The Human Centric Multiverse

Coming home to ourselves might just be the paradigm shift we have been waiting for.

In 1987, I had an experience which changed my perception on how we human beings approach scientific inquiry.

In short, my experience taught me that as human beings, we only have one single way to understand reality absolute, my term for that which science seeks to uncover, and that is to understand reality absolute in terms of the human experience – because that's all we have.

We may pretend to be a third party; we may pretend that we have no emotions; we may think that when we pretend to be something that we are not, this will somehow put us into a position of more wisdom and understanding, but that is structurally erroneous.

Human beings are what we are, and our systems function best when we embody this to the best of our abilities.

There is a particular “natural” way in which our bodies work and there is also a particular way in which our minds work. As one delves further and further into any field of scientific endeavour, it soon becomes apparent that there is more and more we do not know about any of this, and at the far end, problems are encountered that become impossible to solve.

This holds true for every scientific enquiry, be it in maths, physics, chemistry, biology but also extends into fields such as trying to understand music, art or spirituality – it is a global human experience that the more we know, the less we know and the more fundamental the high end problems become, functioning practically as a structural barrier to the next big paradigm shift in all these different areas of endeavour.

It is my core supposition that as a human being, alone or in combination with other human beings and their supportive technology, what exists today as well as what could possibly exist in the future, to understand reality absolute fully and completely, is a structural impossibility.

Yes, we do have amazing brains and wonderful intelligence.

Yes, we have the advantage of at least trying to attempt “scientific immortality” because we can theoretically transfer the experience of a previous generation to the next.

Yes, we have the ability to develop supportive technology, for example, enabling us to see further through lenses than we can see with our physical eyes alone, or to compute more numbers in a few seconds that would have taken lifetimes to achieve without this.

At the end of the day, we remain human in our current form and this is what forms the limitation of how much of reality absolute we can ever truly understand.

As human beings, we do need a theory of everything – but not a theory for every one form of consciousness that could conceivably exist in the essentially unknowable complexity of the multiverse.

We need to understand reality absolute from the perspective of human beings, and not only understand that this is the right position to take, but also that this is the only perspective which will deliver not just additional knowledge, but that all important additional leverage which is sought to make human experience as complete as possible.

Learning of our own design and learning to use our own design is the straight royal road to unlocking the fundamental laws of reality absolute and creating the next paradigm shift in all the sciences.

Re-claiming the human centric approach to scientific investigation across the board results not just in returning to our rightful place in reality absolute; immediately opens the doors to new avenues of investigation, but it also corrects major reality divergences which have been playing havoc in modern science since its very inception.

Not factoring in that every scientist is also a human being and creating a shared group illusion that scientists are capable of being without emotion has not and can not ever serve true scientific enquiry.

Scientists have emotions, inside and outside of the lab, and everything they do is affected by their emotions. This does not only pertain to scientific fraud, self interest, competition, information repression, dogmatic beliefs and all the disturbances which come with scientists and their emotions, but the emotions in science clearly represent a major factor which needs to be calculated into any any study, in any field, to be able to understand the theories, the experiments, the results and even the peer reviews.

By stepping into a more human centric approach to science, a bigger picture emerges; I hold this to be a very good thing because in our human investigation of reality absolute, aka human science, the bigger the picture, the more complete it surely must become.

My personal experience taught me this.

I was trying to solve a problem from the typical modern scientific third party “outside” view and got nowhere for six long years. Then, late one night, I anthropomorphosized the problem, in sheer frustration and desperation.

The moment I did that, a vast explosion of connections occurred from the localised problem to many, many other instances of the same problem in different contexts across the time of my life – so much additional information flooded in in an instance, it was a true star burst experience that not only presented the solution to the problem, it set me on the path to where I am today.

Today, I would say that by dropping the unnatural, inhumane way of thinking about the problem, I thought of the problem exactly like a human being would – and when I did, it unlocked a completely different structure of information processing that solved the problem in a flash.

I am a human being and a scientist, and I can put forth all manner of third party arguments to support my position that the human centric science is not only the only way for humans to think about reality absolute, but the absolutely optimal way – I am going to call it the right way.

A human centric approach to science corrects the biggest reality diversion we human beings could ever have created, namely that we might be smart enough to “think with the mind of God.”

We are not, and we can not.

We can, however, think exactly like human beings were designed and/or have evolved to think, and when we start to do that, I expect spectacular results with incalculable benefits for us all.

“Love without logic is insanity – and vice versa.”

Silvia Hartmann

December 7^th, 2024