My argument to prove God exists (IIf)

6.) Non-Theists

When you mention the issue of non-theists the first thing people will think of is usually Buddhism, and thats if they have ever actually thought about it at all.

Actually the term 'non-theist' isnt actually the proper term, if we examine those who supposedly come under this umbrella term we will see that they are not non-theist but actually non-Deist. To say that one is non-theist is to say that one does not hold or adhere to any form of theology pertaining to any religion they hold or adhere to. This is wrong.

If we name some religions that come under (quite mistakenly) 'non-theist' such as Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism, and various 'ancestor worship' practices we will find that there is a theology that accompanies them. The difference between these religions and Abrahamic ones (and their derivatives) is the 'personification' of the Creator or God. I will now refer to these 'non-theists' as non-deists.

But non-theism does occur between religions and within religions, for example a Sunni may see a Shiite as a non-theist because they do not hold the same theology as themself, thus the Shiite by calling themself a Muslim is committing apostasy.

It is not only an issue between sects but also within sects, a hassidic jew will see a liberal jew as a non-theist apostate, a Catholic will see a Protestant as a non-theist apostate. A Baptist will see an Anglican as non-theist, a Traditional Catholic (pre Vatican II) would actually see Pope Francis as non-theist and most likely (with reasonable cause) as an apostate.

However with the non-Deist religions this also occurs, some Buddhists see the Dalai Llama as the chief of Buddhism while others do not, some Jains do believe there are gods (who are only of a minor standing) while others do not. So some non-Deists do factor in gods and demons into their religion while others may seem to be utterly atheist. It is not that they believe their is no higher power, it is their definition of that higher power which cannot be directly translated into an Abrahamic equivalent or understanding.

It is a matter of transliteration rather than translation, a Buddhist will speak of cycles of time while a Christian will speak of revelation and prophecy. Likewise, a Christian will speak of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ while a Buddhist will say how a cycle of time or 'circumstances' have a personal relationship to themself. So the only real difference between the two is the personification or non-personification and definition of the higher power, or spirit, or God.

If you want an example of non-theism in a Deist context then you should examine the Unitarian church and the UU church which can cater for various people of various beliefs- theist, deist, atheist and combinations of each. So really if you don't adhere to an absolute theist belief then you can hold a Deist belief with complimentary theology.

The only real problem with non-Deist religions/faiths/creeds to that they may be infiltrated by atheist dogma. This may be possible as non-Deism make allow for the veneration of the likes of Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, and so on. But the Buddhists and Taoists have had first hand experience in China with enforced atheism, so in that respect Theists and Deists have more in common than bickering over largely trivial theology.


End of section 2

My argument to prove God exists (IIc.)

3. Polytheists/Pagans in general - I don't know if I can accurately say that polytheists/pagans believe in one God but address it through different aspects.

Much like the God aspects found in the sephiroth on the Tree of Life or even the Father, Son, Holy Spirit combo in the Trinity, however this cannot be said to be polytheism because both Judaism/Kabbala and Christianity in that God despite the different aspects has a unity of one. It is more to do with differing personality aspects which people can relate to and approach rather than God creating these aspects so it can relate to people. So there are so called polytheists who are actually monotheists, they just haven't examined their actual beliefs and 'gods'

If a polytheist does actually worship different gods, then do they hold them all as equal? If not, then can they explain why this isn't the case? After all if they are viewed as a god wouldn't this make them all equals? But as we examine any particular branch of mythology we will see these 'gods' do things like marrying, having children, engaging in personal beefs and indeed all manner of emotional based behaviour commonly associated with humans.

We can look at the likes of the ancient Egyptian gods which had animal heads as well as other non-human forms (you know Kek). Does the polytheist actually believe these gods were actually partly or wholly the creatures they have been depicted as?

Some probably would but mostly polytheists would accept the paintings and other artworks depicting these gods as symbolic. Ancient Egyptian art was symbolic, in addition the pharaoh was held to be a descendant of the gods but should he not have had an animal head or something? And why do bloodlines come into it.

I believe that the different gods were different human families and that the head of a family was portrayed in artwork with an animal head so that when that person died they could be replaced with little effort. Indeed as we have seen in all manner of polytheistic and occult rituals the leader of a coven or temple had their face covered. Did wearing a mask give them super dooper powers? No. In searching for where they got their occult knowledge inevitably leads back to the nephilim/djinn/demons/rogue angels/etc.

