Something Unknown Doing We Don’t Know What

Going back to Eddington’s statement in which he says “our particle can never have simultaneously a perfectly definite position and a perfectly definite energy…. Hence in delicate experiments we must not under any circumstances expect to find particles behaving exactly as a classical particle was supposed to…”, Preston Harold interprets this as it pertains to the ministry of Jesus:

Thus, Jesus, who in a delicate experiment made Himself a symbol of the “classical particle of God,” could not in truth behave as Messiah was supposed to, and He could not produce the “ideal classical particle,” God the Father, any more than the physicist can produce today the ideal iota of matter.


Harold goes on to explain how this ideal classical particle exists within humankind:

Men see in other men only their personalities – a wave group acting like a particle, a ego-group acting like a man; but just as searching the wave-group does not lead to the ideal classical particle, so searching the ego-group does not lead to the God-cell within man. This cell is “our Father” to the ego-group, is “my Father” to the Authority-Ego, h, and all of it that man may see is the form that surrounds it – the form of man, a being conscious of God within himself, as Son, one. In the divided conscious domain where super-, pre-, and subconsciousness operate, the ego-group may be likened to a cloud of electrons…


Eddington, again from his “The Nature of the Physical World,” describes to us the behavior of a cloud of electrons:

An electron decides how large it ought to be by measuring itself against the radius of the world in its space-directions. It cannot decide how long it ought to exist because there is no real radius of the world in its time-direction. Therefore it just goes on existing indefinitely…

We see the atoms with their girdles of circulating electrons darting hither and tither, colliding and rebounding. Free electrons torn from the girdles hurry away a hundred times faster, curving sharply round the atoms with side slips and hairbreadth escapes. The truants are caught and attached to the girdles and the escaping energy shakes the aether into vibration. X-rays impinge on the atoms and toss the electrons into higher orbits. We see these electrons falling back again, sometimes by steps, sometimes with a rush, caught in a cul-de-sac of mestastability, hesitating before “forbidden passages.”


Behind it all the quantum h regulates each change with mathematical precision….The spectacle is so fascinating that we have perhaps forgotten that there was a time when we wanted to be told what an electron is. The question was never answered. No familiar conceptions can be woven around the electron; it belongs to the waiting list. Similarly the description of the processes must be taken with a grain of salt…

Something unknown is doing we don’t know what – that is what our theory amounts to.

There it is! “Something unknown is doing we don’t know what!” Materialistic science hates to admit this. If they were to admit it, it would be tantamount to pulling the curtain back on themselves and exposing the materialistic-reductionist illusion which they use and manipulate to maintain their power, prestige, and to keep the money flowing. Why don’t we all try heed Eddington’s suggestion, which he applies to his own descriptions, and apply them to all scientific enquiry; let’s take it all with a grain of salt. This is not denying science, this IS WHAT SCIENCE IS SUPPOSED TO BE DOING IN THE FIRST PLACE. Certainly every scientific discovery made within the materialistic-reductionistic paradigm needs a few grains added to it’s recipe.

Preston Harold follows on Eddington’s electronic cloud descriptions:

In parallel, man’s ego-group bespeaks an unknown process – something unknown is “doing we don’t know what” – and one might say that, like an electron, a self-concept or an image of another which makes up the ego-group goes on existing indefinitely, but is relegated to the subconscious, or is repressed into the unconscious, not showing itself until some stimulus from the outside world calls it from latency. In man, the “something unknown” that, with mathematical precision, is doing “we don’t know what” can be only the Authority-Ego working to bring forth a genuine, classical elect-one: a personality in accord with one.

We will continue this train of thought in our next post. Until then, peace.

Scientific Fundamentalism

Following up from our previous installment on Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principal, Sir Arthur Eddington reminds us (from his book “The Nature of the Physical World”) that “our particle can never have simultaneously a perfectly definite position and a perfectly definite energy…. Hence in delicate experiments we must not under any circumstances expect to find particles behaving exactly as a classical particle was supposed to…”

“Awwww, but we don’t want to change,” say Eddington’s current day descendants. “We’ve always done it THIS way!” And ever since Eddington, Heisenberg, Einstein, Bohr, Planck, et al. blew the lid off the supposition that the material realm is the only basis for scientific understanding, most scientists have refused to acknowledge this scientific discovery of actual reality.the-sacred-nature-of-the-doctor-patient-relationship-by-dr-mark-gignac-11-638

The standard scientific paradigm remains to this day the model of materialistic reductionism, in spite of the fact that our quantum physicists completely destroyed this misguided belief years ago. Try to challenge the modern day principalities and powers in their departmental chairs and lab coats, along with their research dollars and institutional obstinance, and watch your career flounder as the modern inquisition system does everything it can short of burning you at the stake (because we’re much more enlightened nowadays, right?) to discredit and demean your research, theories, and theses. There’s nothing like an atmosphere of free and open inquiry, right? Hmph.

The fact is that even the ancients knew that reality was not materially based, but was rather based upon Spirit, energy, love. The Vedantic assertion that “All is Maya” is simply a statement of reality, that the very basis for our existence in the material realm is contradiction. Although the life of our senses is good and at times can certainly be a beautiful experience, it is not eternal and exists within the context of perceived dichotomies. When a Hindu asserts that “Everything is Brahman,” they are saying that Brahman is the ground from which everything that is manifests and exists, and without which nothing could manifest or exist. Brahman is the eternal principle; Spirit, energy, love. When we attempt to translate a reality from the realm of Spirit into the material realm, we can only come up with paradox – with contradiction (which shows us that the material proceeds from the spiritual).


