The modern superstitions of science and religion

In brief:

Standard science says physical movement is perfectly smooth and continuous (comprising an infinite-sequence of ever-so-small "infinitesimal" movements).

There is nothing in the body that can move anything infinitely ("infinite" literally means without end). Nothing at all.

Ipso facto physical movement is physically impossible, at least according to standard scientific superstitions ("assumptions").


Superstition - "a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation."

While sharing various ideas on a forum recently, it became evident there are many people (including and especially atheists, scientists and the religious) who still very deeply rely on superstitious beliefs.

And by "superstitious" beliefs, none are more evident than when the topic of Zeno's Paradoxes is considered.

To put things in context:

Imagine we have a number of belief-systems, let's call them BS1 and BS2. Let's now see how well they match a particular set of evidence (facts and observations, as can be readily experienced on planet Earth).

Theory and factConsider the evidence of the physical act of movement, such as a runner running a race, an arrow flying through the air, or a dog chasing a ball. Let's take one particular case of physical movement that likely has relevance and meaning to most who consider this -- the movement of one's own index finger (the first finger of one's hand, adjoining the thumb).

The evidence of movement of one's finger is easily observed, and experienced. For example, reading this page (while online) you might be using your index finger to rotate the scroll-wheel on your computer mouse).

If we begin to seek a theory to explain such an everyday phenomenon, we might use the analogy of a motion picture film.

Let's consider a specific thought-experiment. We zoom in on a test subject's finger to such an extent that we "see" one of the atoms in that finger, perhaps the very tip of the subjects fingernail. We do not need to actually see this atom, other than surmise its existence.

Now let's assume we move that finger (and thus the atom in that fingernail) one unit of length, such as 1cm.

If we were to take a video of that motion, how many captures, or frames would we need to take in order to "perfectly" capture every last increment in movement of that atom?

Now, here's where it gets interesting. BS1 says we must take an infinite number of 'snaps' in order to capture every last increment in movement and for movement to be 'perfectly smooth' with no gaps or sudden stop-start movement. To prove the point, BS1 uses a theoretical process that involves "infinite-series" of numbers (points).

By using 'infinite-series' it can be mathematically proved that motion (as when we might lift a finger) is fully addressed by the application of this method.

So far, so good. We have theory matching the evidence. So it would seem.

However, there is one problem.  And it's a big one, to the extent that it 'forces' all sorts of superstitions upon those who refuse to consider the facts.

Basically, when using infinite-series the assumption is made that an infinite number of very very tiny 'points' (physical locations) are traversed when movement occurs -- movements so tiny as to be infinitesimally small, to the point that they seamlessly blend together, providing perfectly smooth motion. At least that's the theory!

When seeking to find a cause for each of the steps (points) that the finger progresses through on its way through 1cm of travel, we cannot identify the specific cause for every last one of those steps -- remember: the assumption is that there are literally an endless number of them (that's the literal meaning of infinite -- endless, boundless). Physical movement through an endless series of points is an irrefutably required condition of the mathematics of infinite-series, if we are to assume that the mathematics of endless-series has anything to do, at all, with the actual process of physical movement.

with the infinite series solutions there is NO demonstrable (or even a theoretical) 1:1 correlation of mathematical values (e.g. position) with physicality.

So what is the cause of each step in this endless, never-ending sequence of little physical increments when we so much as lift a little finger?1

"It just happens" is the response of adherents of BS1. Sound familiar?

When we consider the human body, what physical, biological process could cause an infinite-sequence of physical events?  How many electrons would need to stimulate a finger muscle to move through an infinite-sequence of small movements? Furthermore, if we accept that 'thinking' has some role in our ability to move our finger, then how much brain stuff is required to move our finger through that infinite-step sequence of movements? In more detail, if we accept that neurons have some role in our ability to think, how many neurons are needed to fire off in order to drive an infinite sequence of movements? The alternative of neurons not being involved in said movement doesn't bear thinking about (pun intended). Picture: 'thoughtless, brainless' man eating an ice-cream. Not a good look. (But I digress)

Back to basics: what physical, biological process could cause an infinite-sequence of physical events? Clearly there are none that could directly achieve this. All of which presents a dilemma - there is no 'direct' correspondence of some finite physical cause (e.g. electrical activity in the brain) with that of some supposed infinite-sequence of physical effects.

