Why Science Shaves with Ockham’s Razor
SIMPLE PREDICTIONS THAT RADICALLY TRANSFORM OUR MINDS

Does the fact that chance, by itself, cannot explain the origin and evolution of order in the universe require that people accept some kind of superintelligent designing process to explain everything that exists in the evolving universe? The key word here is “everything,” and the commonsense answer is “Of course not.” Even if you accept the fact that sand paintings never paint themselves, or that watches never assemble themselves, you surely recognize that many phenomena in nature seem to organize themselves quite well.

Commonplace experience reminds us that clouds appear to emerge spontaneously, raindrops appear to liquefy and fall naturally, and tornados appear to swirl and create destruction, all seemingly by themselves. Oak seeds appear to grow into oak trees, and fertilized human eggs appear to grow into newborn babies, again all seemingly by themselves. Phenomena that apparently invent and evolve themselves are scientifically termed “self-organizing systems.” Nature is replete with systems that show apparent self-organizing properties.

To show you how to see the seemingly obvious alternative explanation to an intelligent, invisible Guiding-Organizing-Designing process with clarity and understanding—and I emphasize the words “seemingly obvious”—has been the goal of the book to this point.

Let’s now pull together the three core principles previously discussed, to recognize the important implications that emerge from the totality of both the evidence and the reasoning presented so far.

PRINCIPLE 1: INTERPRETATION DOES NOT EQUAL OBSERVATION

In Chapter 9 I noted that the sun appears to revolve around the earth because we implicitly interpret our earthbound observations of the sun as if the sun were revolving around us.

It is, indeed, possible to make mistakes when interpreting one’s observations. But sometimes a mistake is colossal, as when it was taken for granted that the sun revolved around the earth, whereas the opposite is actually the case. A fundamental lesson from the history of science is that things are not necessarily as they appear to the untrained, uninformed eye.

Yes, raindrops seem to form by themselves. And oak trees seem to grow by themselves. This is how it seems. But the earth also seems to be flat. And the sun appears to revolve around the earth. The underlying message must be respected—a commonplace interpretation of an observation, even a completely replicated observation, cannot be assumed to be necessarily accurate or correct.

This principle applies to all relationships in all systems, including the relationship between the mind and the brain. Since this book is ultimately about intelligence, including intelligent trial-and-error learning and evolution, it is instructive to discover how the observation/ interpretation principle provides clarity and understanding to the fundamental question “Does the brain create the mind, or does the brain serve as a receiver for the mind?” Did the hardware create the software, or is it the other way around?

If an interpretation is consistent with the evidence—a subject we’ll come to shortly—then the question arises, “Was the brain (the hardware) created by a superintelligent mind (the ultimate software) to serve as a tool of the human mind?” Neuroscientists interpret three kinds of evidence to support the interpretation that the brain creates the mind. The evidence seems compelling. But is the interpretation correct?

The three kinds of evidence are:

Evidence from Recordings. Scientists can record brain waves (EEGs), using sensitive electronic devices. For example, researchers have discovered that alpha waves over the occipital cortex in the back of the head decrease when people see visual objects with their eyes and, as well, when people imagine visual objects with their minds.

Evidence from Stimulation. Scientists can stimulate various areas of the brain, using electrodes placed inside the head or magnetic coils placed outside the head. For example, experiments have shown that stimulating the occipital cortex typically causes people to experience visual sensations and images.

Evidence from Ablation. Observation of people and animals whose brains have been damaged through injury or disease, or who have had various areas of the brain surgically removed, have revealed that when areas of the occipital cortex are destroyed, people, dogs, cats, rats, and mice lose aspects of vision.

The commonsense—and generally accepted—interpretation of this set of findings is that visual experience is created by the brain.

However, the critical question is whether this is the necessary and only interpretation of the findings. The correct response is, certainly not. I first learned this lesson in logic as a young child when I took television sets apart. I then learned the lesson formally when I was an electrical engineering student at Cornell.

How do television sets receive their images? Televisions function as receivers for information carried by certain external electromagnetic fields. As we all understand, the sets do not create the visual information—they detect it, amplify it, and display it.

What most neuroscientists seem to forget is that the three kinds of experiments they conduct are the same three kinds of experiments that television repairmen conduct!

Evidence from Recordings. TV repairmen can record the television signals by using sensitive electronic devices (sensitive probes attached to digital oscilloscopes). For example, they can place the probe on particular components in the circuit and correlate the signals or readings shown on the digital oscilloscope with the visual images seen on the TV screen.

Evidence from Stimulation. TV repairmen can stimulate various components of the television, connecting electrodes from a device at appropriate points inside the television. For example, they can stimulate particular circuits with specific patterns of information and see replicable patterns on the TV screen.

Evidence from Ablation. TV repairmen can remove various components from the television (or areas can be damaged or wear out). For example, they can remove key components, and the visual images on the screen will disappear.

