Before joining the conversation, please read and accept this Invitation to a Conversation.

Thoughts on the Outline of a Unified Science

Firstly, what does “unified science” mean?

Unified: (1) formed or united into a whole ... (2) operating as a unit; e.g. "a unified utility system" [1]

Science: (from the Latin scientia, 'knowledge'), in the broadest sense, refers to any systematic knowledge or practice...

The word science comes through the Old French, and is derived from the Latin word scientia for knowledge, which in turn comes from scio. 'I know'. The Indo-European root means to discern or to separate, akin to Sanskrit chyati, he cuts off, Greek schizein, to split, Latin scindere, to split. From the Middle Ages to the Enlightenment, science or scientia meant any systematic recorded knowledge. Science therefore had the same sort of very broad meaning that philosophy had at that time. In other languages, including French, Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian, the word corresponding to science also carries this meaning. [2]

Thus “unified science” refers to “any systematic knowledge or practice” that is “formed or united into a whole” and “operating as a unit”.

How does this relate to empirical science?

Empiricism: The view that experience, especially of the senses, is the only source of knowledge. [3]

Empirical: (1) Relying on or derived from observation or experiment... (2) Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment. [4]

Whilst part (2) of Empirical is vital to any science the other parts are generally applied in a naïve realist manner and are thus a limiting condition. Empiricism is a form of naïve realism because it makes the assumption, against all evidence, that the objects of sense perception are real external objects. It then succumbs to positivism when it makes the assumption that our sense perceptions are the only means by which we can know anything at all. But these alleged 'facts' cannot be “derived from observation or experiment” and neither are they “provable by means of observation or experiment”, indeed there is strong rationalist evidence against them, thus they form a central dogma that has been largely beyond questioning. Since naïve realism has been strongly shown to be false by quantum physics, empiricism too must be seriously questioned.

Modern science cemented empiricism into its foundations as a reaction to a previous regime that maintained a propaganda front consisting of distorted mystic teachings. That regime imposed arbitrary proclamations under the guise of divine revelation (see Naïve Realism and Empiricism for more). There is still deep trauma throughout Western civilisation hence this issue has not yet been dealt with rationally. Instead there are competing dogmas or propaganda fronts that are driven by unconscious defence mechanisms.

Empirical science is an extremely mature and accurate science in its own domain but due to naïve realism and unconscious defence mechanisms it does not itself recognise what its domain is and seeks to go beyond. Due to empiricism's reliance on the objects of sense perception it is a phenomenological science. A phenomena is an appearance in the mind, hence empirical science studies the form and behaviour of the objects of sense perception as they appear to a human mind. Without a comprehension of the role of consciousness in the production of these sense objects it can only comprehend appearances. From these appearances it attempts to infer what lies behind the appearances and empirical science has assumed that this deeper reality is 'matter' but matter has eluded all attempts to prove its existence (see Scientific Case Against Materialism).

Working from appearances alone nothing can be known in a systematic manner about the deeper reality. We cannot prove that there is a body or world beyond the mind because it is only through the mind that we come to experience these things (Ask Yourself This). Hence outside of phenomenology empiricism is not a science, and when applied to issues in ontology (“what is” as opposed to “what appears to be”) it is a pseudo-science and a pseudo-religion (Scientism) based upon unquestioned dogmas that are unproven and not falsifiable by its own empirical methods. (Scientistic Heresy)

Is it possible to keep the requirement of being “Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment” but to let go of the imposition that all knowledge is “Relying on or derived from observation or experiment”?

Indeed it was never possible to keep to both to begin with. It is only the propaganda that claims that science keeps to both. A brief look through the history of science will clearly show that natural philosophers and modern scientists have always relied on their own consciousness (which empirical science cannot comprehend and has even denied its existence at times), on their intuition, on ideas received in dreams or via visualisation, and many of the greatest scientists of all time have also been accomplished mystics. All these things violate the principle of “Relying on or derived from observation or experiment”. (for example, see The Archives of Scientist's Transcendent Experiences)

However in order to be accepted by the political-movement of science, which was a counter-movement to politicised-religion, either the scientists themselves or later scientists fabricated stories of their discoveries or selectively interpreted them in order to maintain the illusion of strict empirical orthodoxy. A strictly empirical science would never have gone anywhere but around in circles. It was only due to the non-empirical insights and inspiration of great minds that science has made such incredible progress.