Again staying in ancient Egypt we see that its occult influence lingers today, Moses was an Egyptian prince and would have been taught the occult practices that were the domain of the 'god' families and bloodlines. We also have to list Rosicrucianism, Enochian magic, Thelema and I very strongly suspect Freemasonry. I was a Rosicrucian (AMORC) and the more you get into it you see the ancient Egyptian factor and it cannot be denied. Enochian magic does reference ancient Egyptian 'gods' as a factor in various practices, Thelema is just ancient Egyptian magical practices mixed in with yoga and was cooked up by Aleister Crowley. Freemasonry does have a 'god' but it is a syncretisation of Jah, Bael and Osirus, its name is Jahbulon. Syncretisation of gods is an ancient Egyptian practice, although some will say that the followers of these gods would agree to syncretise them if the numbers dedicated to these gods fell away due to other gods gaining more popularity. But I would tend to say that it was the intermarriage of certain bloodlines which caused the syncretisation as no one wanted to relinquish their bloodline name. Much like the way when upper class members intermarry, so if let's say a member of an elite family with the surname of Jones marries a member of an elite family called Smith then the surname that the couple will use is Jones-Smith.

So far I have been referring to ancient Egypt, but what of ancient Rome, Greece and other groups such as the Etruscans, Vikings and Celts. What differentiates them from the Egyptians is that they largely portrayed their gods as human beings, sure they were portrayed as above average humans but humans never the less. But these mythologies were also known to clone each others gods, all they did was rename them in their language and nothing else. The occult aspect was rather poor and was easily swept away by Christianity.

I will mention Hinduism which to me comes across as a free choice polytheism, you can add or subtract gods. Even Jesus Christ is accepted as a god by some Hindus but not especially a prominent or highly ranked one. I believe that the Lord Jesus Christ has been factored into not Hinduism per se but into the cultural beliefs/practices of the Indian sub-continent. This is because of the 'lost' years of Jesus Christ where it is believed that he travelled to India and took in the culture before returning to ancient Israel/Judea. Some say that he was close to Krishna but I never was concerned about this and I don't have an opinion either way.

With voodoo although we have the loas/lwas who interact with humans there is an actual chief God called Bon Dieu or some spell it Bondye. Bon Dieu has nothing to do with humans but will do on occasion, so it has delegated things concerning humans to the loas. I suppose it could be said that the same situation exists with the Holy Trinity, Jehovah, Yahweh, Allah delegating certain responsibilities to the various rankings of angels. The same should also be said for the God of Deism as well.

The real nutjobs concerning polytheism are the likes of Wiccans, chaos magicians and eris followers.
All wicca is just bits and pieces of magical beliefs and superstitions picked up by Gerald Gardiner, it was Aleister Crowley who formulated these bits and pieces into a basic occult system......of sorts. Crowley only met Gardiner once, so apart from setting up a bare bones system for occult practice it was Gardiner and his nutjob followers who tacked on all sorts of crap and make believe to produce the instant insanity that is called wicca today. Oh... it was Gardiner who introduced the 'skyclad' practice, yes he was just a dirty old man.

Chaos magic? Along the same lines of wicca, you can add or subtract gods from anywhere on earth or in history and mix them together and just add ritual. You can throw eris worship into the mix, although eris and discordianism is just a joke even to its 'followers' the same cannot be said for chaos magic 'practitioners'.

Atheist? Solipsist? Hardcore nutjob? Doesn't matter chaos magic can cater for anyone because (in the words of Hasan of Alamut) nothing is true; all is permitted.

"THE PANENDEISM TREATISE"

Full text of "THE PANENDEISM TREATISE"
See other formats
THE PANENDEISM TREATISE
PANENDEISM ORGANIZATION PRESS
By Benjamin Sullivan & James McDermott
© 2017. Panendeism Organization certificate of publication N°- OW120875
PANENDEISM ORGANIZATION PRESS

Panendeism Organization is dedicated to exploring the vast potential of Panendeism, a world view that is both millennia old and has more recently been hailed by many of the greatest physicists as a potentially true representation of reality. From its shocking implications in science, to its affirmation of human dignity, Panendeism is a promising new focus within the parent philosophy of Deism.

