From SOM to MoQ -
A Quantum Stage -
|TBD early in 2000. Here is our evolving definition of Doug's coined phrase, 'Quantum Stage.' 3Mar2000.|
Our new arches distinguish themselves from their antecedents through massive cultural change. Massive Value shifts will appear during Millennium III. One Value shift our new arches anticipate is an end to classical ideas about war, hate, and retribution. A good example reappeared just recently in December, 1999. As our new arches are emblematic of Quantonic Thinking Modes, we want to apply their Value shifting capability to this example. See for yourself whether this approach offers a better, viable, candidate solution to an old problem.
It is somewhat difficult to accept, but an old war rages on: It is a war twixt science and religion, especially between science and fundamental creationism. It is almost humorous to watch, like two little children fighting for control and ownership of all toys in a crib or sand box. Despite its evident immaturity, it is an old and serious fight, with enormous consequences.
Most interesting to us is how this 'war' depicts essential symptomatic differences between SOM and MoQ. Let us share a little story about some recent events from Earth's 20th century which belie SOM's classical calumny thwarting emergent quantum philosophy and science.
Recent actions and regulation by local and state school systems roused science's ire. Creationists, in discord with massive and differing evidence, claim scientific evolution is a ruse, and their version of reality was created just 6000 Earth years ago under guidance of a supreme power who used just seven Earth days to do such great works.
Some scientific pundits react to creationism's recent partially successful thrusts with a malignant, infectious fear. They write and talk about science, "...winning battles and losing wars."
We find these pundits' choices of words extraordinarily provocative: winning, losing, battles, war... they choose words of opposition. They use combative words in their depiction of their candidate solution to science's current predicament: scientific evolution apparently losing ground to fundamental creationism.
Is science about opposition? Is science about either winning or losing? Is science about battles and wars?
Rather, is not science about methodical study and understanding of real phenomena (reality)? Is not science an evolutionary process which through its tentative and provisional judgments perpetually arrives at better perspectives of reality? Are pundits suggesting science's role is to destroy part of phenomenal reality? Should science destroy its real threats, or study and understand them?
Science's pundits think science has many threats and problems which affect its future in frightening ways. Their prose and dialectic describe a litany of threats. When one distills their perceived threats, pundits deign creationism most problematic. They think creationism creates or should create increasing fear and reactionism among science's various communities.
In a recent seven-page article published in a prominent US science journal, pundits incite hysteria and prescribe immediate infiltration of our nation's school boards by Ph.D. scientists. They recommend an active war against recent upstart creationist inroads.
Similar to our vision of babes in cribs and sand boxes one has a quasi-cowboy vision of OK Corral shootouts twixt scientists and creationists in school board meetings all across our USA. Thinking on this, one might ask a cascade of questions, "Who is going to win this war?" Next one may think, "Should science be going to war, anyway? Should science be fighting? Does science have some new methodology to solve problems using military strategy, tactics and operations? Are school boardrooms apropos killing fields? Have science's pundits considered an almost unlimited list of potential outcomes other than one they apparently envision: a win for science? And what is science's cost? Do science's public- and self-reputations improve?"
Yes, yes, you are correct! Some of our self-questioning thoughts sound like radical fundamentalism, not ethical science trying to find ways of influencing public opinion. However, if theirs were a traditional ethical scientific approach would we have to ask, "To solve their list of problems, did science's pundits apply scientific methods to acquire their candidate solution?" Think about what they are actually recommending, and you may feel as we did, their own radical fundamentalism crawling on your neck. Are science's pundits evoking emotion to incite a war-like posture against ethical science's perceived threats?
Have you had similar thoughts? Do you know any other folk who consider the idea of putting scientists on school boards suspect? Did you consider possible unanticipated outcomes? Did you assume as pundits apparently did, that their approach had only a single analytic, predictable outcome?
Why go to war when a simple and persistent Public Relations campaign might work? Science simply needs a list of its own accomplishments, a public c.v. so to speak. Science needs to compare its accomplishments to a list of all creation science's accomplishments in science and technology since 1900 (or choose any arbitrary earlier date). Share those results in public. Market science's greater, evident, and inarguable successes!
Any similar PR approach has a better chance than science going to war with creationists who already have a long and corrupt losing record in matters of physical reality. Is not that a better way, than war, i.e., to account actual results and publicize them? Traditional, ethical science wins that comparison hands down.
Creation science's only accomplishment of note during USA's 20th century has been to impede traditional science. In any public forum, if science honestly and fairly demonstrates its indubitable value, then its public audience will choose well twixt lesser creation science and greater traditional science. Further, it is easy to show that creation science's insistence on destruction of science's meme of evolution is unethical.
Too, it is interesting how pundits portray modern science as a sort of victim of organized religion. What's new about that? Organized religion has sought absolute control over science and everything else since its inception. All of us should view creationists' track record for exactly what it is: attempts to control everything. Even a generous assessment, illustrates creationism's dismal record. What makes pundits think they suddenly have some new awesome advantage?
Having said that, and admitting our suggested interim PR approach is a vastly oversimplified solution (but one whose innovative expansion offers a high probability of near term success), it is worthwhile to ask whether science does have some deeper, more fundamental problems. Does it?
Science's pundits portray creationism as traditional science's greatest threat. When one carefully reads their prose one may conclude they also think science alone is of utmost significance on planet Earth now. Are not both points over reactions?
First of all, if creationism is such a big threat to science and science adheres evolution, why is science so worried? Evolution will simply select creationism out of any future. Scientists know that creationism is not objectively viable because, as Richard Dawkins might say, "Creationism has no objective, evolutionarily stable strategy!"
