(posted on 08-Mar-2000)
Thanks to everyone who's comments helped me with this project. This version is Fred's edited copy, plus changes from the comments of Russell and others, including the author Dr. Gary Schwartz. He sent me some comments, but failed to address some of the key problems. One note, I left out the section on being rejected by Nature because Gary claims it was not because of errors in the theory, but they thought it was too controversial to print. I've e-mailed Nature to find out their side of the story.
Living Energy Universe
Living Energy Universe is a book of bold claims, It claims that there's evidence for life after death, God, and that everything in the universe "remembers". One of the boldest being that it is "Destined to win over even the staunchest of skeptics." Such bold statements compelled to read it and see the evidence for myself. Sadly, the book fell far short of winning me over. What Dr. Shwartz and Dr. Russek have done is to take the basic concept of feedback loops and insert a lot of wild speculation and anecdotes as if they were evidence. They then treat the first wild speculations as already proven so they can base even wilder speculations on that flimsy framework, then they slap a third level of speculation on top of the first two, and so on. The end product is little more than a house of cards, and the second law of thermodynamics is a bowling ball rolling towards it.
During the course of the book, they tie their Systemic Memory Theory (SMT) to a wide range of paranormal claims, saying the phenomenon are both real events, explained, even predicted by SMT. Because of this, I'm inclined to refer to the SMT as the Grand Unified Woo Woo Theory. Among the paranormal phenomenon mentioned are cellular memory, out-of-body experiences, after death contact, reincarnation, psychometry, telepathy, qi, homeopathy, aroma therapy, hearbalism, energy medicine, crystal healing, distant healing, spirit medicine, acupuncture, kinesiology, akashic records, kaballa, and karma. As there is little more that anecdotal evidence for these various claims they do not lend support to the theory. Unproven claims do not support unproven theories.
The Theory: Physical Systems
The book begins with feedback loops. Two tuning forks, A and B, are used as an example. A is struck and starts to vibrate.
The vibrations (a1) travel out to the second fork, B, causing it to vibrate in resonance. The new vibrations (b1) were caused by
(a1) and are said to contain the history of (a). These vibrations which contain b1+a1 go out, strike the first fork A and alter
the manner in which it vibrates. The first fork is now vibrating in a pattern (a2). This (a2) is the result of (b1), which was a
result of (a1), therefore the vibration (a2) contains the history of (b1) and (a1). B is struck by the new vibration patter,
altering it's vibrations, resulting in B2 = a2+b1+a1. As the loop goes on this "history" accumulates. The history is termed
"memory", and that it changes with each iteration is termed "evolution". It's at this point we first encounter unsupported
speculations by way of false comparisons, that is, they mix these made-up definitions in with regular scientific definitions as it
they were equal. All of this somehow is supposed to prove that the system has memory, that it evolves, and therefore it is
alive.
The authors repeatedly state that if SMT is true then it is true at every level, from subatomic to galactic and universal. Since they redefined a feedback loop as, "living, remembering, evolving" then subatomic particles also remember, evolve, and are alive, as are galaxies. EVERYTHING remembers, evolves and lives.
Another unsupported speculation in SMT is the idea of "emergent properties". The claim is that studying atoms or subatomic particles will not provide a clue as to what gives a water molecule it's "waterness". Instead, SMT says the properties of water come from how the atoms resonate in a systemic feedback loop. This appears to contradict the basic principals of chemistry, which are based on the idea that it really is the atoms that make substances. Isn't it the job of certain industrial chemists to use atoms and molecules to create new substances with specific properties? Just last year there was a story in the news about a group that designed and built a motor out of a single molecule of 72 atoms, and a Japanese group that designed one with under 60. Resonance never enters the picture.
