The scientific method - ACIM - Susana Ortiz
I don't know who I am anymore.
But good for a reason it will be that I came here.
I love physics.
I am a naturopath, so my life is very ...
You said that knowledge is born of love.
The desire for knowledge of science, of physics, is that also part of the ego of man? That need to get out of what the Earth is, and study all that the laws of relativity are, of Newron, well all that , study how we evolve at the level ...
Is that part of the ego ...?
... or is it part of that capacity of love that man has, to acquire knowledge, to study, what is that, how do you link it?
You said, knowledge is born of love, isn't it?
Love is born from knowledge.
When I know something, I can love it.
Only something I know I can love, I cannot love what I cannot know
There is no such thing as loving another, that's fear, not love
When we speak for the love of knowledge in the world, we have to focus there too
Because one of the religions of our time is science, isn't it? We have replaced this principle of authority that the Church had before, with the principle of authority of Science, has it not?
The scientific method is the proof of the truth of the world.
But, Newton, that kind of science, leads to the existence of an "I" facing the world.
And it turns out that this "I", which is a scientist, is trying, to know this world from separation, to know it as if it were a machine ...
... that it will have laws that I have to discover, and that when I manage to discover them, I will be able to know this object external to me, even, predict its movements ...
That is the logic that operates in science, and so I use my tools to observe, which are clearly limited, they improve, but they have a cap.
They have a ceiling that quantum physics, for example, has discovered: as wonderful and sophisticated as the microscope that I apply to this world to know the last brick of its material existence ...
.... in the very act of observing that brick, I modify the reality
Corollary: It is impossible to know a world external to me, the observer. The mechanistic theory collapses.
There are certain levels of the world in which certain laws of the world seem to be fulfilled. At a certain level of experience, but when we go to the very, very large, or to the very, very small all that certainty, all those laws that the ...
.... scientific method seems to prove, real at this level of experience become paradoxes. That has to give us something to think about.
What if ...? ... as a forgiver, and you also in your role as a scientific forgiver, who is not asked to believe anything, is being asked: this type of evidence does not lead you to perhaps ask yourself. ... and if there were not a world outside of me that the scientist would know and predict?
What if the observer / observed unit were something much closer to my experience?
What if the other is a belief that I have bought and if this other resonates with the actual experience I have?
That shows me clearly that I cannot separate myself from what I contemplate.
What does thought and science do? Separate things, analyze them, dismember them
What does perception do? For you to consider me a person, what do you have to do? Detach me from the background, stand out, but you can't separate me ... See if you can see me without the background?
Can you? Can you isolate objects?
It is not possible, the own perception shows it to me.
It is not possible for me to see anything separate from its background.
There is no such thing. It is a construct. However we take it for real. We say: "Yes, yes, there are a lot of objects here"
When no one has ever seen a bottomless object, no scientist, however sophisticated their measuring or observing apparatus, has been able to isolate a single object from the world - that is impossible - yet we continue to believe that the world is an existing machine there outside.
And there quantum physics has come to demonstrate that it cannot be, that it is absolutely impossible.
The other day I also heard in a talk or in a documentary, Francis Lucille, I think it was: "Imagine that this scientific self with its absolutely biased method of observation, has access to the world only from a tiny perspective of observation"
So I put this example: "Imagine that this is seeing a world, a cat, through a slot. And the cat, passes here, and he sees a head, and then after a moment he sees a tail, then he comes back to see the head, and then see the tail ...
And the scientist ends by concluding: "The HEAD'S event is the CAUSE of the TAIL'S event"
And whenever a head is produced, a tail is going to be produced, isn't it? Is that what scientists do? They try to foresee the functioning of a world, using a meager, biased means of objective knowledge .... impossible!
Forgive ... (laughs) ... forgive ... we continue, we continue investigating, and we continue to be grateful for the achievements of that investigation that reverses many principles for humanity ...
The benefit of human activity is not questioned at this level of experience. What is questioned is that the achievements are carried out by independent people. That is what is questioned.
What we are being shown with forgiveness is that everything that happens in the novel ... the discovery of penicillin, the vaccine against ... whatever, is happening because the novelist has written it this way
Not because a character in the novel has accomplished anything, but because the screenwriter has written that this character called this is going to discover penicillin on that date
This must be digested, for those who land here today today go home with ...
Free support material at:
www.ucdmonline.com
Edition: Paco Mignorance
Music: Flowpiano
www.flowpiano.com
