A publicity campaign for my new book, Controlling Mental Chaos, started in August. These articles, published in the following magazines, are excerpts or expanded ideas found in the book. I hope you enjoy them. I also invite you to attend any of the local author events planned.
Controlling Mental Chaos:Harnessing the Power of the Creative Mind
Author Talk with Jaime A. Pineda
You are all invited to join me as I discuss the relationship between mind and brain. In my latest book, I show that anxiety and incessant thinking reflect uncontrolled creativity, and how, using time-tested techniques and our own mental “superpowers”, we can begin to recover our innate creative nature.
I will be giving more details, signing books, and answering questions at the following locations:
Mira Mesa Library 8405 New Salem St Sept 30 11 am
Barnes & Noble 810 W. Valley Pkwy Escondido Oct 14 2 pm
Coronado Library 640 Orange Ave Oct 17 7 pm
La Jolla Library 7555 Draper Ave Oct 28 3 pm
Warwick’s bookstore 7812 Girard Ave Nov 12 2:30 pm
Carmel Valley Library 3919 Townsgate Dr Nov 18 1 pm
Retirement came early for me in 2018 after a 30-year career in scientific research because of the limits I encountered following that approach. As I’ve written in my 2020 autobiography Piercing the Clouds, it became increasingly obvious that science could not provide me with answers to the burning, ultimate questions I had; questions about reality, consciousness, the mind, etc. (see My Unease with Science).
Trying to find answers, I convinced myself that knowledge could flow from other sources—such as first person or noetic experiences. Noetic means inner wisdom, direct knowing, intuition, or implicit understanding. It is a way of knowing beyond our traditional senses. Scientists often deride this approach as subjective, religious, even mystical. Their reasoning is that it lacks verifiability since by definition only one person can access such knowledge. And verifiability is the sine qua non of science—otherwise, how can one trust the results? It was, therefore, with a tremendous apprehension that I left academia to pursue such alternative approaches.
Even as this new direction bears fruit, there have been moments in which I’ve questioned the sanity of my decision. I still lack confidence in my own insights, and original thoughts lack truthfulness and validity until someone else confirms them. Hence, it was with a great deal of surprise and relief that I read the latest version of The New Scientist magazine (Jan 2023). Its discussion of the limits of knowledge instantly crystallized the fuzzy thoughts I had that led to my retirement. The coverage validated my decision to leave and motivated me to compose this essay as a summary of the arguments. The intention is to give a clear description, while providing a grounding of support for others’ questioning of the matter.
The first major problem encountered in terms of the limits of knowledge is that, from a scientific perspective, we must first be able to identify, define, and quantify the object of study. This does not prevent its investigation, but makes the process difficult, if not impossible. Quantum mechanics shows that the underlying nature of reality is probabilistic and inherently unknowable. This implies there is a hard limit to our understanding of it. Hence, we know of a handful of subjects that even the laws of nature tell us we can never study scientifically. While such a list is not exhaustive, it gives a sense of where we cannot go:
The inside of a black hole
Going beyond the edges of the expanding universe
Knowledge of the quantum world
The origin of life
The inner workings of the human soul
Consciousness
The supernatural
Part of this limitation involves what scientists have termed “the limit of horizons.” Just like the horizon on a clear day represents a fundamental limit on how far we can see, imposed by the curvature of the earth, the origins of the universe and of life on earth are subject to a type of horizon. For about 300,000 years following the Big Bang, scientists theorize that the environment was so hot and dense that electrons, proton, neutrons, and even photons combined. Then, in what has been called “recombination” the universe cooled enough allowing charged particles to combine to form basic elements like hydrogen. This meant that photons, which have no charge, could no longer combine with other particles and were free to roam, allowing us the ability to “visualize” objects. For now, we cannot visualize the universe prior to recombination—a major constraint. Likewise, biologists can trace all species to a single organism. This last universal common ancestor (LUCA) gave root to all life on earth. Unfortunately, it’s the end of the trail since we cannot study what came before it. Thus, it represents a kind of horizon limiting scientific investigation of the origin of life.
