X - Science ( .pdf )

After uploading my testimony on the web, many people reacted by asking relevant questions but also by mixing things up simply because we do not know much what the Gospel really proposes.

The goal of these texts is thus to explain and to have a fresh eye, which will go as far as to throw most of us off balance, be he Christian or not, on what proposes the Gospel, in particular on some phrases and notions which upset and puzzle people of today so as to give everyone in a spiritual quest new lights.

These lights are based on the teachings from an outstanding being, Mister Anthelme Nizier Philippe, who lived between 1849 and 1905 mainly in Lyon, but also on some experiences Heaven granted to me.

We all know how heated, how passionate debates about spirituality often are. Everybody is sure to know the truth and belittles what the other has to say but few throw passions off in favour of a logical and deductive reasoning. What about regarding spirituality in the same way as mathematics, with a logical eye and a deductive mind?

* * *

The goal of this article is to slip some remarks on Science.

For the common run of people, science has been becoming for a long time a religion along with its own inquisition. One believes in science, in what science says. If science happens to say something, it can be but true. No doubts, no callings into question can cross people mind, at least for most of them.

I was also trained as a man of science. I studied physics at Orsay and got a ph. D in mathematics at Rennes. That is not the point.

What I want to say to most of people who will read this text and are not scientists is the following :
Science gained breakthroughs in the understanding of this world but not immutable thruths! To place your faith in science is to place your faith in thruths which are true now but either will not be so in the future either will be very limited and depending of model and of mathematical axioms they are based upon!

However, science and physics in particular gives us many a life lesson for those that know how humble one must be and how to read between the lines.

Indeed, physics teaches us that what we see is not reality! Intepreting what we see in a naive way is often a source of blunders.

Consider the law of fall. If you throw a steel ball and a feather from the top of a tower, everybody says that the ball will touch the ground before the feather. Many, included Aristotle, had thereby deduced a physics law from what they could see : the heavier the body is, the faster it falls. However Galileo (1564-1642) reinterpreted what everybody could see. By a thought experiment, he deduced the law of fall : any body must fall at the same speed (in the void). We see what we see because of frictions forces with air. The reasoning is a simple one. Should Aristotle be right, then the parachute can not exist! Indeed, a man with a non-open parachute across his back is heavier than if he had not, hence he must fall faster. But, on opening his parachute, the height remains the same and yet he is falling less fast...

Mind the interpretations from what you can see. We often have naive and superficial interpretations from what we can see leading us to make clumsy logical errors many a time.

In a near past, physicists like Hubble (1889-1953) make some experiments and notice that galaxies are fleeing away from us. They are not answered the priest Lemaître (1894 - 1966); according to the general theory of relativity by Einstein, the universe is expanding and give the illusion of their fleeing away from us.
This expanding universe model will lead to the well-known Big Bang. The present theories of grand unifications imply that the Big Bang idea would not be possible but instead a funnel-like thing would be more likely. This would lead to something before our universe as we know it now.
Master Philippe de Lyon reminds us that :

(Life and Words Page 115 [1]) : "When all the beings of the Creation have returned to God, the work being over, there shall be another creation."

Before this creation, there had been another one! This is towards such a thing the physics computations are leading us. But once this creation over, another one shall begin...
You understand again how careful we must be when interpreting what we see! According to physics models and the knowledges of the day, interpretations can change and so are our knowledge of what we think we know.

Let us set another example. Newton (1642-1727) thought light was made of particles. Huygens (1629 - 1695) answered it was not so : Light has a wave nature. The particle model will be discarded for the benefit of the wave model which will lead to the Maxwell (1831-1879) equations. Yet, as the quantum mechanics was rising, people were compelled to admit that light, as well as any particule, had both a wave nature and a particle nature. This was called the wave-particle duality and the generalisation to every particle was proposed by de Broglie (1892 - 1987). Observe that the truths of science are changing. What we think to be true now shall be questioned afterwards. The temptation for the vast majority of people to blindly believe in science is as big as their memory is short.
In passing, note that the non-contradiction principle - a proposition and its negation can not be true at the same time - does not apply to elementary particles : because a particle can be both a particule and a wave.
About this duality, I was also allowed to experiment it as I was coming back to my body when I told you I was like a light packet coming into my heart as my closed eyes were opening inch by inch. I think I experienced what is called in physics a wave packet collapse but in a continuous way and not in a discrete and a violent way as it is modelled by projecting a state vector onto a well-chosen sub-Hilbert space. That is why I was talking about decoherence in this text.

