Science and spirit
Spirit and matter Proof of God Consciousness The spirit world
Life in the spirit Quotations Spirit matter FAQ

Consciousness FAQ



Modern science is still a very long way from accepting all of the revelations concerning the origin and nature of the universe. But it is slowly catching up. Remember that these principles were mostly revealed in the 1830s and 1840s. It may take another thousand years for most of the principles to be accepted. As always, this is only my understanding. The following table is crude, and I accept that some of it greatly oversimplified, and others may see things differently.

Revealed truth When science caught up
Spirit is simply another form of matter The gradual strengthening of the belief that everything could be explained in physical terms.
Heaven sounds exactly like a higher dimension. The realization that higher dimensions can exist.
All time is relative to where your planet is in space The theory of relativity.
All laws are relative to the same constraints Ditto
Terms like light (e.g. energy) and spirit (a form of matter) are sometimes interchangeable. Ditto - energy and matter are fundamentally the same thing.
All matter is independent (e.g. it is not entirely predictable) The theory of Quantum mechanics: uncertainty
Matter only becomes matter (such as either spirit or physical matter) as opposed to intelligence (that hard to define concept) when a higher intelligence organizes it (which involves watching - see the Book of Abraham Abraham account of the creation). Quantum uncertainty collapses into measurable reality only when it is observed (see below)
Spirit is simply another form of matter The general trend of explaining everything in physical terms.
There are millions of populated worlds Gradually accepted, especially as the space program develops.
The earth was not created "ex nihilo," but was created from pre-existing materials. Modern geology makes it clear that the rocks of the earth are extremely old.
There is no such thing as empty space (referring to physical presence, not just to a vague notion of the Holy Spirit) Quantum uncertainty rules out empty space


To be fair, the prophets did not claim to be pre-empting 20th century science (or 21st century science for that matter). If true, we should expect their words to be more in tune with the science of ten thousand years' time than the science of today. An example is the concept of energy. We may see it as simply a way of defining heat or work - a property to be measured in Joules. But a superior being might see it in terms of universal electromagnetic interactions, or in terms of its powerful and most subtle effect - life.

Energy and "the light of Christ"

Another thing to remember is that most of the quotations come from the ninetenth century, and use nineteenth century language. So, for example, the prophets only use the word "energy" in the sense of human energy. What we would call "energy" is closest to what they would have called "spirit" in the sense of "light." (Incidentally, the whole concept of "energy" as a substance can be highly misleading. Richard Feynmann comments on this in his autobiographical book "Surely You Must be Joking, Mr Feynmann." But I digress.)

Vague wording?

More importantly, and what anoys those of a scientific disposition, is that the prophets' words do not have a physical precision. But that is simply because they are not writing for a physics laboratory They are writing for real-world human experience, and the general reader. So carefully selected ambiguity and connotations are sometimes more important than the primary denotation of a word.

Quantum physics and the nature of reality

Avoiding pseudo-science

Just as most people misunderstand the revelations relating to intelligences and God, so people usually misunderstand modern theoretical physics.

"Quantum physics introduces an observer-dependency that the popular press has blown out of proportion. ... There is a huge amount of pseudo-science to avoid in learning the lessons of the quantum." - see the summary of quantum principles at

All deep concepts are inevitably misunderstood. To avoid adding to the confusion, I will simply quote from articles from New Scientist, a highly reputable science magazine:

What is quantum physics (apart from the most successful scientific theory ever)?


"[Max Planck's] discovery was ... that radiation, like matter, comes in discrete quantities. And he called his little packets of energy "quanta" from the Latin for amount. ... Planck was unsettled by the implications of quantum theory. If you accept its conclusions nothing is what it seems, or what common sense and Newtonian physics lead you to believe. Things change when you look at them. Objects behave in unpredictable ways."

A simple example of quantum physics in practice

"Think of light reflected from a mirror. No mirror is perfect, so perhaps 95 per cent of the light bounces off the mirror's surface, while the other 5 per cent passes through, or is absorbed or otherwise lost. [So,] 19 out of every 20 photons bounce off the surface while the rogue photon goes its own way. Who decides what each individual photon should do?"

[Later research showed that this uncertainty also applied to physical matter - which Einstein showed was equivalent to energy anyway. All kinds of other weird implications arise as well.]

Why is this so important?

"Here lies the revolution. Quantum theory says that what happens to any individual photon is genuinely and inescapably unpredictable. It has a 95 per cent chance of being reflected, and a 5 per cent chance of being transmitted or absorbed, and that's all there is to it. There's nothing about any photon, no secret property or hidden clue, that can tell you any more precisely than that what it will do. The unpredictability is innate." ...

"You can see why physicists of the old school found quantum theory confusing, alarming and quite possibly dangerous. It seems as if the photon has no reliable properties of its own, and only reluctantly acquires them as a sort of conspiracy between it and the measuring device. The nature of reality it implies recalls Gertrude Stein's comment about the unremarkable city of Oakland, California: 'There's no there there.' "

Do we know how the universe was created?

This is from on quantum physics and the origin of the universe, which is traditionally thought to have been a "singularity" leading to a "big bang."

"The good news is that quantum theory seems not to allow a singularity such as the big bang. The bad news is that no one knows what it would put there instead." ... "Wind the cosmological clock backwards, and there comes a moment when classical theory demands that particles be confined in a space smaller than the uncertainty principle permits. Quantum theory draws a modesty-preserving screen across what would otherwise be a naked singularity. To look behind that screen, and to understand how the Universe might emerge from it, requires a theory that marries quantum principles with classical general relativity. And so far, no one has figured out a way of doing that." ...

