I said "unfortunate" because science has been striving to reach that unified theory of everything. In doing so, different scientists have gone down different theoretical routes, each one generating more questions than get answered, and thus creating more and more divergence than actually getting towards their goal of unifying them all.
I've got a good book (a science book - not new age) that talks about this issue... just can't remember which one it is at the moment, out of the few hundred books I've got. 🙂
It's essentially (one part of) science saying that with the current scientific method they will never reach a unified theory, partially because their continued need to create new maths to 'explain' or 'fill in' the missing pieces of a theory just leave them with more maths that needs to be proven.
Saying that, I do think there's a lot to be said for the potential relationship between quantum theories and 'new age' theories, it's just that there's often too many 'new agers' out there who claim things are quantum without actually understanding quantum theories themselves (or they just mislabel their therapies etc. because it sounds 'cool' to use the word 'quantum', as if it is something proven), and there are too many scientists out there who are unwilling to even consider the possibility that some of the phenomena we experience may actually be able to be explained by quantum principles, however the explanations of those phenomena are using a different terminology, even though they're really talking about the same thing.
I said "unfortunate" because science has been striving to reach that unified theory of everything. In doing so, different scientists have gone down different theoretical routes, each one generating more questions than get answered, and thus creating more and more divergence than actually getting towards their goal of unifying them all.
I've got a good book (a science book - not new age) that talks about this issue... just can't remember which one it is at the moment, out of the few hundred books I've got. 🙂
It's essentially (one part of) science saying that with the current scientific method they will never reach a unified theory, partially because their continued need to create new maths to 'explain' or 'fill in' the missing pieces of a theory just leave them with more maths that needs to be proven.Saying that, I do think there's a lot to be said for the potential relationship between quantum theories and 'new age' theories, it's just that there's often too many 'new agers' out there who claim things are quantum without actually understanding quantum theories themselves (or they just mislabel their therapies etc. because it sounds 'cool' to use the word 'quantum', as if it is something proven), and there are too many scientists out there who are unwilling to even consider the possibility that some of the phenomena we experience may actually be able to be explained by quantum principles, however the explanations of those phenomena are using a different terminology, even though they're really talking about the same thing.
I would agree
Do we need a unified theory of everything? I can see why purely theoretical scientists might. Many other people only want it if it accords with what they already think. And the rest aren't that bothered.
Well, everyone's always looking for "the answer" to everything, so if science can come up with a unified theory of everything (something that isn't just "42") then they'll be jumping for joy as they'll have 'proven' everything in existence, or so they'll say, and then they'll be able to disprove things that clearly go against it and we can all become robots.... erm... perhaps I digress a little. 😀
If they really did, then there'd be no more need for proving or disproving - anyone who wanted to continue to investigate would be ostracized. Until the evidence against was overwhelming in which case either the whole cycle would start up again or the investigators would meet with nasty accidents (since everything has a political side).
Actually, science done well should work from the other end. Not coming up with an hypothesis then trying to prove it, but coming up with an hypothesis and then trying to disprove it. But researchers are human, of course, and have human biases that make this difficult.
For example - to get back to the main thread topic - if an investigator believes wholeheartedly in the validity of mediumship, s/he is likely to see evidence of it working. If s/he categorically disbelieves in it, s/he is likely to remain unconvinced no matter how compelling the evidence might be to others.
Which is one reason that the scientific process includes peer reviews and encourages others to attempt to duplicate the results. Doesn't always happen.