immortal

Assuming the people in Discovery Institute are proponents of Intelligent Design I wouldn't call ID a religion. A new look at Intelligent Design Their hypothesis is not useful and has no bearing in reality unless they explain who the Intelligent designers are and how do they do it and these Intelligent Designers could be gods, aliens or anything who knows. Therefore I wouldn't call ID a religion. I think Hubert Yockey has already answered to the Intelligent Design community quite well and I am definitely not a proponent of Intelligent Design. Dr. Hubert Yockey's answer to FTE amicus brief First of all we should understand what religion is. As Eugenie Scott says religion is not about explaining how Grand Canyon was formed, very few people are interested in using religion to explain how the grand canyon was formed. I think this form of thought is quite common among young-earth creationists who take the bible too literally word to word and associate the concept of seed with DNA and of the same kind with species and argue that God is the first cause of Big Bang. I think this is silly, these all are broken forms of reasoning, our ancients didn't knew molecular biology and DNA or about the Big Bang and the bible is not really concerned with these things. Religion is more about understanding our relationship with god and as the eastern thinker said "We should try to understand our relationship with the esoteric Sun-god" This is what religion basically deals with, it doesn't deal with evolution by natural selection or the first cause of big bang. Jesus Christ! Its quite easy to make allegations like that. Can you show which works of scientist's I have misquoted or misrepresented? Bernard? David Mermin? Penrose? Anton Zeilinger et al and their foundational principles of QM? Carl Jung? Jonathon Duqette? Tell me which works of scientists I have misquoted? That's the reason I have posted their video interviews so that you can clearly hear what claims they have made. I hope you can read basic English. First of all, I don't need any justification from any scientists I can argue independently and I have argued for myself in the past. http://blogs.science...s.net/immortal/ Its just that too many scientists and philosophers started to question the existence of the external world independent of us, one might have expected a thread like this coming from me. I just happen to share the same beliefs on science and religion as held by Bernard D'Espagnat and he has got it absolutely right. Bernard said "I claim that the higher forms of spirituality are compatible with facts established from experiments". Perhaps you didn't read what I wrote in my abstract. "A growing number of scholars, scientists and philosophers are leading us to an esoteric world-view without themselves being aware of this" and this is true and I don't speak lies. An Interview with Bruce Rosenblum We mystics are as practical as experimental physicists, Asian thought can stand on its own, eastern philosophers don't just babble like meta-physicians, we test our claims and see whether Nature agrees with us or not. I am sorry I don't take your advice, you better take this advice from Bernard. If there weren't some political, religious and cultural barriers this would have been made compulsory in schools way long back. Its not that atheists are laughing at theists, its the other way round. Please stop making a straw-man of my position and stop questioning my credibility.

Criticizing someone's position should never be taken as something personal and now a days people often don't understand as to what the gravity of the situation is if we don't use harsh words. First of all, I really don't know what kind of beliefs that these institutes like the Templeton foundation, Henry foundation, Metanexus and the Discovery institute hold. There is no official here claiming to be their spokesperson and they have not come here openly stating their beliefs like I have done here and I don't associate myself with anyone, for me the correct representation of both science and religion is far more important than the agendas of these institutes and if someone has some radical beliefs and if there is sufficient evidence for it then one is free to post it and everyone should accept it. Secondly, I am not pushing this as science so the point of pseudo-science doesn't come into the picture, working scientists will not realize that this empirical universe doesn't exist independent of the human mind until and unless they adopt non-positivist methodologies and only basic observation will not suffice, the point is that the methodology of yoga indeed works and anyone can truly testify that they are truly made in the image of god by adopting it. The measurement problem has continued to persist for more than half a century and if I don't speak, physicists will continue holding their biased positions without arriving at a common consensus and scientists turned philosophers and scholars will continue misrepresenting eastern religions twisting their doctrines in order to make them to be compatible with modern science. Yes, one needs light when there is darkness, when there is a problem and if there weren't any big problems and big issues I wouldn't have started this thread in the first place. I very well know what kind of service I am making for humanity. You want a more genuine paper? Here you have it. Experiment and the foundations of quantum physics We are indeed living in a participatory universe and everything which I am arguing here is logically connected.

Its not a paper written by some crackpot, its a very good paper written by a quantum physicist and these are facts established from experiments and irrespective of who wrote it or where it is published one has to accept it. "Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe?: Three Far-reaching, Visionary Questions from John Archibald Wheeler and How They Inspired a Quantum Experimentalist" The earlier quote can be found from this link.

