Home About Login Current Archives Announcements Editorial Board
Submit Now For Authors Call for Submissions Statistics Contact
Home > Archives > Volume 15, No 1 (2017) > Article

DOI: 10.14704/nq.2017.15.1.958

A Look at the Future and an Open Call for Scientific Community

Sultan Tarlacı


What we call science is the systematization of information obtained from nature. Nature has had its own laws from the beginning. Some of these laws are easy to express, while others stretch our understanding and even our sense of logic. Our efforts to understand nature and its workings, that is our production of scientific knowledge, will never end. We may never truly understand the workings of nature, or get close to the real truth. Therefore, it is ridiculous to behave as if we knew all of the workings of nature and to say “this is not scientific; it is in conflict with the (known) laws of science”. The clearest example of this is when we see the workings of quantum physics in biological structures. When nature is working, it does not know the laws of our science and doesn’t even take notice of them. Nature even sometimes winks at us with “anomalies”. We learn from nature but we cannot impose on nature the laws we have learned from it. Each theory set out in this article has its own acceptable points and deficiencies. Whatever our beliefs, theoretical ideas must be supported, and proof derived from experiment must be taken into account, with proof being strengthened by the same experimental method. If necessary, we must be brave enough to rewrite the physics textbooks. When Copernicus provided the proof that Man was not at the centre of the universe, the feeling that people were not privileged but just normal beings created great disillusion. Therefore, adding consciousness as a part of the solution to the measurement problem in quantum mechanics, as part of the approach which places humans back in a privileged position at the centre of the universe, is in conflict with these principles. Quite the opposite, the observer or experimenter, who is in such a privileged position, has set himself up as separate from the rest of the universe (the experimental apparatus, or what is outside us). The paradox is that if it is proved that we are participants in the universe, we will lose our last bastion of privilege, our position as experimenter, observer, or watcher. Such a proof would be the biggest revolution after Copernicus, and Darwin’s theory of evolution. Entanglement and non-locality in quantum mechanics and the entwinement of light and gravity in physics are proven but difficult-to believe realities. In contrast, scientific physics journals and their archives publish hundreds of experimentally unsupported and completely theoretical articles on subjects which look more like science fiction. Among these are the Mtheory, D-brane, wormholes, string theory, tachyons, superluminal communication, and the theory of everything. These are thought by many physicists to be within the scope of physical science, or at least are not greeted with antagonism. Involving consciousness in the experimental apparatus and researching that relationship is no more unnecessary than physical research in those border areas. Another approach is that there is no necessity for people to be involved in quantum mechanics. Mathematical symbols denote the state vector or wave function, and there is no pace for metaphysics. The mathematical equations of quantum mechanics give us its measurements of potentiality, and potential measurements give potential results. That’s all there is, and the rest is metaphysics. The approach that if one-day humanity disappears, quantum mechanics will continue to operate its own laws is not scientific, but includes emotional attitudes. If equations are not a reflection of the physical world, we need to search for new equations. The operation of nature is not forced to conform to the laws of science, and moreover nature has never heard of science. Scientists have reduced the operation of nature to a simple form in order to understand it, and never produce scientific knowledge which reflects the actual truth. If nature under certain circumstances shows “abnormality” and ignores the laws which we have set up, we must be able to express that in scientific language. We cannot just bin an anomaly which has the potential to cause a revolution in our understanding of nature because it did not fit our scientific laws and equations, or because we could not find a valid law. The existence of the graviton and the neutrino has been unquestionably accepted: there is direct evidence of their existence, but they have never been directly detected. No one doubts the existence of the omega minus particle, which has been detected twice in 200000 experiments. Against this, even if cases of parapsychology are rare, they appear much more frequently than the omega minus particle. In medicine, presentations of one-in-a-million cases are frequently made. However much a case with exceptional characteristics shows extreme deviation from the normal, it will be used to add to scientific knowledge. There are many cases which show that the consciousness or mind which is imprisoned inside the skull can in ce


future; neuroscience; quantum brain; prapsychology; sscience; bias; censorship

Full Text