Furthermore, if SMT were true, then each and every water molecule would have different properties since their constituent atoms have different histories. One of the claims for Homeopathy is that, even though there may be not a single atom of the original chemical left in the final, diluted medicine, it works because the water remembers the chemical it once contained. But, if water has such good memory, wouldn't that mean water would also remember other chemicals it may have contained during its millions of years of existence, and might not those other chemicals make our illnesses worse? Wouldn't water remember being in someone else's kidneys, its multiple trips through the sewers, being the dirty snow that builds up in tire wells after a snowstorm? SMT has to say yes.
Support is also sought in stories of people who underwent personality changes ore strange dreams after receiving heart transplants. This is cited as an example of memories being stored in the parts of the body as well as in the brain, and possible support for the theory everything remembers. Again, since water is supposed to be a great conductor of memories, wouldn't blood be excellent for storing memories? Therefor we should be seeing stories of 'cellular memories', personality changes, or strange dreams frequently from people who have received transfusions. The memories would be transferred frequently in operations and to accident victims. Having someone else's memories would be almost common by this reasoning.
Energy Systems
"We will consider the idea that if matter evolves, then it follows logically that energy evolves too." (page 70) Now we see the
next level of the house of cards, energy systems. The "energy/information" has to travel between the two objects, and, since
the area between the objects has all these signals traveling through it, it is therefore not a vacuum. The claim is, as the signals
change over time, the energy evolves. The signals are also said to interact, creating a feedback loop between two points in the
vacuum. "These dynamical info-energy systems will continue in the vacuum of space forever, even when the physical structure
deconstructs." (page 104). This statement appears to be based on how light reflects off an object and into space and will
continue forever, long after the object no longer exists, so the object attains a type of immortality. This idea is then misapplied
to the tuning forks example. Light traveling into space is not interacting with anything, is not reflected back, and so it is not in
a feedback loop, therefore it is not part of a system. But the idea of the signal going on forever is applied to the system anyway
, the claim being that if you remove the forks, the energy system is supposed to continue in an energy vortex, swirling on
forever without external support.
There are two assumptions here. First, that the signals interact with each other, and second, that they will continue to exist once the physical part of the system is removed. In studying waves, we learn that when two waves pass through the same point they can combine constructively or destructively, either creating calm points or points of even greater highs and lows. However, waves emerge on the other side of the point unchanged. The signals have passed through each other without being altered, so not all types of energy interact. Assuming energy does interact, does it interact in a continuing system outside of a physical system? It might be possible for two photons to interact, but then what? Photons travel in a straight line at the speed of light unless acted on by an outside force, so how could a feedback loop be created? With no force to hold them in the area, the most that could happen is that two photons would interact and part. So light energy can't enter into an energy system.
A flow of electricity is electrons in motion, as like charges repel each other. How could a loop start without some outside force causing the continued interaction? What about other forms of energy? Heat and kinetic energy are matter in motion, chemical energy is matter in molecular bonds; they can't exist in a pure energy system. Even if a pure energy feedback system were possible, it is not universally applicable, and would require special conditions.
The lack of support for their energy systems hypotheses does not deter the author's wild speculations as to the implications. Once again, false comparisons are used, this time to compare energy/information to spirit/soul, with little explanation for this jump. Now we have the claim that the soul is an energy system, without any mention of what kind of energy it is or how it got started. Can energy and information be intelligent? "Why not?" (page 170) That's the only reply and typical of the book's reasoning. Out-of-body experiences are explained as times when the energy system goes roaming. A new force is introduced to explain why the energy system doesn't go roaming all the time, systemity (system gravity), and another claim added that this totally new, previously undetected force might be what underlies the Strong/Weak nuclear forces. We also get the claim that this traveling energy system can see and hear, with no explanation as to how. If so, what draws the wandering spirit back? Why is it forced to leave upon the body's death? How is it people claiming to be traveling out-of-body are able to speak and act? In his own example Dr. Schwartz was still able to play in a band when he had the sensation of being outside his body.
