Scientists simulate time travel using light particles

Scientists simulate time travel using light particles

 A space-time wormhole lets a particle travel back in time

We may never see practical time travel in our lifetimes, if it's possible at all. However, a team at the University of Queensland has given the Doc Browns of the world a faint glimmer of hope by simulating time travel
on a very, very small scale. Their study used individual photons to
replicate a quantum particle traveling through a space-time loop (like
the one you see above) to arrive where and when it began. Since these
particles are inherently uncertain, there wasn't room for the paradoxes
that normally thwart this sort of research. The particle couldn't
destroy itself before it went on its journey, for example.

As you might have gathered from the "simulation" term, sci-fi
isn't about to become reality just yet. The scientists haven't actually
warped through time -- they've only shown how it can work. It could
take a long time before there's proof that whole atoms and objects can
make the leap, let alone a real-world demonstration. Should you ever
step into a time machine, though, you'll know where it all started...
and ended.


The Cult of Ken Wilber

The Cult of Ken Wilber

What can be a conclusion to all this? That Ken Wilber is an
undoubtedly interesting and stimulating author, with an interesting
Edifice. But that it is no substitute for reading primary material,
other competing interpretations, but most of all, one's own spiritual
and intellectual, and moral development. That it is not a fully critical
and emancipatory theory, and has increasingly become 'politically
reactionary', elitist, and used as a system of instrumental manipulation
for the leadership of large organizations (that's how Beck's SD is
marketed to corporations and politicians). That it is already now used
to justify spiritual oppression (Da Free John), war and occupation
(Bush), stifling internal debate, and creating an environment of cultic
adhesion. These are not trivial matters!

Can anything be salvaged? I must admit I personally still use the
four quadrant system, as it is a comprehensive system for a
phenomenology of the world. I believe it is of interest to grapple with
Wilber's interpretations, even the wrong ones. In this, he functions as a
'great author', despite the lack of acceptance in academia. Most of
all, I believe that the integrative impulse is a worthy enterprise. In a
world of such diversity to look at structure and developmental
processes (which are a feature of the natural , social and personal
worlds) is necessary. But the integrative, integral impulse does not
belong in any way to Mr. Ken Wilber; it is a general feature of
contemporary consciousness (one trend battling the fragmentation of
postmodernity), with many different pioneers and alternatives to Wilber.

Thus a first thing to do is to liberate yourself to a univocal adhesion to Wilber's form of it.

Furthermore, such impulse has to be seriously balanced with a
recognition of irreducible diversity. That some things, like differences
in a marriage, are just 'different', and have to be respected as such,
while seeking commonality in action. It has to be balanced with serious
attention to immanence, to the processes within, rather than to the
static forms sought out by nondual mystics. It has to be balanced by
serious attention to the participative nature of the universe, to the
co-creation of it by human beings and our partners in the natural world.
And that this requires participative, dialogic, co-creative processes.

And politically, we need attention to the concrete suffering and
injustices of the many, which requires action and our own moral
development, aided or not, by meditation or other spiritual practices.
This practice is best undertaken by a group of peers, as described by
John Heron in his Sacred Science, not in a traditional authoritarian
religion, and I would venture, be even more wary of the charismatic lone
leader who does not even have a tradition to balance him. We must
really guard ourselves of the very bad habits developed in the integral,
but especially SD milieus, to brand everyone with colored epiteths,
corresponding to their purported lack of cognitive development.

If divorced from the particular interpretations of Ken Wilber, the broad
integral four-quadrant scheme has still some usefulness as a broad
scheme to develop a understanding of the world, at least it does for me,
it is a very useful heuristic tool in my own work. Wilberism is a
particular world perspective grown out of the humanistic and
transpersonal psychology movements, which was an important moment of
intellectual and human history, but it is time to move on. My own way to
move on is to be on the lookout for the participative, egalitatarian
impulse, which is getting a new lease of life today, as described in my
own essay on peer to peer, which I'll gladly send to anyone who requests
it. It is one man's attempt to go 'beyond Wilber'.

The Wild West Wilber Report: Looking Back on the Wyatt Earp Episode, Frank Visser

The Wild West Wilber Report: Looking Back on the Wyatt Earp Episode, Frank Visser

Monday, June 23, 2014

Visser founded IntegralWorld.net in 1997 (back then under the name of
"The World of Ken Wilber"). He is the author of the first monograph on
Ken Wilber and his work: "Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion"
(SUNY Press, 2003), which has been translated into 7 languages, and of
many essays on this website. He currently is Service Desk Manager at the
Dutch divison of the global online marketing agency DigitasLBi.

