There is no specific date or event that marks the beginning of this period in history, so 1970 is just a convenient date chosen for reference purposes. For several decades, quantum theory has claimed to be the most accurate theory ever developed by science, so quantum theorists regard the quantum theory as the most fundamental theory in physics. For a few decades after the 1950s this statement held some truth, but quantum theory was still undergoing changes. The Copenhagen Interpretation has been losing its hold over physics in general and the philosophy of quantum theory in particular for the last three decades. David Bohm introduced the concept of ‘hidden variables’ in the 1950s and expanded upon that concept in the following decades. He raised enough questions that other physicists and philosophers joined the philosophical debate, leading to experiments in the 1980s that challenged the basic concept of locality. Eugene Wigner stressed the role of consciousness in the measurement problem of quantum mechanics opening other avenues of research. Quite clearly, philosophical challenges to quantum orthodoxy became popular after the 60s, but neither indeterminism nor the discrete nature of space and time, fundamental properties of a quantum reality, were ever challenged or debated. Only one physicist, Mendel Sachs, has ever spent any time and effort in challenging the differences between the continuous nature of relativity and the discrete nature of the quantum and he has been yelling in the wind for several decades with very few scientists paying any attention.

            On the other hand, general relativity has grown more relevant in the past three decades. As of the 1950s, there were no practical applications of general relativity, but the space program and advances in technology have rendered general relativity quite practical in both science and culture. The relativity theory as a whole has become an important aspect of modern science that can no longer be ignored, but not to the extent that continuity has gained many new adherents as the most fundamental basis of physical reality. On one hand, the notion that a ‘theory of everything’ or TOE might be possible in the near future has been growing within the scientific community. This belief reflects a belated acceptance of Einstein’s concept of a unification of the laws of physics, but the TOEs proposed so far do not come close to fulfilling Einstein’s dream. Einstein always argued that his ‘unified field theory’ would be based upon the continuity of the space-time continuum and the discrete quantum would emerge from the mathematical model. On the other hand, the modern TOEs are actually quantum field theories that seek to explain gravity on the basis of the discrete quantum. Quite frankly, attempts are only being made for the quantum to gobble up relativity leading to quantum gravity, the opposite of what Einstein predicted.

But the quantum and relativity models of reality are now equally accurate, so neither should hold preference over the other regarding their fundamental nature. Even though no one would openly admit the fact, the quantum and relativity are competing theories and competing theories are a hallmark of a pre-revolutionary period. Ideally, every science is based upon a single fundamental theory, so physics cannot be stretched between two different fundamental theories, especially two theories that are mutually incompatible. Considering the fundamental nature of the basic hypotheses of these two theories, whether physical reality is discrete or continuous at its most fundamental level, it would seem that unifying them under a single theoretical structure would initiate a very strong revolution in science. Even so, very few scientists will even admit that the quantum and relativity are competing theories because the quantum paradigm is so strong and exclusive. Only a few brave scientists and scholars will even admit, let alone accept, the existence of deficiencies in the quantum as valid reasons to reassess the theory. Since there is such a strong reluctance to even question the basic hypotheses upon which the quantum theory is constructed, it seems that science would never accept the simple truth that the deficiencies and problems with the quantum theory are due to the fundamental problems inherent in the discrete model of nature. Yet the problems with the quantum theory have not only been overlooked, but have been multiplied and further exaggerated by the increasing complexity of the quantum field theories. What was once a philosophical problem of the reducibility of space has evolved into the use of perturbation methods and ad hoc renormalizations for calculational purposes in the quantum theory.

At the same time, the relevance of consciousness to scientific inquiry has increased due to quantum physics, but there is still no recognition of the existence of a quantum Cartesian Paradox. A few scientists have been forced to address the idea of consciousness within psychology since 1970, due in large part to progress within that field and within the medical fields of brain anatomy and physiology. Cultural interest in consciousness has also been peeked, partially due to the introduction of Eastern philosophies in the west, but also due to other influences. Changes in parapsychology also occurred after 1970. In many ways, parapsychology has become more physically oriented and several well known physicists have weighed in on the subject. There has even been talk of creating a new science of Paraphysics. Yet neither psychology nor science in general acknowledge that the Cartesian Paradox still exerts a major influence in science and that it still needs to be resolved. All they see is a very low level problem with the subjective/objective nature of reality while psychology, quantum theory and science in general are afraid of this possibility. According to the simple lessons taught in a freshman university course of ‘Psychology 101’, you cannot solve a problem until you admit it exists. Science can neither solve nor resolve the problem because it does not recognize that the problem exists. Science can neither discern nor define its own fundamental problems, rendering a new revolution necessary for science to continue its fast pace of advancement.

Within the present quantum and related paradigms in other disciplines, the paranormal will never be accepted because it would force the scientific community to confront the possibility that mind can act directly on nature without intervening material mechanisms, proving the existence of mind and consciousness as real and natural ‘things’. If mind and/or consciousness were real ‘things-in-themselves’ rather than arbitrary esoteric and mystical qualities, then the ending of life would not necessarily require the ending of mind and/or consciousness. Acknowledging the physical reality of mind and consciousness would render the Cartesian Paradox an illusion dredging up all kinds and types of religious taboos, but it would also imply the real scientific possibility that consciousness can survive death of the human body. So acceptance of the paranormal as a scientifically verified reality is completely anathema to science even though the paranormal has been a part of science for centuries and is necessary to define the leading front of science in its forays into the Cartesian realm of Mind. 