Our focus is to analyze the wealth of scientific data that has been accrued over the past century and promote new and revolutionary ways of investigating and expanding potentially groundbreaking fields of research.

Above all else, we are committed to the cultivation and recognition of all humanity as one extended family in which each member is worthy of value, respect, and friendship. We affirm that all life is also worthy of our care,
respect, and admiration.

For more information about our organization and mission, please visit us on the web at www.panendeism.org .
© 2017. Panendeism Organization certificate of publication N°- OW120875 [1]

ETYMOLOGY

Panendeism (or pan-en-deism), pronounced paen'en'dei Iz'sm, is derived from the Greek pan (nav), meaning all, en (sv) meaning in, and deus (Asug), meaning god. The earliest known use of the term was in 1995 by Jim Garvin 1 , a Korean War veteran and Catholic turned Trappist monk. Garvin described his concept of deity as being similar to the "all-pervading Great Spirit" of the Native Americans, and called it "Pan-en-deism." The term “Panendeism” was officially proposed more recently by Larry Copling in 2001.

OVERVIEW

Panendeism is an ontological position that explores the interrelationship between God (The Cosmic Mind) and the known attributes of the universe. Combining aspects of Panentheism and Deism, Panendeism proposes an idea of God that both embodies the universe and is transcendent of its observable physical properties. Although examples of Panendeistic thought can be found as early as the 1st millennium BCE, it was not until nearly 3,000 years had passed, at the dawn of the 20th century, that these ideas began to gain traction as a prevailing scientific model of reality.

The first well recorded teachings that evoke the God hypothesis of Panendeism were introduced by Adi Shankara, who unified the Eastern Philosophy of Advaita Vedanta in Hinduism in the 8th century BCE. Later, in the 4th century BCE, Plato’s philosophy of “The One” or “The Good” introduced these concepts to the West and were subsequently expounded upon by Plotinus as in the 2nd century BCE. Much later, in the 17th century CE, Baruch Spinoza would define God as the only thing that exists in his “Short Treatise on God, Man, and His Well-Being,” a work that later earned him the affection of Albert Einstein, who described his own belief as being similar to Spinoza’s.

After Spinoza, German idealism continued to pave the way for Panendeism, with authors such as Immanuel Kant and Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling, and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel all leaving behind fantastic works that are certainly worth reading. Other wonderful examples include the Transcendentalism of Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, and Walt Whitman, as well as the 20th century Process Theism of Alfred North Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne.

With the dawn of the 20th century, science had at last begun to advance to a point at which the potential in several millennia of Panendeistic philosophy began to appear consistent with the objective picture of reality. Einstein’s earth shattering publication of special relativity in 1905 opened the flood gates to an entirely new scientific conception for the very basis of what we perceive as reality. The universe could no longer be seen solely in terms of Newton’s static, unchanging celestial spheres. Our understanding of the entire universe was very suddenly 'transformed' to something infinitely more perplexing, but also remarkably more insightful and potentially closer to the true reality of the Universe. Through one equation, Einstein conceived of a dynamic Universe that behaved like a sea of energy arrayed with an expanding fabric of space-time, and comprised of dynamic and interactive energy modules that could take on the form of matter, light/ radiation, or other forms, unknown: E=MC 2 .

Einstein, who would be echoed by other physicists contemplating the scientific
implications of this quantum sea in which we are immersed and of which we are composed, later mused:

“[Man] experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest — a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. The striving to free oneself from this delusion is the one issue of true religion. Not to nourish it but to try to overcome it is the way to reach the attainable measure of peace of mind. "[2]

In 1905, Max Planck, the father of quantum theory, was among the first to immediately recognize the significance of Einstein’s (later famous) publication. Indeed, much of the initial notoriety Einstein’s theory received was largely thanks to Planck’s efforts to introduce it within the scientific community. After receiving the Nobel Prize in 1918 and spending a lifetime in Quantum Physics, Planck, as its father, unabashedly said this regarding the nature of reality:

As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter. [3]

As science continued to unravel the mysteries of reality, new proponents of Panendeistic thought emerged. Niels Bohr, who in 1922, received the Nobel Prize in Physics for his contributions to atomic structure and quantum theory clearly defined Panendeism in these terms:

