CHAPTER 4 – A NEW THEORY OF REALITY

A paradigm consists of a set of beliefs regarding what is real and what isn’t real, and these beliefs in turn shape the perceptions and interpretations of the people holding that worldview. By socially constructing reality and creating self-fulfilling prophecies, humans continuously create and maintain a culture that conforms to and confirms the initial theory of reality. The competition paradigm has, in this sense, defined some things as real and other things as not real, and for the most part, this definition is generally accepted in society. The dominant paradigm’s beliefs are viewed as legitimate while beliefs counter to these are frequently labeled myth, superstition, hallucination, or insanity. In other words, the dominant paradigm’s definition of reality is seen as normal while other definitions of reality are readily subject to ridicule. For many people, however, their own personal “truth” regarding the nature of reality is not entirely consistent with the dominant paradigm’s version of truth. Many people “know,” for example, that God, angels, or other spiritual entities exist, even though these are not acknowledged in the dominant paradigm as “real” or “proven facts.”

Given different beliefs among people and cultures regarding what is and isn’t real or true, questions regarding the nature of reality are important to address. Whereas the postmodern premise, in its extreme version, suggests that there is no such thing as truth or “objective reality” in a socially constructed civilization, this argument is difficult to accept for those whose daily lives are affected by very real people and events. What, then, can we say about the “true nature of reality.” This question, to no surprise, is really quite complex, and has been debated by philosophers throughout the ages. Attempts to discern or define the nature of reality involve ontological questions about the essence of being and the genesis of existence, as well as epistemological questions about the nature of knowledge and how anything can be known.

Historically, ontological assertions about the nature of being have typically been heavily interconnected with a set of epistemological assumptions regarding the kinds of evidence that can be considered valid and the legitimate means of acquiring valid evidence. For hundreds of years in western civilization, beliefs regarding the true nature of reality were constrained by the premodern paradigm’s religious epistemology, i.e., the starting premises that God is the source of all truth, that the primary evidence available for discerning this truth is God’s word as proclaimed in the Scriptures, and that religious leaders have the best access to and/or most accurate understanding of this truth. A rather different epistemology – but quite analogous in terms of its contrast with a modern epistemology – is the worldview of some indigenous cultures which holds that Spirit is the source of all truth, that truth can best be found in “dreamtime” or non-normal states of consciousness, and that shamans have the best access to and/or most accurate understanding of this truth.

In contrast to the premodern paradigm, where religion and science were not clearly differentiated from each other, the modern paradigm incorporated a conceptual distinction between the two alternative sets of ontological and epistemological premises (Wilber, 1998). As a result, the scientific method ultimately replaced religious tradition as the primary basis for knowledge and truth. The work of Sir Isaac Newton and René Descartes is often identified as providing the foundation of modern science, with the integration of their insights constituting the Newtonian-Cartesian mechanistic model of the universe. In simple terms, this scientific worldview holds that a) subjective internal experience is separate and distinct from objective external phenomena, b) the objective, external universe contains a variety of different types of systems that can best be understood through an analysis of their parts and the forces acting on these parts, and c) the relationships among parts of a system are stable and predictable and can be modeled mathematically. Furthermore, the scientific perspective asserts that truth is to be found in the natural world rather than the supernatural, and that it can be ascertained only by direct apprehension through the five senses rather than through intuitive insights. So even though religious ideologies continue to serve as a powerful influence on our collective belief systems, the competition paradigm’s theory of reality is grounded primarily in scientific knowledge. In other words, while many people continue to believe in divine or spiritual forces, their “faith” is differentiated from the “facts” that have been determined through scientific discovery.

It is thus significant that scientific discoveries throughout the 20th century have been undermining the Newtonian-Cartesian mechanistic model and pointing the way towards a radically new perspective regarding the nature of objective physical reality. It is also quite ironic that this new view of the material world is compatible with premises about the nature of reality derived from various spiritual traditions. Basically, science is leading the way to a new theory of reality, based on theoretical formulations and empirical data generated through contemporary research on both material and non-material phenomena. But this re-visioning process is also being stimulated by ideas and information from a broad array of fields of human knowledge and practice, and informed by evidence gleaned through systematic observation and investigation by people throughout history and across cultures. Considered together, this body of knowledge indicates that a theory of reality focusing exclusively on the material universe is too limited and that objective reality is very different from the version espoused by the dominant paradigm.

