March 16, 2008
Noel Huntley, Ph.D.

If we stated that progress was not what it appears to be, most people, academics and technologically aware people would disagree, pointing out the extraordinary rate of progress in scientific developments and application. As a preliminary example, the combustion engine of the motor car, still being used after hundred years, is not real progress (computers and a few other technologies would be an exception). This would be consolidation rather than expansion into new systems---see article on the paradox of progress in the new educational series. We readily close off systems of information, not due to the inability to make further discoveries but through numerous causes, such as: a compulsion for the security of having answers; factors such as arrogance and ego; suppression of knowledge and inventions; or government control (by funding) over what direction research takes.

Thus expansion in progress is limited in many ways but the most fundamental and overriding factor, about which our lives revolve, much more than is realised, is the natural limitation which scientific methodology imposes on our search for greater truths. Our lives are very much dependent on the results of scientific methodology.

In general, the population, including scientists, are programmed or educated that the only acceptable way of acquiring truth is through scientific methodology. There are two problems here. One is that it is simply not true (in fact is one of the massive falsehoods being programmed in the population today); there are other ways of determining a high degree of certainty of data---we shall cover this later. The second problem with the above is that only a fraction of a percent of universal phenomena can be proven by scientific experimentation. Thus we need to explain why the scientific method is so limiting; the urgency would then be recognised of developing other means of determining truth. Furthermore we also need to bring to the fore these other capabilities of evaluating truths using the faculties of the mind.

The experimental method is of course excellent and essential for quantitative evaluations of what it can access---such as measuring the acceleration due to gravity. Such phenomena are relative to a known context and there is no problem. However, whenever science is engaged in evaluating the boundaries of known knowledge it is restricted to the context of the nature of the observer. In scientific methodology the observer consists of physical senses and scientific instruments. So why is it that relatively so little universal phenomena can be detected and measured by the experimental method? This is because the physical senses and scientific instruments are in an energy category or spectrum of very low resolution. We shall clarify this shortly.

The first known problems of scientific methodology were exposed many years ago within quantum physics research. Experimental results in quantum physics told us clearly that when we make measurements of a system we, the observer and detection apparatus, are part of the system. There were serious debates about this in those early days but the confusion and concern has been swept under the rug. Quantum physics thus showed that the observer/observed relationship is contextual, that is, the experimental results will depend on the method of 'perception' or detection. Quantum physics tells us that, what the observer is, determines what the observer can know.

Let us now go directly to a simple analogy which is amenable to everyone's understanding. Firstly let us indicate that the basic tool of perception (such as physical senses) and scientific instruments is the wavelength (picture a sine wave). Science recognises that the wavelength acts as a whole unit and is represented as a quantum particle (of that wavelength size). Since physical senses and scientific instruments involve the 'coarse' (longish) wavelength of our third dimension then the quantum particles (for detection) are relatively large. Now we can give the simple analogy but the reader needs to constantly translate it into the actual situation given above.

Imagine a large camera with a correspondingly large film. We are taking a photograph of a large object, say, a house, and small objects, say, flowers in front of the house. We envisage now that the grain size of the film is larger than the flowers but of course much smaller than the house. We can see that the film will not pick up the flowers. Scientists will say that there is only a house and that they have proof, as evidenced by the image on the film.

In reality, however, the 'film' does not pick up all large objects---even some objects bigger than its grain size. We have to adjust the analogy to make it correspond more closely with the observations involved in the experimental method. The reason the film registered the house was because the brick size (compare wavelength) was larger than the grain size (compare wavelength). Now, there are many more houses with smaller and smaller bricks below the size of the film grain. Smaller bricks means higher-frequency energies and shorter wavelength. Remember, the wavelength acts as a whole unit of energy and can be referred to as a quantum particle, of which the film grain is an analogy.

