“Quantum mechanics tells us that there is no such thing as a completely isolated object: objects are connected. The impression of separateness is just an illusion. It is possible for a particle to interact with another particle in such a way that the two particles form a single entangled quantum state. What this means is that the state of one particle is dependent on the state of the other in some way. Because of this dependency, it is a mistake to consider either particle in isolation from the other. Rather, we should combine the states and treat the result – both particles – as a single, entangled system. …. What this reveals is that our human perception of objects being separated is not a match with the physical reality of the situation” (Hidden in Plain Sight: the fundamental link between relativity and quantum mechanics. Andrew Thomas)
“The Particle vs. the Universe
The relationships between particles and the entire Universe are interacting with each other through their inward and outward waves. Thus they become joined into one ensemble of waves which determines the behavior of the individual particles. The simplest example is Mach’s Principle, which proposed (1890) that all the matter of the Universe determines the Law of Inertia (f=ma)” (The Eightfold Way of The Universe. Milo Wolff).
The media coverage of the Catholic (both the mainstream media and unfortunately many Catholic outlets) is often superficial if not downright inaccurate. Even more recent than the synod has been the reporting of Pope Francis’ remarks supporting evolution this week to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Pope Francis made his speech during a ceremony honoring Pope Benedict XVI for continuing to promote the harmony of science and faith. The remarks made by Pope Francis were consistent with statements made by his predecessors and Catholic theologians.
In other words, there was nothing new, but the media reported it as a significant event. Lazer Berman of The Times of Israel has one of the better articles on the subject. I encourage you to read the entire article here but set forth below is an excerpt:
Francis’s remarks were covered breathlessly in the media, but the coverage has not reflected…
Came across this tree diagram showing unifications in physics theory over the past 100 years or so. On the principle of simplicity (nod in direction of William of Ockham) it proposes “some utterly simple principle” which will unify all. Any ideas ? (I know what I call this)
“..Nietzsche stated that God was dead, Jung rediscovered God as a guiding principle of unity within the depths of the individual psyche. Jung’s belief in the ultimate unity of all existence led him to suppose that physical and mental, as well as spatial and temporal, were human categories imposed upon reality which did not accurately reflect it. Human beings, because of the nature of thought and language, are bound to categorize things as opposites; that is, all human statements are antinomian. But these opposites may, in fact, be facets of the same reality. Through his collaboration with the physicist Wolfgang Pauli, Jung came to believe that the physicist’s investigation of matter and the psychologists’s investigation of the depths of the psyche might be different ways of approaching the same underlying reality. It had long been recognized that analytical psychology could never be wholly “objective,” since the observer was bound to exert an effect on what he was observing by the fact of paying it attention. But the same point had also been reached in modern physics. At the subatomic level, it was recognized that it was impossible to determine a particle’s momentum and its velocity at the same time. Moreover, the consituents of matter could be considered to behave as waves or particles, depending on the choice of the observer. Physicists came to realise that it was possible to look at one and the same event through two different frames of reference which, though mutually exclusive, were nevertheless complementary. The Principle of Complementarity, which became a cornerstone of modern physics, could also be applied to the mind-body problem. Perhaps mind and body were simply different aspects of a single reality as viewed through different frames of reference.”
Anthony Storr, The Essential Jung: Selected Writings
Donald Winnicott (paediatrician and psychoanalyst) studied the development of the Self within the child. He found that an infant is reliant on a “good-enough” mother (he was writing in the ’40’s, ’50s and ’60’s) to reveal to the infant that their feelings are real. Initially an infant believes he/she is omnipotent. He/she does not know there is a Not-Me. The reality of the loving mother as an “external object” is established by her survival of the child’s attempt to destroy her – and doing this whilst continuing to love. It is a parent’s fundamental role in allowing their child to develop a sense of the their reality in relation to all-else that they provide a “holding” environment within which the child can develop.
God, of course, is the archetype of parent. So, perhaps it is necessary for-human kind that we try to destroy God, and it is in the ever-loving survival of our destruction – that we finally perceive His (or Her) loving reality?
In Winnicott’s words..
“The self is first made real through recognition, the object is first made real through aggressive destruction; and this of course, makes experience of the object feel real to the self. The object is placed outside omnipotent control by being destroyed while, in fact surviving the destruction”. In an illustrative dialogue about the process “The subject says to the object: ‘I have destroyed you’, and the object is there to receive the communication. From now on the subject says: ‘Hullo, object!’ ‘ I destroyed you.’ ‘ I love you. You have value for me because of your survival of my destruction of you. While I am loving you I am all the time destroying you in (unconscious) fantasy’ ” (The Use of an Object and Relating through Identifications 1969).
“Shall I say that, for a child to be brought up so that he can discover the deepest part of his nature, someone has to be defied, and even at times hated, without there being a danger of a complete break in the relationship” (Home Again 1945).