Many scientists suffer from the “Doubting Thomas Syndrome” (a.k.a. “seeing is believing” or “measuring is knowing”).
Artist are said to be aware that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”.
Quantum theory combines both visions/views, calling it “the Collapse of the vector of state”.
A separate text describes how this concept is based on our operation of freedom of choice in our body.
Relating seeing to believing
This text focuses on the proverbial phrase of “seeing is believing”.
We need to juxtapose “seeing” with “understanding” or “realising”.
- seeing: a sensory experience tied in with involvement in our environment.
- seeing: a mental experience of coming to understand an inner insight.
This is also called our inner sight, insight, imagination or the world in our head.
The essays entitled “the Bones of Belief” describe the process of realisation.
In short, our bones, reflexes, beliefs and reality all have the same basis.
They are all based on the cellular metabolic dynamic of information exchange.
At the cellular level all molecules function as structural elements and information (code).
Therein every molecule is at the same time an antenna and a wave form.
Seeing/Believing =/= Real
As you may appreciate every sensation of our context is based on sensation of vibration.
Light, heat, sound and motion are all vibrations in different frequency wave bands.
Our body makes use of cells in different manners to detect frequency wave forms.
Within our brain these wave patterns are integrated form our world image.
Reality, that composite image of our realisation, is therefore a mental construct.
It is a process of information aggregation as it could take place within our body.
Elsewhere is described that this involves of transmutation within four dimensions.
Together that operates the logic of totally tuning system inside out (Total System Inversion).
Consensus =/= Reality
That understanding is needed to be able to appraise the “Doubting Thomas syndrome”.
Sciencing is can be considered to be ... a “Doubting Thomas” conditioning/education.
Perhaps it would be better to call this an indoctrination or initiation into a cult.
Because scientists are expected to believe and think in a similar (uniform) manner.
This conditioning/indoctrination groupthink is called “scientific consensus’”.
This has now become part of the standard formal University education.
Therein students are told stories, told to read books, perform the token experiments, and are asked to replicate/regurgitate their lessons.
As a result (also of examination) they are expected think, observed, act and conclude in a same manner.
Uniformity =/= Reality
This conditioning can be considered to be process of standardisation.
it can also be regarded as an attempt to produce uniformity; ‘spare parts production’.
University education has many similarities to mass production/fabrication.
Fabrication in this context has a double meaning; it also implies the creation of fiction.
Science is a social artefact, created via communication of a group of people.
Therein every person creates their own world image (as has been described above).
Therein all people together construe a combined/collective/consensus image of ‘reality’.
However, as quantum theory makes explicit, it is still merely a reflection of our own involvement.
Sensation = Imagination
The picture in our head, individually and collectively, determines our realisation.
in the essay “opinion or real” the mechanism for realisation has been described.
In our brain we compare waveforms from perception to recorded memory wave forms.
The mental process of realisation is an interference pattern/dynamic of hologram wave formation in formation.
Anticipation - Realisation
Bearing this in mind, it will be clear that our expectations guide our realisations.
Combine this with the notion of scientific education, indoctrination, objectivity does not exist.
Even when we use instruments, as instruments for perception (as extension of our sensations) we still are the makers of those instruments, their use, their calibration and thus their outcome; our instruments are extension of our projections.
Observations by instrumentation does not make the perception ‘Real’, it is merely another means by which scientists un-i-form/‘standardise’ their participation/projection in creation.
Suggestion - Sensation
As hypnosis shows: we are able to see or not see something on the basis of the hypnotic suggestions/expectation.
More important than the instruments for detection is that mindset determining our anticipation.
Scientists systematically ignored this subjective aspect of realisation (which is described in many essays in this website).
Instead scientists created the belief that there instruments or show them what was “real’’.
As a result, over the ages, scientists have gone through a series of stages of (collective) realisation.
Every new technology led to a new form of observation leading to a new model of participation determining a new form of reality.
E.g.: Electromagnetism exists is as much in time that people believed in “Zeus”, as when electromagnetic connection devices were created.
Likewise there are all kinds of phenomena which our instruments can not yet defect, although they surely already exists.
Two forms of scientific confusion
Many scientists, combine the “Doubting Thomas Syndrome” with the Pathology of Prokrustes.
On the one hand they choose to only believe something to be real if this can be measured: the “Doubting Thomas Syndrome”.
On the other hand they proclaim that reality does not exist if it is not described by their models: “the Pathology of Prokrustes”.
Paradoxically they thereby believe in an oxymoron: they base their idea on their thinking, yet their mind, ideas or thinking can NOT be qualitatively measured.
There is a remedy for “the pathology of Prokrustes” and for the “Doubting Thomas Syndrome’”.
The solution lies in realising that of reality is the result of our realisation.
We need to understand the principles and dynamics of the process of realisation.
That is what is being described, in various forms, in this website.
Most important is that we need to juxtapose seeing and believing.
We can better call this the complementarity of outer and inner seeing.
This addresses the duality (!) of objectivity AND subjectivity.
Therein we see that “observation” is in fact not a noun but a verb.
Our body as gauge
In our body the two are always connected: the state is a process.
Our body is an interface, and it is based on interfacing.
Our body as a whole is singularity: it is at the same time a part and the whole.
Every element in our body operates in this manner and serves this function.
Due to this complementarity/duality we can of obtaining insight in our insight.
Insight is purely mental elemental electromagnetic information-integration process.
We can never seen this process, because this process is the basis of our seeing.
Yet, we can infer how this process functions, because it is the function of our whole body.
We therefore can infer that our body as a whole is the wave field.
Likewise we can see that every interface in/of the body is of wave field.
Therefore we can infer that our body is a wave field within a wave field.
Every aspect of realisation is therefore in essence likewise a wave field.