The Vedic Aryans were no ordinary people, they got all their knowledge directly from the gods and they knew the truth of this world. The truth that there is a God or Christ residing in every living being and this is true irrespective of the country, caste or creed to which you belong. Modern science is slowly beginning to shed more light on this concept of ultimate reality now. “Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe?: Three Far-reaching, Visionary Questions from John Archibald Wheeler and How They Inspired a Quantum Experimentalist” Gospel of John is indeed highly mystical and no wonder why the Valentinians loved both the Gospel of John and the Pauline Epistles so much. There is no conflict between religion and science, all the squabble is just because of mere ignorance and a denial of evidence and facts.

Well, that's what happens when the history is manipulated and evidence is distorted and suppressed. The orthodox Judeo-Christian-Muslim-Hindu concept of religion are not the only religions of the world, there is a pantheon far more superior than the gods of these religions and there is a God far more powerful than the Judeo-Christian-Muslim concept of God and he is the holistic Sun-god. There is not only a need to change the way how science and religion is taught but also there is a need to revise how the history of humanity is taught. New research debunks Aryan invasion theory “Solid Evidence Debunking Aryan Invasion” by David Frawley The Aryan-Dravidian Controversy By David Frawley As said earlier this part of the region has preserved the purest form of Vedic Aryan religion and its going to correct both the orthodox religions as well as science and prevent a society from producing atheists and fanatics.

It is not in Hinduism, it is a vague word representing a collection of different sects. Its actually in the Vedas and the Upanishads and they are not called as Hindus instead they are called as Aryans and this term is not to be confused with the Aryan Race which is completely different. Aryan /ˈɛərjən/ is an English language loanword derived from the Sanskrit ārya ('Noble'). In Sanskrit and related Indic languages, Arya refers to one who does Noble deeds. The ancients knew nothing about modern science and its silly to find similarities with modern scientific concepts without distinguishing the epistemology of these two different concepts. The concept of Brahman and quantum mechanical concepts are based on a completely different epistemology. The only point where this concept can fill a gap in our knowledge is when the concept of an 'Observer' arises in some of the interpretations of quantum mechanics. Its an idealistic philosophical concept and it takes some effort to understand it. Many people fail to understand this concept clearly. The Vedic Aryans were a Sun-god worshipping religion, they worshipped the holistic Sun-god and all gods reside in him and form his body and he shows the path to immortality. These gods are not sky gods instead they exist in the microcosm(psychological) as well as in the macrocosm(physical world). This concept has nothing to do with the empirical sciences. Schroedinger didn't go too far.

Many physicists are playing around with public and not going by what evidence is saying and obviously they don't know what to teach to students because of their own personal bias but in science biases have no place, the only thing which should be taught are facts and the fact is that what we call reality is only a state of mind and this is what should be taught and atheistic scientists have under-estimated religion and this is the reason why I insist that this time religion is going to correct science. Its just people haven't realized yet that this universe doesn't exist independent of the human mind. Bernard D'Espagnat is not afraid to state the facts as they are, we don't need to look back and see how many people are behind us because we know we are speaking the truth and facts will always be facts. This clearly shows that a strong social influence exists in what is accepted and what's not, working scientists should give up realism and this is what should be taught in schools. That paper was already cited and discussed.

Bohr was an instrumentalist and he thought that we can effectively make a distinction between the classical measuring apparatus and the quantum world but even the measuring apparatus should be treated as a quantum system, so no I'm not arguing for the instrumentalist philosophy of science, I'm arguing for a sound idealistic philosophy of science, its the very act of observation that retrospectively creates a reality which wasn't there before, the universe doesn't exist when no one is looking at it and this is the fact of this world. I'm talking of serious genuine religion here, not some kind of new age thinking, the truth of religion is that gods are real and these gods are everywhere in all aspects of human existence and in all aspects of human life. Every religion has an exoteric version of it and an esoteric version of it and people with in the traditions seriously follow the latter version of it where as the outside masses follow the exoteric version of it. Yes, the writers of the Vedas and the Upanishads knew the truth about this world and these religions will live forever and it will reshape both the orthodox religions as well as science. Physicists and philosophers talk of Neo-platonism but they don't understand that it is a religion, the religion of the Greeks and they worshipped the esoteric Sun-god, the Vedas and the Upanishads worshipped the esoteric Sun-god named Savitur, and we will continue worshipping him because that's the truth of this world as modern science itself is shedding light on the fact that the allegory of the cave is true. Pagan religions will correct both science and orthodox religions. People should give credit to the right religion and the God of these religions when talking about these Neoplatonic and eastern philosophical concepts. Science is idealistic and religion is realistic and this is the kind of open realism that Bernard D'Espagnat is arguing for and the objects like quarks, electrons, protons etc described by science doesn't exist independent of the human mind where as objects described by religion, the five elements which this world is made of i.e earth, fire, water, air and space is what exists independent of the human mind.