Here's where "superstition" enters the picture. Note the definition: a false conception of causation. A conception of causation that has no demonstrable basis in fact, cannot be considered true -- anymore than we might argue any cause as being true. For example we could argue 'angels on a nearby pinhead danced so vigorously as to cause the finger to move." There is no direct evidence-based correspondence of cause with effect, so we can qualify those two beliefs (angels on pinheads, and infinite-series of sequences) as "superstitious"  -- at least until we see the evidence verifying the relevant correspondences.

If, however, we accept there would be a large, but finite number of increments (much easier on the brain), then that begs two questions:

  1. If physical movement involves large, but finite sequences of physical increments, what's in the gaps between each increment? 
  2. How can calculus (based on infinite-series) be highly successful when detailing physical phenomena, if for such sequences there is no 1:1 correlation with any identifiable physical cause?

This dilemma is easily resolved by appreciating that calculus "at the limit" details physical movement, but that "in the middle" (in the gaps) it is in no way able to detail physical movement. That is to say, "at the peak" (see figure, right), calculus correlates with physicality (within limits). That said, it is simply a superstition to believe that calculus (infinite-series) can be used to detail the minutia of physical movement.

To go further, this is when and where quantum theory enters the picture.

And this is also when and where many, particularly and especially atheists, scientists, and the religious, will hold onto the superstition of perfectly continuous physical movement. Because the alternative, reasonable though it is, is too big a burden to consider.

Why? Because whatever is in the gaps, it is obviously not physical. Otherwise we're back to brainless ice-cream eaters (as in there is no strongly-correlated neurological cause for the physical movements).

It's ... meta-physical in nature, ubiquitous. It's the "one-stuff", the common-stock, the quantum potential from which all originates.

As many physicists have come to expect and prove, the stuff in the gaps, of whatever it is made, is obviously interacting "at-once" (nonlocally). And these connections, these immediate interactions are "present not only in rare and exotic circumstances, but underlie all the events of everyday life."2

For there to be no underlying 'interconnectedness', there'd be no 'cause' that could orchestrate a coincident physical existence. Our daily lives would be chaotic to an infinite extreme. We would be so lucky to even have ice-cream.

So then, why do religious, atheistic and scientific folk fail to accommodate the self-evident obviousness of the above, by persisting with superstitious beliefs?

The real reason people will persist with their superstitious beliefs in the face of glaring evidence to the contrary is quite simple: greed.

We will ignore the conclusions of leading physicists, who affirm that we exist within "in a radically interconnected and interdependent world, one so essentially connected at a deep level that the interconnections are more fundamental, more real than the independent existence of the parts."3


We will deny the evidence that we are all an integral part of a rich holodynamic (nonlocally interconnecting) self-organising system (SOS), in order to avoid taking any responsibility for it. Instead we can then continue to work against nature and the system, experimenting on live animals, manipulating genes without a systems perspective, plundering the biosphere because we're not responsible for it.

Failing to understand the interconnected nature of our shared reality, we end up treating native cultures with disdain, dismissing their spiritual beliefs as superstitious and without merit -- even though many physicists now voice similar ideas (albeit couched in more technical terms).4

And in the process we end up debasing ourselves, distancing ourselves ever more from that which supports, nurtures and enables life.

Much more explained in Congruent solutions to Zeno's Paradoxes, and related articles.

"according to the quantum theory,
movement is not fundamentally continuous"
[David Bohm]

...(the idea) that space is continuous is, I believe, wrong.

Professor Richard Feynman
The Messenger Series: Seeking New Laws


BS2 - Religion

Belief system 2 (religion) is highly similar to BS1 (science) in that both apportion 'blame' for unfortunate events to outside 'forces'. In the case of religion it is 'God' or "Evil' or other disconnected spiritual entities. With science it is 'chance'.

In the sphere of religion, if someone dies the question is typically asked 'why did God have him/her die so young' or in such terrible circumstances? Such questions require obedience or subservience to some sort of independent spiritual entity that is disconnected from the marrow of life. The superstitions of modern religion are easily countered -- we need only consider the nature of what the infinite means, to realise the childish nature of religious beliefs -- see "The Evolution of the Human Psyche" for an overview of where and when such beliefs originated, and why they persist.

"Religion ... was for most of human history, always childlike and by definition authoritarian. It was, to be specific, a primary activity of the childhood of our humanity as a species."1

In both fields of science and religion, the disconnect that is inherent between "here" (our personal experience) and 'there' (the realm of God, or 'chance') necessarily forms 'barriers' (or limits) to personal experience and potentials. These barriers, or walls form comforting cocoons for those with limited perceptions and psyche. However comforting these cocoons appear, they require limits of perception -- they do not allow individuals to 'feel' into the infinite recesses of 'chance' or the infinite potentials of God, to find and use their own answers. Science and religion (in present, limited form) are, obviously, highly disempowering.

