posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 05:43 AM
reply to post by _Highlander_
Athene's "theory of everything" starts predictably, repeating the materialistic dogma of neurophysiology that no central "self" or "soul"
exists to hold together the random firing of neurons in the brain so as to create a lower order of reality. Indeed, "everything" still belongs to
the
physical universe - there is no higher order of reality, according to science (and, therefore according to any "theory of everything"
that Athene or any scientist could propose). Athene starts with and never leaves the presupposition that there is only one level of reality - the
physical universe of particles and forces. But towards the last 20 minutes of the video, his discussion ceases to be coherent but degenerates into
scientific gobblygook, in which he creates the illusion of presenting a new understanding of matter and consciousness by distorting concepts of
theoretical physics and making totally meaningless statements. Planck's quantisation equation E = hf gets turned for some reason into C = hf, where C
is "consciousness" (whatever that is), h is Planck's constant and f is frequency. In his desperate attempt to introduce new mathematics so as to
simulate what we expect "theories of everything" to look like, Athene falls into the mistake of misusing the very scientific concepts he wants to
replace. A theory of everything has to explain - well, everything. Creating the mere appearance of bridging matter and consciousness simply does not
cut it, whilst any such attempt that fails to get to grips with religion because its underlying philosophy dismisses it as a pseudo-problem from the
very start must be necessarily incomplete. But then, what should one expect from someone who seems to be an academic scientist whose epistemology
throws the spiritual dimension out of the universe as a superstitious fantasy? When your discipline artificially defines what "everything" is in
materialistic terms, it is hardly surprising that the resulting theory will be short-sighted, narrow and - well -
still materialistic. But then
such conceits of the academic mind must, inevitably, be such because they always have to fit the prevailing scientific paradigm that everything is but
particles and their forces. True "theories of everything" transcend the current scientific paradigm by joining together ideas long thought to
conflict with one another. Athene's thoughts nicely describe what scientists currently think about reality. But they don't amount to a "theory of
everything."