Thus one can see now how the detection system can be very limited. Our scientific instruments have relatively very low resolution and thus can only detect a fraction of a percent of universal phenomena. No matter how large the body is, if its frequencies are high enough, or its wavelengths short enough, the body will not be detected. For example, most mind energies/frequencies will not be detected: the field effect involved in skills (see article on skills); paranormal phenomena; soul-level energies; anything higher in frequency than 3D---that is, the next fractal levels.

There isn't an immediate solution to this because civilisation has veered too long from a balanced path of knowledge and a symbiosis between science and consciousness. Education plus other factors have allowed the right-brain consciousness to become ineffective; in particular, reducing imagination and intuition. A properly developing evolution would have kept a balance between intellect and intuition. This would have enabled intuition to access higher aspects of consciousness, when appropriate, enabling a scientific understanding of expanding knowledge into greater integrations and therefore new frontiers of science.

These higher aspects of consciousness are fractal levels---just as a tree twig has a 'higher aspect,' that is, the branch it is attached to (another fractal level), and that branch is connected to a larger branch, etc. Each higher level of consciousness is a higher-frequency spectrum, which means, in using our simple analogy above, the resolution is greater, or the grain size of the film is smaller. The mind then, in the above analogy, is capable of knowing about the existence of the flowers (in front of the house), not detected my science.

Thus the mind or consciousness has much greater potential resolution than our physical senses and scientific instruments. With a properly developed right-brain consciousness all systems could be evaluated.

This is why the mind alone is capable ultimately of detecting and evaluating all systems (this will seem like nonsense to the average academic). The consciousness of the individual internally senses these out of bounds regions of science by means of intuition, which is accessing higher fractal levels of consciousness of higher frequency, shorter wavelengths, and greater resolution. However, as we have covered in other articles, education and science does not recognise the full value of the right-brain consciousness, such as intuition and imagination. The intellect (left brain) is operating without the assistance of the intuition, of which the latter could raise the level of logic, free the intellect from its tendency to arrogantly close off systems of knowledge and form dogmas.

As a result, the intellect becomes more and more clever in its mode of operation---declining towards greater imbalance, close-mindedness and rigidity. The intellect increases its control over quantitative understandings of science (which is fine) but also increases its quantitative explanations in qualitative fields, such as music, art, religion, and spirituality generally, and thus falsely eliminating the need to understand what qualitative means.

For example, in research into human responses to melodic note sequences, recognition of a tune has been referred to as an illusion. It is not an illusion (even though it is created in the mind---but it is re-created) to the degree that the tune works (is recognised as a completed system of harmonics, such as a good work of art); it is an energy entity or single frequency pattern. This exists in the mind but is above three-dimensional. Works of great art or music and acts of great inspiration, benevolence, altruism, etc. are brought from higher aspects, fractal levels of consciousness. Scientific methodology only detects the physical sense and material-instrumentation level.

What we mean then by the deception of scientific progress is that we are limiting ourselves to a narrow framework of data, that is, a narrow band of universal energies but consolidating and endeavouring to perfect this limited system.

In the article The Paradox of Progress we described the two conditions of development: expansion and consolidation. We showed that we tend to close down the expansion and concentrate on consolidation in many subjects. Now since nature is so complex there is endless consolidation possible, or in technology there are almost endless improvements that can be made, for example, to the combustion engine of a motor vehicle, giving the illusion of great progress.

Thus we see that by becoming more successful in quantitative evaluations, which is good in itself, we may be, and are, in fact, neglecting an understanding of the qualitative. This is because with the greater success in the quantitative, the latter seems less and less to require an understanding of the (more abstract and abstruse) qualitative state. Furthermore, the quantitative (dealing with separate parts) will close off systems of knowledge to a low (fractal) level, stopping the expansion factor and we are back to consolidating only.

If anyone thinks we are making great scientific progress, it may appear that way for the above reasons, but they are mistaken. For example, we are stuck on non-harmonic technologies, creating pollution, toxins, radiation, limited energy sources and inefficient energy generation. We should have long since moved into harmonic technologies, no pollution, no destruction to nature and life, endless energy sources, health giving devices and relatively noiseless machines.