You guys are under Sybil attack.

Why should I need to attack science when science itself is saying that what we call reality is only a state of mind. There is no conflict between religion and science.

That's what I said a quantum system can be prepared in a superposition of states with its properties undefined or unknown. The final state after the measurement is indeed a superposition of states for the measuring apparatus and people working on the foundations of quantum mechanics know that this leads to contradiction to the linear evolution of the Schroedinger equation when an irreversible outcome appears when an observation is made and the measurement problem can only be solved by either finding a sound interpretation or by changing the theory itself. Penrose, Bernard and a wide range of experts know that there is a contradiction and the measurement problem still persists and trying to avoid only leads to reductio ad absurdum and physicists have no ideas has to what the nature of reality really is. The reason the measurement problem persists up until now is because physicists don't have a model for the conscious observer and the theory demands it. "All information is only encoded in joint properties. Thus, an entangled state is a representation of the relations between two possible measurements on the two members of the entangled pair. In the most simple case, the state [math] | \psi^- \rangle [/math] is a representation of the prediction that in any basis whatsoever, the two photons will be found to have orthogonal states with none of the photons having any well-defined state before measurement." - Anton Zeilinger In the absence of any measurements the sub systems doesn't exist and what only exists is encoded information holding joint properties of the sub-system and therefore information is far more superior than matter, mass, spin, position, energy, momentum are not physical properties instead they are just bits of information and they are abstract. Perhaps it will be eliminated in your dreams. Bohr's complementarity principle is the very foundation of quantum mechanics and it will be taught to students of the future and it will not go away. Don't post your biased wrong views here. All evidence is showing that future is fixed and it already exists. I know and I myself stated that physicists working on quantum gravity do not treat space-time as primary concepts but that doesn't mean that the information to construct the block universe doesn't exist independent of the human mind. He is not misunderstood, he is speaking the truth and he knows there is a problem in physics which you don't want to honestly accept it, that's why I call you intellectually dishonest. Max Born or Bohm? Any ways Schroedinger initially insisted that the wave is real wave but during his later years he did thought about the implications of quantum mechanics and got into the arithmetic paradox of many minds and said that the authors of the Upanishads knew the truth and provided a solution to the arithmetic paradox of many minds and a single empirical reality described by science. This is the truth of the world. Brains are part of the observable universe but minds are always part of the realm of numinous. Its a fact that photons separated over large distances instantaneously influence each other and there is evidence that a future choice does affect the results of the past measurements and if the ordering of the events is taken to consideration then the future choice indeed seems to have been fixed or pre-determined of course there is no physical signal in communication with these photons and it has been already ruled out non-local influences too cannot account for these results and it is realism which is at stake here and people like Leggett himself is considering that it is realism which is false about the nature of reality of this world and hence physicists have no idea about the nature of reality and how the universe is working and other models of reality should be considered. How about this: Math exists in platonic realms and shows that human understanding and conscious thought are not algorithmic proving that the pantheon of the Sun-god(Savitur) exists. “A majority of contemporary mathematicians (a typical, though disputed, estimate is about two-thirds) believe in a kind of heaven – not a heaven of angels and saints, but one inhabited by the perfect and timeless objects they study: n-dimensional spheres, infinite numbers, the square root of -1, and the like. Moreover, they believe that they commune with this realm of timeless entities through a sort of extra-sensory perception.” “And today’s mathematical Platonists agree. Among the most distinguished of them is Alain Connes, holder of the Chair of Analysis and Geometry at the College de France, who has averred that “there exists, independently of the human mind, a raw and immutable mathematical reality.”… Platomism is understandably seductive to mathematicians. It means that the entities they study are no mere artifacts of the human mind: these entities are discovered, not invented… Many physicists also feel the allure of Plato’s vision.” In IAST: Om bhur bhuvah suvahtat savitur vareṇyaṃ bhargo devasya dhīmahidhiyo yó naḥ pracodayāt A literal translation of the Gayatri verse proper can be given as: "May we attain that excellent glory of Savitar the god: So may he stimulate our prayers." —The Hymns of the Rigveda (1896), Ralph T. H. Griffith[12] A free translation by Swami Vivekananda: "We meditate on the glory of that Being who has produced this universe; may He enlighten our minds."[15] Two interpretations by S. Radhakrishnan: 1."We meditate on the effulgent glory of the divine Light; may he inspire our understanding."[16] 2."We meditate on the adorable glory of the radiant sun; may he inspire our intelligence."[17] The Arya Samaj interpretation: "O God ! Giver of life, Remover of all pain and sorrows, Bestower of happiness, the Creator of the Universe, Thou art most luminous, adorable and destroyer of sins. We meditate upon thee. May thou inspire, enlighten and guide our intellect in the right direction."[18] The Brahmo Samaj interpretation: "We meditate on the worshipable power and glory of Him who has created the earth, the nether world and the heavens (i.e. the universe), and who directs our understanding."[19] The Robert Fox interpretation: "O Effulgent Light of creation! Let the Sun of Truth illuminate my divinity. And meditation allow my thoughts to be inspired by Thee." Interpretation by William Quan Judge in his commentary on the Gayatri Mantra: "Unveil, O Thou who givest sustenance to the Universe, from whom all proceed, to whom all must return, that face of the True Sun now hidden by a vase of golden light, that we may see the truth and do our whole duty on our journey to thy sacred seat."[20] a paraphrase by Sir William Jones: "Let us adore the supremacy of that divine sun, the god-head who illuminates all, who recreates all, from whom all proceed, to whom all must return, whom we invoke to direct our understandings aright in our progress toward his holy seat."[21] Common man's prayer: "Whoever produced me and the one recites this mantra, let Him save both of us from sinning against each other." The pleroma of God or the holistic Sun-god, a god as Carl Jung says which humanity forgot over time, "This is a god whom ye knew not, for mankind forgot it. We name it by its name Abraxas." should be taught in schools because these are the basic facts of the world which everyone on this planet should know and there in lies the goodness of mankind.

