Joyfully Shatteredricksheffmd.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/... · Ostrander and Schroder’s book, Psychic Discoveries Behind the Iron Curtain.2 By the time he arrived at Oxford,

Joyfully Shattered

A Physician’s Awakening at the Crossroads of Science and Spirituality

Rick Sheff, MD

www.ricksheffmd.com

Expanded Chapter Version

When Science Meets God A Glimpse into the Coming New Paradigm

When Science Meets God 2

Innergy Publishing

952 Manhattan Beach Boulevard, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266

© 2015 Rick Sheff

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher or author, with the exception of short excerpts used with acknowledgement of the publisher and author.


Expanded Chapter Version for Download

When Science Meets God

A Glimpse into the Coming New Paradigm

I opened this book with the words “I am a scientist and a skeptic.” I remain both. But my journey over the last four decades has left me with data points that cannot be explained in the conventional scientific paradigm. I know we communicate at a distance during sleep. I know energy is palpable. I know through intention to manipulate another’s energy one can experience subjective sensations (remember “Dad, Dad, something inside my ankle is moving!” from Joyfully Shattered Chapter III). I know via increasingly strong evidence we reincarnate through multiple lives. I know John of God performs physical surgeries that defy our understanding of medicine and physics. I know far more individuals have experienced healings at the Casa without any physical surgery, healings that cause us to label them miracles because we lack any other explanation.

I am not the first person to identify undeniable data points that do not fit the conventional, dominant scientific paradigm. For countless individuals, including academically trained professionals, experiencing these data points changes everything. That’s what happens when your web of belief is shattered by a data point that you know is impossible if the world works according to our current paradigm. Intellectual integrity calls for seeing the data point as evidence and revising your web of belief—yes even the web of belief in which our current scientific paradigm is embedded.

The data points are mounting. The time for revolutionary science is upon us. Countless scientists in diverse fields are taking these data points seriously and creating surprising, imaginative candidates for the new paradigm. As these activities expand and accelerate in the years to come, we will experience a period of competing theories to explain the new data points as well as the old. During this time, we must take to heart a warning from those who study the philosophy of science. All theories, they tell us, are


underdetermined by facts. This means many different theories will be compatible with the available facts, but not all will be good theories.

The ferment at the boundaries of innovative, revolutionary science is palpable. In the space of this expanded chapter on science and spirituality I cannot hope to do justice to the outstanding work of courageous scientists who daily place their careers on the line by daring to challenge the current orthodoxy in their field with a wide range of mindbendingly new theories. Instead, I will highlight one of the most compelling candidates for the coming new paradigm. In doing so, my goal is to whet your appetite for the exciting, creative, and challenging journey science will take us all on over the coming years as science and what we call spirituality become integrated into a grand, new synthesis.

* * *

“How are you doing, Rick?” The question was authentic, and the loving

eyes of my friend communicated that she wanted an honest answer. “I’m doing amazingly well,” I responded truthfully. “This spiritual

journey I have found myself on keeps evolving, becoming deeper, richer, and ever more rewarding. I am truly happy in a way I never thought possible.”

“That’s wonderful,” she replied. “I’m really glad for you,” her husband added with genuine caring.

Together this couple had known me through all the ups and downs of most of my life. I realized he was the physician who years earlier had responded to my experience of Marsha’s waking up knowing her friend was in labor by calling it a coincidence and refusing to see it as “data.” I wanted to share with him the exciting point I’d now reached.

“You know I’ve been working on a book about my spiritual journey.” They both nodded. “I’m on the threshold of writing the last chapter before the epilogue. It’s titled, ‘When Science Meets God: A Glimpse into the Coming New Paradigm,’” I said with no small amount of excitement.

“Look, Rick,” my physician friend responded, “I don’t doubt that you have had the subjective experiences you’ve shared with us over the years. But these are just that, subjective. That’s not science. Science requires data, public data that others can test, reproduce, and refute. Whatever it is you’re doing, please don’t confuse it with science.”


I felt torn. I knew my subjective experiences created data points that could not be explained in any way by today’s dominant scientific paradigm. A good scientist follows the data wherever it leads, rather than truncating that pursuit based upon preconceived notions or theories. I’d had the courage to pursue these data points that had led me to join the growing group of seekers for the new scientific paradigm. But he was right. My data points did not stand the test of science done well. They were knowable only by myself or a small number of others. They were not reproducible. They generated no testable hypotheses. And they were not expressible in the language of mathematics.

At the time I did not know this was all about to change.

* * * Exactly one week later, I found myself standing in a growing crowd at

the Kurukulla Center for Tibetan Buddhist Studies in Medford, Massachusetts, awaiting a talk from His Holiness, the 14th Dali Lama. I waited with eager anticipation as I had never heard the Dali Lama speak live before. Having arrived more than two hours before the talk was to begin, I had wandered toward the center where a display of some sort had been set up in front of the platform from which the Dali Lama would speak. As I approached, I noticed several women with masks and gloves carefully handling cases with tiny fragments in each. I did not recognize what I was looking at, but began to feel slightly dizzy and a little unsteady as an unusual energy seemed to swirl around me.

Suddenly a voice from nearby called out, “Were you in the movie about John of God?”

I turned to see a smiling woman approaching me. “Yes. I was interviewed for the movie, Healing,” I responded.

“Your words really touched me because I’m a physician, too. That movie made me decide to go to the Casa. It changed my life.”

“I’m so glad for you,” I responded, grateful that another life had been touched by the work of John of God.

“My name is Nisha Manek. I’m here because Professor Bill Tiller,” she 1

said pointing to a white haired gentleman seated near her, “and I have been studying the energy of the relics.” I turned and finally recognized that the

1 I’ve used Dr. Manek and Professor Tiller’s actual names with their permission and in appreciation of the courage and work they have provided in the increasingly shared effort to develop the coming new paradigm.


display cases held tiny bone fragments, or relics, of famous Tibetan Buddhist monks. Only later did I learn the collection included a relic of the Buddha, himself. I had never put much stock in the concept of relics, but I had to admit the energy field I’d walked into moments before had definitely affected me. “Professor Tiller is a highly respected Stanford materials scientist, and he has experimental data showing that human intention can make changes in measurable qualities of physical substances.”