Another major limitation to a scientific exploration is the complexity of nature, its objects, and their relationships. Weather prediction, understanding how a disease spreads, the way proteins fold, and how the brain works are so complex that we can only study tiny parts at a time. Super computers and artificial intelligence are approaches that have helped push the limits created by such complexity. At some point, however, these tools will “understand” but humans won’t—a limit we may have already crossed (see The Evolution of Multidimensionality).
A final limitation is that the tools we have to study nature and its complexities are inadequate. From language to describe the dynamics, to the mathematics that quantifies it, to logic and the science of the formal principles of reasoning, these either don’t exist or are insufficient. Mathematics, for example, has to make assumptions about reality—and its validity rests on such assumptions. Are we sure we are using the right assumptions? Kurt Gödel’s incompleteness theorem states that if you have a consistent mathematical system (i.e., a set of axioms with no contradictions) in which you can do a certain amount of arithmetic, then there are statements in that system which are unprovable using only that system’s axioms. The mathematics is incomplete, and it is, therefore, impossible to prove everything. This problem reminds me of an Emily Dickinson poem on nature which asserts that, “Nature is what we know—Yet have no art to say—”
Given these and other limitations of science, what can overcome them? First is to recognize there are alternative paths to knowledge. Whether we focus on what we consider emotions or knowledge of the heart, action and selfless service, or faith, meditation, noetic, and religious experiences, what we learn from these alternative approaches is that we can indeed capture distinct aspects and dimensions of the same reality. These approaches provide access to unique forms of knowledge which may be indescribable, but an experience that we can still try to communicate to others.
“We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience.” – Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
What if mystics and spiritual masters are right about us being spiritual beings having a human experience? Is there anything in what we know about the brain and its development that may be more associated with such an idea than with the standard materialist explanation? I interpret a 2021 meta-analysis of brain connectivity by Edde and colleagues as evidence that we should not easily dismiss these types of alternative explanations.
A set of biological rules or algorithms govern brain connectivity changes during normal development, maturation, and aging and, forming and shaping the macroscopic architecture of the brain’s wiring network or connectome. The standard model, shown in the Figure below, predicts that as we develop prenatally and during the first few years, local neural connections form first, followed by more global connections. This initial growth occurs in parallel with synaptogenesis, where macroscopic connectome formation and transformation reflects an initial overgrowth and subsequent elimination of cortico-cortical fibers. For most of the middle period of development, we see a plateau in the process and a strengthening of these connections. As we reach old age, the prediction is that things reverse, with global connections losing strength and finally local connections being affected. This inversion of the developmental process during aging accords with the developmental models of neuroanatomy for which the latest matured regions are the first to deteriorate. The graph below illustrates this inverted U-function of brain connectivity during a lifetime.
Mostly, studies of the human connectome support this standard model. The quirk in Edde’s recent analysis is the unexpected observation that it is local networks that begin losing strength in aging, while global networks maintain or even increase. The implication is that we lose focused, specialized functions with aging, but maintain or strengthen global, integrative functions. If we are preparing for death, why would this be taking place?
For a potential explanation, let us turn to a simplified spiritual model of development that closely matches these new observations (see Figure below). Initially, an understanding of our true nature (the spiritual path) provides the insight that ego development, while natural, interferes with knowledge of who we really are. We gain insight that we form highly local and specialized functions early in order to protect our fragile sense of being. These processes strengthen during adolescence and early adulthood (ego development). Time and further insights (e.g., identifying exclusively with this ego) during middle age propel us to embark on a process described as ego-death or at least diminishment. We seek to undo the local and highly functional networks that arose during ego development. The outcome of this effort is a switch in perspective, which many term realization. This basically describes a switch from identification with ego-based processes to a sense of the larger unity of which we are part. Realization can occur at any time in development, but usually after some effort in reducing ego-based thinking. Realization means a major strengthening of the global networks associated with the unity experience. This is more in concert with the proposal that “in the fifth decade of life (that is, after a person turns 40), the brain starts to undergo a radical “rewiring” that results in diverse networks becoming more integrated and connected over the ensuing decades, with accompanying effects on cognition.”