However, religion (like science) is now starting to wash over the ignorance of these inherited superstitions by melding "Process Theology", in a similar manner to science melding "Process Physics" with everyday life.

"Process life" could be considered an overarching holodynamic systems model that spans all fields of human experience, including theology, physics, psychology and sociology.

What does "holodynamic system" mean?

The term holo-dynamic system is (in The Belief Doctor's view) a more descriptive understanding of "holomovement" -- a term coined by the late physicist, David Bohm. Bohm used the term holomovement to more accurately describe the inherent holographic nature of reality. With the theoretical and experimental proof of nonlocality, we now know (as Prof. Victor Mansfield explained above) we exist within " a radically interconnected and interdependent" world, and universe. And that each particle, person and planet are interconnected, and interacting at-once, nonlocally. As physicist Nick Herbert explained, these immediate interactions are "present not only in rare and exotic circumstances, but underlie all the events of everyday life."

As Bohm correctly noted, the universe is NOT static like a holographic image. It is in motion, in constant state of flux and interacting -- hence the appropriateness of the term 'holomovement'.

"Holodynamic system" goes further, with the 'dynamic' aspect implying it is also expansive and creative. This follows from recognising that the concept of the "infinite" is not a static 'thing' that can be described, or assigned a symbol and conveniently written on a piece of paper, or put in some equation. The infinite is a process, of always expanding beyond 'itself'. The infinite is dynamic. Putting all that together, a holodynamic system (in which everything, everyone and every dimension or state) is interacting, at-once, while also growing and expanding beyond 'itself'.

The holo aspect means that the process of the universe must also be the essential process of life -- of learning and growing beyond oneself, of being dynamic, creative, evolving. And this process occurs (in respect of the holo aspect) all the way down, all the way up; all the way back (in time) and forward. In other words, as within the part, so within the whole, and vice versa.

Interestingly, all the major religious and spiritual traditions have (at least originally, historically) espoused a (rudimentary) understanding of the holodynamic nature of reality. However the following statements are all expressed in static terms -- typically the source: God or Brahman etc5 is believed to be unchanging, pure, absolute. This fundamentalism reflects how various religions and spiritual traditions have failed to capture the dynamic, interactive and creative nature of reality.

  • Hinduism "By understanding the Self, all this universe is known" (Upanishads);
  • Islam, "He who knows himself knows his lord," (Muhammad);
  • Confucianism, "Heaven, earth and human are of one body";
  • Zen Buddhism, "Look within, you are the Buddha";
  • Christianity, "The Kingdom of God is within you";
  • Jewish Kabbalah, "if one contemplates things in mystical meditation, everything is revealed as one."

That religions and spiritual traditions failed to grasp or espouse the creative nature is to be expected, given the historical nature of religious belief. As Rev. John Shelby Spong observed "Religion ... was for most of human history, always childlike and by definition authoritarian. It was, to be specific, a primary activity of the childhood of our humanity as a species." More explained in "The Evolution of the Human Psyche".

In our recent times (within the last 80 or so years) the science of quantum physics has been providing us a fuller understanding of our cosmos, and of ourselves. As Max Born, one of the founders of quantum theory explained, "I am now convinced that theoretical physics is actual philosophy".

This "actual philosophy" has led many leading physicists to echo world-views strikingly similar to ancient spiritual traditions, but with one additional, and highly important qualification: as physicist John Wheeler explained, we live within a participatory universe, in that it is newly forming (including our past, newly forming all the way back to the Big-Bang). We each contribute to the ongoing creation of not just the present and the future but the past as well. As we think, we create; as we grow, the universe, and God grows. As we learn, God learns, the universe expands.

See also

  • 1. Noting here that "momentum" or "inertia" cannot be assigned as the cause, since momentum (p) = h/λ. See 3rd Proof of the Impossibility of Physical Movement
  • 2. Nick Herbert, Quantum Reality: Beyond The New Physics.
  • 3. Victor Mansfield, Synchronicity, science and soul-making.
  • 4. See "Timeless Knowledge" and related articles
  • 5. in a holodynamic reality, all points, people and realms is source, at every point, with the centre of the universe everywhere. That is, the individual ego is as much the source as God, the whole, all.