For the second time in only a few minutes, my head began to swim. Only seven days earlier I’d come face to face with my friend’s challenge that without public, reproducible data, no new paradigm could or should be accepted as science. Turning to Professor Tiller I barely got out, “Have you really demonstrated, objective, reproducible data that human intention can impact hard scientific data?”

“Absolutely.” “I’m a physician, working on a book about my spiritual journey as a

scientist and a skeptic. I am on the verge of starting the chapter entitled When Science Meets God: A Glimpse into the Coming New Paradigm. May I contact you to understand your work?”

“Certainly. I’d be happy to help you with your chapter.” I walked away from the encounter stunned. I had felt stalled as I’d

approached this chapter on science. The content had been gestating for years, but had lacked a key ingredient I had not recognized until my friend’s challenge had named it. Now, just one week later, seemingly as an answer to an unexpressed prayer, the final piece fell into place. Was this coincidence? Or did innumerable events, small and large, have to be orchestrated over years to bring me and Professor Tiller together at this particular moment? Which it is, I did not know. But I did know I felt immense gratitude. Once I began reading Professor Tiller’s work, that gratitude overflowed into tears of joy.

* * *

William Tiller, Ph.D. had a promising career ahead of him. Having

published more than 60 articles in peer reviewed journals, he accepted appointment as a fully tenured professor in materials science at Stanford University in 1964. In just two years he earned promotion to chairman of the materials science department. Several years later, he was awarded his first sabbatical from Stanford and a Guggenheim Fellowship for a year’s study at Oxford. From the outside, all seemed on track for a stellar academic career.


But hidden from this public persona, something else had been gestating in Tiller’s inner world. For more than 15 years, Tiller and his wife, Jean, had been exploring paranormal phenomenon. Upon arriving at Stanford, they had become daily meditators. For the plane ride to Oxford, he had purchased Ostrander and Schroder’s book, Psychic Discoveries Behind the Iron Curtain. By the time he arrived at Oxford, the plans he had made for

2

conventional scientific activities during his year there had morphed into something very different.

Though he would express it in different words, Tiller, too, had been struck by numerous data points that did not fit the then dominant scientific paradigm. His keen scientific mind formulated a question that would occupy not just his year in England, but much of the decades since. “How might our universe be constructed so that a natural expansion of our conventional scientific constructs would allow this strange class of psychoenergetic phenomena to become both sane and rational within a larger conceptual framework?” This naturally led to a second question. “What assumed rigid constraints of our conventional worldview could really be relaxed to allow these two sets of experimental data to comfortably coexist?”

3

By the time he returned from Oxford, Tiller realized, “…it was extremely important for both future humanity and future science that some competent investigator make a longterm commitment to both experimentally and theoretically investigate psychoenergetic phenomena from a wellgrounded science perspective…” He recognized that he stood perhaps uniquely

4

positioned to take up this challenge. With great courage and the intellectual integrity of a scientist willing to follow the data wherever it led, he committed to pursuing a dual career path. He would professionally continue his conventional scientific studies, while simultaneously pursuing his avocation of serious research in psychoenergetic studies. He paid a high professional price for this decision. To free up precious time, he resigned from his administrative roles, including department chairman and active participant on high level US government and technical committees. As he pursued his avocation publicly, including serving as a founding director for the Academy of Parapsychology and Medicine, the Institute of Noetic Sciences, and the California Institute for Human Science, his conventional

2 Sheila Ostrander and Lynn Schroeder, Psychic Discoveries Behind the Iron Curtain (New York: Prentice Hall, 1970) 3 William Tiller, Psychoenergetic Science: A Second CopernicanScale Revolution (Walnut Creek, CA: Pavior Publishing, 2007, 17). 4 Tiller, Psychoenergetic Science, 19.


scientific colleagues increasingly distanced themselves from him. Despite continuing to produce high quality conventional material sciences scholarly work and teaching, his salary increases did not continue and his laboratory space gradually dwindled. He learned in a very personal way the consequences of his scientific colleagues being so rigidly entrenched in their paradigm, their current web of belief, that they refused to see what he was producing as data, regardless of the scientific skill and integrity with which he pursued these efforts.

In spite of these challenges, Tiller made theoretical progress in tackling the two questions he had formulated while at Oxford. He eventually identified one of those rigid constraints of our conventional worldview that had been assumed but not scientifically proven. Since the days of Descartes, Bacon, and Newton, research in the physical sciences has rested upon an unstated assumption that, “No human qualities of consciousness, intention, emotion, mind, or spirit can significantly influence a welldesigned target experiment in physical reality.” On what basis do we know this to be true?

5

It is a core assumption of a widely shared web of belief, but not a proven “fact.” Might our world be constructed otherwise? Yes, it might. Nothing other than shared beliefs keeps us from considering this possibility. But could this core assumption be tested scientifically? Could it be used to make predictions that could then be experimentally verified or falsified? Note to the reader: At this point I need to offer a friendly warning. The

next several sections, though written for a general audience, contain somewhat challenging scientific and mathematical content. Those not desiring to engage this material may choose to skim the next few pages, reading only the italicized text, and pick up reading on page 17. For those like myself who find this information thrilling and engaging, read on.

Before answering the question of whether the core assumption of modern science regarding the impact of human qualities could be tested, Tiller needed to construct that larger conceptual framework within which to make and test such predictions. Such a framework would have to account for both conventional scientific findings and findings in what he labeled psychoenergetic research, research into paranormal phenomena such as extrasensory perception, remote viewing, and other nonconventional phenomena. To begin constructing this framework, he took a page from Einstein’s breakthrough work in relativity. Einstein had noted that the Newtonian model made highly accurate predictions of physical events in our everyday world. But when objects move relative to each other at speeds

5 Tiller, Psychoenergetic Science, 2.


approaching the speed of light, the Newtonian model’s predictions, Einstein theorized, become inaccurate for common parameters such as mass and time. A different explanatory model was needed, which became Einstein’s theory of special relativity and eventually his theory of general relativity, both of which were later confirmed by experimental scientific data. Seen through the lens of Einstein’s theory of relativity, phenomena of our everyday world form a special case whose specialness is based upon the speeds of objects relative to each other being slow compared to the speed of light.