Information pertaining to this new worldview is being summarized and synthesized in a body of writing – the “new paradigm” literature – which articulates a broad and sophisticated philosophical, ideological, and empirical foundation for a new theory of reality. Ultimately, the viability and credibility of this new theory are supported by the surprising congruence among ideas from very different sources or areas of inquiry, as well as by the overall internal consistency among the theory’s basic premises. This chapter reflects an attempt to integrate key elements of this new paradigm literature into a relatively concise, coherent description of this emerging perspective. Leading-edge scientific theory and research regarding the nature of the universe is summarized first, providing a solid and legitimate foundation for an expanded definition of reality. Since this science-based description is quite consistent with spiritual worldviews that have long posited the reality of non-material realms of existence, an attempt is made to specify additional premises regarding the nature of reality that have not been included in the competition paradigm’s materialistic theory. This integration of science and spirituality then lays the groundwork for an explanation of some of the dynamic qualities of the universe that have significant implications for human civilization and its ongoing process of evolution. Many of these notions are controversial and readily ridiculed by the mainstream scientific community, even though they tend to be more widely accepted among the general public. But as conclusions from new scientific investigations of these issues diffuse more broadly throughout society, the validity of this new theory of reality will become increasingly apparent and the new paradigm ultimately accepted as legitimate.

A Conscious Universe

A paradigm shift in science away from a mechanistic worldview began about a century ago with the initial findings that gave birth to quantum physics. Physicists’ explorations of the fundamental nature of reality have led to rather remarkable findings that are inherently contradictory to mechanistic assumptions (Capra, 1991; Lemkow, 1990). For example, they have determined that everything known to exist in the universe is a manifestation of an underlying unified energy field known as “the vacuum.” The vacuum is not empty, but rather constitutes the basic “raw material” of which everything is made. In their efforts to identify the essence of this source material, physicists have determined that it simultaneously exhibits properties of both particles and waves, or in other terms, of matter and energy. In a mechanistic worldview, matter and energy were conceived of as separate and independent, and it was believed that matter – atoms and subatomic particles – constituted the fundamental essence of the universe. In quantum reality, matter and energy cannot be differentiated (as reflected in Einstein’s famous equation, E = MC2). While particles appear to have an autonomous existence, they are in fact inseparable from the waves that give rise to them, and these waves are themselves inherently interconnected. Reflecting the principle of “nonlocal causality,” physicists have determined that there can be an instantaneous connection between any two points on the entire space-time continuum (cf. Nadeau & Kafatos, 1999). In other words, the interconnectedness of the unified energy field is such that it transcends the concepts of space and time. Ultimately, quantum physics indicates that space and time are merely human concepts grounded in our limited perception of the universe (Cole, 1999).

An important implication of quantum physics, therefore, is that there are no separate or separable “parts” of the unified energy field which is the foundation of the entire material universe. In fact, material objects are something of an illusion when considered in quantum terms. Since all matter is actually energy, it is inherently dynamic rather than static, with countless atoms continually vibrating in some kind of resonance pattern that gives form to the material object that is then perceived and assumed to be real. At the subatomic level, since most of this object consists of the “space” between atomic particles, the notion that the object is in any sense “solid” is also recognized as a fallacy. Basically, the unified energy field constitutes a vast sea of dynamic potential. In other words, the energy itself is rather indeterminate and becomes more “fixed” only under certain conditions. For example, physicists’ intentions to measure the energy seem in turn to generate particular characteristics of the energy they are measuring. One of the intriguing facets of quantum phenomena is that particles only “appear” out of the underlying indeterminate energy field when they are being measured (Capra, 1991).