Do these three sets of evidence necessarily imply that the origin of the TV signals is inside the television? Of course not. They tell us that both brains and televisions play a role in visual experience—they do not tell us what type of role. The three kinds of evidence, by themselves, do not tell us whether brains or televisions are (1) self-creating the information or (2) serving as complex antennas-receivers of the information (which comes from outside the systems).

In other words, the three kinds of evidence do not allow us to determine whether the signals—the fields—are created inside the system (the interpretation applied to brains) or are coming from outside the system (the interpretation applied to televisions). Clearly, additional kinds of experiments—for example, signal-blocking experiments, using electrical and magnetic shields placed around the television set or the entire person—are required to determine whether the system in question (a brain or a television set) justifies a creator interpretation of the observations or an antenna-receiver interpretation of them.

In the case of brains, the fact that they seem to be involved with conscious experience does not necessarily mean that they are creating consciousness. Consciousness may require invisible external fields. Similarly, in the case of self-organization, the fact that objects appear to self-organize does not mean that they are actually organizing themselves. Organization may require invisible external fields as well.

Finally, in the case of evolution, just because growth and increases in complexity appear to occur naturally does not mean that evolution is non-intelligent. Evolution—and what scientists term natural evolution—may require invisible external fields modulated by intelligence, that is, intelligent evolution.

PRINCIPLE 2: INVISIBLE ORGANIZING FIELDS ARE REAL, AND THEY ARE THE RULE IN PHYSICS

Physics tells us, in no uncertain terms, that invisible fields—including gravitational, electromagnetic, and quantum fields—are the rule, not the exception, in nature and the universe. We live in a veritable sea of invisible fields. This infinite sea of fields permeates the vacuum of space with incomprehensively complex networks of structures and organizations. As astronomer Sten Odenwald writes in Patterns in the Void: Why Nothing Is Important, “We are forced to confront the fact that something hidden in the Void is controlling not just the subtle properties of matter but the destiny of the universe.”

As Einstein said it, “The field is the only reality.” All material things—including living systems—are organized by fields, as well as generating them. In light of this compelling evidence, logic requires that we entertain the hypothesis that invisible fields play a fundamental role in all physical phenomena observed in nature and the universe.

PRINCIPLE 3: WHY USE TWO EXPLANATIONS WHEN ONE WILL DO?

The fourteenth-century teacher and logician William of Ockham is remembered for a principle he set down that we know as Ockham’s Razor; it was made popular in Carl Sagan’s novel and movie Contact. Sagan provides a valid statement of the principle when he has his central character, Dr. Ellie Arroway (played in the film by Jodie Foster), make the remark, “All things being equal, the simplest explanation that accounts for the largest amount of the evidence is usually the correct one.”

As Ockham originally stated his principle, Frustra fit per plura, quod fieri potest per pauciora, which means, “It is vain to do with more what can be done with less,” and Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, which means, “Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.” Scientists as a group tend to be conservative; they seek “parsimonious” explanations in an effort to be conceptually frugal. I tend to be this way too. Here’s how one could apply Ockham’s Razor to the two sets of evidence that need explaining:

Evidence Set 1: Certain phenomena have never been observed to organize spontaneously (for example, sand paintings, watches); the evidence is clear that they require some sort of an intelligent Guiding-Organizing-Designing mechanism for them to come into existence, assemble, and evolve.

Evidence Set 2: Other phenomena have been observed to organize seemingly by themselves (for example, tornadoes, oak trees); they appear to self-organize when the right conditions are present.

One approach—the single interpretation approach—is to posit that a common invisible intelligent organizing field process is involved in both sets of evidence. (An organizing field process can operate externally or internally—since fields exist both inside and outside individual material systems.)

A second approach—the double interpretation approach—is to posit that an external organizing process (for example, a visible or invisible Guiding-Organizing-Designing field) is required for Evidence Set 1, and that some sort of internal organizing process (termed “self-organization,” which in biological systems is governed by an internal plan/code called DNA) is required for Evidence Set 2. In other words, it’s possible to employ two different explanations to account for observations.

However, to apply Ockham’s Razor honestly, it would be best to search for the simplest explanation that accounts for the largest amount of the data. By definition, this would be the single interpretation approach. The G.O.D.-field interpretation can explain both sets of evidence, whereas the self-organization interpretation can explain only one set.

Which is your preference—one explanation, or two? If you prefer economy and adhere to intellectual integrity, then it follows that there are both philosophical and practical reasons for seriously entertaining a single invisible G.O.D. process in nature. Still, what ultimately matters is not which is the most economical (the G.O.D.-process interpretation), but rather which one is true. Ockham’s Razor doesn’t always lead to the the right answer; sometimes the less economical, more complex interpretation actually reflects the truth. Only with additional research can theories that make new predictions eventually be confirmed or refuted.

But it turns out that Ockham’s Razor is sharper than might be expected. It is possible to put the invisible G.O.D. universal field process to some novel and revealing experimental tests and, in the process, discover some potentially hidden mechanisms underlying the “destiny of the universe.”