Why do we have diminished memory function as we age? While clinical disorders such as dementia exacerbate this condition, the natural trend in aging is for a reduced capability. Why? Perhaps the materialist models are wrong and what we are seeing, as supported by Edde et al., is a reduction in localized functioning, while strengthening of the global unity functions. For me, this preparation to join this larger unity in death would seem like a better explanation for what is happening in aging. This is in contrast to the idea that “the networking changes likely result from the brain reorganizing itself to function as well as it can with dwindling resources and aging ‘hardware.’”
… here is the deepest secret nobody knows (here is the root of the root and the bud of the bud and the sky of the sky of a tree called life; which grows higher than the soul can hope or mind can hide) and this is the wonder that’s keeping the stars apart i carry your heart (i carry it in my heart) e.e. cummings
What would our world be like if, instead of training the young to value money and material things, they would learn to value truth, creativity, and love? If they could learn to carry the heart of the other in their own heart? Why is such a world only theoretically possible? Obviously, it is the way we have structured rewards and punishment in our dysfunctional society. That money is the basis for purchasing goods and services makes materialism, if not inevitable, then highly likely. Those with the most money get the most toys. But what if goods and services were available regardless of money? What if we rewarded nonmaterial values? We can all imagine a society where hard work, honesty, teamwork could guarantee a child a free high school and college education. Such a society could guarantee a reasonable income and work once they completed their education. Why do we consider these things noble yet highly unlikely to occur? What must we change to move us in that direction?
Let’s begin with the young and the learning they undergo. On the optimistic side, schooling, when done right, is mainly a positive thing. Children learn to be social. They get interested in science. We encourage their curious ways. Whatever goes wrong with this expectation and outcome is correctable without having to rethink what education is. I would even argue that the competition that is fostered in grade school is a good thing as well. Whether in athletics or academics, competition is a healthy motivating force. It goes wrong when it becomes entirely a selfish endeavor, with no consideration for others. Is that the clue to what takes us in the wrong direction?
Some argue that selfishness is a part of human nature; that children are the ultimate narcissists; and unless society counterbalances that drive, things will go awry. If true, then what are the social forces that provide such counterbalancing drives. I would argue that things like church, group associations, a multi-ethnic, diverse culture are important. And what is at the core of what these institutions teach? I would say they teach us empathy; to put ourselves in the shoes of the other; to carry their heart in our own heart. Empathy is the counter to selfishness. Unfortunately, these countervailing forces in society are currently losing authority or producing an unnatural backlash. This is the root of the problem. The lack of a counter to our selfish drive is creating narcissistic individuals not interested in others. Of course, we are talking about massive generational, value- and age-based changes going on in the world. Is there one small thing that can change this inevitable storm?
Some argue that the world is a chaotic, dynamical system. In such a system, the fluttering of a butterfly in South America can have a significant effect on the weather in North America. Perhaps this essence of chaos theory applies to the chaos of social turbulence we are experiencing. Many answers about which behavior would be most effective are possible. But the one that rings most true, and which lies at the root of the root of the answer, is love—unconditional love. Love is empathy in action. Learn to love in this way. Teach others to love without judgment. This small beating of your wings might just change the turbulence you and all of us are experiencing.