Could a similar formulation be used to account for both conventional scientific data and the anomalous data points increasingly being found through both personal experiences and psychoenergetic research? How might conventional scientific data and experiences in our everyday world serve as a special case for a more expanded model? After evolving over the years through a number of potential formulations for this new model, Tiller settled on one that could be expressed in the language of science, namely mathematics. His current working model can be summarized in the formula:

QM = QP1 + eff QP2

Understanding how Tiller uses each of the terms in this formula will help

make sense of this candidate for the new scientific paradigm. Tiller is first and foremost an experimental materials scientist. For Tiller, data trumps theory. If a theory doesn’t fit the data, the theory must be modified or discarded. So QM stands for measured (quantifiable) data. This measurement may be obtained by observation, instrumentation, or any of the other tools of scientific measurement. QM constitutes the data that must be accounted for by any theory under consideration. QP1 stands for data measured under conventional circumstances. This includes what today’s scientists would consider our electric/atomic/molecular level of physical reality, hence the label P1 for level 1 of physical reality. Think of this as measurements based upon the unstated assumption of modern physical sciences Tiller had identified, namely that human qualities of consciousness, intention, emotion, mind, or spirit have no impact on the measurement of these results. All the experimental results of conventional science would fit within QP1. Tiller’s new paradigm postulates that QP1 is a special case, much as measurements at slow speeds relative to the speed of light is a special case for relativity theory. He hypothesizes that some other collection of phenomena not accounted for within QP1 can impact QM, our actually measured data. We


will address what Tiller proposes as constituting this other collection of phenomena shortly, but for our purposes here it suffices to simply note that Tiller postulates that such phenomena exist and labels them QP2, referring to a second level of physical reality beyond our current, conventional understanding of reality. To explain the data measured as QM, Tiller further hypothesizes that the phenomena involved in QP2 can impact actually measured data, namely QM, to a varying degree. The challenge is that sometimes this impact is large relative to QP1 and sometimes it is small. When the impact is small, then the special case of QP1 is what will be measured as QM. When the impact is large, QM will be significantly different than QP1. To mathematically account for this variable penetration of QP2, Tiller inserts a correlation coefficient, eff, into the formula. When this correlation coefficient is very low, QM will be very close to QP1. In this state, the measured data will appear as today’s conventional science would predict. When the correlation coefficient is not insignificant, QM will be measured to be somewhat different than what conventional science would predict.

Formulated this way, Tiller’s new paradigm makes predictions possible and testable. Tiller’s model predicts that under the appropriate circumstances, the correlation coefficient will be high enough to produce QM, that is scientifically made measurements, which reflect the impact of this other level of phenomena in a manner that differs from predictions based solely upon our conventional scientific paradigm. Designing and conducting experiments to test this prediction became a quest for Tiller, a quest that began to be fulfilled through a series of carefully designed and executed empiric experiments conducted over the past 15 years with startling results.

For those interested in the details of the experiments, I refer you to Tiller’s published books and white papers. I will only be able to present the

6

highlights of these ground breaking experiments here. The formula above leads to the following testable prediction. Under

conditions in which the correlation coefficient is not negligible, human

6 For a description of Tiller’s work accessible to the average layperson, see Tiller, Psychoenergetic Science and some of Tiller’s white papers which are available for download at www.tiller.org. For a deep dive into the experimental studies, theory, and surprisingly sophisticated mathematics that constitute Tiller’s fully fleshed out candidate for the new paradigm, see William Tiller, Walter Dibble, Jr., and Michael Kohane, Conscious Acts of Creation: The Emergence of a New Physics (Walnut Creek, CA: Pavior Publishing, 2001).

http://www.tiller.org/


intention can produce measurable changes in measurements in the physical world that differ from those predicted by the current laws of science. Tiller chose as one of those measurements in the physical world the pH of a liquid in a container, a readily measureable, standardized, objective metric. pH is a logarithmic measure of hydrogen ion concentration in the solution. For every decrease of 1 point in the pH, the concentration of hydrogen ions increases tenfold. For every increase of 1 point in the pH, the concentration of hydrogen ions decreases tenfold. In other words, a change of 1 in pH is a highly significant change in the physical state of a solution.

Tiller made the audacious prediction that human intention could bring about a measurable change in pH of a solution. As an experimental scientist, he was not satisfied to just have one person or a group of people sitting around the fluid container holding the intention for the pH to go up or down. Instead, he sought an objective, reproducible way to “apply” such an intention to the solution. After a number of attempts, he settled on a simple electronic circuit contained in a box and powered by plugging it into a standard wall socket. In its base state, he labeled this an unimprinted intention host device (IHD). To test his hypothesis, he had four experienced meditators sit in the presence of a unimprinted IHD that had been plugged in and switched on. After a period of time in shared meditation, one of the meditators would read an intention statement that this device produce an increase in pH of 1 in the test solution. The meditators all held this intention in their minds for approximately 15 minutes. Another statement was read that “sealed” the device from leakage of this intention and from other intentions. A short time later, the meditation concluded. The device had now been converted from a unimprinted IHD to an imprinted IHD.

7

Conventional scientists would find such an experimental protocol somewhere between highly suspect and laughable. But that did not deter Tiller. Over a series of trials, he found that simply placing the imprinted IHD in the vicinity of a standardized solution of a known and measured pH resulted in the pH of the solution increasing by, or close to, a magnitude of 1. As a reminder, this measured change reflects a tenfold decrease in the amount of hydrogen ions in the solution, a highly significant change.

7 Tiller’s original terminology was to name this either an “unimprinted electrical device” (abbreviated UED) or an “intention imprinted electrical device” (abbreviated IIED). More recently, he has adopted the terminology “intention host device” (abbreviated IHD) and uses this to refer to either an unimprinted IHD or an imprinted IHD. This more recent terminology will be used throughout the discussion of Tiller’s work.