You ain't heard nothing yet
Now the really wild claims begin. Energy systems are alive, got it? Energy systems take place in a vacuum and everything is
connected through the vacuum; therefore the vacuum is alive, evolving, and eternal. Of course, that's like saying bacteria are
alive, bacteria are connected through the petri dish that contains them, therefore the petri dish is alive. Since we're declaring
everything alive, why not natural laws as well? That's on page 142. How a law can evolve is not explained. Laws are
descriptions of how nature behaves, there is no matter or energy to interact with. If natural laws somehow evolve, then they
could potentially evolve into a state that doesn't support SMT and end all systems in the universe. Time and space are not safe
from being labeled as alive either. Electrons, photons, and superstrings are all declared to have consciousness for no other
reason than the belief that the system is true on all levels. Everything is connected through the vacuum so everything is one.
Stories come to life, too. According to the book, a story that is on people's minds creates an energy system that is alive, so the story is alive, a living idea that can exist on it's own. The example given is that people contacting Jesus could be in contact either with the "original" historical Jesus or a Jesus created from the concepts and stories of people since that time. Which means every single different concept of Jesus exists as its own energy system being. Following this logic, that means Santa Claus, Freddy Kruger, Romeo, Ronald McDonald, and many other fictional characters exist as real spirits. And you might meet them since cause and effect are reversed in one chapter where we read that it was energy systems that created matter. "The purpose of physical systems may be to shape the evolution of living energy systems. From this perspective, the purpose of matter may be to evolve information and energy, the soul and spirit of the universe." (page 165) You'll be happy to know that before time and space came into existence there was a single primal force guiding what came later. That force is Love.
Cut shaving with Occam's Razor
Dr. Schwartz wants to conduct well-designed experiments. He wants properly conducted studies that will supply real evidence,
to maintain intellectual integrity. Unfortunately, it seems that he is not all that familiar with some of the elementary concepts
and practices of proper research, and he shows a shocking lack of understanding about basics outside his field.
Let's look at thermodynamics. According to the second law, systems tend to become less organized over time. According to SMT, systems normally increase in order and complexity over time. This is one of several issues examined in the book as a possible problem with the theory. They handle it this way. To start the authors invent another new force, "enformy" or "negentropy" (energy form, negative entropy), which is clearly in conflict with known principals. How do the authors handle the problem? Simple, by saying the second law of thermodynamics must be dropped, since it is totally wrong.
The authors also display an ignorance of evolution common among creationists, that is, they think that complex life could not evolve because of the second law of thermodynamics. Their explanation for the second law is that what looks like disorder is actually incredibly complex order, that systems falling apart may be just systems that have reached the limit of how much information they can hold. But wouldn't this mean that systems are not eternal, since they will eventually fill up?
Following this line of reasoning, they propose that aging and some physical disorders are merely a matter of the body becoming too "full" of information. When we excrete, it is not to get rid of waste and toxins, but to get rid of extra memories. Water is supposed to be very good at holding memories (according to homeopathy) and, since it's been around for millions of years, the water we drink should be pretty full. If we create new water in a laboratory it won't have those years of ancient memories. Would some of this created water then be better for us? Would a glass of this newly created water sustain us for a significantly greater period of time that regular old water?