Cynics say that “the only constant is change.” And there is a certain amount of truth to that. Take for example the ever-changing weather. Summer heat gives way to autumn and changing colors. This then gives way to winter cold and snow, which turns into spring and blooming flowers. All these changes occur within a year, and then the cycle starts all over again. On another front, we are exposed to around 100,000 words a day—equivalent to 20 plus words per second through texting, email, the internet, television and other media. This avalanche of information and noise may be the basis for the turmoil in our politics and the topsy-turvy nature of our personal lives. Because change is everywhere, we are more than willing to accept the characterization that it is the only constant in our lives. However, like the turbulent ocean breakers during a stormy day, the apparent turbulence is only on the surface. Diving into the violent sea, the calmness of the deep waters is surprising. Similarly, if we go deeper into the origin and development of the universe, we realize that there is a level of existence where constancy is the rule. In fact, without the unchanging nature of entities, units, values, and interactions, the universe of change would be impossible.
This is the surprising conclusion arrived at by physicists and cosmologists. They point out that many fundamental factors in this universe do not change – EVER. And such stability provides the basis for the turmoil. Physics tells us that it takes 26 dimensionless constants to describe the Universe simply and completely. The similarity in numbers to the 26 letters of the English alphabet is fascinating, for the analogy is useful. These basic units represent the foundational elements, the cosmological primitives, from which EVERYTHING arises.
In 2018, the General Conference on Weights and Measures (CGPM) held a meeting where they agreed on new definitions for the base units of all weights and measures, like the kilogram and the second. The goal was to create standards for measuring things based on fundamental universal constants. This would allow such measures to withstand the test of time and not lose accuracy through contaminations and degradations. These definitions went into effect on May 20, 2019, and most of the world did not take notice of this profound change in our lives.
The newly defined measures include the speed of light in a vacuum (299,792,458 meters/second). It includes Planck’s constant = 6.62607015 x 10 -34 J s, the elementary charge = 1.602176634 x 10-19 C, the Boltzmann constant = 1.380649 x 10 -23 J/K, and Avogadro constant (NA) = 6.02214076 x 1023 mol-1. Not only are these measures more accurate than ever, but as I am describing, they are constant and unchanging.
It is interesting to note that no one really knows why these specific factors are constant in our universe. Nonetheless, constancy is important because it makes the universe possible, predictable and not truly chaotic. Despite how messy and disorganized the world may seem, if we know what forces and factors are involved, we can predict the outcome. Although most of the time we do not know all the forces and factors involved, we can imagine how much wilder and confusing it would be if one second, for example, would be a changing variable. But in this universe, one second is now defined in terms of a universal constant as “the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom.” Assuming we understand this, we can breathe more easily that this will NEVER change. At least not until we discover a new physics and a new universe.
Other relevant fundamental universal constants in our universe:
The fine-structure constant (Aα)
Electric constant (ε0)
Mass of six quarks, six leptons, the W, Z, and the Higgs boson
Since it became an independent nation on July 4, 1776, the U.S. has grown into a serious country. Deep down, however, many of us think we know better and have harbored the fantasy that it is, in fact, a light-hearted, funny and humorous society. It turns out this might be where the real political schism in our country lies. Half of us believing that being the United States is serious business and that we should lead and take care of the world. The other half thinking such grandiosity is a joke and we should worry only about ourselves. And that we should enjoy what we have without sharing it with anyone else. Unfortunately, the “anyone else” usually means people of color. And since there are growing numbers of us here, that would exclude an awful lot of folks.
The U.S. earned much of the esteem and respect it received when it led on issues facing the world over the last few centuries. That respect sometimes flowed because of the country’s richness and power. On the positive side, during the 20th century the U.S. overcame the Great Depression; it led the world in turning back the Nazi war machine; and, it defeated the spread of communism. Throughout the course of that century, its citizens were succeeding as space explorers, medical pioneers, and cultural leaders. The path to superpower prominence reflected the strength and optimism of those citizens. Curiously, in the beginning of the 21st century, U.S. society seems to have lost its way. It lost a culture war; it decided that the Presidency and its institutions were a joke; and it ignored the worst pandemic in history by ignoring science. As a result, more than a quarter million citizens were lost. This abbreviated history of the last two centuries reflects the split-mind version of America: a serious country vs. a joke. It is no wonder that we are, at this moment, feeling uncertain, anxious, lost, and depressed!