According to conventional physics, this solution had been at an equilibrium state, and the change in pH could only occur through the addition of energy to create a different equilibrium state, namely the higher pH. The only source of energy applied to the experimental solution was that emanating from the imprinted IHD.

A finding that could not be predicted, but which the data showed, is that this change did not occur immediately but required a period of time to manifest, on the order of three to four months. After that time, the effect from the imprinted IHD decayed. Tiller was able to demonstrate with controls that the same change did not occur in the presence of a unimprinted IHD. He and his team ran this trial multiple times, multiple ways, including intentions to both increase and decrease the pH, and found the results reproducible. He took the added step of “imprinting” the device in Arizona and shipping the imprinted IHD to Minnesota where the measurements were made that obtained these startling results.

Let us not underestimate the extraordinary import of these experimental results. Tiller made the bold prediction that human intention could modify a standard scientifically measured condition, pH. He further predicted that this intention could be imprinted into a simple electric circuit using skilled meditators, and that the presence of this imprinted electric device in the vicinity of the target solution would produce the intended change in pH. He obtained experimental results consistent with this prediction and completely inconsistent with the predictions of conventional science. If these results can be reproduced by others, this finding will be every bit as powerful in supporting Tiller’s candidate for the new paradigm as predicting and confirming the existence of antimatter was for quantum mechanics.

Tiller wondered if this same experimental protocol could be applied to biological measurements. He found the IHD protocol could produce highly statistically significant, measurable changes in the in vitro (in the test tube) activity of a common biological enzyme, alkaline phosphatase. He and his coworkers took this one step further to ask if the protocol could impact experimental results in a living organism. They chose to do the experiment on fruit flies because of their short life cycle and the abundance of prior research on the metabolism of this organism. The meditators imprinted the IHD with the intention that the activity of an enzyme critical for energy metabolism in fruit flies, nicotine adensosine diphosphate (NAD), and the ratio of ATP to ADP (a key factor in making energy biologically available to organisms) both be maximized in the larvae of developing fruit flies. The larvae exposed to the IHD with this intention matured faster and


demonstrated higher ATP to ADP ratios than the group exposed to the unimprinted IHD, again with a high degree of statistical significance.

Each of these results was predicted by Tiller’s model and each stands directly opposed to predictions from the conventional scientific model.

Ever the conscientious scientist, Tiller next sought to reproduce the results he’d obtained in the Minnesota lab in other labs. He chose the protocol to increase pH by one unit as the simplest to standardize and reproduce. He had the IHDs all imprinted at a common location and shipped to test sites in Arizona, Kansas and Missouri. The equipment and reagents were similarly produced in a central location and shipped to these labs. Following a consistent experimental protocol in all three labs, the imprinted IHDs produced the expected result of an increase of one pH unit over a period of several months.

One result of the effort to reproduce these studies surprised the researchers. A control unimprinted IHD and pH solution measurement apparatus had been set up in each of the test sites at a location between two and 20 miles from the site where the imprinted IHD and target solution was located. But the control solutions all produced results almost identical to those located close to the imprinted IHDs and in the same time period. Tiller and his team wondered if this surprising result might have occurred because of a nonlocal, information entanglement effect of the imprinted IHDs, meaning the physical distance between the imprinted IHD and the impacted solution did not affect the measured pH results. To test this hypothesis, they ran the same experiment in two additional laboratory locations, Baltimore and Bethesda, both in Maryland. They did not send the imprinted IHD to those locations at all, but kept them running in the other three labs. The Baltimore and Bethesda labs obtained the same results over several months, though at a magnitude of 0.6 to 0.8 pH units rather than the full one unit. This result seemed to demonstrate that the impact of the imprinted IHDs could influence measurements 1500 to 2000 miles away. Tiller’s team was then contacted by researchers outside of London, England and in Milan, Italy interested in replicating their research. In each case, the teams in England and Italy purchased and assembled their own equipment and solutions, further testing the reproducibility of the results. They ran the experiments per the same protocol but without a local imprinted IHD. At the site in England, their data showed migration of the baseline pH a full one unit upward. At the Italian site, pH rose by one unit within three weeks and kept rising to a peak of 1.7 units above baseline. Again, these results at both the English and Italian sites occurred while imprinted IHDs were running in


labs 5,000 to 6,000 miles away, but without any local imprinted IHDs present. This data does not require a modification in Tiller’s model, but does require that the P2 phenomena impacting the pH measurements be understood to function with nonlocal information entanglement from the original test labs, similar to quantum nonlocal information entanglement. The conventional scientific paradigm has no explanation for any of these findings other than to seek errors and inconsistencies in how the experimental protocol was conducted at each site.

If these experimental results can be further reproduced by others, good science will have shown that human intention and consciousness can impact measureable, reproducible, scientific results.

Those who seek to reproduce or refute Tiller’s results must be careful to understand, and take account of, the unexpected technical difficulties that arose during this series of experiments and for which appropriate responses must be made. In addition to the surprising nonlocal information entanglement, by accident Tiller found that when a unimprinted IHD and an imprinted IHD were allowed to rest in proximity with each other, even though both were unplugged and turned off, over time the unimprinted IHD eventually performed just as the imprinted IHD did. In other words, the intention “imprinted” in one device somehow leaked to the other device in the absence of electrical power in both devices. This resulted in the experimental protocol being changed to require encasing both the unimprinted IHDs and imprinted IHDs in aluminum foil and keeping them in Faraday cages, an enclosure of conducting material that electrically isolates one device from leakage to and from others.