That's a limitation of modern science or current science that it doesn't fully describe individual events and says that the outcomes of nature are probabilistic but it doesn't mean that a different model from different philosophical systems provide a complete model of the world. Special relativity is completely deterministic and the evolution of the Schroedinger equation is also completely deterministic and the stochastic nature only appears in the act of measurement which we don't completely understand and hence call it the measurement problem. Recently Roger Penrose has called the measurement problem as the "elephant in the room" and I don't think physicists will ever be able to solve this problem because at the heart of this problem is the human mind and this mind is the product of a divine God and it solely belongs to religion and the numinous. Foreword to A Computable Universe Understanding Computation & Exploring Nature As Computation - Roger Penrose Human understanding and mathematical insight is completely different than a machine and a machine will never be able to achieve strong AI because human understanding involves non-computable processes and these processes don't take place inside the brain instead they take place inside the human mind and mathematical truths exist in platonic realms and the human mind could not have evolved through natural selection. All religions of the world knew that mind is separate from the brain and that intellect exists in platonic realms and religion holds the key for the final puzzle in understanding how nature works and its going to change the way we see the world and our notions about reality. Consciousness doesn't require a life form nor does it require a brain. First came the observers and their minds and consciousness or awareness is just a state of mind like dream and sleep states. This hypothesis was put forward way back in 1975 itself by Ernest Lester Smith and all scientific evidence is growing in favour of this hypothesis when you accept the fact that information is the basic stuff of this universe and hence intelligence came first and it is an accepted fact when you see the amount of evidence in quantum information science and bio-informatics. Intelligence Came First, Edited by E. Lester Smith 'A Fellow of the Royal Society rebuffs orthodox scientific conclusions.' I am not attacking science instead I am attacking the scientific consensus. Just making predictive models is not an understanding of how nature works, these models should make sense and it should give added explanations and in that sense physicists have no complete model of the world and they have no clue has to what the nature of reality really is and they should concentrate about the mess in their fields rather than making baseless comments about other disciplines like Philosophy and Religion when they themselves have no idea as to what the nature of reality is. I think sooner or later philosophers will take over as true physicists. QM has already shattered the belief of working scientists that this empirical reality exists independent of the human mind and facts will always be facts. Its the very notion of scientific method itself is what is saying that scientific realism is false. I didn't mentioned "the human brain" instead I mentioned "the human mind" which is different from the brain and yes there are no different types of minds. Math exists in platonic realms. Again you are confounding the human mind with the human brain they are two different things and the only real thing is the human mind not the human brain which is only a state of mind and different observers agree with each other about the results in empirical reality because each one of us have our own metaphysical mind and hence is responsible for the retorspective construction of this empirical rality. It has testable consequences and can be falsifed. We need both, the human mind as well as the observer and the observer exists independent of the human mind and this is based on a completely different epistemology. Our choice of the measuring device and where we place it does affect the outcome of experiments in quantum mechanics and the delayed choice experiments is an example of that and its an experimental fact. That's why I don't use the word consciousness instead I use the word "the human mind" and consciousness or awareness is just a state of mind like dream and sleep states. Just because scientists don't understand what consciousness doesn't mean that eastern philosophical systems also don't understand it. They know about the nature of reality than these fellow scientists. The point is that the two photons of Alice and Bob know what choice victor is going to make in prior and behave according to it and therefore free will is a stubborn illusion. Minds are non-computable and deterministic and they don't work according to the laws of current physics.