“We can admittedly find nothing in physics or chemistry that has even a remote bearing on consciousness. Yet all of us know that there is such a thing as consciousness, simply because we have it ourselves. Hence consciousness must be part of nature, or, more generally, of reality, which means that, quite apart from the laws of physics and chemistry, as laid down in quantum theory, we must also consider laws of quite a different kind. ”

Erwin Schrodinger, who in 1933, received the Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on quantum theory, said this:

"It is not possible that this unity of knowledge, feeling and choice which you call your own should have sprung into being from nothingness at a given moment not so long ago; rather this knowledge, feeling, and choice are essentially eternal and unchangeable and numerically one in all men, nay in all sensitive beings. But not in this sense — that you are a part, a piece, of an eternal, infinite being, an aspect or modification of it . . For we should then have the same baffling question:Which part, which aspect are you? What, objectively, differentiates it from the others? No, but, inconceivable as it seems to ordinary reason, you — and all other conscious beings as such — are all in all. Hence, this life of yours. . . is, in a certain sense, the whole. . . This, as we know, is what the Brahmins express in that sacred, mystic formula... 'Tat tvam asi' — this is you. Or, again, in such words as 'I am in the east and in the west, I am below and above, I am this whole world. "

Werner Heisenberg, one of the fathers of quantum mechanics, had this to say
regarding the ultimate nature of reality:

"...The same organizing forces that have shaped nature in all her forms are also responsible for the structure of our minds... Of course, we all know that our own reality depends on the structure of our consciousness; we can objectify no more than a small part of our world. But even when we try to probe into the subjective realm, we cannot ignore the central order. ..In the final analysis, the central order, or the 'one' as it used to be called and with which we commune in the language of religion, must win out. "

David Bohm, a protege of Einstein who's often referred to as one of the most
significant theoretical physicists of the 20th century, said this:

“The field of the finite is all that we can see, hear, touch, remember, and describe. This field is basically that which is manifest, or tangible. The essential quality of the infinite, by contrast, is its subtlety, its intangibility. This quality is conveyed in the word spirit, whose root meaning is "wind, or breath. "

This suggests an invisible but pervasive energy, to which the manifest world of the finite responds. This energy, or spirit, infuses all living beings, and without it any organism must fall apart into its constituent elements. That which is truly alive in the living being is this energy of spirit, and this is never born and never dies.

And these great minds only begin to scrape the surface of names that have both revolutionized science and seen clear implications for a Panendeistic sort of world view. Among many others, Nikola Tesla, Gregory Bateson, Sir Arthur Eddington, Robert Jahn, Sir James Jeans, Henry Margenau, Carl Friedrich Von Weizsacker, Freeman Dyson, and contemporary scientists like Paul Davies and Robert Lanza, have all advocated or affirmed the ontological ideas put forth by Panendeism as both plausible and in perfect harmony with the reality that science reveals to us. Indeed, it is not unfair to say that without the ability of these brilliant minds who forsook their own human perception of reality for the scientific evidence they were presented with, we might never have arrived at the proven theories of quantum physics or relativity, both of which have radically changed the course of human progress over the past century.

Like its parent philosophy Deism, Panendeism is closely related to naturalism and advocates that arguments for the existence of Deity must be maintained through science, reason, and observation of the natural world. Also, as in Deism, Panendeism is reasonably skeptical of - or dismisses religious figureheads, prophets, and claims of divine revelation. Panendeism is more likely to readily avoid the errors of dogma, corruption, oppression, and manipulation often manifest in organized religions, simply because it is self-governed and has no founders, fathers, or leaders. Each Deist or Panendeist, past, present and future, must justify their conclusions and hypotheses by means of the 'God-given' instruments of reason and science. Purely speculative notions are encouraged, where they are presented as speculation. 

Likewise, Panendeism is highly skeptical of claims relating to the suspension of natural law through mediums such as supernatural forces or beings. Panendeism does not seek to define the attributes of Deity beyond affirming that the necessary Uncaused First Cause exists and is itself the underlying substance and cause of reality. By necessity of the proposed interconnection between God and reality, Panendeism proposes and presumes that the entire universe and everything within it is both sacred and meaningful. In this way, scientific knowledge, nature, and being are all modes of spiritual connection to Deity. Each sapient being, and to some degree, every living thing, is and must be part and parcel of God.