One of the most striking findings of Tiller’s research that has significant importance, including for those seeking to reproduce his work, is that intention, whether from an imprinted IHD or from people, has the potential to “condition” the space in which the experiment is conducted in a manner that may impact the results. On a macro level, this was demonstrated when conducting experiments in the same physical space in which previous intentionbased experiments had been conducted produced changes sooner and of larger magnitude than doing so in a space in which they had not. While this in itself is already a startling result, Tiller’s research identified an even more surprising finding. During the time in which an imprinted IHD experiment was being conducted, the temperature gauges in the surrounding air began to fluctuate with a regular periodicity not seen before the experiment began. Ever the experimental scientist, Tiller led his team


through a series of careful studies of this phenomenon. Eventually they 8

documented the existence of regular, periodic fluctuations in air temperature, water temperature, pH, and conductivity that were not present under initial conditions. These fluctuations develop through a transition period in the presence on an imprinted IHD, and eventually assume consistency and lawlike regularity. To explain this remarkable data, Tiller proposes that over time the space becomes “conditioned” by the imprinted IHD. In the language of his new paradigm, during the transition period the correlation coefficient between the P1 level of reality and the P2 level of reality grows to the point that the space eventually literally functions with a new physics. This physics follows discernible, lawlike behavior, just as conventional physics does, but the laws are different.

The implications of these findings for those seeking to repeat Tiller’s studies responsibly to either confirm or refute his findings are highly significant. They must either control, measure, or otherwise account for variables not recognized as relevant in today’s scientific paradigm. These include the conditioning of the space, the intention of the researchers, and the level of spiritual development of those generating the intention to be imprinted into the device.

During the coming period of revolutionary science, the goal should be to test Tiller’s model (and other proposed models) with good science, not scientism. In this spirit I smile inwardly imagining a conversation between Tiller and a conventionally trained scientist regarding experimental design. It might run something like this:

Tiller: How does your experimental design control or otherwise account

for the spiritual development of the researchers themselves? Conventional Scientist: Why would that be relevant? Tiller: Because researchers who have years of experience with a regular

spiritual practice such as meditation and/or prayer may have a greater capacity to affect the space conditioning and resulting measured data than those who have not.

Conventional Scientist: Of course they can’t! Tiller: How do you know that is the case if you haven’t tested your

hypothesis that they can’t? Conventional Scientist: …um…

* * *

8 Tiller, Dibble, and Kohane, Conscious Acts of Creation.


Moving from data to theory, it’s time to explore Tiller’s hypotheses

regarding how the level of physical reality he refers to by the term P2 functions and interfaces with our P1 level of reality. He recommends we begin by thinking of our everyday level of experience, including that subject to conventional scientific testing, as a reference frame. A reference frame can be understood as a framework through which we view, or make sense of, that which exists. This everyday reference frame can be fully described using the three dimensions of space (length, depth, and height, usually depicted as coordinates on the x, y, and z axes) plus time (identified in formulas by the letter t). Tiller refers to this as a direct reference frame, or Dspace, because it can be accessed directly by our senses and measuring devices.

To account for the currently anomalous data points generated by his and other psychoenergetic research, Tiller hypothesizes the existence of a second reference frame that stands in connection with our conventional spacetime reference frame. To conceive of what might constitute dimensions within this second reference frame, Tiller looks to quantum mechanics, specifically the concept that all particles have wavelike properties. Tiller leans on the work of DeBroglie and others which describes the wave accompanying any particle as a pilot wave that contains information that in some sense guides the particle’s path. Tiller makes the intuitive leap that this second reference frame functions on the level of the wave phenomena quantum mechanics has already established as linked to every particle in Dspace. Applying the pilot wave concept to these wave phenomena, Tiller hypothesizes that these wave phenomena contain information that connects to, and impacts, the Dspace reference frame. He refers to this second reference frame as a reciprocal reference frame or Rspace, denoting the dimensions of this Rspace as x1, y1, z1, and t1. The mathematical relationship Tiller hypothesizes between the Dspace and Rspace phenomena is not a strict reciprocal transformation (meaning going directly from x to 1/x). Instead, he hypothesizes that the dimension x in Dspace is related to the dimension x1 in Rspace through a mathematical transformation known as a Fourier Transform. The Fourier Transform is a well established mathematical operation that converts a scalar quantity into an associated frequency. Since Tiller conceives of the dimensions of Rspace as frequencies because of the inherent wavelike nature of Rspace, this conversion to a frequency utilizing the Fourier Transform makes intuitive sense.


The fundamental nature of phenomena in the Dspace reference frame, our everyday world, can be understood to be composed of objects and forces. The fundamental nature of phenomena in this second reference frame Tiller hypothesizes to be information.

Tiller adds two more interesting pieces to his conception of Rspace. The first is that, through the DeBroglie pilot wave equation for particles at the quantum level, he calculates that speeds in Rspace are greater than the speed of light, a quality impossible to exist in Dspace. He further notes that in Dspace, electric phenomena are characterized by what are referred to as electric monopoles. This means a negatively charged particle (such as an electron) can exist separately from a positively charged particle (such as a proton). But the same cannot be said for magnetic phenomena. In Dspace, despite extensive searching, scientists have failed to identify the existence of magnetic monopoles. Every time a magnetic force is present, it is always characterized by having two poles, commonly referred to as a north pole and south pole. Based upon some of the anomalous data Tiller’s research has identified, he hypothesizes that magnetic monopoles do exist, but only in Rspace.

In summary, Tiller can be said to characterize Rspace as an informational level of reality composed of magnetic monopoles and frequencies functioning at speeds greater than the speed of light. In contrast, Dspace is characterized as a spaciotemporal level of reality composed of electric monopoles, objects, and forces functioning at speeds up to but not exceeding the speed of light. Rspace and Dspace together make up what Tiller calls a duplex reference frame, with the relationship between the two reference frames mathematically represented through the operation of Fourier Transforms.

If Dspace and Rspace are fundamentally different levels of reality composed of entirely different “things” functioning at nonoverlapping speeds, the question naturally arises of how these two reference frames connect to each other. In other words, in Tiller’s mathematical representation of the relationship among QM, QP1 and QP2, what is the hypothesized mechanism responsible for creating the varying value of the correlation coefficient, eff? For this Tiller hypothesizes the existence of a new type of particle he labels a deltron. The level of deltron activity, which could be characterized as the flux of deltron particles at any given moment related to any given phenomenon, determines the value of eff.

