(Note: This essay was originally written in 2003 in response to a column by Michael Shermer in Scientific American. I include it here because it lays out my underlying worldview so you may better understand The Delphian Way as we examine the individual statements.)
One is a most singular number. It is the only number which can be multiplied by itself an infinite number of times and never equals more nor less than itself. It is also capable of being subdivided an infinite number of times. Added to itself an infinite number of times, it yields a number that can always be enlarged by adding another one. Subtracted from itself, it becomes naught, the absence of anything.
We all learn these facts early in life, yet we never seem to give them much thought. They’re just there, taken for granted. Perhaps it’s time we took a look at the implications of the number one, and what its singular qualities tell us about reality and our places in it.
It is human nature to separate and define objects and processes as distinctly different from other objects and processes. Language (including mathematics) is the means by which we exercise ourselves as observers, by defining what we are and are not. Over the millennia, we have been subdividing the one of which we are all parts, with the result that we no longer recognize the fact that we are integral parts of reality. A horse is not a tree is not a lake is not the sky by our way of looking at things. But a horse stands or walks on the grass growing from the ground to the tree beside the lake and lowers its head to take a drink of the water without which it couldn’t live, and breathes the air of the sky, which also protects it from the “vacuum” of space. All these objects and processes are parts of the integrated one that is reality.
From the cosmological point of view, our universe began as a singularity exploding from nothing to become everything there is over the last 13.6 billion years or so. Most of space is seen as empty, and time as very long as it moves from finite past to infinite future. But is any of this true? Space and time, we are told by Einstein and others, are merely the structure of the universe, such that all times are here, all places now. If that is so, then our perception of the universe as largely empty and long is incomplete at best, a function of our limited senses. It is evident from viewing photos taken at all wavelengths that if we could actually perceive all wavelengths simultaneously the universe would be “solid white” with no darkness to be found anywhere. We are still in the instant of the Big Bang–or more to the point, it is still in us. As tiny a subdivision of the singular one as each of us may be, we are still a part of that one. It is not possible for us to be separate from it, therefore our sense that we are separate is an illusion, a figment of our imagination and need to distinguish between things and processes.
If each of us (to say nothing of everything else in the universe) is a part of the singular one, then the universe is still in superposition. Each of us could be said to be one outcome of an infinite number of possible outcomes, shimmering in and out of superposition with all other possible outcomes. This may well be why Time appears to flow for us as if we were each a leaf floating on a stream, able only to see where we’ve been and nothing of where we are going. We can only perceive the possible outcomes (and not even all of those) which have resulted in our current outcome. We are each, in effect, a single point of view within the infinity of the whole.
From the point of view of the whole, which must then be the aggregate of all existing points of view, reality IS. There is no time, no space, no separation, just the singular one, all its infinite possibilities in superposition.
This leads to five axioms which may be useful to describe reality, both from the point of view of the whole and from the point of view of any part of the whole.
1.) Anything is possible and all possibilities exist.
2.) For everything that exists, there is an adversary position from which to observe it.
3.) For everything that exists, there is a reason.
4.) Everything corresponds to everything else.
5.) Nothing is as it seems.
If the whole of reality exists as a superposition of all possibilities, we may therefore logically state that anything is possible and all possibilities exist.
This axiom implies that every one of the infinite number of possible subdivisions of the singular one is its own point of view, potentially capable of observing all other possible subdivisions, and of being observed by them. Therefore we may logically state that for everything that exists, there is an adversary position from which to observe it. We could not be who and what we are, with our unique individual points of view, if this were not a characteristic of reality as a whole. Indeed, we could not be who and what we are if reality as a whole–the singular one–were not who and what it is.
This implies that there is a reason for everything that exists–otherwise it wouldn’t exist. If the singular one were not its own reason for existence, and if every one of the infinite possibilities superimposed within the singular one were not exactly where and what it was supposed to be, there would be no awareness of existence because there would be no existence. One minus itself equals naught, zero, nothing.
Reality as a whole, the singular one composed of an infinite number of possible subdivisions, must be by nature a self-organizing structure in constant internal communication as a consequence of its superposition. This implies the fourth axiom, that everything corresponds with everything else. As a consequence, the speed of light is irrelevant save as an interesting constant. Call it the base resonance for the structure of reality at the level of the fourth dimension, just as the strong force is the base resonance for the structure of reality at the level of the first dimension, the weak force is the base resonance for the structure of reality at the level of the second dimension, and the electromagnetic force is the base resonance for the structure of reality at the level of the third dimension. (Note that the speed of light is not the same thing as the photon as carrier of the electromagnetic force. It is more accurately termed the constant of organization, perhaps, since it is the rate at which what we call time is measured, and at which syntropy and entropy occur.)
If everything corresponds with everything else, several things are implied. First, communication at the speed of light is useful at short range (within the immediate region of the solar system), but it is not the only possible means of communication. Second, it is theoretically possible to be anywhere or anywhen in reality. Practically speaking, of course, we don’t yet know how to do this, much less what anywhere or when actually looks like beyond our own very small worldspace. Third, what we call psi is actually a function of our correspondence with each other as points of view of the singular one. We communicate using it as the base resonance of all our other forms of communication–body language, speech, and so on. If psi didn’t exist, we wouldn’t be able to understand each other, much less work together on anything. Because psi is a function of our correspondence rather than a function of physics as currently defined, proof or disproof of the existence of psi requires a different direction of approach than assuming that the problem is how to explain the process by which “thoughts generated by neurons in the sender’s brain can pass through the skull and into the brain of the receiver.”1 We haven’t even figured out how we get from patterns of neuronal activity to specific thoughts yet. And finally, if everything corresponds with everything else and there are an infinite number of possibilities and therefore points of view, it becomes evident that nothing is as it seems–because everything will look different to every single point of view.
Logically, then, there can be no right or wrong way to look at reality, only degrees of clarity combined with unique coordinates within reality. Most people have extremely low degrees of clarity due to lack of training in logic and intuition. A few people have slightly less extreme degrees of clarity. It is simply not possible for us as a very young species, inexperienced as we are in our role as a corporate point of view of reality, to have anything but a highly inaccurate view of the singular one.
The role of science, as well as that of intuition, is to examine that part of reality within reach of our abilities in hopes of increasing the clarity of our individual and corporate views of the singular one of which we are all parts. The scientific method is, at root, reductionism, an effort to reduce everything to its component parts. It works best when combined with intuition, which is induction of the whole from the combination of its parts.
If everyone involved in all the rancorous debates rippling around the world by way of the media, social media, and simple word of mouth would shut up and take a moment to realize each is a unique point of view of the singular one of which all of us are very tiny subdivisions, the debates would vanish and we might be able to find ways to work together to increase the clarity of our views of reality and our places in it. If we can conceive of such a thing as living in harmony with each other under the Golden Rule, it is certainly possible.
All it takes is a shift in perspective from reality as seen by each of us as an individual lost in the illusion of separation from the singular one to reality as seen by each of us as a unique point of view within the singular one.
I dare you to try it.
1 “Psychic Drift,” Michael Shermer, Scientific American, February 2003.