How to explain knowledge?

Paranormal phenomena are often dismissed as insignificant, but the author of this essay suggests that understanding them may be key to unlocking the secrets of our reality and human behavior. In the first part of this series of analyses, the author examines how knowledge classification and consensus influence our perception of reality. He emphasizes that science, despite its apparent objectivity, is based on illusions and beliefs, and that changing theories can lead to new discoveries. In the context of quantum theory and the observer effect, the author suggests that what we consider reality may merely be the result of our perception and belief.

One common excuse for not exploring the paranormal is that people simply don't need it. I disagree with this argument. In many ways, understanding the paranormal is a precursor to understanding ourselves and our behavior...

This is the first in an occasional series of essays in which I will attempt to demonstrate how the paranormal can influence our lives in ways we might not dare think of as paranormal. Indeed, this could be at the very center of knowledge.

My research into the paranormal has given me a great gift.

One of the most important lessons is that what we classify as "reality" rarely is. Rather, the human mind has a predisposition to create illusions in almost every area of ​​knowledge.

This can be observed in the process of assessing knowledge. Data is collected. This is combined with a hypothesis, leading to a theory. Testing leads to consensus. The consensus becomes the accepted view until a new theory disproves it.

This is the very consensus that grows out of illusion.

If we take the Big Bang or even evolution, we're missing vast amounts of essential information. Currently, the theory is invariably defended as "truth." Defenders can become devotees, reaching the point of fanaticism.

Mathematics is often used to confirm consensus. Currently, it has no reality outside the human mind. Furthermore, based on logic, attempting to test mathematics always leads to an "axiom" or self-proving truth. Which, of course, is a fancy way of saying "belief."

This argument can be challenged.

This is achieved by pointing out that a scientific theory leads to a technological innovation. This implies that the theory is correct. But how can it be correct if it is later disproved or radically changed?

Something must be wrong here. The matter is further complicated by the fact that technology continues to work even when the theory leading to it is disproven. However, there is a partial answer if we think of theory as an act of creation.

I have often been asked a simple question about faith.

If a community believes in a Divine Power, and if all actions performed by a Divine Power were true, then reality would be identical whether or not a Divine Power actually exists. Hence, belief has created a hard, definitive reality.

Indeed, this aligns with quantum theory. The "observer effect" asserts that a definition can only arise from the probabilities of the subatomic world through an act of observation by an intelligence capable of defining it.

Therefore, seeing becomes creating. If we adapt this to the process of knowledge, we can say that the slowly evolving knowledge we humans create leads to a reality based on a faith-based consensus, slowly evolving through repetition over the centuries.

The presentation of this approach can be discouraging. After all, it asserts that science encompasses only one possible reality. A different consensus could lead to an entirely new world of experience and technological innovation. Now it also leads to a single word to explain what our "caused" reality truly is.