Are there working examples of sciences that draw from our full human potential to produce insights and propositions, which are then “Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment”?

There are many but they are not naïve realist. They comprehend the role of consciousness in the production of sense experience and they have been truly sceptical rather than unconsciously political in their approach. A very advanced and systematised science of this kind is yoga, which originated from the 'received' wisdom of the Vedas through ancient seers who connected with the deeper reality and channelled that wisdom into the world (Computational Metaphysics and Vedic Metaphysics). Daoism is also such a science but it not as accessible to modern minds, however through the I Ching we can participate directly in it. For example, see the articles Rationality, Scepticism and the I Ching and I Ching, Consciousness, Universe and the Journey of Life.

Rather than operating within a naïve realist belief system of external objects that can be objectively verified independent of the mind, yoga relies solely on direct personal contact with the deeper reality. Ones own consciousness is the experimental apparatus and must be understood and carefully refined before it is a reliable instrument. The only evidence is subjective and hence we must each test it for ourselves but it has been tested and refined by billions of minds over thousands of years and the evidence is unequivocal. One cannot prove this in another person, based on empirical evidence, because the other 'person' and the entire 'world' is only experienced as it appears in the mind of the observer. It is as the Buddha so clearly stated, that with our thoughts we make the world.

Other examples are cases of scientific realism or rationalism, where it is accepted that things can be known without empirical observation, but they are not trusted until rigorously tested by observation and experiment. Instances of this are quantum physics, string theory and my own approach to computational metaphysics. The foundations of my approach where received as insights, intuitive knowing and subtle awakenings or realisations. However these were not merely believed in, but formulated into a detailed mathematical model, which when tested computationally works optimally and generates virtual realities with deep metaphysical principles. When the principles arising from this were compared with the perennial mystic wisdom there were no contradictions and indeed it shed enormous light on the deeper meaning of that wisdom. When the principles were compared with modern science there were no contradictions so long as one accepted that empirical science is a science of appearances and that 'matter' is a naïve realist idea – hence the principles accord with science but not with scientism. (Virtual Reality Analogy Alongside Science and Mysticism) There has also been significant progress made in connecting the mathematical metaphysics with the foundations of quantum physics and relativistic cosmology, however ultimately, that is too large a task for one solitary individual. (Mathematical Analysis) (also see What Terms Best Describe My Metaphysical Work?)

There are also opposite examples of pseudo-sciences that are “Relying on or derived from observation or experiment” but which are not “Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment”. Given an understanding of naïve realism it is clear that empirical science is one example, but a more notable one is politicised-religion. It drew from scriptures stripped of their mystic context, re-interpreted through naïve realism and then taken as literal truth. This was accompanied by an insistence upon blind acceptance where genuine testing was considered heretical and was all but forbidden. In this sense, that which many in the Western world call science and religion are in fact two pseudo-sciences trapped in naïve realist self-deception and locked in a political struggle for power. (Naïve Realism and Empiricism)

If we are to move beyond that fools debate and arrive at a unified science, one that draws upon our ancient heritage of wisdom, that draws upon our full human potential and that operates in a transparent, accountable and truly scientific manner, then several steps are required. We need to take the lessons learnt from the ancient mystic traditions and apply them in the modern context, we need to distil the lessons learnt from empirical science whilst eliminating its empiricist and positivist confusions, and we need to reconnect religion with its mystic roots of direct personal experience through a clarified mind (Reclaiming Genuine Religion for Humanity). In general we need to re-assess the questions: “what is knowledge?”, “what is known?” and “how can we verify and build upon the known?”. Only when all sources of knowledge are accepted as potentially valid and only judged by appropriate experimentation and verification can we avoid blind spots and entrenched illusions. Only then can we formulate a unified science.

Before joining the conversation, please read and accept this Invitation to a Conversation.