The last sentence in this quote is particularly relevant to me. In the early 70's, after completing a Masters Degree in relativistic quantum field theory I had the naive opinion that everything physical could eventually be explained mathematically ... this view, of course, is the height of human egotistical arrogance but it also led to a concern that: if everything is causal and predictable, then we have no free will and volition! It was that concern that launched me into studies of consciousness, metaphysics and spirituality about 40 years ago.
Modern physics and science in general never start with consciousness ... hence their explanations are never really explanations of anything. They're just mathematical patterns of experimental data observed in their "predictable" realm ... hence when the non-predictable phenomena are observed their default is to deny the data.
This is really funny since, on the one hand, at the scale of human observation there are all kinds of observed phenomena throughout the centuries that defy our mathematical models; and yet, in the realm of the sub-atomic, we applaud the "discovery" of something like a Higgs boson - why: because we predicted it and our analysis of our data (designed of course to detect what we think a Higgs boson should do) appears to justify the assumption about something that is never directly observable at human levels of perception.
Lazaris in one of their sessions asked a rhetorical question about neutrinos: do they exist as a result of a prediction that they should exist or did they exist without the prediction? Since we create our own reality, individually and collectively, the question is pretty much meaningless. If humans want to see the effects of something like a neutrino (or a Higgs boson for that matter) they will, of course, see what they're looking for. But that doesn't mean these mental constructs have to exist in all physical realities. They only appear as predictable patterns in our data if we believe they should!
“The predictable and non-predictable serve, then, to form the boundaries of physical experience.
“The more open you are to such ideas the greater the flow of your experience can be.
“You should never accept as fact a theory that contradicts your own experience. Man’s experience includes, for example, all kinds of behavior for which science has no answers. That is well and good. Science cannot be blamed for saying that its methods are not conducive to the study of this or that area of experience – but science should at least be rapped on the knuckles smartly if it automatically rejects such behavior as valid, legitimate or real, or when it attempts to place such events outside of the realm of actuality. Science can justly be reprimanded when it tries to pretend that man’s experience is limited to those events that science can explain.”
(Dreams, “Evolution” and Value Fulfillment Vol 2, Session 937)