To understand how Tiller arrives at this hypothesis, we must further expand the duplex reference frame model. Taken together, the duplex


reference frame of Dspace and Rspace can be fully characterized as an eight dimensional reality, in which every phenomenon is characterized by eight coordinates (the familiar x, y, z, t, plus kx, ky, kz, kt where kx is the reciprocal coordinate in Rspace for the coordinate, x, ky the reciprocal coordinate in Rspace for y, etc.) To these eight dimensions, Tiller adds mind as a ninth dimension characterized by the coordinate for the intensity of human intention (represented as I*). This dimension of mind serves as the source of deltrons. Tiller hypothesizes the existence of a background level of deltron activity which can be increased or decreased by human intention. Summarizing this most recent version of Tiller’s model, we see he has

hypothesized a mechanism through which human intention, expressed in the dimension of mind, generates increased deltron activity. This increased deltron activity in turn increases the correlation coefficient resulting in a measurable change in QM compared to what would be predicted by conventional science today. At this point, good science requires us to recognize that this explanatory model, as potentially mind bending as it may seem, is more consistent with Tiller’s experimental data than is today’s conventional scientific model.

* * * I’ve taken this deep dive into Tiller’s challenging experimental data and

proposed explanatory model to give notice that we have already entered the new period of revolutionary science. The time before us has the potential to be an exhilarating ride, filled with unpredictable twists and turns and flashes of brilliant intellectual and scientific creativity. I sincerely hope our generation and the ones to follow will witness a redrawing of the boundaries of science, medicine, and religion, giving us robust new configurations of science, healing, and spirituality. Unfortunately, this time also has the potential to play out as an exercise in power and prejudice in which creative researchers and their revolutionary ideas find themselves crushed under the weight of vested interests, tenure pressure, and grant funding politics. Helping to avert this sad scenario serves as one of my motivations for writing this book.

At this early moment in the emerging period of revolutionary science, it’s not too soon to spot a horizon point toward which I strongly suspect we may be heading. If something like Tiller’s model eventually emerges with enough support from good science to become the new paradigm, we will have achieved a new way to understand the extraordinary variety among


religions and their associated religious practices throughout history and in our present day. It may be possible that at some point in the past, a given practice, such

as chanting, prayer, or a shamanic ritual, meaningfully increased what Tiller characterizes as the correlation coefficient linking Dspace and Rspace, allowing human intention to produce a significantly different QM than would have resulted without the practice. Whether occurring as a single event or a pattern of events over time, such a dynamic would lead to repeated applications of that same practice. An explanatory belief system that rationalized use of that practice might eventually be generated out of individual or collective imagination. Through a dialectical process occurring over decades, centuries, and even millennia, the initially effective practice might give rise to a cluster of beliefs, which in turn would lead to modifications in the practices, which in turn would influence the beliefs. Over time this process would give rise to what today we call a religion. If science eventually demonstrates that human intention, when expressed through prayer or other rituals, can change QM, then all religious practices will be newly understood as valid or effective because of their capacity to produce a correlation between intention and results. We will have then created a scientific foundation for celebrating and embracing the richness of ways in which human intention can be brought to bear to create, or more accurately cocreate, what happens in our lives. At that time, science may truly come to serve as an instrument of peace and religious coexistence around the world.

9

* * *

To this point, I hope this chapter has fulfilled the goal expressed in the

chapter subtitle, namely catching a glimpse into the early stages of the coming new paradigm. But what of the grand synthesis goal intended by the chapter title, When Science Meets God? On this subject Tiller proposes an extension of his theory in a manner not required by his data. Based upon

9 I am well aware that this line of reasoning could one day lead to an attempt by some to enforce a standard of belief based on data that purports to demonstrate one set of religious beliefs and/or rituals has greater impact on QM than another. Such an attempt would not vibrate at a very high level of consciousness. Instead, my hope in even expressing the possibility of conducting such scientific studies is that they would help to celebrate the wide diversity in religious beliefs and rituals by demonstrating that all or most have some impact on QM.


perspectives gained through his personal experiences of meditation and other spiritual practices, Tiller hypothesizes a 10th dimension beyond the dimension of mind, which he labels spirit, as well as additional dimensions beyond that which, taken all together, compose the spiritual realm. Tiller further summarizes his current working hypothesis for the connection between this spiritual realm and the dual reference frame of Rspace and Dspace through a “biobodysuit” metaphor. By this he means, “…we are all spirits having a physical experience as we ride ‘the river of life’ together. Our spiritual parents dressed us in our biobodysuits and put us in this playpen, which we call a universe, in order to grow in coherence, in order to develop our gifts of intentionality and in order to ultimately become what we were meant to become—effective cocreators with our spiritual parents.”

10

Inherent in this biobodysuit model is Tiller’s acceptance of reincarnation as a “truth” about our world. He believes it is through repeated lives in this “playpen we call a universe” that our spirits grow and evolve. Currently reincarnation cannot be said to have been scientifically demonstrated to be a “true” description of how our world works. But as I have attempted to shown previously, neither has science refuted its existence. In fact, well documented cases of alleged reincarnation, as well as a rapidly growing number of well documented hypnotic past life regressions, combine to generate data points for which the best, most scientific explanation is that reincarnation is “true.” Those who cling to the current scientific model will likely argue these data points do not constitute data, or that they can be well explained by our current, reductionistic model of scientific materialism. Neither side can claim victory in this argument based purely on today’s scientific data. Over time, I am hopeful scientists will carefully study these and other anomalous phenomena rather than dismiss them as inappropriate for scientific study. Based upon my experiences to date, as a scientist and a skeptic, I’d wager my money (and my karma) on reincarnation one day being shown scientifically to be a truth about our world. A related and equally challenging phenomenon worthy of scientific study

is channeling. Prior to having had any experience with channeling, I would have prejudged (as in “prejudice”) all claims of channeling to be pure fraud perpetrated by charlatans. Now having both witnessed and read about numerous examples of channeling, I find most to be stunning and compelling (though sadly I’m sure there are frauds out there as well). From Edgar Cayce to A Course in Miracles to John of God, these and others

10 Tiller, Dibble, Kohane, Conscious Acts of Creation, 378.


stand as inexplicable data points in need of scientific study and explanation. Once again, I anticipate good science will eventually demonstrate these phenomena exist and are the result of some form of communication between our Dspace world and a dimension of reality aptly labeled spiritual about which we have so very much more to learn.

