David King, MSc, PhD
Writer, Teacher, and Health Psychologist


       davidking2311@gmail.com

"We need not to be let alone. We need to be
really bothered once in a while. How long
is it since you were really bothered? About something important, about something
real?" (Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451)
Home Services Blog Curriculum Vitae Teaching Dossier Contact

Fate

Many Worlds Between

by David King on October 15, 2016

me

It seems, after all, that in this one we find ourselves together.

There is a theory in quantum physics called the many-worlds interpretation, which postulates the existence of an infinite number of alternate universes, each with a slight variation on past and each with multiple variations on future to come. It is the idea that everything that could have happened in this universe did happen in another, thereby denying the collapse of any given wave of potential in any given moment – and creating an infinite sequence of alternate realities defined by the could-haves and should-haves of here-and-now. Each is real, yet only one is known. This is ours.

For all its fantastical claims, the many-worlds theory is a real one among physicists – whose mental wrestling with the curiosities and impossibilities of the quantum world will likely persist for … Keep Reading Here

Life as the ‘Enchantment Under the Sea’ Dance

by David King on August 8, 2012

Enchantmentposter

In the movie Back to the Future, a pivotal moment surrounds Marty McFly’s ability to cement his parents’ romance – in the past. His entire existence – his future – hinges on this.

See, George McFly and Lorraine Baine had originally fallen in love at the ‘Enchantment Under the Sea’ Dance on November 12, 1955. This is where they had their first kiss, and their subsequent romance led to the eventual birth of Marty some years later. Unfortunately, Marty’s journey to the past (via one Dr. Emmett Brown, a flux capacitor, and a suped up DeLorean) jeopardized this pivotal moment, threatening his own existence and that of his two siblings.

In a few desperate seconds, as Marty begins fading from existence, George and Lorraine have their kiss after all, barely evading an entirely new Marty-less future.

It struck me, … Keep Reading Here

Living in the NOW and the cards we’re NOT dealt

by David King on January 23, 2011

I feel compelled to return to this notion of “living in the moment.”

I have come to the strongly held, now frequently rehearsed, and both emotionally and rationally considered conclusion that living in the moment is, in its basic and standard form, a potentially hazardous ideation. In theory, and from a strictly optimistic perspective, it works: Live in the moment, escape the confines of the past and abandon the worries of the future; focus on the here-and-now, and be attentive to the beautiful details of life that are often overlooked.

The problem, of course, is that millions of years of evolution have led to a sophisticated self-consciousness that facilitates both long-term memory and complex consideration of future events. It allows us to view our lives in such a way that we continuously move from past to future, often overlooking the … Keep Reading Here

Throughout life, there exist moments in which time slows nearly to a halt. These moments are offset by equally startling (yet less indulgent) moments in which time moves at an impossible speed, propelling us into a future with which we’ve barely engaged or considered. In either moment, however, the result is the same: Time ceases to exist.

These moments are often enriched by the rare experience of flow – the perception of a momentary existence void of any past or present, any self-conscious considerations, any negative emotions, and any worry or concern. To stumble upon these moments is surely nothing short of miraculous, as they validate a human existence which is not at all meaningless, regardless of an individual’s convictions.

And then there are signs, synchronistic indications that you are on the right path (or perhaps rather, that there is … Keep Reading Here

Signs

by David King on November 10, 2009

I’m a person who believes in signs.

Back in the 1920’s (and later first published in 1952), Carl Jung proposed the idea of synchronicity – the experience that two events are related when no underlying causal connection exists or is likely to exist. Within this framework, logic, reason, and science are not the only possible means of linking events. Jung added to this list the concept of meaning – the interpretation of causality due to the individual perception of a meaningful relationship.

My own experience with synchronicity has been this: If you keep your mind open, the signs are everywhere. Now, being of a research and science background, this notion can be very problematic, as it essentially creates an experimenter bias within this massive study that is THE WORLD. However, I am not convinced that these signs – these acausal … Keep Reading Here

Science vs. Religion vs. Our Fate

by David King on June 5, 2009

Mendel

So I return to the issue of fate, but with an entirely different frame of reference: Our fate as a species (as well as that of the planet, with which ours is completely entwined). In recent years we have witnessed an explosion of scientific evidence that climate change is real and nearing a tipping point. We also know that we are currently in the midst of the Sixth Great Extinction, the causes of which are irrefutably and undeniably linked to human behaviour. And there are a number of other related issues being brought to the forefront: privatization of fresh water, predicted increases in environmental refugees, rising sea levels, changing weather patterns, lack of commitment to green technology by major industries, oil dependency, overfishing, overplowing, genetic modification, soil erosion, etc. (and that’s a BIG etc.). It is only natural, then, to … Keep Reading Here

A Problem of Fate

by David King on May 8, 2009

Of late, I have been bothered by this question: If, in trying to prevent or avoid an event’s occurrence one causes that very event to occur, can it be said that the event was meant to happen?

If we also consider that NOT attempting to prevent or avoid the event’s occurrence leads to the event NOT occurring, then it seems that things may not be predestined. Even so, what do we make of the person who causes the event they’re trying to avoid? Are they creating their own reality, like many New Agers would have us believe? (Note that this solution argues that the universe is intelligent enough to respond to thoughts regarding the event but not intelligent enough to determine if those thoughts are in favour of or opposed to the idea in the first place.)

Or is Damned-If-I-Do … Keep Reading Here