These and other aspects of quantum reality contradict some of the dominant paradigm’s basic assumptions regarding the nature of reality. In contrast to the reductionistic orientation of a mechanistic worldview, i.e., the belief that a system can best be understood by analyzing its parts and the forces acting on them, quantum physics emphasizes a holistic and ecological perspective. Quantum findings thus gave rise to “systems thinking” in the sciences more generally. A system is viewed as an integrated whole comprised of inherently interdependent parts, with systemic qualities that emerge from the pattern of relationships among the parts. From a systems perspective, the essential properties of an organism are properties of the whole, not of the parts. This emphasis on systems holism – on the properties of connectedness, relationships, and context – is further supported by findings from the natural sciences, especially research into the essential qualities of “life.” This research has demonstrated that the living world consists of systems nested within systems, i.e., the parts of a system are themselves less inclusive systems, and systems are themselves parts of more inclusive systems. In general, more inclusive systems are more complex, demonstrating properties that do not exist in lower level systems.

While different kinds of systems display different specific qualities, this research has identified a number of common properties shared by all living systems (Capra, 1996). One key characteristic of living systems is the fact that they are self-organizing systems. A self-organizing system is an open system, in that it imports energy from and exports energy to its environment in a continuous process of exchange. Through internal feedback loops and the nonlinear interconnectedness of its component parts, a self-organizing system exhibits the spontaneous emergence of new structures and new forms of behavior. The self-organizing quality of a living system is made possible through the pattern of interactions among its various parts. The pattern of organization common to all living systems has been labeled autopoiesis (Maturana & Varela, 1980), defined as a network of production processes in which the function of each component is to participate in the production or transformation of other components in the network. This quality is found in systems at a wide range of levels of scale and complexity. In fact, research associated with what is known as the Gaia hypothesis indicates that the planet as a whole constitutes a single, living, self-organizing system (Lovelock, 1988).

Increased understanding of the nature of systems has in turn given rise to the study of chaos and complexity in the natural and social sciences (Gleick, 1987; Gregersen & Sailer, 1993; Lewin, 1992; Parker, 1996; Waldrop, 1992). Exploration of complex systems led to the conclusion that seemingly chaotic, unpredictable systems actually reflect underlying patterns of order and structure that are hard to discern given the complexity of the patterns involved and the apparent chaos and randomness displayed by system dynamics. The emergence of chaos and complexity theory was facilitated by the development of new mathematical concepts and techniques that focus on relationships rather than objects, quality rather than quantity, and pattern rather than substance. The new mathematical tools enabled scientists to discover qualitative patterns of behavior in complex systems, i.e., a level of order underlying the apparent chaos. One such pattern has been labeled a dissipative structure (Prigogine & Stengers, 1984), which is another key property of living systems. A dissipative structure is an open system through which energy and matter flow continually, creating (somewhat paradoxically) a stable form through a self-organizing, autopoietic process. A dissipative structure can contain self-amplifying feedback loops that push the system farther and farther away from equilibrium until it reaches a bifurcation point, i.e., a point of instability at which the system undergoes a sudden transformation. At this point, it can spontaneously self-reorganize such that a new form of order emerges, at a higher level of complexity, resulting in the development and evolution of the system.

These findings suggest that systems evolve, at least in part, by undergoing relatively sudden transformations to more complex forms, with these transformations taking place after the system has reached a threshold of instability that gives rise to a bifurcation point. Evidence regarding the evolution of life on the planet indicates that the evolutionary process has unfolded following just this pattern – long stable periods with very little evolutionary change punctuated by relatively short periods in which sudden and dramatic transformations occur (Eldridge & Gould, 1972). It is reasonable to conclude further that entire ecosystems and even human social systems can display these basic systemic features (De Greene, 1996; Guastello, 1995; Jantsch, 1980; Marion, 1999). Combined with data supporting the Gaia hypothesis, considerable evidence is now congruent with the contention that the Earth itself, as a single unified system, reflects the key properties inherent in the underlying quantum vacuum and in all living systems which are manifestations of this universal energy field.