THE 5 TENETS OF PANENDEISM

Like our progressive science, both Deism and Panendeism represent broad world views that are constantly evolving as knowledge and science progress. However, Panendeism is governed by 5 unchanging principles:

1. We affirm as a defining thesis, that the natural terrestrial world, and the greater Universe we observe are, by very definition, “real,” and acknowledge that these may well be the only semblance of God we shall ever witness with our human eyes. We assert that we, as sapient beings, are an integral part of the whole, and that human observational perception, both material and spiritual, is worthy of our interest, pursuit, and trust.

2. We affirm the primacy of human reason and science as the final arbiters of
truth and error regarding our understanding of the universe, but acknowledge
that human beings embody, by design, integrated intuition and expression that transcend the bounds of science. We propound that qualities such as consciousness, compassion, passion, introspection, interconnection, love, friendship, kindness, hope, goodwill, charity, sincerity, inspiration, music, art, and spirituality, are among these inherent and inspired natural qualities.

3. We affirm that we are, even in our own cognitive abilities, finite. We
acknowledge that human reasoning is limited, our senses and perception are
imperfect, and that we are free to do good or cause harm to others, or leave
others to do good or cause harm. We assert that any action that disrupts the
joy, peace, purpose, or balance of the beings or environment around us, shall
inevitably derogate and diminish both the quality and scope of our own joy,
peace, purpose, balance, and meaning. If such detrimental, counter-intuitive
behavior is embraced by many, we propound that all life could cease to exist in the natural, terrestrial world we inhabit.

4. We affirm that we are endowed by Deity with the inalienable liberty to govern and orchestrate our thoughts and our actions, within the bounds circumscribed by the Laws of Nature, known and unknown, and assert that the entire Universe, and we ourselves, are part and parcel of the Creator Architect- Supreme Being and Cosmic Mind we know as God.

5. We assert that God is not expected to be manifest inter personally in our lives, or through prophets or figureheads, but rather, intra-personally and perhaps in other ways too subtle to be understood or detected by our finite human senses.
Through the intrinsic presence of Deity, we are naturally drawn toward love; a
realization of life; a sense of oneness, brotherhood and sisterhood with the
natural world around us; and thus, we are compelled to live sublime and
purposeful lives. Therefore, among the transcendent purposes unique to sapient life such as human beings, is the seeking after self-understanding, and the externalization of the resulting discovery within to positively affect the material and spiritual world around us and all living things and beings whose paths cross our own, to make the world a better, kinder, and gentler place for all its inhabitants.

7 POINT CODE OF CONDUCT 
Panendeism additionally sets forth a simple 7-point code of conduct:

1. Approach to understanding external reality: Free -thought (rationality,objectivity, and critical-thinking).

2. Arbiters of external truth: Primacy of science and primacy of reason.

3. The universe and everything within it is sacred: We shall endeavor to do good and not cause harm.

4. Discussing or presenting information regarding external reality: Only
scientifically validated information and proven theories should ever be
presented as fact, while suggestive evidence and hypothesis must always be
presented as speculative.

5. Exploring the nature of self, other, and being: Compassion, passion,
introspection, interconnection, love, friendship, kindness, hope, goodwill,
charity, sincerity, inspiration, music, art, and spirituality are all excellent
examples of the benevolent reason-based processes and mechanisms by which we engage in and experience the full spectrum of wonders that life has to offer us.

6. Discussing or presenting information regarding personal experiences or
self: Panendeism, as an entity of philosophy, shall forever refrain from teaching spiritual practices or mysticism, as they have been used throughout recorded history by organized religions and cults to victimize and gain power over innocent people. However, we do recognize that we live in an amazing universe and welcome individuals to freely discuss and explore their own experiences, keeping in mind that things like spirituality and self are different for each person. Anyone who promotes the contrary position or claims to have special powers, methods, or connection to God should be treated with extreme caution and is perhaps more inclined toward Panentheism than Panendeism. 

We encourage exploration, but not evangelism. Personal and public exploration may include any one of a number of things, from sitting atop a mountain as the sun sets or gazing into the vastness of space on a clear night, to a pursuit of science, deep meditation, or the simplest things in life, such as being close to someone you love.

