« Einstein: "It is the theory which decides what can be observed" | Main | Religion hates mystery. Science loves mystery. »

July 17, 2023


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Well, I have to admit this whole business (science) of quantum mechanics is way beyond me. Although I do go along with the underlying sentiment expressed that “everything fragments out of a unified whole”. Which, bringing this idea down to my simple naturalistic thinking supports the interconnectedness theory that all organisms and their inorganic surroundings on Earth are closely integrated to form a single and self-regulating complex system, maintaining the conditions for life on the planet.

But as the first astronauts in space reported back on the beauty and fragility of the Earth and that we need to treat it sensitively – and was acknowledged but largely ignored – perhaps we are now beginning to see (experience) the adverse effect we are having on the natural world and how this is affecting the balance of nature and the planet.

The oneness idea of Heinrich Päs with regard to physics may set the world of quantum physics re-thinking reality but could it affect the way that we human’s behaviour toward each other, the planet and ourselves – probably not. But yes, it is an interesting subject – if you understand it.

Lovely article! Thanks so much, Brian, for bringing it to our notice, and for reproducing this here. Absolute pleasure to read it!

I’ve bookmarked this post, and I’m going to need to read this once more, later at leisure, to better understand all of it. But basis a first read, some comments:

First, the EFT thing. I hadn’t been aware of this. Completely fascinating, this aspect of physics. (Note to self: Must read up a bit more on this!)

Two, the IR-StandardModel-UV thing, and the IR-UV mixing thing. Again, fascinating.


Three, this makes very clear what Pas’ actual thesis is. It’s completely fascinating, his work. I’m no physicist, but I can appreciate how something like this might be paradigm changing, and actually fetch a Nobel. Provided it turned out to be true.

And there lies the nub. This is very cool, but it’s clearly just one tentative possibility, a possibility that Pas thinks is promising. He himself points out some others that might show the way out of the “crisis”. This is …cutting-edge, sure; but so cutting-edge as to not yet actually be a thing, but only a potential, if that makes sense.

But still, but nevertheless, completely fascinating to read about. Thanks to Pas for making his research accessible to us all via his book and via this article of his; and to you, Brian, for discussing this here. Absolute treat.


And four: This has nothing whatever to do with the Oneness of Advaita, or the Oneness of Dao, or the Oneness of Plato. I know it is Pas himself who suggested this similarity with those ancient ideas, and also with the enlightenment philosophers. But now that I’ve read what his idea actually is --- and again, it was an absolute treat to do that! --- it is clear that this has nothing, at all, to do either with Plato, or with Advaita, or with Dao; and nor with Schopenhauer or Kant or any of those bozos. Zero, zilch, no connection at all. Woo types, you may unclench your butt muscles, and relax: there’s nothing here for you to get your rocks off on.

I'll order this book from my library and will look forward to reading it. I did read a few Amazon reviews of the book, and some of them say that Pas puts quite a lot of effort into citing how his theory parallels with great monism minds of old, otherwise known as "bozos" to the handwaving school of philosophy.

The entire creation is holographic. In the tiniest particle is an image of the whole, . and in the whole are contained all parts.

Space and dimension are qualities of matter, which itself is composed of structured energy. To discover that these are all part of the same system is a wonderful finding, both scientifically and personally.

But consider also that such philosophy also informs and collates observation, to paraphrase Einstein and Heisenburg. What we understand of reality is the model we ourselves make of it, and how we filter and interpret it.

But perhaps that model is informed by our own connections to reality.

Science, for all its noble and humble effort at objectivity remains within the human system of thinking. Science is our best effort at projecting some semblance upon information. But the models we create must, by our own limitations, be metaphors and inventions.

True enough, SantMat64, Heinrich Pas himself does seem to have likened this new approach to earlier kinds of monism. Which is why I was very curious what this might actually be about. That is, given the man’s impeccable cred.

Well, basis what I see here, there’s nothing.

Now since Pas has mentioned it, and since he himself actually names his book after Oneness, therefore I’ve no doubt there’ll be something there. But that’s likely to simply be metaphorical. A metaphor that means nothing at all, because the metaphor, even if apposite, will have originated purely within this scientist’s mind, and not within the mind of Plato or whoever --- as how could it, given they knew not a single thing about about any of this, right?

Nevertheless, should it turn out otherwise, even now, I’m happy to correct myself. But at this point I don’t think there’s much chance of that. Not now that I’ve read what his idea’s actually about, straight from the horse’s mouth as it were.


That said, more power to you for opting to read the book yourself. We all should be doing that, rather than shamelessly piggybacking off of Brian like we generally do. If you do find anything there that says otherwise than what I said, then do point it out. Like I said, I’m happy to correct myself if so.

In any case, while you’re welcome to read the book, but Brian’s already reading it, right, and reviewing it for us right here. While he’s no friend of the Woo, but I respect his intellectual integrity; and you can be sure that if there’s anything Woo-centric there, he won’t paper it over, but will clearly spell it out here, even if it means altering his worldview over it. So sure, don’t take my word for it, which in any case is based off of this brief summary article here and not the book proper. By all means wait for Brian to finish with his review first. As will I, as well.


Incidentally: It isn’t as if such weird things have never happened before. I mean people of long long ago somehow, inexplicably, pre-empting some discovery later on. One instance would be the Dao folks having come to understand everything as a process. Another would be the Advaitins having arrived at the endless creation-dissolution model, which is one of the models, one of the scientific cosmological models (albeit, like Pas' work, one of many possibilities), for the universe; as well as the ginormous cosmic timescales that these Advaita types dealt in, god alone knows how back in those days. And by for the most dramatic of these would be the Buddha’s understanding of Anatta, No (Abiding) Self, back back when.

So that, should QM end up reflecting Plato, or one of the enlightenment philosophers, that wouldn’t be the first time something like this has happened. And if that is how it actually is, then I’ve no issues accepting that. Except, Pas' work, as he describes it here in his own words, makes clear that that is not the case. It’s very clearly explained, just read it yourself.

But sure, by all means wait for Brian to finish his review before you decide, if you like. Or for that matter read the book yourself, that’s even better, absolutely.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.