The Wild West Wilber Report

Looking back on the Wyatt Earp Episode

Frank Visser

In June 2006 Ken Wilber embarrassed himself in front of the world by"Having just read Jeff Meyerhoff’s rebuttal to Wyatt Erpy on Integral World, “INTELLECTUAL TRAGEDY”, 
I’m quite surprised, frankly. The dunderheaded Neanderthal Meyerhoff,
as I was lead to expect by Erpy, turns out to be quite reasonable,
cogent, pithy, and well balanced in his presentation.

In fact, I’d have to say, if I’d never heard of either of them before,
and “simply” read the entire Erpy blog series and this one response by
Meyerhoff, I’d mistake Meyerhoff for the world famous philosopher, and
Wilber for the unbalanced critic."
– Colmar3000.blogspot.com.
abusing and insulting those of his critics who did not "understand" his
work, and invited those who "did" to come to his integral "sanctuary".
His main complaint was the low level of the criticism he had received so
far, especially from Integral World authors.

Well, even if that were true, make sure you get better critics
then, I would say. Start playing the game by the rules. Behave yourself.
Enter the academic arena. Start debates with people who really
matter in the fields of science and philosophy, instead of either
preaching to the converted, or abusing those who don't seem to "get it".
It was an attack on reason and free enquiry, basically, which was
applauded by the closest of his followers.

Obviously, this alerted some cult-watchers to reflect on what on
earth is currently going on in the integral scene. Here's a listing of
most of the relevant blog postings and articles, including my three
personal replies to Ken Wilber. Compiled for future historians,
Wilberologists – and psychiatrists!

Ken Wilber's blog postings:

Follow Up Postings

The Shadow Series

  • Ken Wilber, The Shadow Series. Part 1: How to Spot the Shadow, June 15, 2006.
  • Ken Wilber, The Shadow Series. Part 2: Integrating the Shadow, June 18, 2006.
  • Ken Wilber, The Shadow Series. Part 3: A Working Synthesis of Transactional Analysis and Gestalt Therapy, June 23, 2006.

My Responses to Wilber

  • Frank Visser, Games Pandits Play, A Reply to Ken Wilber's Raging Rant, June 14, 2006.
  • Frank Visser, Not So Fast, Cowboy, A Plea For Some Dispassion, June 25, 2006.
  • Frank Visser, For The Record, Final Comments to Wilber's Recent Blog Postings, July 3, 2006.

Other Blog Commentaries (A-Z)

Longer Reflections (A-Z)

Early Warning Signs

Related Wikipedia Entries (A-Z)

Has Ken Wilber jumped the shark? | Headthegong.com

Has Ken Wilber jumped the shark? | Headthegong.com

........at the end of the day it may be that wilber’s faith and need to
believe in dualistic supernaturalism has turned out to be stronger than
his entire lifetime of thought that has sought to carefully integrate
disparate areas of human knowledge. a cautionary tale and sobering
observation on the nature of the human mind, indeed.

this has been evident in several key areas for me that i have pointed out in my online writings for several years:

1) his already mentioned highly questionable endorsements of gurus
who appear to be either psychotic/sociopathic (in the case of adi da) or
narcissistic/abusive (in the case of andrew cohen) and in all
likelihood charalatan in the case of this current trivedi dude.

2) this is related to what i think of as a boomer generation wishful
thinking around the naive acceptance of the concept of “enlightenment.”
ie: the special human being who has come to the special knowledge that
turns them into a divine presence/perfect teacher/all good
parent/representative of the transcendent absolute meaning and
intelligence behind all things (as well as the wishful thinking and
naive acceptance that the later exists!)

3) this is connected to the assertion of consciousness as primary to
the universe; when all of biology suggests that consciousness in any
meaningful sense only comes into being at the level of organisms – it is
not and cannot be possible at the level of either hydrogen molecules or
supernovas, as consciousness requires biological substrate and anything
we would call consciousness in a strong sense requires the beginnings
of a neural net/primitive brain. self-reflexive awareness only really
seems to come into being at the level of mammals – and what we think of
as truly complex, self-aware consciousness is a feature only of adult
human beings.

