentials resolves many such apparent conflicts among competing truths.

The reality of purpose. In defining our purpose in life, I have relied heavily on the distinction between reality as potentials and our individual experiences of reality. I have also assumed that our purpose is to realize our highest potentials from those left before us. In essence, I have simply expanded the realm of quantum science to the living world. I have accepted a reality of possibility and intentionality that is consistent with our common sense of the basic nature of our day-to-day world.

The great philosophers did not always agree on life’s purpose. Aristotle believed that the purpose of life was happiness but that happiness was an unsought benefit of a virtuous life. He apparently believed that virtuous living would naturally lead a person to do the things he or she needed to do to be happy, in essence fulfilling his or her purpose. Plato believed in a higher order of absolute truth, which he referred to as form. However, he believed that society, rather than form, determined a person’s purpose in life. To the extent that society has the ability to affect the subset of potentials of reality that are accessible to a given individual, Plato’s beliefs are consistent with those expressed in this book.

The philosophies of the East seem to place little emphasis on individual purpose; some even deny the existence of purpose. At the highest level of attainment, the spiritual individual becomes indistinguishable from the larger spiritual whole, which is the essence of all perceived reality. The Tao Te Ching, however, seems to agree with Aristotle, in that whatever purpose there may be in life is not something to be sought but is an unintended consequence of living according to the Tao, or “the way.” While none of these philosophies appears to confirm the existence of highest potentials for our individual lives, they certainly are not inconsistent with the proposition that our lives must be guided by fundamental principles or universal truths.

In sum, the mechanistic science of classical physics firmly denies the existence of purpose and intentionality, as was discussed in Chapter 5. The new science of quantum physics, however, seems to be opening the door for both purpose and intentionality. Eventually, the two approaches of science will have to be integrated and expanded to explore the larger questions of ecology and society. Lacking integration, they will be incapable of addressing the most important problems confronting humanity today. Scientists eventually will be forced to deal with the interconnectedness of observers and their observations. This will bring human consciousness into science and, with it, human intentionality. Intentionality can have no intent without purpose, and thus science will be forced to admit the existence of purpose as well as free will. Purpose and intentionality, as defined in this book, are consistent with the science needed to address the important questions of real people in an ecologically, socially, and mechanically interconnected world.

Finally, the concept of purpose is consistent with our common sense of reality. If we are religious and believe in a God that is all powerful and all knowing, it makes sense that our purpose in life would be determined by God. However, the belief that life has purpose is certainly not limited to religion or mysticism. Thomas Reid, an eighteenth-century Scottish philosopher, argued that the collective judgment of common people, our common sense, is the ultimate judge of reality.[5] He argued that true knowledge can be found only in human understanding, which neither needs to be proven nor can be proven, because human understanding must provide the grounds for all such proofs. A life without purpose makes no sense, regardless of whether philosophers or scientists can find any logical explanation for what we know to be true. Quantum reality seems to accommodate our common sense of reality because it opens the door to a science of purpose and intentionality. This consistency is at least strong evidence, if not proof, of truth.

The purpose of principles. Philosophy, by its very nature, is a search for the basic principles that define truth and righteousness. The major schools of thought regarding social principles are discussed in Chapter 6. The principle of trust is consistent with the rule-based school of thought – the rules apply regardless of the consequences. The principle of kindness is consistent with care-based philosophies – actions must be judged by their consequences. The greatest good for the greatest number of people, an ends-based philosophy, in reality is the long-run consequence of internally consistent application of the other two philosophies. In the long run, the three are internally consistent. The problem with the ends-based philosophy, as used in economics, is that it places a premium on the short run, because economic value is determined by mortal individuals.

The principles in Chapter 6 incorporate concepts from both classical and quantum science. Ecological principles are referred to as “laws of nature,” because they fit into the traditional realm of the physical sciences. However, the “laws of living nature” actually are more consistent with quantum reality, as suggested previously. The principles of living nature can be more accurately described as basic characteristics and general tendencies – as general principles rather than precise laws of cause and effect. Also, in the same sense that quantum truth depends on interrelationships among phenomena at the time of observation, the truth of principles depends on internal consistency among principles as they apply to given situations.

Finally, the principles in Chapter 6 are consistent with our common sense. The principles that are common to the major religions are also common principles among people in secular societies and cultures as well. The principles of various rule-based, care-based, and ends-based belief systems have arisen from philosophers’ attempts to explain our commonly held religious and social values in secular terms. And, as suggested previously, the principles of quantum reality are consistent with the reality of our day-to-day experience; we can never be certain of the precise consequences of our actions. When the principles of religion, philosophy, and science are applied to our personal relationships with other beings and with nature, their truth can be judged by their internal consistency. Because of their consistency, our common sense also tells us these things are true.