Ever the skeptic, I find it proper to ask at this point in our discussion of science what the scientific status is of the paradigm I have chosen as the central line of argument in this book, namely our web of belief. In proposing this way of conceptualizing the problem of epistemology, the study of what we know and how we know it, Quine selfconsciously intended to move away from epistemology as an exercise in formal logic and toward a scientific basis for understanding human knowledge. In other words, he understood knowledge as a problem of psychology as much as of philosophy. As such, the web of belief can be considered a theory in the field of psychology. Like other scientific theories, its validity can be evaluated by using the theory to make and test predictions.

Quine’s web of belief has not been subjected to this kind of rigorous scientific testing. It should not be put forth as a well tested and confirmed theory of human behavior. Instead, I have employed the web of belief as a heuristic, meaning a tool or strategy that uses a readily accessible, though loosely applicable, construct to assist with problem solving. In this sense, the web of belief construct functions well for organizing and understanding a wide range of phenomena related to the philosophy, history, and sociology of science. It seems particularly helpful in engaging and hopefully shifting the natural human response to data points that do not fit one’s personal or shared web of belief. In other words, the web of belief can serve as a psychological theory, a heuristic tool, and a tool for facilitating positive change in the face of unreasonable resistance. But I do not claim it to be a product of good science, at least not yet.

Having said this, the web of belief has provided a foundation for my understanding of what is truth since my days at Oxford. With full recognition of the circularity implied, it could be said to form a central part of my web of belief. But my comfort with this framework encountered a profound challenge from a surprising source: Lesson 131 in A Course in Miracles entitled, “No one can fail who seeks to reach the truth.” (WpI.131)

11

The web of belief construct inherently limits each of us to at best a

11 All references to and quotes from A Course in Miracles are from the Third Edition, © Foundation for Inner Peace, P.O. Box 598, Mill Valley, CA 949420598, 2007, www.acim.org and [email protected].

http://www.acim.org/

mailto:[email protected]


subjective experience of the truth, a truth grounded in the interconnected and mutually reinforcing knowledge claims by which we each organize our experiences. As I have tried to make clear, even the role of science and the penultimate status of scientific knowledge claims cannot escape being part of an individual’s web of belief.

Lesson 131 began with asking me to engage the thoughts within my current understanding of the world, what I would language as my current web of belief. After fully embracing these, including their limitations, the exercise invited me to “sink below them to the holy place where they can enter not.” (WpI.131.11:7) The exercise went on to instruct, “There is a door beneath them in your mind, which you could not completely lock to hide what lies beyond. Seek for that door and find it…Put out your hand and see how easily the door swings open with your intent to go beyond it.” (WpI.131:13:1)

A door I or anyone else could take to escape our own web of belief? Is such a thing possible? The image of the cave from Plato’s Republic rose before me. In this metaphor for the process of coming to understand ultimate truth, individuals begin seated facing the back wall of a cave, a candle casting shadows on the wall, shadows of a puppet play being carried out behind them. The people take the shadows to be real, not recognizing them as shadows, nor that they are shadows of nothing more than a mere puppet play. As the first step in seeking the truth, Plato exhorts us to stand up and turn around, to recognize the falseness of all our beliefs in what we take to be true, to recognize these as shadows of a puppet play, shadows originating from the meager light of a candle. For Plato, the journey to truth begins with this recognition and progresses through climbing out of the cave, eventually allowing the seeker of truth to look upon the “real” world in the almost blindingly bright light of the sun.

Is each individual’s web of belief nothing more than shadows on the wall of their personal cave? When one’s web of belief is accepted unquestioningly, the analogy is apt. Those who seek the truth, who courageously question and are willing to change even the most core elements of their web of belief, are doing their best to make their way out of the cave. Science is intended to serve as the engine for this journey. But, as noted before, uncritical acceptance of today’s scientific paradigm as “true” is itself not good science. It is accepting as true some of the shadows on that cave wall. This is where philosophy, including careful study of the philosophy of science, serves a critical role on this journey. But thus far, this powerful pairing of science and philosophy has proved unable to help us escape the “truth” that each of us inevitably functions within a web of belief.


Some aspects of our web of belief may be publicly sanctioned by the historical and cultural context in which we find ourselves, as science is today and religions have been throughout history. Yet until now, in defining truth no escape from the critical role of our individual and collective webs of belief has been possible.

What lies on the other side of the door I am now being beckoned to enter? What could await me there other than more contributions to my web of belief? I did not know, but with a combination of skepticism and hope, I closed my eyes and engaged the exercise. I did as instructed, turning my request for help into a prayer, a prayer to the Holy Spirit, to that aspect of God consciousness dedicated to helping those who believe they could be separated from God to wake up to their oneness with the Divine, oneness that has always existed and could never be lost.

I became aware that at his moment I had left science behind. This was a critical aspect of the threshold I had crossed. Whatever happened now, I had gone where science could not, at least science as now understood. Until this moment, I had believed that each step on my spiritual path had been in alignment with science done well. If I had “bumped into energy” then such energy was amenable to scientific study. If David Newton had discovered information about time between lives through hypnotic regressions, then his methodology could be rigorously tested and honed to eliminate bias, producing ever more unassailable data points about the journey of our souls through the cycle of reincarnation. If ingeniously constructed experiments reproducibly demonstrated that what we take to be real remains in a multipotential state until consciousness shines upon it, freezing “it” into a single “reality,” the implications of such a view could be validated and explored through countless more such experiments. Yet even carried out scientifically, every one of these explorations could only take place in the context of individual and collective webs of belief.