The very notion of consciousness implies the existence of the paranormal, so they are inexorably linked together. Science in general does not want to live or deal with consciousness, but it cannot live or deal without consciousness, as recent trends in science and culture have demonstrated. The problem is not going and will not go away, while ignoring it will not solve the problem. Science has gone too far and too fast in the growth of knowledge and that growth keeps bringing science back to mind and consciousness and their role in the physical/material universe. In fact, interest in consciousness studies as an interdisciplinary science has grown dramatically in the past two decades, a fact that indicates that science is rapidly approaching a make or break situation with regard to mind and consciousness and this bears directly on the scientific acceptance of the paranormal. The scope of the interdisciplinary interest also provides a tacit recognition that psychology alone is ill equipped to deal with consciousness. Consciousness affects all the branches of science and philosophy together, so it is a major concern to all of them. A science of psychology based on behaviorism rather than consciousness merely circumvents the problems set forth by the Cartesian Paradox without finding a solution for the Paradox. In the end, neither physics under the quantum paradigm nor psychology under the behaviorism paradigm can solve the Cartesian Dilemma without the intervention of a revolution in science. Yet the impetus for the revolution and its solution must come from elsewhere.

            The real revolution in science, like the last revolution, will be founded upon changes in the major paradigms of physics because physics is the science that deals directly with physical reality. However, the revolution will include the other sciences as well. The key is the successful development of a ‘theory of everything’ in physics from which the revolution can proceed. However, the present attempts to develop a TOE in physics do not go far enough because they do not address the most fundamental problems that need to be resolved. To develop the TOE, scientists need to understand that the determinism/indeterminism and the objective/subjective dualities are secondary to the real dualities that science must confront and resolve. Both are modern disguises for the Mind/Matter Paradox. Science must return to the most fundamental problems in order to progress: The Mind/Matter or Cartesian Paradox and the reducibility problem of space and time, which implies that the continuity/discrete paradox be solved once and for all.

            At the end of the Scientific Revolution the boundary between Mind and Matter was all the way to the right and everything that was not physics was Mind. But over time, Newtonian physics and Natural Philosophy expanded their domain, shifting the boundary to the left and giving birth to the other sciences as the boundary moved toward Mind.

            By the latter half of the nineteenth century, Newtonian science had become so successful that it began to speculate on mind itself. This resulted in three different movements within science and culture: philosophical questions were raised regarding the relation of science to reality and the philosophy of science gained importance; the development of psychology as a science of mind; and the Modern Spiritualism movement. Most scholars and scientists view the Modern Spiritualism movement during the 1900s as an aberration, but it was instead a pop-science reaction to changes in the Cartesian boundaries. But these same changes also led to the Second Scientific Revolution as Newtonian mechanics clashed with the electromagnetic theory. The Cartesian boundaries did not settle again until after the revolution when psychology lost ‘consciousness’ and concentrated on a behaviorist model of mental interactions rather than tackling the difficult questions by looking directly at mind and consciousness.

            Progress in science has brought us full circle once again. Recent trends in science have again emphasized the importance of mind and consciousness, which have become not only relevant to the advance of science but also crucial to the understanding of physical reality. The same trends show the paranormal to be an integral part of science and even necessary to the continuing progress of science. Today, more scientists and scholars are forced to acknowledge if not accept the paranormal simply because it is becoming too hard to reject as evidence grows. But the whole of science will never accept the paranormal without a theoretical basis and a new paradigm, which will not happen unless there is another scientific revolution.

            Simultaneously, many in the physics community have reached the conclusion that a TOE is necessary for the advance of physics. Physics has clearly reached a milestone in its development, but it has also reached an impasse. The quantum and relativity theories must be unified, but more than a simple unification that accomplishes little else other than unification is needed. Because of fundamental differences between the discrete quantum and the continuity of field explained by relativity, the expected unification will provide extremely fundamental and profound changes in the scientific perspective of reality, amounting to a complete revolution in human thought. A valid TOE must also explain life, death, mind and consciousness and doing so implies the reality of the paranormal as well as the possibility that consciousness survives death of the human body. Science fears this last possibility because science will be forced to enter a new domain of reality without any apparent bearings to right or guide itself if the concept of an afterlife is confronted, but science will be forced by events to accept it. Science cannot avoid its own future.

            The coming revolution in science will surely shift the division between Mind and Matter far to the left and the paranormal will almost certainly become an accepted part of future science. At no time in history has science been completely divorced from the paranormal; they have traveled the road of progress together. So it should come as no surprise that their fate is the same and they will join as one in the near future, but it is truly a revolutionary and novel idea for most scientists.

James E. Beichler. “Either/Or: Spiritualism and the roots of paranormal science.” Yggdrasil: The Journal of Paraphysics, 1, 1 (Winter Solstice 1996). WWW. <members.aol.com/jebco1st/Paraphysics/spirit1.htm>

James E. Beichler. “Ether/Or: Hyperspace Models of the Ether in America.” American Institute of Physics Conference Proceedings, 179 (20 December 1988): 206-223.

James E. Beichler. “To Be or Not to Be! A ‘Paraphysics’ for the New Millennium.” Journal of Scientific Exploration, 15, 1 (Spring 2001): 33-56.

Albert Einstein. The Meaning of Relativity, 6^th edition. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1956.

Thomas Kuhn. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press, 1962.

Stephen Mason. The History of the Sciences, Reissue edition. Macmillan, 1962.

Isaac Newton. Principia Mathematica Naturalis Philosophae. 1687. Second edition. London, 1702. Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (Principia). Translated by Florian Cajori. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1934.

Mendel Sachs. Einstein versus Bohr: The Continuing Controversies in Physics. LaSalle, Illinois: Open Court, 1988.

Lee Smolin. Three Roads to Quantum Gravity. Basic Books, 2001.