This is not the only bizarre biological claim made. "Brain cells learn as complex networks of feedback loops. However, the story science has created for explaining how brains learn applies equally well to how hearts, lungs, kidneys, or even bones can learn." (page 77). Yet another example of false comparisons, one of the many in this book, this time equating real methods of learning and reinforcement methods to provide support for SMT. All the mechanisms for memory are not fully understood, but many are. As learning and knowledge grow, we have observed how the nerve cells in the brain create more connections that are reinforced by repetition. That is how feedback helps in learning. These connections can deteriorate over time from lack of use, resulting in our forgetting things. No such physical connections are created in other organs, yet the claim is put forward that these other organs learn in exactly the same way as the brain, and no evidence is offered to support the claim. For scientists supposedly involved in medical research, the authors have a shocking lack of understanding of biology, highlighted when they refer to the pupil as a black surface. (Pg. 238)
Another thing they seem to be lacking knowledge of is an understanding of probability, something very necessary for this kind of research. Frequently in the book they refer to experiments that had "slight but significant results". Exactly how significant the results are is not mentioned. Based on the errors concerning probability that they make in the book, I question whether the results had any significance at all. "Statistics tell us that to obtain a random distribution, each event must be independent of every other event."..."The question is, does nature fit this condition, this essential requirement of independence? What systems theory tells us is absolutely, positively, no."..."However, if things are independent, then you will observe randomness. In fact, if there is complete independence and no ordering process, the probability of getting a random distribution is actually 100 percent!" (Pg. 135) He then suggests this experiment. Have a computer randomly select ten numbers from 1 to 10 and calculate the mean of the numbers. Repeat this procedure a thousand times, and plot the resulting distribution of the means. The result is an upside down U-shaped function known as a bell curve. This is curiously given as evidence of underlying order rather than randomness, but isn't the opposite true? In a completely even distribution each number would appear once, with a mean of 5.5. As there is an equal chance to get a high number as there is to get a low number purely random distribution would tend to have as many highs as lows, resulting in a mean close to 5.5. When this is plotted the bell curve shows that is exactly what we are getting, with rare, but expected, high and low means. Dr. Schwartz repeatedly states that no one has found a flaw with the logic. The logic of the basic systems is fine, but as with the probability experiment, it is not the system, but the claims and interpretations based on it that are questionable.
Finally, they don't understand Occam's Razor, the rule that the simplest theory is usually the best one. The authors seem to be a bit confused on exactly what this means. Given a choice between the possibility that paranormal phenomenon consists of misinterpreted and coincidental normal phenomenon and their SMT beliefs, they think SMT is the simpler choice. Consider that SMT includes at least two new undetected forces, requires the abandonment of a well-established law of physics, and would mean totally rewriting biology, chemistry, and several other parts of physics. Furthermore, there is absolutely no evidence for SMT other than anecdotal stories of paranormal claims which, even if true don't necessarily support SMT. In fact, the book repeatedly states the "challenge is for future scientist to prove SMT". They are the ones that made the claim, it should be up to them to provide some evidence for it.
This mindset is not surprising, considering the attitude they seem to show towards science displayed in some sections of the book. The authors make it quite clear that they consider science nothing more than a dogmatic religion. "A paradigm is a grand story or dogma that scientists hold at a given time. Paradigms in science are like dogmas in religion. Champions will protect their respective paradigms, virtually at all costs." (Pg. 30) In discussing atoms, "Some priest or priestess of science, a physicist or a chemist, tells us they [atoms] are there, and we believe him or her. We accept their story, typically on faith." (page 32) Is that what they are doing? Telling us a story they wish us to accept on faith? I'm sorry, but that is not how science is supposed to work. It is not a religion to be accepted on faith.
The appeal to Galileo
A common theme used by many with unsupported or flawed theories is comparing themselves to Galileo, an astronomer who
was persecuted for promoting a theory that went against the official beliefs of his time, but, of course, Galileo turned out to be
right and his detractors wrong. Many originators of bad theories seem to think, "They laughed at Galileo, but he was right,
and so am I". The authors do not make this statement so directly, but instead do so by insinuation. "Science has taught us that
the earth is not actually flat; it only appears that way until we look more closely. Science has taught us that the sun does not
actually revolve around the earth; it only appears that way until we look more closely. And science is now teaching us that
energy and matter are not without life and intelligence; it only appears that way until we look more closely." (page 72) Later,
on page 155, there is even the traditional "humble" statement that if Moses, Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, Pythagoras, Aristotle,
Newton, and Darwin had been born today, "These Luminaries of science and religion would, in all likelihood, come to the
vision of an evolving God in an evolving transformational universe." Claiming that long dead great thinkers would agree with
you is not support for a theory; it is merely an exercise in ego.
There are plenty of other problems in this book that could be mentioned, but the multitude of flaws already listed are more than enough to condemn SMT.