Second, science is part of life, not all there is to life on Earth. Pundits appear to make an urgent appeal that science is all there is. Does Earth's future lie only in science's able hands? Note how creationists make a similar appeal. Does Earth's future lie only in religion's spiritual aether?
We have a fight here. It is an either/or fight for absolute control. Science pundits apparently want totalitarian science-think control, and creationists want totalitarian religion-think control. Can a war for totalitarian control be won by either traditional science or organized religion? It seems useless to fight that war.
In lieu of pundit's suggestions, would it hurt for us to try to be good and honest and even a tad noble? Admit it, just as creationists are not science's enemy, science is not creationism's enemy! We should not be starting wars among ourselves. We should not be fighting those whose views are diverse from ours. Value in both science and religion is: intrinsic Value in their implicit intellectual and spiritual diversity.
But their implicit diversity is not a classical schismatic diversity, it is a more quantumesque 'completement' of Value. That is what we must learn to see, not a traditional division, but a newer quantum complement. Recent centenarian quantum science shows us that reality is not just particle is not just wave. Reality is not just objective reality is not just subjective. Reality is both objective and subjective. Both scientists and creationists must cease their fighting for eminence of domain over either one ISM or its opposite, i.e., objectivism over subjectivism, or vice versa.
A great 20th century philosopher has said (paraphrased), "One may not ride a cycle just objectively (rationally). If one does, one will crash. Neither may one ride a cycle just subjectively (intuitively). If one does, one will crash. One must ride a cycle both subjectively and objectively to experience real, safe fun."
As we said above, "Scientists know that creationism is not objectively viable because, as Richard Dawkins might say, 'Creationism has no objective, evolutionarily stable strategy!'" But if we switch from a traditional either/or mind set to a new more quantumesque both/and mind set we can also ask, "But what about a flip side, let's say a quantum side of that coin?" Can we, might we say something like this, "Creationists know that traditional science is not subjectively viable because, as Loyola, et al., might have said, 'Science has no subjective, r-evolutionarily stable strategy!'"
It is a challenge to our traditional and classical thinking methods, but cannot we adopt a new opinion that traditional philosophy and science's either/or classical dichotomy is the problem? SOM's classical subject-object schism is science's problem! It is religion's problem too!
During Western culture's mid-late 13th century, Thomas Aquinas gave medieval science's Aristotelian objective, either/or, substance-based thinking virus to organized religion. Now both science and organized religion share one fundamental viral mind set.
Traditional science and organized religion appear to be crashing both their cycles. Worse, they are crashing their cycles into each other!
But what has quantum science taught us about reality, that both science and religion appear to not yet intuit? Reality is not just objective! Reality is not just subjective! Reality is both objective and subjective! Both particleness and waveness.
One of quantum science's founders tried to tell us this, but traditional objectivists would not have any of his subjective ideas. Remember Niels Bohr? Remember his new (then) meme of particle-wave complementarity? Traditional scientists, including Einstein declared Bohr's ideas, "subjective." Einstein declared many of quantum science's results, "...absurd," and he called quantum science, "...incomplete." Science was at war then, too: Newtonian science doing its best to defeat a potent contender, quantum science. In retrospect, Bohr was trying to tell us that reality is both objective and subjective. Reality is a complement of both subjective nature and objective nature. Reality is not an aggregate of impossible, contrived Newtonian point-objects.
Bohr was trying to say something like this, "We of objective mind sets should get off our objective bikes. We of subjective mind sets should park our subjective trikes. All of us should learn how to ride reality's newer, more powerful quantum cycles."
Real people intuit real value. Bohr's meme is real value. Real people can sense pseudo models of reality. When you ask them about modern science and religion, many real people say both of those contexts make them feel, "empty." Another way of saying that is, "Either traditional science's objectivism, or organized religion's subjectivism make real people feel, "...incomplete, as though something were missing..." Bohr's intuition was superb! Feelings of emptiness reflect personal incompleteness which arises when we try to be in either one ISM or its dichotomous opposite. Either ISM, by itself is incomplete. To achieve feelings of completeness, all of us must pursue complementarity in our lives. Real people will cease their exoduses from both traditional science and organized religion when both science and religion get 'real' and complement one another.
It is time for science and religion to hold hands, meld minds over a new union of both intuition and rational reason. We must discard both fundamental ISMs' mean-hearted words of opposition, contradiction, conflict, and war.
Sadly, it has taken nearly one hundred years for us to commence acceptance of Bohr's prescient meme. But gladly, it is happening...as exemplified by our new Quantonic Arches for Year 2000...a bright new dawn for Millennium III.
Let us not make war. Instead, let us change our mind sets. Let all of us work together and help our fellow humankind see this wonderful new, whole, and inclusive reality.
Let us, as Gandhi said, "Become the change we seek."
Thanks for reading,
|Paul Douglas Renselle.|
Suite 18 #368 1950 East Greyhound Pass
Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730
(3Mar2000 rev - Add link to Quantum Stage.)
(27Oct2000 rev - Change Classical Thinking Mode to Classical Thinking Method. QTMs are modal, CTMs are less so.)
(19Jan2001 rev - Add link to our section on Ending Mind Sets of (Scientific and Religious) War.)
(18Jun2001 rev - Embolden text "a war twixt science and religion" under Ending Mind Sets of War.)
(14Dec2001 rev - Add top of page frame-breaker.)
(9Aug2005 rev - Release table width constraints. Adjust colors.)
(21Feb2006 rev - Adjust colors.)
(17Mar2006 rev - Add page top link to our Original Arches.)
(1Dec2008 rev - Add 'Science vav Religion and Better vav Worse' link near end of 'war' topic.)
(19Jul2011 rev - Add 'fractal' link to "How to do quantum~fractals.")