4) this relates also to what i have called a kind of “intelligent
design in drag” that is part of the metaphysics of integral theory – an
insistence that there must be some transcendent spirit at play in the
evolutionary process – just ’cause we like that idea and some ancient
big kahunas said so.

5) wilber has also opened the door to a lot of new agey crap with
some of his more recent work trying to integrate postmodern ideas that
can easily be interpreted as negating the objective world that exists
independent of subjective consciousness.

6) even though the 4 quadrant model is an amazing guide to valuing
interior, exterior, collective and individual ways of gathering
knowledge, i have long pointed out that the bias in the community (that
is supported by ken) overly values the upper left quadrant – or
subjective, individual, interior experience – and tends to critique most
forms of empirical inquiry as “reductive” – this has resulted in things
like neuroscience being undervalued in the attempt to hold onto a
mystical (and mystified) picture of consciousness as some absolute,
dualistic “spirit.” now it is resulting in completely overlooking the
definition and method of science and rushing to assert something
unproven, highly unlikely and frankly as fishy as the alleyway dumpster
behind a bad sushi restaurant.

all of this adds up for me to a set of unquestioned quasi religious
(hindu) beliefs that have always been assumed to be true by wilber
underneath all of the other wonderfully inquisitive and brilliant work
he has done.

i have been predicting that this kind of confusion and nonsensical
detour might happen in the integral institute and community in general
as these problematic aspects of the worldview unfolded further mistakes
in reasoning – BUT never would have guessed it would come from ken
himself in this glaringly delusional way….. wow.

The Rise And Fall of Ken Wilber - Mark Manson

The Rise And Fall of Ken Wilber - Mark Manson

From there, the integral movement began to sputter. Rabbi Marc Gafni,
a spiritual leader whom Wilber aligned himself and even co-sponsored
seminars with, was later indicted in Israel for child molestation.
Despite this, Wilber and his movement refused to distance themselves or
repudiate him. In fact, the whole integral scene doubled down, claiming
that its critics were “first-tier thinkers,” and were coming up with
lies in order to attack a greater, higher level of consciousness that it
didn’t understand.

The seminars slowed to a crawl. Wilber’s health deteriorated greatly (he was diagnosed with a rare disease
that keeps him bed-ridden). He stopped writing. Ten years on, despite
developing some fans in academia (some in high places) Wilber’s work had
yet to be tested or peer-reviewed in a serious journal. Much of his
posting online devolved into bizarre spiritual claims (such as this one about an “enlightened teacher” who can make crops grow twice as fast by “blessing them”).

The brilliant
scientist-turned-monk-turned-recluse-turned-New-Age-celebrity, whose
ideas changed everything for so many people (myself included), devolved
into the butt of another New Age joke. How the mighty have fallen.


... concept of a macroscopic rigid and compact object is only an optical illusion, and not a physical entity

Subversive Thinking: Ken Wilber's metaphysical theory of holons, the afterlife and survival of consciousness and his book Sex, Ecology and Spirituality

Physicist Marco Biagini comments:
Also the concept of a macroscopic rigid and compact object is only an
optical illusion, and not a physical entity. The image of the object we
see is in fact only an approximate representation of the real physical

No object exist in nature as we see it
solid objects appear to us as if they were uniformly filled with
motionless matter, while they are only sets of rapidly moving particles;
matter is concentrated in a very small fraction of the space occupied
by the solid object, mostly in the atomic nuclea, and it has no uniform
distribution as it appears to us. The laws of physics establish that the
possible properties of every particle or molecule are the same, that is
the property of exchange energy with other particles or photons, and
the property of movement; these are the properties of every quantum
particle, and no aggregate of quantum particles can have new properties.

Therefore, no real macroscopic properties exist.

The macroscopic properties quoted by materialists, are not objective
properties of the physical reality, but they are only abstractions or
concepts used to describe our sensorial experiences; in other words,
they are ideas conceived to describe or classify, according to arbitrary
criteria, a given succession of microscopic processes, and these ideas
exist only in a conscious and intelligent mind. Therefore, the
macroscopic property, being only an abstraction, presupposes the
existence of consciousness. It is obvious that consciousness cannot be
considered a macroscopic property of the physical reality, because the
macroscopic property itself presupposes the existence of consciousness.
We have then a logical contradiction. No entities which existence
presupposes the existence of consciousness can be considered as the
cause of the existence of consciousness