Its not stupid if you had to fulfil theological obligations, Jesus wasn't crazy, he very well knew what he was doing, he knew where he had come from and he knew where he was going. The Gospel of Judas states that Jesus told Judas "You shall be cursed for generations" and then added, "You will come to rule over them" and "You will exceed all of them, for you will sacrifice the man that clothes me." He did that to fulfil God's works and we are here to do god's works like it or not. In practical circumstances things won't always be so simple as that. For example Jephthah made a vow that, "Whatever/whoever emerges and comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the people of Ammon, shall surely be God’s, and I shall sacrifice him/her/it as a burnt offering." (Judges 11:31) Unfortunately it was his daughter who came out of his house when he returned and he sacrificed his daughter to the God just as he promised. Even daemons fear because they know there is a God and god fearing people existed in the past and will continue to exist and that's the path of righteousness.

No, the Andromeda Paradox put forward by Roger Penrose shows that the future is fixed and what ever has to happen it will happen, its inevitable. All of space-time is laid out in one go, the aim of science is to understand reality that exists independent of us and not just to understand as it appears to us. The point is that the observable universe i.e. the flow of time doesn't exist out there in the physical world, it is just a state of mind. Its not just a metaphor but a fact that Physics is wrong and the universe is working in a very different way than anyone can imagine. Roger Penrose Says Physics Is Wrong, From String Theory to Quantum Mechanics "One of the greatest thinkers in physics says the human brain—and the universe itself—must function according to some theory we haven't yet discovered." The problem is even states of brain are relative and not absolute as Bernard says. This finally leads to the arithmetic paradox of Schroedinger. "In Mind and Matter and in My View of the World, Schroedinger had raised the problem of the existence of a plurality of conscious minds, which he refers to as the arithmetical paradox : how to explain the existence of a plurality of conscious minds while the world described by science is only one?" The answer to that question is that each one of us have our own metaphysical mind and this empirical reality is only a state of mind and this is the doctrine of the Upanishads. This is the truth of the world. Even simple machines and even rocks are subjected to the same rules of a quantum system and the whole observable universe can be treated as a quantum system and therefore a mind is albeit necessary for the existence of this empirical reality. In delayed choice experiments it is an experimental fact that even the choices of the observers are part of the complete quantum system and it includes the quantum object, the measurement apparatus and the choices of the observers and one needs to take all these into account in order to describe individual events of the quantum object and it doesn't make sense without observers. It doesn't show that we are in control of nature instead it is nature which is in control of our choices, we don't have free will. Quantum decision affects results of measurements taken earlier in time We don't have free will and nature knows it.

In practical situations the observable of a quantum object, say for example spin can be prepared such that the quantum object exists in a superposition of states. The observable R of a quantum object I assuming that the observable for this case is spin will be [math] | u + d\rangle[/math] where u represents the spin Up state and d represents the spin Down state respectively. Now during the measurement process the final state of the quantum system + measurement apparatus is given by [math] | u + d\rangle \bigotimes | II_0 ; \overline\alpha\rangle \rightarrow \Lambda (t_I , t_F) [| u + d\rangle \bigotimes | II_0 ; \overline\alpha\rangle] = | F u + d \overline\alpha\rangle = 1/\sqrt 2 [|F u \overline\alpha\rangle + |F d \overline\alpha\rangle] [/math] Which means that the final state or the pointer position of the measurement apparatus is neither pointing to the states where it shows that the observed quantum system is in a spin-up state nor the states where it shows that the observed quantum system is in a spin-down state and also not in any of the other states, therefore even the macroscopic measuring apparatus doesn't exist in a definite macroscopic configuration and the dynamics of the linear Schrödinger equation or the time-development operator will be distorted when an act of measurement which is an irreversible process is made by an observer and a particular value pops up into existence. This is the measurement problem of quantum mechanics and quantum mechanics doesn't allow one to pre-assign any attributes or observables to a quantum system prior to the measurements and if one cannot assign the attributes which make up a quantum system then there is no sense in assuming that the quantum system exists in the absence of any measurements. This is how entanglement works, the sub-systems or photon pairs cannot be treated as existing separate systems, they should be treated as a single holistic system and its only abstract because it shares information and no speculation is made about the ontology of this information or the underlying reality. As Bohr said Physics doesn't deal with the reality itself instead it deals with what we can say about nature. Bohr's complementarity principle is an inherent fundamental principle of quantum mechanics and it will continue to be taught in the future. The complementarity arises due to the fact that one cannot simultaneously observe both the interference pattern as well access the path information of a quantum object. If we access the path information then the interference pattern is completely lost and if the path information is completely erased from the quantum system then one observes the interference pattern. The same is with the complementary entangled(non-separable) and separable states of a pair of photons. Complementarity is inherent in quantum mechanics. These are facts based on experiments.