Two opposite truths simultaneously co-exist! This cannot be to us; it must be “Either-Or.” “Both-And” is “unacceptable.” And so science based in materialistic reductionism continues on, pretending that Either-Or is the only choice when it knows that Both-And has already won the intellectual battle. This is terrifying to them. Science proverbially sticks its fingers in its ears and says to quantum mechanics, “I can’t hear you! La la la la la!” And of course these modern day cognoscenti are much more enlightened and advanced than those ancient religious nuts, right?


So what does Jesus further have to say or do concerning Eddington’s quote at the beginning of our post? That’ll have to wait until the next entry. Until then, peace.

Parables and Position


“The gist of it can be stated as follows: a particle may have position or it may have velocity but it cannot in any sense have both…the more we bring to light the secret of position the more the secret of velocity is hidden.”

Thus speaks Sir Arthur Eddington concerning Werner Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. Preston Harold tells us how Jesus conveyed this principle in a poetic way to his followers:

If an ancient’s pure thought led him to the realization of the “principle of indeterminacy,” how could he convey it? He must, of course, select a symbol to represent “position” and another to represent “velocity.” Jesus, light, allowed Himself to be called “teacher” or “Lord” – and He spoke thusly of teacher and scholar, of lord and servant:

A scholar is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his lord; enough for the scholar to fare like his teacher, and the servant like his lord. –Matt. 10:24-25

If teacher (or Lord) is seen to represent “position” and scholar (or servant) is seen to represent ‘velocity” this saying shows a new dimension. It would read: “Velocity (the time rate of change of position) is not greater than the speed of light. Therefore, velocity must share the limitations of light.” Thus Jesus, in saying that scholar and teacher “fare alike” indicates that at the limit, or when reduced to a point in space-time frame, “position” and “velocity” become alike.

It is quite a jolt to understand Jesus’ sayings in this way. But it certainly renders intelligible some of the difficulties in trying to interpret what Jesus is “really trying to get across.” Many excellent books have been written on the teachings and parables of Jesus, setting his teachings in the context of the cultural norms of the day and what would be the common Jewish understanding of Jesus’ hearers. But who among us would have thought that buried deep within those teachings all along were hidden the secret workings of the universe and creation/evolution? After all, even Jesus himself says that he has many things to tell, but that listeners of his time could not bear those teachings at that time and place. Here is another example from Preston Harold:

Jesus presents a parable of laborers who come early to the fields and laborers who come late, each receiving the same wage, and thus they fare alike: He concludes with these words, “So shall the last be first and the first last,” indicating the indeterminacy of both velocity and position – which is to say, man may measure only the one or the other aspect of a person or a particle: its “being” or its “becoming,” its position or its velocity.


Who among us hasn’t heard the parable of the laborers in the field and thought of its interpretation in the light of God’s “unfairness” or “grace,” and how God behaves in the exact opposite way that most of us would concerning the wages given at the end of the day? Who hasn’t put themselves in the place of the workers who agreed to the wage at the beginning of the day and worked all day, just to find out that they could have worked a fraction of that time for the same wage? How many times have we thought or heard that God does not act as the world does, and this parable proves the point; when in reality this parable is describing exactly the underlying basis and foundation for how the world does in fact work, no matter what one believes! Like all the other parables, it is a riddle of universal truth, it’s secrets waiting to be revealed to those with, as Jesus says, “ears to hear.” Preston Harold certainly had those ears, and has helped myself and others clear the wax out of ours as well. Until next time, peace.

Caught in a Net


Preston Harold considers a major predicament challenging scientists as they explore the world of matter and light, and the paradox that exists therein…

To grasp the problems confronting physicists as they probe the secrets of elementary energy, it is necessary to realize that the “classical particle” cannot be captured or pinned down for examination. The “treasure” or reality of matter and its place of residence in nature is hard to come by. Throughout His ministry Jesus tries to explain the elusiveness of matter – His words indicate that both the “treasure” and its place of being are never simultaneously possessed: “The Realm of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field; the man who finds it hides it, and in his delight goes and sells all he possesses and buys that field. Again, the Realm of heaven is like a trader in search of fine pearls; when he finds a single pearl of high price, he is off to sell all he possesses to buy it.” Today, the scientist knows much about fields in which a single pearl, the quantum h, is somehow traded, in which the treasure of energy is somehow buried.

In his book Creative Realism, Dr. Rolf Alexander states: “Quantum physics today gives us the picture of from ten to twenty qualitatively different quantum fields interpenetrating each other. Each fills the whole of space and has its own particular properties. There is nothing else but these fields…”


Preston Harold comments:

Jesus pictured (Dr. Alexander’s description), using a commonplace article as a symbol. He said: “Again, the Realm of heaven is like a net, which was thrown into the sea and collected fish of every sort.” A net is a pattern of nothing but “fields,” and fish are a good symbol to suggest the elusiveness of the classical particle which Eddington describes:

“A small enough stormy area corresponds very nearly to a particle moving about under the classical laws of motion; it would seem therefore that a particle definitely localized at a moving point is strictly the limit when the stormy area is reduced to a point. But curiously enough by continually reducing the area of the storm we never quite reach the ideal classical particle; we approach it and then recede from it again.”

To discover why, a fundamental general principle which Eddington ranks in importance with the principle of relativity must be examined. It is the “principle of indeterminacy,” presented by Werner Heisenberg…

We will explore Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle in our next installment. Until then, peace.