The choice of Donald Trump as President in 2016 was a repudiation of the seriousness, respect, and leadership the country had developed over its history. His victory reflected the idea that ordinary citizens were choosing disruption of the status quo; having the desire to administer an electroconvulsive shock to the political system; giving the metaphorical middle finger to competent bureaucrats; and a longing to “clean up the swamp” of those who made the system work. Trump’s mission, incompetently carried out, only created more turmoil. The chaos that ensued unmasked the fact that while governing can make everyone frustrated, it does require experience and expertise.
More voters recognized that truism in 2020, and following Biden’s victory, there is a sense of lightness, of a weight being lifted, and of a new optimism about the future. This despite still being in the middle of the deadly COVID-19 pandemic. The country literally experienced an enormous sigh of relief! Along with several promising vaccines, there is the birth of a new tone in the presidency, one that values science and the well-being of others. It is a hopeful beginning. This may be an unfounded expectation since there are still leftover issues and unforeseen impediments as we say goodbye to 2020. Yet, I sense that the serious part of America is now ascendant. But we won’t really know that until the new year is fully underway. In the meantime, I’ll take whatever joy I feel.
The historian Warren Susman discusses the changing views of character in Culture As History. He argues that the transformation we are witnessing in today’s culture is one from a culture of character to a culture of personality. We might note the prominence and value of character in presidential elections prior to 2016. Then, character became less important and personality more central when Donald Trump ran for president. The evidence suggests such transformation is happening throughout society. I would argue, however, that whatever is happening is not changing the essential nature of the American character, only obscuring it.
Character is a complex and multidimensional attribute that it is difficult to define and discuss. It is something we are strong in, or good at, or have a great deal of it. Most adults aspire for “excellent character,” but our current culture rarely emphasizes it beyond our childhood and adolescent years. We tend to confuse character with personality. Yet, these are distinct concepts. Character reflects deep-seated identification with truthfulness, idealism, morality, and orientation towards life. Personality, on the other hand, defines responsiveness to external events, such as how we respond to others because of how they view us. We might, for example, consider ourselves fortunate because people admire that we are rich.
As someone born outside the U.S. and integrated into American society, I have a unique perspective that may differ from native-born citizens. As an adolescent, I grew up with the idea that the U.S. was the land of Oz, with emerald cities paved with gold, and opportunities around every corner. As an adult, I became more cynical about these things, yet could not ignore my journey, which has been mostly positive. What I realized is there exists an essential core in the American spirit that is strong. This despite the winds of apathy, ignorance, and radicalism that are making a culture of character into a culture of personality.
What is at the core of this spirit? It begins with an openness that many around the world find unique and endearing. Americans are seen as transparent and friendly. They smile all the time, say visitors, and even say hello as they pass you by on the street. It is a remarkable openness characterized by warmth, friendliness, and humor. It is one of the first things that strikes anyone coming from another culture or who has been overseas for a long time. This openness combines with a generosity of spirit that is the expected response of a sincere heart. How much and how often individuals give to charities and to those in need illustrates this big-heartedness. There is also a level of American volunteerism that has few parallels in the world. In the society, an infrastructure has evolved to help others that echoes this generosity. Aside from charitable and non-governmental organizations and innumerable private foundations, there are the governmental treasures such as the National Institute of Health. Government grants have been an invisible driver of American ingenuity, technology, and free enterprise.
In all the endeavors I have engaged in since coming to this country, getting an education, becoming a scientist and an entrepreneur, and starting a creative writing career, I have always found a wealth of support and encouragement. This has taken the form of scholarships, grants, advice, and guidance that comprise the helpful culture that surrounds me. This leads to the other characteristics I find unique in the American spirit. One is an adventuresome quality thatengenders entrepreneurial and give-it-a-go attitudes at once child-like and infectious. Adventuresome behavior is combined with a steely confidence of success, one that says, “I can do this.” Finally, there is an almost preternatural forward-thinking mentality that has given rise to new technologies like Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Apple and a thousand other ventures that have revolutionized the future of humankind.