Let us focus on the non-contradiction principle : a proposition and its negation cannot be true at the same time. For instance, the proposition "I am in Lyon" and its opposite "I am not in Lyon" cannot be true at the same time. Everyone tells me how obvious it is...
And yet again, it is false! One can be at the same time in several different places and be aware of what is going on in these places where one is, at the same time.
The case of Padre Pio is well-known; it is called the bilocation or multilocation phenomena.
Another account of bilocation can be found on page 15 in Answers from Master Philippe.

The theory of relativity supposes a speed limit no particle or signal can exceed. Einstein (1879-1955) postulated that this speed is the speed of light.
This is not true when our spirits communicate. Because we can instantaneously, by telepathy, communicate with beings very far from us.

Thanks to the work of John Bell (1928-1990), experiments run by the team of Alain Aspect shows that quantum mechanics is a deeply non-determinist science. The indeterminacy shows up whenever a measure is performed, leading to a wave packet collapse. For Einstein, it was unacceptable. The quantum mechanics was a right theory but an incomplete one. Therefore, there had to be some hidden mathematical variables which, once unravelled, would have permitted to get rid of this intrinsic indeterminacy. The debate between the proponents, like Einstein, of hidden variables and those, run by Bohr (1885-1962), claiming that quantum mechanics was complete was raging. In 1964, John Bell settled the question. If hidden mathematical variables are admitted within the mathematical description of quantum mechanics, using Hilbert spaces notably, then some quantities must obey some inequalities called the Bell inequalities. The experiment run by the team of Aspect in 1982 shows that the Bell inequalities are violated and are consistent with quantum mechanics predictions.

Einstein had said, "God does not play dice". He could not believe there was an intrinsic indeterminacy, an intrinsic chance in nature while, since Newton, every law we knew were governed by quite deterministic differential equations.
However, if you have read what I have written, you might have noted that I say, despite what I was taught in quantum mechanics at Orsay, that there is no chance, no indeterminacy that everything is ordered to the split second. This is in blatant contradiction with what quantum physics says. How to get out of this contradiction? Here are some parts of the answer coming from the teaching of Master Philippe de Lyon :

(Life and Words Page 298) : "Nothing is dead, everything is intelligent. That is what scientists don't know and what baffles them. For instance, a scientist finds the properties of a medicine. He has treated his patients with it for five or six months, and the patients have recovered. Then, over time, the virtue has been fading away. That is because Nature likes simplicity and loathes pride. The virtue has been fading away as the greed of the pharmacist or of the drug manufacturer have been growing since they have drawn, without Heaven's permission and for their own glory or for their own satisfaction, an unreasonable profit on the remedy."

So, EVERYTHING is alive and intelligent...

(Life and Words Page 161) : "Matter is alive; it can see, it can hear, it can feel, it can remember. It is intelligent. The intelligence of matter is always attracted by the Light." (29/01/1902)

(Life and Words Pages 161 - 162, "Chemical Notes.") : "There are no simple bodies. Those that are called simple; it's because nobody hasn't been able to decompose them yet." (15/03/1896)

And here is what could explain the indeterminacy when a measure is performed in quantum mechanics :

(Answers Page 127) : "A piece of bread has its own self divisible in thousands of molecules which also own it." (November 1894)

A particle has therefore a self, a free-will. It is alive and clever. When a mathematical superposition of states in an Hilbert space is written down, we describe all possible choices the particle can have. Then, the decision belongs to it and that leads us to project the vector state onto a sub-Hilbert space, to reduce the wave packet and to state our calculations in term of probability. The experiment by Aspect, following Bell's works, shows there is an intrinsic chance, an intrinsic indeterminacy... owing to particles having a self and thus a free-will.
Suppose you can command matter. Then, you will be able to change any experiment. When Moses commanded sea to part, God commanded water molecules of His creation on the way of Hebrew people to step aside. These molecules stopped obeying physics laws they were supposed to follow but obeyed others laws imposed by the divine order.
That is why I warn you against science. One can understand what God would care to permit us to understand. Put it differently, one can describe but an illusion we are living in. Every law we will state might be violated because we forgot here below that human beings are not alone in the universe. There are also other beings, much more powerful than us, having access to matter and capable of making us think the moon is made of green cheese.
We end this paragraph by a hint of poetry :

(Life and Words Page 163) : "If you had a powerful enough microscope, you could see everything in a drop of water: monsters, sirens, a whole universe."