You seem to be confusing the reality as it exists out there with the reality as it has been given to us. In the Block Universe concept which is a logical consequence of relativity all times are real and all times exist whether it is the moment of creation or inflation, so this notion of first there was a moment of creation and then life forms appeared is a delusion caused by the psychological arrow of time, past, present and future all exist at once. Physicists working towards quantum gravity no longer treat space-time as primary concepts, instead they say it is constructed just as Kant said that even space and time are categories and are constructs of the human mind, therefore the reality which exists independent of the human mind is quite different from the empirical reality which has been given to us. Without observers and their minds there is no one to construct space-time and observe events at specific positions and at specific times. Yes, we are living in a quantum world and there is no distinctions of classical and quantum reality. The same Schrodinger's cat problem was modified into Wigner's friend problem to indicate that substance dualism is true and that there is indeed a mind different from brain. As said earlier the quantum states doesn't represent anything physical, it just represent states of our knowledge or information which is called the psi-epistemic view of the quantum wave-function. Observers don't quantitatively influence a quantum object instead they influence qualitatively, observers are not in control of the values that an attribute can have instead they decide which attributes of a quantum object manifests as reality. 1. Observers of course decide or determine whether a pair of photons are put in an entangled state or in a state of separability. 2. Observers decide or determine whether a photon displays interference pattern or not by placing the detectors according to their choice. 3. Observers by choosing to measure the spin of a particle in a particular direction defines a reality which did not existed previously to the other entangled pair placed kms apart from it. The value might be parallel or anti-parallel to the direction of measurement and no observers can control it. The choice of the experimenter does determine which part of the quantum system manifests as reality for us.

Did Jesus asked why I need to suffer on the cross? Why I need to suffer for your sins? No, he didn't. He himself ordained to die on the cross, righteous people don't conduct themselves according to the moral standards established by a society, they conduct themselves based on the truth and the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, they are neither selfish nor are they altruistic, they just abide in the truth and conduct themselves according to it, this is the reason it is said that work is worship. If you're not sure about the source of the information ordering to kill your son then don't kill him, its fine.

We know there is no realism because there are experiments which have tested reality and realism has failed and it is realism which is at stake here. Nature has violated Bell's inequality and has confirmed the results of Kochen-specker theorem owing to the belief that in the absence of any measurements a quantum system doesn't exist out there in the physical world. Cosmologists don't hold on to such naive realism now and its wrong to interpret the results in too realistic a way without giving up or abandoning realism. "You may ask whether the universe really existed before you start looking at it," he says. "That's the same Schrödinger cat question. And my answer would be that the universe looks as if it existed before I started looking at it. When you open the cat's box after a week, you're going to find either a live cat or a smelly piece of meat. You can say that the cat looks as if it were dead or as if it were alive during the whole week. Likewise, when we look at the universe, the best we can say is that it looks as if it were there 10 billion years ago." - Andre linde Of course no one determines the values that a quantum object can have but which part of the quantum system manifests as reality for us solely depends on the choice of the experimenter. Now depending on where you place the first detector will determine whether you will get an interference pattern or not. 1. If you place the first detector on the focal plane which destroys all the path information that the two entangled photons had shared and there by gives a sharp momentum eigen state for both the photons, now the position or the path information is completely lost then an interference pattern is observed for photon 2. 2. If you place the first detector on the imaging plane so that one can access the path information of photon 1 and there by the path of photon 2 has a sharp value, then the interference pattern is completely lost. 3. If you place the first detector in between the two extreme positions then one will get a partial fringe visibility. 4. If you chose to not to measure photon 1 even then no interference pattern is observed for photon 2 because the two entangled photons share a joint path information irrespective of whether an observer chose to access it or not. Therefore the main criterion for observing an interference pattern is that there shouldn't be any path information with in a quantum system, if there is path information then the interference pattern is destroyed. Its the very choice of the experimenter on where to place the detector determines the part of the quantum system which manifests as reality for us, this is the Bohr's complementarity principle, there is no quantum world, no absolute reality, the only thing that we know are detector clicks that we observe through the naked eye and that's the reality which nature gives us for us and this reality doesn't exist independent of observations and therefore we cannot say how nature really is, it remains forever unknown to science.