But could I, could we as a species, find a way out of the very essence of how our consciousness seems to work, out of our individual and collective webs of belief? If the answer is that only prayer will do so, only turning our will over to an aspect of the Divine, then we likely have indeed left science behind and stepped into the realm of the religious. I use the term religious here intentionally but not negatively. As noted in Chapter IX, there are many religions and religious paths, each with its own uniqueness and richness. Sociologists, anthropologists, and philosophers debate over even defining “religion” and “religious.” I do not intend to engage in this debate here. Instead, the basis for distinguishing spirituality from the religious in this


context is that I am now convinced that spirituality is scientific and will be part of the coming new scientific paradigm. But any particular belief beyond that which will be accessible to science done well may inevitably need to be consigned to the realm of the religious. It is here that public consensus will no longer be possible based upon the scientific method, data points, and ever new and evolving paradigms. It is here that subjective experience and individual and collective beliefs will serve as the only possible sources of knowledge. It is in this sense that I contrast the religious with spirituality.

This brings us to confront the question that so divides religions one from the other and atheists from the religious. Is there a God, and if so, what is the nature of God? Forty years ago I began this journey answering the first part of this question with a resounding no, making the second part superfluous. I have changed. But I did not change because I adopted a belief that there is a God without any proof of God’s existence. I did not adopt a belief there is a God because my chosen religion (chosen by accident of birth and upbringing or by free, adult choice) asserts there is. Instead my gradual, begrudging acceptance of God’s existence emerged over many years out of my experiences, experiences in which I directly encountered…encountered something language fails to express. I can best describe these encounters as producing a knowing, a direct experience of something for which I found the words God and the Divine to be most appropriate. Here the term “gnostic” taken in a nonsectarian sense seems most applicable, for it means “knowing.” So I would not say I believe in God, but rather I have knowledge of God through experience of God. As noted by my father, this places me in the realm of mysticism.

So now we come to the crux moment when science meets God. At this point in my journey, I believe science will soon prove spirituality to be “true.” But I do not know if science will one day provide significant proof of the existence and nature of God.

It is here that openness, humility, and tolerance will teach us that there are many paths to spiritual truth. Some of these lead to God, some, such as Buddhism, to no God. My current web of belief includes that all of these paths, pursued with integrity, openness, and honesty, lead to the same universal truths. For those for whom the path leads to God, all paths lead ultimately to the same God, a God that does not take sides, a God of infinite compassion and love, a God for all. Whether this belief is scientific or religious, I do not yet know.

But...a single hesitation gives me pause at this line between spirituality and religion: the work of David Hawkins. He has claimed that through the


technique of kinesiology, any individual or group of individuals possesses the tool to distinguish truth from falsehood. Science has not yet adequately studied kinesiology, has not yet created enough data points to provide convincing evidence to support or disprove such a brash and profound claim. But if it did, if at some time in the future such a claim were found to be “true,” an entire realm of possibilities would open up, possibilities for exploring the truth about the nature of God and the nature of reality in some ultimate sense.

Unless…unless all that is accessible through kinesiology, or whatever next technique is discovered, is only truth about the consensual reality in which we find ourselves rather than any ultimate reality. Ah…so the journey continues…

* * *

One last question remains before this appendix on the coming new paradigm can be brought to a close. As a skeptic, I must now ask, “Why science?” In other words, why value science so highly? What value does science bring to that which we hold highest and most dear?

On an instrumental basis, science has provided humans an ever advancing mastery over our physical environment and a continuous flow of new ways to meet our bodily needs for physical wellbeing. We value physical wellbeing for ourselves and others, whether from having adequate food to eat, the trappings of comfort, or a long and productive life.

We also pursue science for a related but not identical purpose: power. The power science produces highlights two different meanings of the word. First, science provides the power to do something, such as the power to travel quickly from one place to another. Science also provides coercive power, meaning power over another, the capability for one person or one group to impose their will upon another. Science provides coercive power through a number of mechanisms, from generating wealth to the capacity to build more destructive weapons.

I have not returned over and over again to science because of its instrumental value or its capacity to produce power. Through my upbringing and academic training, I had come to believe that science provided the single, best available path to the Truth, with a capital T,


meaning knowledge and understanding of all that is in its most fundamental nature. My current web of belief still holds this to be true, but with a caveat. As I have repeatedly made the case throughout this book, I find good science increasingly demonstrating that what is includes phenomena of a nonspatiotemporal nature, phenomena that we call spiritual. As this current period of revolutionary science works itself out, I will be surprised if this does not become an ever firmer conclusion, and what we now label spiritual will become part of the coming new paradigm.

So far, science done well continues to prove itself capable of getting us closer to the most fundamental nature of what is. That journey can and should continue. But here’s the caveat. I have experienced the ineffable. I have touched the Divine. I have joined the countless mystics through the ages who have direct knowledge of what I can best articulate as God. These experiences stand outside of science, as they should. They tell me more about what is than science can alone.

The scientific enterprise has yet another limit because science, in its essence, is an activity of the mind. Science can be understood as the dialectical dance between data and logic, beginning with data, interpreted through logic, which in turn leads to more data, and back to logic. (Yes, inspiration and creativity play a role in generating new ideas, but not in proving or disproving scientific truths.) At each step, data and logic mutually inform the other through activity of the mind.

In Western culture we often confuse this particular activity of the mind with our highest intelligence. It is not. Science is all about mastery, but only mastery of the instrumental kind, mastery totally dependent upon leftbrain thinking. Sadly we have learned that this kind of thinking is a lethal weapon when we allow the mind to be the master without informing it with the heart. Instead, science and all uses of the mind should serve the heart, should serve love.

At this stage of my journey I find wisdom in these words. We are not speaking here simply of the passions of the heart, the emotional reactivity of our personalities that arise from our biology and experiences (perhaps including lifetimes past). Instead, we are speaking of the natural intelligence that flows from the heart’s knowing who we truly are: beings whose very essence is love. The


science of which I have been speaking throughout this book, the science we find on the verge of a new paradigm, the science I so highly value, properly understood, stands in service to the higher intelligence of the heart. This, too, is part of the coming new paradigm.

Documents

Joyfully Shatteredricksheffmd.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/... · Ostrander and Schroder’s book, Psychic Discoveries Behind the Iron Curtain.2 By the time he arrived at Oxford,