The message is ever the same, pay attention not to take to the letter what some scientists say whatever the field, whether in physics or in archeology...

We deal with time to finish. Time is one of the great mysteries in contemporary physics. Time is introduced by hand in equations. Nobody knows what makes time go by. What is more, many mix up course of time and arrow of time (why things are changing on and on).
How to understand the motor of time? Those that have well understood the aticle on photographic negatives will have deduce that time is a set of sequences called photographic negatives. The sequence of photographic negatives turns into consequences in our daily life, each time we use our free-will. Photographic negatives are alive. They form the arrow of time, put it differently, the future of each thing. They have been created since the beginning. Because they are alive, clever and in a room different from ours, one can hardly be aware of them except if we have been gifted. All we can see when on Earth is sequences of actions going by on and on. When took by one of those photographic negatives, accepted by using our free-will, we can but follow the photographic negative flow imposing on us. This photographic negative being alive, we can interact with it by our free-will and those very advanced spiritually in the future will be allowed to command it.
You perceive how far we are from noncommutative geometry models proposed by Alain Connes.
In a more humble way, I had proposed in my thesis a very mathematical object to model the course of time and the arrow of time. Again, noncommutativity but also nonassociativity are required[2].

I alert you once again! Take care not to put your faith in science. Flaws of science are many : profit, pride or sincerity coupled with wrong experiments interpretations; history of science abounds with examples!

Science too has its own inquisition. Remind the Catholic inquisition condemning Galileo whose famous word is known as : "And yet it turns!" but one forgets that the scientific inquisition has committed similar condemnations.

For instance with Boltzmann (1844-1906) who hypothesized atom at a time where most physicists did not believe in and regarded the atom hypothesis as an esoteric one...
According to Boltzmann, the atom hypothesis explained the irreversibility in time of most physical phenomenons states from equations as these of Newton, which are reversible. Indeed, changing t en -t in the Newton equations amounts to reverse bodies speeds and thus to go back in the arrow of time (but not the course of time). One could, at least theoretically, make a physical system go back in its initial state.
As this had been never observed for non trivial systems, a debate about how to deal with the irreversibility of states of a system was raging on at the time. Boltzmann had answered that this irreversibility could be unravelled thanks to reversible equations if atom was admitted, for the degrees of freedom of such systems was thereby very high.
He committed suicide in 1906, the year Jean Perrin (1870-1942) experimentally proved the existence of atoms following the Einstein work in 1905 on the Brownian motion.

It is instructive to note that before 1906, seldom were those that thought that atom did exist! 1906, scarcely more than a century ago! Now, go and say to physicists that atoms do not exist...

But the scientific inquisition died hard!
When a fragment of the Holy Shroud of Turin was put under radiocarbon dating tests, three great labs as well as great scientists have all claimed that the Holy Shroud was between 1260 and 1390! without their taking care to know whether the sample had been contaminated or not. And that occured. Detailed examinations have shown there was cotton in the taken fragments whereas the sample would have been made up of linen only.
Cotton had been used for a repair perhaps after the chapel fire in Chambery in 1532. Yet, the harm was done. A hard battle had to be done to convince the scientific community of its being mistaken on the carbon dating. The main protagonists of this battle are Marino et Benford but also the chemist Raymond Rogers who, in the early times, believed none of it.

To put his faith in science is to put his faith in thruths of the day which are changing and, in deliberate lies at times.
The world we live in is an illusion. Not that what you are seeing is so - if at all... - but illusions come from your preconceived ideas you have been hanging on and ways to interpret your daily life and to build reasonings from them. We have the illusion to understand, to know, to hold the truth and as the time is going by, we forget what Christ says to us :

(John 20-29) : "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed!"

That is why we are to rebirth, why we are to come back inevitably... because we have not believed!

[1] The books Life and Words and Answers from Master Philippe are available into English on our website. We have left the French original pagination here and inside our translations for a better search optimisation.

[2] An algebraic framework of weighted directed graphs, publié dans Int. J. Math. Math. Sci, 58(2003), 3657-3678.
L-Algebras, Triplicial-Algebras, within an Equivalence of Categories Motivated by Graphs; publié dans Communications in Algebra, Volume 39, 2011 - Issue 8.