It is not a collection of nonsense. Yes, all evidence is pointing to an observer-participatory universe, the choice of the experimenter determines what reality manifests out into existence which wasn't out there before, we not only don't have free will but also nature seem to know what choice the experimenter had made and accordingly it provides a reality for us. Its a self-excited circuit. These are facts established from experiments and its time to take Bernard's work seriously and there by take investigation on religion seriously.

The fine tuning argument is not dead by any means without finding a natural solution to the horizon and flatness problems in standard big bang cosmology.

Yes, memes do make copies of themselves and mutate and will be passed on from generation to generation. I don't think they follow the same principles of genetic evolution and also note that once a gene is lost it is lost forever but where as in memes whether they are bad or good will stay as it is without getting deteriorated. Yes, periodic crystals and also prions discovered by James prusiner, so even some proteins do replicate and make copies of itself. A load of factors like metabolic rate, reproductive success, diseases like cancer etc induce selection pressure which determines the life span of a species.

I am coming from tradition not from academic scholarly consensus. It seems rubbish to you because you only study the exoteric side of religion rather than focusing on the esoteric side of religion which is the heart of every religion practised very seriously by a privileged few. As said esoteric means intelligible only to those with special knowledge. In the beginning itself, right from your first post you wanted to keep aside the arguments of Bernard D'Espagnat and Kant but as I have shown already my arguments entirely rely on them and I cannot keep them aside and this is the reason why I said you are moving the goal post and going off topic. That post was addressed right after in the next post of yours #227. I didn't evaded anything. There is a plural noun form of God in Greek called Pleroma, there is a plural noun form of God in Hebrew called Elohim, there is a plural noun form of God called Agnisoma Mandala. English language need to adopt these words into it or one must invent a new word. As I said I am coming from tradition and tradition says something different and the fact is that traditions existed and will continue to exist to preserve the knowledge and wisdom of God. The henotheism and the emanations of God are quite similar to other models of religion and there is nothing special about Judaism, like I said I see what you don't see. The emanations of the one true God are explicitly stated in Sephirot. Sephirot Ein Sof Elohim The truth is that the traditional view of religion is right and you are not arguing from the point of view of tradition, traditions existed and this is how they viewed their religion and this is the truth of religion. I don't speak lies.

The correct formulation of quantum mechanics based on facts established from experiments doesn't allow you to place the events of Big Bang and the origin of life forms before the origin of observers, the observers came first and then the universe was actualized, particles don't exist out there in the physical world instead they are a reality which manifests based on the choices of our experiments and these experiments produce reality which wasn't there before and therefore it must be emphasized that reality has not been given to us as it is, the ultimate reality is Veiled. "perhaps an unheard tree falling in the forest makes no sound after all" - John Clauser, Bell experiments and its implications. This is the truth of the world. Reality is only a state of mind. The empirical reality doesn't exist independent of the human mind and this mind is the product of divine God. The quantum states doesn't represent anything physical instead it only represents our state of knowledge or information about all possible experimental situations of the outcomes of a quantum system. The wave isn't real, it isn't out there, we need to abandon all realistic interpretation of quantum mechanics. There is no quantum world, there is no absolute reality. This is a limitation of modern science that it says events in nature are completely stochastic without giving a complete description of individual events. Particles cannot have pre-assigned properties and hence they don't exist independent of the context of measurements and on the choice of the experimenter as to what to measure. Its a reality which our mind forms out of something which exists independently of the human mind. (Some say 'out of nothing' but Bernard believes that there is some mysterious underlying reality not embedded in space-time).

