The prospect of scientific or mathematical discovery is exhilarating. Imagine historic greats—Stokes, Lagrange, Hamilton, Einstein, von Neumann, for example—navigating their respective fields with vigor, racing to uncover novel facets that innately describe their surroundings. To dedicate one’s life to the advancement of knowledge is noble—seductive even—demanding of its partakers a well-equipped essence of groundedness, pragmatism and intellectual stamina. As I embark on this rational chapter of my overarching journey, I contemplate how I may most contribute to society and the betterment of humanity. We are here only for a moment—the finiteness of worldly tenure is an effective motivator, particularly so when one has spent a large portion of their life trapped in psycho-situational agony. I cannot stomach the thought of wasting more time. Authentic fulfillment involves countless iterations of localized movement and thus patience is a valuable asset; however, I long for an idealized future which was once mere fantasy, now morphed into literal possibility through the superposition of chance, persistence and divine miracle.
I must forfeit in the wake of my life more than crumbling ashes—I aspire to leave behind a legacy far greater than that of destructive alcoholism and innovative drug abuse. To build a reputation for scientific or philosophic development is undeniably difficult in a global environment populated by billions of people, many holding wants similar to my own. Convoluting matters further are concerns of field-specific saturation—the belief that limits of inquiry are reached, leaving areas of study dried up, fleshed out, impenetrable to fresh perspective. Intuitively, it seems that the likelihood of substantive phenomenological breakthrough is inversely proportional to investigative energy spent by academic culture. If so, to become a prolific legend of research is far harder in 2024 than it would have been centuries prior. Although technology has diversified, allowing unique experimental methodology and enhanced modes of dissemination, we have simultaneously delved deep into all obvious and many non-evident caverns of thought.
Virgin scientists may despair in wondering whether anything is left yet unrevealed—this is a severely limiting belief, however, one that breeds an influx of over-complicated studies into absurdly-niche topics. Will civilization ever reach a point of total knowledge attainment? Does there exist a point—a plausible state of worldly orientation—where all theory, mathematics and logic for every potential occurrence, from atomic to cosmic scales, visible or otherwise, are known and transcribed?1 Assuming so, what would become of the universe upon its arrival? Would it crystallize into a manipulatable paradise, its inhabitants as a whole akin to an omnipotent God? My assumptive tendencies suggest that humanity, the imperfect, often divisive tribe that it is, is incapable of touching such a maxima, were it possible. We can certainly strive, though—that is ultimately a major goal—to understand with utmost clarity and delicate precision. Innumerable clever, skilled people cannot be devoting their priceless resources to a worthless cause, right?
Hopefully, barring extinction at the hands of massive climate distortion or pointlessly waged wars, society will translate along some undulating, stochastic trajectory that eventually brings forth a near-utopian mecca of sophistication. We have simulated this through video games and science fiction, created visions infused with realism and spectacular detail. So, we can dream, but can we execute? The current global architecture poses a problem—separate nations will forever foster incoherence as an aggregate community, owing to extreme differences in opinion, lifestyle and leadership on all sides of the arbitrary mesh formed by country-dividing lines. Viewing the physical universe through a broadened lens, this seems futile. Sure, there is international connectivity, to an extent—the internet’s unfurling resulted in a highly-permeable, porous network of informational flow, unfathomably dense with binarized data. There are undoubtedly hinderances in many locations, however—yet barbaric micro-spheres within a dynamic macrocosm who do not comprehend the importance of freedom. I am not advocating for suddenly nullified global separation, which would spark a duration of chaotic diffusion and destabilization; but, when I imagine a hyper-futuristic colony, I picture a consolidated whole led by technocratic mystics, not a polarized world shuttered by diametric factions of wildly oscillating values.
I will assume here for the sake of discussion a standpoint which opposes nihilism; or, that there is true meaningfulness amidst the void of human madness. Entropy continues to rise as governed by immutable thermodynamic law—the earth system receives substantially more energy from the sun than it emits through radiation into space.2 We can either harness this irreversible increase in complexity or fall prey to a large-scale apocalyptic fate—what differentiates these two scenarios may be our ability to unify as a species, requiring a sharp, visionary outlook held by grand stewardship. In the realms of science and knowledge, specifically, we must shake free from dogma that claims there is hardly anything left to discover outside intricate elements of already known theory. Fundamentalism must be restored, returning to limitless wonderment that reigned during golden years of empirical and mechanistic study. Such a transformation necessitates an overhaul—a reevaluation of where exactly we stand in regards to scientific progress. Myriad modern research fields are functionally flooded and abyssally populated. The insistent notion to “publish or perish” plagues academic institutions, pressuring overburdened and undervalued researchers—especially graduate students—to produce works that succeed the peer-review process irrespective of inherent quality and benefaction to state-of-the-art.