Incompatible with: Organized religion, prophets, figure heads, dogma, false-
information, oppression, and inequality.

PANENDEISM & THE PANTHEISM

Pantheism is the worship of a physical universe and mindless energy force as God, whereas Panendeism postulates that a mindful and transcendent God is the underlying reality of what we perceive as the universe. As with Panentheists, Pantheists tend to present and accept speculations as facts and follow a structure that is more akin to organized religions and dogmatic-theism.

PANENDEISM & PANDEISM

Pandeism is the worship of a physical universe and mindless energy force as a
deceased or destroyed God with a resurrection doctrine that claims God will someday evolve back into being, whereas Panendeism postulates that a mindful and transcendent God is the underlying reality of what we perceive as the universe. A great real-world analogy for this is to imagine the universe as a quantum super-computer.

In this scenario, Panendeism's God would be primarily the processor, memory, and hard drive and Pandeism's God would be the battery. This isn't to say that
Panendeists don't recognize the importance of energy, or see it as part of God, they just don't attribute the vast complexity of the universe solely to it.

PANENDEISM & PANENTHEISM

While Panendeism and Panenthiesm are fairly similar in their base assumptions, Panendeists tend to look at the universe as being purely comprised of mind, while Panentheists tend look at the universe as being a part of the body of God.

Additionally, Panendeists, being a part of the parent organization of Deism, tend to be more agnostic, speculative, and cautious when it comes to forming and presenting opinions about the true nature of reality, whereas Panentheists tend to present and accept speculations as facts and follow a structure that is more akin to organized religions and dogmatic -theism. Panentheists also tend to more commonly view their relationship with Deity as interpersonal, often engaging in prayer and other religious rituals, while Panendeists often view their relationship with God as intra personal and based upon observation of the natural world, science, and reason.

Moreover, Panendeism's rejection of religious dogma allows it the freedom and agility to remain relevant by taking into consideration and adapting to all new knowledge arising at the forefront of our progressive science.

PANENDEISM & DEISM

Panendeism is a recognized member of the Deism Alliance and part of the greater Deism family. As such, Panendeism is not a breakaway from or rejection of Deism, but a concise ontological position within Deism that focuses on the vast sea of contemporary scientific knowledge, especially physics, quantum physics, quantum mechanics, consciousness, and neuroscience. All Panendeists are therefore effectively Deists with a default variation regarding the relationship between Deity and the universe .

PANENDEIST TERMINOLOGY FOR GOD

• Superior-Mind

• Cosmic-Mind

• Cosmic Consciousness

• Divine-Mind

• Word-Soul

• Supreme Being

• Deity

• Divinity

• Great Spirit

• Creator-Architect-Supreme-Being

• Plenum

• The All

• The All-in-All

• The One


SUPPORTIVE THEORIES & MODELS


• Bose-Einstein Condensate

• Particle Wave-Duality

• The Anthropic Principal

• Synaptic Tunneling

• Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle

• Pribram's Theory of Sensory Perception

• Bertrand Russell's Consciousness Model

• Michael Lockwood's Theory of Consciousness

• The Theory of Biocentrism

• Alwyn Scott's Consciousness Model

• James Culbertson's Model of Consciousness

• Orchestrated objective reduction (Orch-OR)

• Panpsychism

• Nondualism


REFERENCES


1. Albuquerque Journal, Saturday, November 11, 1995, B-10

2. Letter sent by Einstein to Robert S. Marcus, Political Director of the World
Jewish Congress, offering condolences for his son who had succumbed to polio. February 12, 1950

3. Das Wesen der Materie (The Nature of Matter), a 1944 speech in Florence, Italy.
Source: Archiv zur Geschichte der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Abt. Va, Rep. 1 1
Planck, Nr. 1797

4. Werner Heisenberg, 1971, Physics and Beyond: Encounters and Conversations, New York: Harper & Row

5. "The Mystic Vision" as translated in Quantum Questions: Mystical Writings of the World's Great Physicists (1984) edited by Ken Wilber

6. Werner Heisenberg, 1971, Physics and Beyond: Encounters and Conversations, New York: Harper & Row

7. Speech written by David Bohm in 1987 for the memorial service of his friend
and University of Pennsylvania classmate, Malcolm Sagenkahn.