"One popular idea these days is superstring theory, which proposes that fundamentally there are no particles. Instead, there are tiny wiggly loops of energy, the equivalent of mathematical lines rather than mathematical points." ... "But fairly major difficulties remain. For starters, the world of superstrings has 10 dimensions, and the only way the theory can explain the four-dimensional world we live in (three space dimensions, plus time), is to wrap up six of the ten dimensions so tightly that we don't see them [this is no longer true - see New Scientist magazine, 18th December 1999, p.8, "The Great Beyond"]. The trouble is that the dimensions won't roll up of their own accord."

Is science (without God) easy to believe? introduces quantum physics:

"'Do not take the lecture too seriously . . . just relax and enjoy it. I am going to tell you what nature behaves like. If you will simply admit that maybe she does behave like this, you will find her a delightful, entrancing thing. Do not keep saying to yourself "But how can it be like that?" because you will get . . . into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that.'

"This was Richard Feynman, speaking about quantum theory. It pays to take his warning seriously. ... The quantum world really is different, and the only way to come to grips with it is to suspend disbelief."

Is there an alternative to attributing life to sub-atomic particles?

Brigham Young stated that all matter - even the tiniest particle - has intelligence. He stated this long before quantum theory posed the problem of unpredictability. But can quantum theory suggest any other solutions? describes one popular solution, proposed by Hugh Everett in 1957. I ask the reader: which is more likely to be true?

"He proposed that whenever a quantum measurement is made, different universes "split off" -- one for each of the possible outcomes. We see one particular result because we are in the universe in which that one happens. In the other universes, our counterparts are seeing one of the other results, and so on through as many universes as you like. ... Are they real or not? You decide. Argument over 'interpretations' of quantum theory has been long and, some might say, ultimately pointless, since by design they all produce the same practical results. It's really a question of which mental picture of the quantum world you find most pleasing."

Can God (or some spirit) control an atom without being there?

The same article concludes:

"The nature of [the problem of quantum physics] is, fundamentally, a concept called "non-locality." Classical physics embodies a strictly local law of cause and effect. What happens at point A can have an immediate effect only at point A, and if the effect makes its presence felt at point B, some physical influence has to travel from A to B, taking some finite time to do so. Quantum theory is non-local. In an EPR experiment, a measurement at point A has an elusive, instantaneous and -- through Bell's theorem -- quantifiable influence at point B. Whether anything physical travels from A to B is debatable. In Bohm's theory, the pilot wave carries that instantaneous influence. In Everett's idea, non-locality is dispersed throughout the many universes. However you look at it, non-locality just happens in the quantum world. There's no getting away from it."

Does reality require a conscious observer in order to be organized?

"Traditionally, following Niels Bohr's lead, arguments about the nature of measurement in quantum theory have assumed a clear distinction between the quantum system that's being measured and a separate classical system that's doing the measuring. At one extreme is the belief that measurements become real only when there's a conscious human observer around to notice them.

"This sort of philosophy causes trouble when applied to the Universe as a whole. Stars, planets and galaxies are quantum systems like everything else. But are we to imagine that the whole Universe remained in a state of cosmic quantum indeterminacy until human beings evolved consciousness? And when during the dawning of human consciousness was the Universe forced to drop its cloak of quantum indeterminacy and take on solid form? Put this way, the argument seems absurd, but on the other hand if the Universe congealed into a classical solidity before we came upon the scene, what sort of measurements or observations accomplished the transformation?"

Notice that the whole problem is solved if we believe in God, the original observer.

Do any of the theories suggest there is no room for God?

[The above article suggested some attempts at explaining what quantum theory really means - all the attempts have serious problems.]

"While these ideas may be comforting, they don't come close to a specific explanation of why our Universe looks the way it does."...

"Einstein, on the other hand, wondered fondly if the laws of physics allowed the Lord any choice in the creation of the Universe. So far, it seems, the answer is plenty. The uncertainty principle, which Einstein never liked, says that you can't always get what you want. And in the broadest possible terms, perhaps it applies to the limits of our knowledge about the Universe we find ourselves in. We can always ask questions, but we may not always be entitled to answers."

How could God create - AND MAINTAIN - quantum physics?

This is where we get into REALLY deep stuff. I won't even try to go into some of the exotic attempts at grand Unified theories, but the important point it that, in principle, a sufficiently powerful and knowledgeable being (e.g. God) could change everything in the universe by making very simple, fundamental changes. Or the truth may be even simpler - that the whole physical universe is simply a manifestation of knowledge - that is, intelligence, light and truth, really is a form of matter. A very promising looking theory is being developed by Roy Frieden, based on the concept of "Fisher information" (see New Scientist, 30 January 1999, p.24). This is all very theoretical, so I will leave it at that.

Will scientists always accept new information?

Of course not. Scientists are human, just like you and me. For example, Max Planck is one of the greatest scientists ever - as the discoverer of quantum physics, he is right up there with Einstein. As recalls,

"It rapidly became clear that the "quantisation" of energy -- dividing it up into individual pieces -- was actually a new and fundamental rule of nature. The classically trained Planck didn't like this conclusion one bit. He resisted it to his dying day, prompting his famous lament that new scientific theories supplant previous ones not because people change their minds, but simply because old people die."


Now continue to the words of the prophets


home Bible proofs 1830 foretold easy stuff beasts and horns world history the holy grail the church help