Science urgently begs for revitalization, preferably in attunement with cutting-edge, unprecedented expertise and enigmatic figures, born-creators unafraid of social backlash driven to reclaim fields of study which face the brink of complete determination. As a budding theoretician, I crave a glimpse of the glory that surely characterized early-day scientific revolution. Contemporary university culture has become somewhat of a bureaucratic nightmare, constricting intellectual greatness through mandated channels of funding, unoriginal guidance and unsteady directionality. I would intuit that genius exists deadlocked in the mundanity of higher-institution, at best supplying eloquent research contributions that are well-aligned with status-quo. Alternatively, were they to be funneled into nonconformist inquisitive methodologies, thoroughly mentored in the art of logical skepticism and analogic application, perhaps their works would be groundbreaking, earth-shatteringly novel and unequivocally helpful in the procurement of a healthy societal future.3
If Isaac Newton, father of classical mechanics, were alive and working in the present day, would he would be as impactful as he was in retrospect? Would he find a way to cut through the noise of modernity and forge his way into a proprietary niche, as he masterfully did years ago? His achievements are impressive, of course, but one must wonder how much of that success can be ascribed to fortune—right place, right time, and a notable absence of pressing competitors. His historic fame, as an example, makes me wonder how one may do something similar in the present—securing scientific notoriety in an era marked with ideological overcrowding. To do so one must adventure boldly into the unknown—where no one has gone before—with nothing but faith and the spark of curiosity driving them forward. Such an undertaking warrants immense courage in a world rapidly quick to judge.
Shortly before World War II brought havoc into the universe, quantum physics erupted into the landscape of science, eluding previously held standards of normality. Pioneering names in that revelation are Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Dirac, Bohr and Planck—all well-known to any senior student of engineering or natural sciences. They led an insurgence into darkness, acting with astute bravery in the eyes of reason-defying results. I firmly believe that we are approaching a similar impasse, a time for great minds to culminate and devise a brand new field of study—the mechanics of spiritualism.4 Spirituality, as is, runs rampant through masses of everyday people, uncaring as to whether empirical backing stands which validates the very legitimacy of their actions. Its prevalence is not sustained through ignorance—far from it; however, the lack of rigorously derived evidential bases keeps it at a noticeable distance from the throws of science, dissuading otherwise interested researchers from investigation. If these matters of obscurity—astral projection, manifestation, unseen forces, as examples—are bona fide components of practicable reality, society ought to generate a framework of underlying mechanisms that govern such phenomena.
For a new, seemingly bizarre field to be established in the crosshairs of public discourse, a simplistic, easily digestible proof-of-concept must be made available. This is a superbly difficult task for invisible happenings, requiring a collective of strongly convicted individuals who are committed to bringing forth tangible data that unshakingly verifies the spiritual endeavor being studied. The intrinsic subjectivity involved serves as an added layer of complication. One must distinguish between personal, faith-based utilization and actualized presence of ideology—a blurry line that evades the strictness of traditional scientific method. Another consideration is the assimilation of pre-existing spiritual groups with the precision of scientific standards—is this even a desirable union? Who stands to benefit? The shift from shadows of ambiguity to limelight of focus is monumental and would surely be met with some level of resistance.
Consider the so-called act of astral-projection—leaving one’s body at the edge of waking-sleep—a pastime popularized in faraway corners of human consciousness. According to an informal guide posted on Reddit, one can, through a peculiar subset of internal manipulation, “explore anywhere on earth, outer space, other planets and realms” and “access different timelines and alternate realities”—conjecture, certainly, yet intriguing nonetheless, particularly in light of the scale of followers claiming success. As discussed previously here, I have experienced the thrill of astral projection and my perceived foray into a non-physical plane was enough to convince me of its exploratory potential. Anecdotal confirmation, however, even when multiplied thousands-fold, does not indicate societal acceptance. There is no reputable scientific journal that publishes the specifics of astral dynamics or the related frontiers of human inquest, to my knowledge. In fact, many devout scientists would likely scoff at the idea—as many did at the outset of quantum mechanics or the historic realization of earth’s sphericity.