AN ANCIENT VISION OF THE SUN AS BEING AN ORGANIZING EVOLVING SYSTEM

Would you be willing to consider doing a simple thought experiment with me? If so, then imagine that a huge meteor hit the earth, creating a cloud of dust that has blocked the suns energy for many years. Imagine that the temperature drops globally to the point where all water freezes into a solid mass. Would we continue to observe rainstorms? Would we continue to see oak seeds grow? When water is frozen, water-related self-organizing processes would be observed to stop self-organizing. And now what do you conclude from this observation?

An obvious conclusion is that the many so-called self-organizing systems are not completely self-organizing and actually require the presence of other factors, including external fields of energy provided by the sun. A relatively narrow range of temperature is required for water to exist in a liquid state, which is necessary for rain to fall and for oak seeds to sprout and become trees.

But some more subtle and amusing interpretations of the sun’s potential role in apparent self-organization should be mentioned.

The sun is a complex dynamical system that emits a wide spectrum of energies and information—from micro and radio waves, through infrared waves, light waves in the visible spectrum, and ultraviolet waves, to X rays and gamma rays. And all of these bands of photons carry dynamically fluctuating patterns of energy and information that can be thought of as being nonrandom quantum codes (as Heinz Pagels called them). These complex electromagnetic and quantum codes can play a communication role in modulating physical systems on the earth and all of its inhabitants, including us. We are all highly interconnected with the sun’s bands of energy and information.

The sun’s energies can be imaginatively described as a Beethoven symphony played by a world-class orchestra. The complete spectrum of dynamically changing information of the sun, from the lower subvisible frequencies, through the intermediary visible frequencies, to the higher supravisible frequencies, can be thought of as ranging from contrabasses (containing subaural frequencies), through violins, to piccolos (containing supra-aural frequencies), playing together full-time in a 24/7 orchestra.

The similarity between the sun and a symphonic orchestra in terms of generating organizing field information and energy can be shown experimentally. For example, it has been demonstrated that if a thin layer of sand is placed in a square pan and the pan is placed on top of a speaker, sounds of different frequencies will vibrate the pan, creating replicable patterns of hills and valleys in the sand—which can be described as simple sand sculptures.

A number of questions may come to mind: Many people wonder if it’s possible that essential codes for life are carried on the dynamical spectrums coming from the sun. Others ask if it’s possible that what we see as self-organization on the earth is made possible, at least in part, by the dynamic formative fields that are continuously emitted by the sun. And does the sun create morphological fields that help guide, organize, and design what we experience as dynamic physical life? Moreover, is the sun itself a gigantic antenna-receiver-transmitter of invisible intelligent G.O.D.-field signals?

If you favor Ockham’s Razor and the search for integrative-unifying explanations and interpretations, then you can see how the G.O.D.-field process interpretation not only integrates diverse information but makes new predictions that can be confirmed, or disconfirmed, in future research.

I repeat: Ockham’s Razor in this case not only integrates information in a highly parsimonious way, but makes new predictions that can be confirmed, or disconfirmed, in future research. This is one of the important reasons why Professor Wigner would likely label my G.O.D.-field process theory as “most amusing.”

DO WE TRUST OCKHAM’S RAZOR? CAN WE “S.O.S.” AND “SAVE OUR SOULS”?

We will never discover whether a G.O.D.-field process is actually interacting and communicating with us unless we are prepared to listen for it. Whether it is acting through nature, through the sun, or ultimately through the complex dynamic network of organizing fields that comprise everything in the universe—including the “void” or “vacuum” of space that is teaming with organizing energy and information—we’ll never find out unless we go looking. And unless we learn how to interpret these dynamical information codes, we will never know what the codes actually mean.

Consider the following example: “Dit dit dit—daa daa daa—dit dit dit” may sound like a collection of ordered sounds with no meaning until we learn that, to the old telegraphers and ham radio operators using Morse code, the pattern “dit dit dit” stood for the letter S and “daa daa daa” stood for the letter O. A memory aid for the emergency signal “S.O.S.” was “Save Our Ship.” According to this book, perhaps that should be revived and revised to stand for “Save Our Souls.”

If we are going to heal and transform ourselves and the world, then perhaps the time has come for us to open our minds to the possibility that the answers to our most pressing questions are all around us. It’s possible that the answers to these questions are being broadcast, like gravitational fields, in all directions—ready to be received and adopted by intelligent and motivated individuals. This help in the form of universal fields of dynamic information available to each of us may be waiting to be received and interpreted.

To help you remember this hypothesis, you can think of this S.O.S. signal as coming from the S.E.L.F.—the Supreme-Eternal-Living-Field—which is a universal expression of the G.O.D. process. From this perspective, the S.E.L.F. is involved in the creation of all organized systems; hence, what we see as self-organization is a special case of S.E.L.F. organization. This is the G.O.D.S.E.L.F.

Ockham’s Razor and its favoring of the intelligent-evolution explanation helps open our minds to this seemingly incomprehensible yet comforting possibility.