We need to encourage such inimitable character. If we do not cultivate it as an important aspect of our identity, we are in danger of losing its meaning and significance. Fortunately, the essence of this character is in the ambience of the culture. While obscured by personality and social craziness, it is the default attitude children learn. It is up to us to become vigilant and identify those things that obscure this essential treasure. Then, we just need to get out of the way and let it express itself.
Thanks for reading. I am open to criticism so please respond if you don’t agree or have additional ideas about essential qualities of the American spirit with which you identify. I would like to compile a more thorough list.
Albert Einstein framed the question that is the title of this essay. Another way to ask it is whether nature had any choice regarding the fundamental principles it exhibits? As a non-expert, I consider the laws of physics similar to the Ten Commandments. I see them as rules determining the behavior of matter imposed by the Creator of the universe. This, however, is a more theological than an objective viewpoint.
A more scientific perspective is to view the laws of physics as human inventions, i.e., mathematical formulas that quantitatively define the results of observations and measurements. It’s relevant to underscore that such laws are not built into the structure of the universe and that physicists are not just discovering them. Rather, these principles fall out of the models and parameters physicists develop to describe the observations. Unfortunately, these patterns do not explain why nature is so predictable, instead of chaotic and unpredictable? And why these laws are similar under unique conditions?
The latter question is actually easier to answer than the former. From the beginning, scientists agreed that these laws of nature were free from any type of frame of reference, a proposition called the “principle of covariance.” This was not a choice, but the result of the modeling. We now understand that this neutrality arises from space-time coordinate independence; Meaning that all the fundamental physics follow from the principle of point-of-view invariance. Recall, for example, that light travels at the same speed regardless of the observer’s perspective.
The present Standard Model of particle physics assumes the existence of six “flavors” of quarks, three “generations” of neutrinos, and one Higgs particle. This model comes with 19 constants of nature — numbers such as the mass and charge of the electron — that are measured in experiments. These are the basic parameters of the universe, although translating this design into reality remains riddled with disunions, holes and inconsistencies. Instead of the model producing a single solution, or one unique universe, a slew of solutions or universes exist. It is analogous to having a 26-letter vocabulary that can produce an infinite number of words.
The question that arises is, if our world is but one of many, how do we explain the alternatives? From a quantum physics perspective, these alternatives are considered “probabilities.” String theory (or M-theory) is, at this moment, the dominant and most consistent candidate for a theory of everything, including these alternative probabilities. String theory, offered in 1995 by the physicist Edward Witten, presupposes that gravitons, electrons, photons and everything else, are not point-particles. Instead, they exist as tiny ribbons of energy, or “strings,” that vibrate in singular ways. M-theory can describe all nature particles and forces, including gravity, while obeying the strict logical rules of quantum mechanics and relativity. The problem is that no empirical evidence for M-theory exists.
Robbert Dijkgraaf, Director of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, has recently stated: “By shaking the universe hard enough, we would be able to move from one possible world to another, changing what we consider the immutable laws of nature and the special combination of elemental particles that make up reality.” What this points to is that thinking of physics in terms of fundamental building blocks may be inaccurate, or at least of limited usefulness. Instead, what Dijkgraaf proposes as a solution is to consider an immense “landscape” that connects every instantiation of solutions or universes. Consider, if you will, maneuvering through a myriad of islands in a vast ocean. Below the surface, these “independent” reefs are outcroppings of an extensive and interconnected mountain range.
The principles of nature, or the specifications applied to interpret our measurements, may be accidental, or local to our environment (at least our part of the Universe). They are neither dictated by any universal principle, and not generic or required. Another way to view this is to consider that the laws of physics appear in space and time as resolving uncertainty. Resolution of ambiguity is “information” – one that is circumstance- and location-dependent. Without such contextually dependent information, organic existence as we recognize it in our world should not have occurred. It is also why such life is unique.