Theologians, philosophers, and scientists all seem to agree with the idea that our life is made up of a series of individual experiences. We must respect life’s principles to realize our highest potentials from our life of individual experiences. Theologians refer to a life of purpose as doing God’s will – respecting God’s laws. Aristotle saw a life of happiness as a life of virtue – doing the right things. Taoists referred to a life of integrity as “the way.” Scientists throughout history have sought universal laws to guide us through the perils of life. Perhaps more important, our common sense tells us that that our choices in life actually do matter.

We may not all agree on the principles for purposeful living, but we all know that when we violate the basic principles of reality, we will suffer the inevitable consequences. Returning to my favorite example, we may not believe in gravity, but if we drop something heavy on our foot, we will still feel the pain. If we expect to survive, we must respect the laws of nature, such as gravity and momentum, in our day-to-day life. Furthermore, if we expect to have positive personal relationships, we must do unto others as we would have them do unto us. If we expect to find happiness and meaning in life, we must learn to live in harmony with nature and society. We know that we can’t simply do whatever we might choose to do. We must live our lives according to a set of principles that we didn’t create and cannot change.

The possibilities of spirituality. Quantum physics seems to be bringing science closer to addressing at least some the mysteries of life and of spirituality. In his book The Fabric of the Cosmos, Brian Greene sketches the frontiers of modern science.[6] As he explains, the latest scientific thinking is that the universe is not composed of atoms, or even subatomic particles, but instead of tiny vibrating “strings” of energy. The various atomic and subatomic particles that scientists observe are simply concentrations of these vibrating strings of energy. In attempting to resolve the apparent conflicts between classical and quantum physics, theoretical physicists have developed theories involving a number of different dimensions of reality, called branes. These branes also are connected by strings of vibrating energy. Various theories suggest the existence of up to eleven different branes, or dimensions of reality.

The eleven include the familiar three dimensions of space and the added dimension of time. We can readily experience these four dimensions of reality, but the rest exist at levels beyond our realm of direct experience or observation. These new quantum concepts of reality offer interesting possibilities for bringing science closer to our common sense of spirituality.

For example, even on the frontiers of science, theoretical physicists admit they know very little about life other than that it exists. They understand that all life is a continuation of previous life. However, they have only vague theories as to how life might have begun, none of them verifiable. They have no idea of what happens to life when it leaves a once-living but now-dead body. In addition, nothing in science refutes the existence of spirituality. Scientists can’t verify its existence, so they reject it by default. However, the new string and brane theories of science may eventually shed some light on both life and spirituality.

One reason scientists need the extra dimensions of reality is that they cannot resolve differences between quantum and mechanical reality without including flows of energy to somewhere other than the dimensions of space and time that we experience. The vibrating strings allow energy to flow among the different branes, giving energy somewhere else to go to and come back from. In addition, efforts to resolve conflicts between quantum and mechanical reality suggest that whatever exists at the level of strings and branes is also relevant in the world as a whole, including the nonliving world and our individual experiences. With this understanding, we can speculate about how this new scientific thinking might one day enhance our understanding of life and spirit.

Perhaps one of the additional dimensions of reality is the “brane of life.” Maybe our life originated in this dimension and was transferred to our four-dimensional earth by the vibrating strings of energy. If so, it would seem logical for our life to return to the brane of life at the time of our death. All life is a continuation of previous life, but perhaps what we refer to as new life requires some augmentation of energy from a separate brane of life. We would never be able to experience the brane of life directly, except perhaps through our own death, but knowledge of its existence would give us a new perspective on the meaning of life.

Perhaps another of those extra dimensions of reality is the “brane of spirituality.” Such a brane would exist at a “higher level,” in that it would be beyond our realm of observation or direct experience. Perhaps our spiritual intuition, insights, and instincts are actually flows of “spiritual energy” that connect us to a higher order of reality. If so, our spiritual connectedness with each other and with nature could be explained by the fact that we share our source of spiritual energy with all other living beings. We all contribute to, take from, and thus are part of the same spirit – the same flow of energy. And perhaps, at the end of life, the spiritual part of our being returns to its source, to the spiritual dimension of reality.

Admittedly, these possible explanations of life and spirituality are nothing more than speculation. However, there is reason for hope that the mysteries of life and death may one day find their rightful place within science. The early philosophers were also scientists and theologians. To them, religion, science, and philosophy were internally consistent aspects of the same whole. When our science, religion, and philosophy are once again internally consistent, people can be more confident they are being guided by truth rather than dogma. In the meantime, we can continue to rely on that small spiritual voice within to guide us through a new revolution in thought and in action – in our pursuit of happiness.