Sticking with our exemplar, let us assume here that astral projection is a genuine piece of reality attainable through mediated action. To derive a working mechanistic framework that encapsulates all relevant aspects—for example, physics, applicability, risks, contraindications, benefits and implications of astral travel—we must first ask: what, exactly, is the astral? Is it equivalently our collective consciousness, comparable to the hit movie The Matrix? Or, is it something total inexplicable in known terminology?5 One can find a multitude of logically questionable interpretations throughout the internet, presumptuous descriptors crafted through imaginative fantasy, as a whole lacking a fundamental clarity that is necessary in the effective creation of a respectable field. What is desperately needed, in this context, is a concise, authoritarian definition that is built on reason and welcomes further enhancements and expansion. There are, however, limits on the theoretical competence of those unexposed to the spiritual domain, meaning that the field’s pioneering researchers must acquire steady access to examine and measure astral properties.
Once we paint a clear portrayal of astral foundations, we can begin to unravel its mechanisms. Intuitively, there must await a set of mathematical expressions that capture astral occurrence—in my experience, many familiar physical concepts, like gravity, do not apply there in the way we understand them here. A means of astral data collection must be developed, allowing us to probe its murky fabric with diligence, extracting the essence of perplexing phenomena. With a semblance of ingenuity these can be transposed into a map of non-ordinary reality—guiding infrastructure from which will emerge boundless possibilities such as evolved understandings of consciousness, means of fast-tracked self-realization, free vacationing, interactions with intelligent, non-physical entities, and, most notably, a brand new field of science open to global collaboration, contentions for theoretical checkpoints and infusions from other areas. The maturation of astral dynamics will surely borrow from already-established fields; for example, quantum physics, general/special relativity, simulation theory, and fluid mechanics. However, it will stand proudly as its own branch of knowledge, freshly minted in the heart of epistemology.6
Ideally, the research domain of spiritual science will weave its way into fruition through implementation of innovative solutions and resourceful, risk-oriented devotees. I am confident that it will—eventually—settle and normalize, blossoming into a vast basin of useful information and actionable generalities. As a field of inquiry, spirituality is ripe for inspection, offering unique challenges requiring novel approaches in thought, testing and logical development—a natural dream for those curious and venturous. Given society’s current trajectory, the future of humanity may depend on our willingness to adapt, especially with respect to unconventional ideations. The rise of malaise and automation can be attenuated by proliferated free-thinking virtue, surrendering ourselves to strange and unheard of hypotheses, paradoxically loosening the shackles of physicality. Excitement hangs in the air of originality—the time has come to seize opportunity and elevate, ascending into the upper echelons of new dimensionality.
*Photos made by the author using Inkscape.
Relevant to this question, somehow, is Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, introduced to me in a brilliant book by Benjamín Labatut called The Maniac. Gödel’s theorem states that any axiomatic framework of mathematics must be either unverifiable (incomplete) or prone to contradiction (inconsistent). My understanding of this idea needs further work; however, intuitively, it could be analogically applicable to epistemology, representing “truths” as logical statements.
The term for this phenomenon is albedo—the portion of incoming solar energy that is sent back into space. Earth is thought to have an albedo rate of approximately 31%.
I will admit to having a strong bias regarding academia based on my own experience, and this generalization is more than likely bordering hyperbole. However, it seems, at least from my own exposure, that research quality has visibly declined since the mid 20th-century. Scientists and mathematicians were once rockstars; now, they are unappreciated, overworked bricks in the metaphorical “wall” of standardization, afraid to take risks in fear of becoming a social-media outcast.
Here I will refer to spirituality in a broad sense that covers all non-physical, “fringe”-type concepts, many of which may better fall into paranormality.
Also worth asking—what exactly is the vessel that our awareness travels on during astral projection?
The mechanics and cartography of the astral field are a small fraction of an overall vision for scientific spiritualization. Other pertinent areas of focus include: manifestation—bringing forth desirable physical-world outcomes through spiritual/astral manipulation, the mirror principle of holographic corporality and non-attachment-based attraction; the soul-concept—implications, past-life experience, God-connection and soul-dynamics, or the physics of soul; deities—sphere of influence, raw power and intention; the cosmos—structure of God, mathematical generalities and complexities involving the edge of infinity and black holes; crystals—healing capacities, permeability/porosity related to quantum energy, and mythologizing; and, quantum powers—limitless potentiality, power of belief, dematerialization/re-materialization, physical impossibilities, energetic sight/sensing, abnormal mental faculties and more. These may seem like fantastical musings, rightfully so; however, I trust that an obtained baseline of mathematics and accessible data would induce a steady flow of otherwise non-believers setting foot aboard the moving platform of spiritual science.