This reduces the observation of the Doubting Thomas to a wave field.
Any instrument of observation is likewise simply/merely a wave field.
Every (sensory) cell in our body is likewise by definition only a wave field.
The whole dynamic of realisation and creation is that of a wave field.
The “Doubting Thomas” confuses reality with realisation; “Procrustes” does the same.
The Doubting Thomas believes that the instrument proves the reality of the realisation.
Procrustes believes that the model, made by the instrument, forms the the realisation.
Both make a computational error, by confusing reality with realisation (con-fusing Projection with Perception).
In fact, both suffer from what can be called “backwards thinking”.
They confuse the effect with the cause.
They believe that their realisation is correct, and believe their observation proves it.
But they forget that they are in fact suffering from the effects of self-hypnosis.
Their belief (in belief) is their problem.
They project their belief in their expectations.
Their expectations determine their realisation.
Their so-called reality is merely the result.
The foundation of our realisation is the structure of our beliefs.
Our beliefs are archived in our Reflex driven memory system.
Our beliefs are formed out of our expectations of past sensations.
That does not make beliefs real, but merely patterns of information/realisation.
The essay ”Opinion or Real” deals with our identification with information.
It the decodes the stages from 1) word-sound to 2) meaning to 3) opinion to 4) reality.
These are the same stages as between 1) sensor celor is you are is in al, 2) neuron, 3) plexus and 4) brain.
This involves four types of code, 1) Dirac, 2) Fourier, 3) Moiré and 4) Gabor wave forms.
Involvement = ‘Internal’
We need to discern our identification in our participation in creation: our involvement.
The understanding of our involvement, we cannot discern the reality of our realisation.
In order to be able to do so we must be consciously aware of the modes of realisation.
For that scientists will be required to experience and understand the art of meditation.
It is necessary to discern and compare our outlook and our insight.
We must be able to relate/correlate, the world around us and the world in our head.
Evidently the world around us is merely an artefact, an elemental mental creation.
In India it is called Maya (imagined), a projections derived from Samsara (sensation).
Realisation is an imagination
The world around us is technically speaking merely, only, a mental imagination.
In comparing the world around us with our imagination, we does compare to models of imagination.
What we call reality or realisation is in fact to aspects of the dynamic of imagination.
we could simplify is understanding by calling it the “potential” or “kinetic” components.
That is in fact images normal but it helps bridge the gap to our understanding of energy.
Physics has reduced is concept of reality to the model of energy.
There in the terms potential energy and kinetic energy form the basic model.
We need to understand this not in terms of energy but in terms of information.
The mental process dynamic/construct
In our body we see that reality is a realisation.
Reality is the construct, compare it to a reflex as described in the Bones of Belief.
Realisation is the process, compare it to the wave dynamic described in MatheMusics.
As in electromagnetism the and dynamic components are interwoven.
This, is the basis of the understanding of this whole web site.
It is the direct ‘equivalent/identicality’ between a Boundary and Field.
It is the direct invert-ability of the Open and Closed system in the wave node.
That, is described in the essays on Fun’daMentals and MetaThematics.
Choice in involvement
Whether you believe what you see, or see what you believe, is simply a choice.
Seeing and Believing are simply do all aspects of the same core dynamics.
This is contained in the relationship between our realisation and reality.
Both are simply, merely, aspects of our imagination.
What we need to understand is not the repeatability of measurement by instrument.
What we need to understand is how our static and dynamic imagination are related.
- The dynamic of turning the dynamic into the static has already been described.
That is the core of the formulation of the essays entitled “the Bones of Belief’”.
- Likewise the dynamic of the process of imagination has also been described.
It is the essence of the formulations of the essays cycles “MatheMusics”.
Seeing is believing is not about accurate instrumentation for sensory perception.
it is about seeing how believing takes place: what is instrumental for their distinction.
Freedom of Choice is the essence of life
This whole web site explains how freedom of choice is the essence of life.
Bringing science to life is the part of the web site describing the need to understand our involvement.
Realising reality is this series of texts dealing with our choices in observation.
This present text make clear that we need to actually understand that process of observation.
When the project our expectations on our environment recreate the pathology of Procrustes.
That is what happens in the planetary destruction which has been created by scientists/science.
The pathology is largely caused by the Alienation from involvement in creation.
For this, “the Doubting Thomas syndrome” is symptomatic; in fact literally, instrumental.
Instruments are not instrumental for realising reality
It is a mistake to believe that reality is monitored/measure/created/real if perceived via an instrument.
The instrument is as much the mental construct, and the mental projection, as any expectation.
An expectation is by definition a command of a (post) hypnotic (self) suggestion.
It is necessary to understand the role of (self) hypnosis in the manufacture of science.
Belief and Hypnosis
As hypnosis shows you will see, or not see, whatever you choose to believe.
As hypnosis shows, this phenomenon operates at different levels of consciousness.
Scientists believe that they can ignore the cause and effect of their believes in science.
That is not the case: we must account for our participation/anticipation in creation always.
At the deepest, most essential level, it involves response-ability for our own thought/beliefs.
As in the interplay between the open/closed systen in a wave node.
As in the interchange between boundary/field in the interface; in our body.
As seen in the interaction between reality/realisation in the core of our brain.
Objective reality is a subjective realisation
The essence of our realisation, and creation of reality, lies in the core of our body.
As described elsewhere, it is the inversion of a wave field upon itself.
In our body this is exemplified in the role/place/position/function of the pineal gland.
It is the process of a hologram field inverting upon itself; a rotation in 4 dimensions.
“Seeing is believing”.
Inner sight, interact with belief (insight).
Insight in our insight changes our belief in our belief.
Once that insight is achieved any/every belief may be changed.