I am desperate to keep this thread alive? or you are desperate to undermine the sound arguments of Bernard D'Espagnat because of your personal bias? A recent paper was cited blindly believing that it refutes Bernard's position but that didn't worked out, a textbook was cited to undermine Bernard's arguments and that failed and you say I am desperate to keep this thread alive, I thought this thread was kept alive by asking a series of Why?... Why? questions which I have addressed to it every time. Of course this is a zombie thread because zombies shatter your cornerstone beliefs and that's what this thread is about. It shows physicalism is dead. I have no contempt towards the existence of zombies which is a routine reality in many different cultural corners of the world. Zombies (Stanford encyclopedia) The Zombie from Myth to Reality: Wade Davis, Academic Scandal and the Limits of the Real Its funny how scientists sit inside their laboratories and laugh at the notion of zombies rather than doing field work which shows what is reality and how nature really is. As said earlier L.Ballentine makes an assumption that quantum mechanical formalism should only be applied to identically prepared ensemble of systems but it has been shown that the quantum wavefunction applies to indivisible quantum systems like an individual electron. Then there is no justification in classifying and attributing them as elementary and composite particles of the standard model. The foundational problems in the formulation of quantum mechanics have not been resolved yet and all evidence indicate that working scientists should give up the realistic philosophy or that the empirical reality exists independent of the human mind. No, its not. Zurek the leading theorist of quantum decoherence recognizes that the ultimate solution to the problem of measurement must involve "a model for the conscious observer". This is where science inevitably need to resort into studying religion. LoL, Bernard D'Espagnat was always way ahead of everyone and he has once again shown that by accurately establishing the Bell experiments and its implications that when it comes to theoretical physics there can be no one more rigid than Bernard D'Espagnat. He is absolutely right. STATEMENTS FROM SCIENTISTS ON BERNARD d'ESPAGNAT WINS 2009 TEMPLETON PRIZE I must emphasize that Bernard has got it right once again its just that scientists have not realized it yet. That approached was put forward to resolve this problem. Accept there is a problem in physics, don't hide or dodge it. "measurements and observers cannot be fundamental notions in a theory that seeks to discuss the early universe when neither existed." - Murray Gell-Mann All evidence and proved theorems have shown that one cannot just keep aside observers and make any meaningful statements about nature, observers are an integral part of the cosmos. It is indeed true that decoherent histories are inconsistent. Decoherent histories and realism

Bernard has defined various forms of realism. On Physics and Philosophy (pp.24-31), 1. objectivist realism: reality consists of a familiar group of impressions such as properties of objects, quantities, values of quantities, forms, and more specifically objects themselves; 2. Einsteinian or mathematical realism: reality consists of notions borrowed from mathematical physics (ex: four-dimensional spacetime, curvature of spacetime, etc.); 3. ontological realism: reality is Being, that is, ultimate reality and it can be reached by means of science; 4. open realism: it says that there is “something” real the existence of which does not hinge on thought; 5. near realism: reality consists of clear and distinct notions like figures, sizes and motions, and thus this form of realism is a restricted version of objectivist realism; 6. structural realism: only “structures” present in the mathematical or conceptual content of theories are real. Bernard is neither an antirealist nor an idealist and among all these views the one Bernard is proposing is known as Open realism and it is this kind of realism that Bernard is a proponent of and we will see how the implications of Bell's theorem and the violation of his inequality inevitably leads to this notion of realism which is known as open realism. First and foremost it should be emphasized that Bell's theorem is fundamental and its important in the sense that even if new theories might be formulated in the future the consequences of Bell's theorem will remain valid. The violation of Bell Inequality implies that Local realistic theories cannot account for the correlations observed in quantum entangled situations of particle pairs and it fails to model nature at this level and the recent experiments have shown that it is scientific realism which is at stake in Quantum Mechanics because even non-local realistic theories which allow non-local influences have failed to explain the correlations observed in nature. These correlations demand explanations and the aim of science should be to understand how nature works rather than just be a predictive endeavour, it should be descriptive and should give explanations for phenomena going on in nature. In QM there is no element of physical reality corresponding to a physical quantity which means in the underlying reality which is reality as it is, doesn't have any of the physical attributes prior to a measurement process, its the very act of measurement which gives a particular value to an attribute or a value to the spin of a proton (in the absence of measurement we should not assume anything about the attributes of a system, it makes no sense) and its the only reality given to us and therefore physicists doesn't deal with the reality itself instead they only deal with reality as it has been given to us. This is the distinction of phenomena and the noumena as explained by Kant. The empirical reality or the phenomenal reality is brought into existence by the retrospective action of five elements and a metaphysical mind and metaphysical sense organs. This the doctrine of Upanishads and this is how our ancients view the world. Professor Max Muller has said: “The Upanishads are the sources of the Vedanta philosophy, a system in which human speculation seems to have reached its very pinnacle. They are to me like light of the morning, like the pure air of the mountain – so simple, so true, if once understood”. How does this view helps to resolve the paradoxes and give an objective description of nature? As Bernard D'Espagnat says there is reality independent of the human mind which is not embedded in space-time. Non-separability is a fundamental aspect of this independent reality and nature is holistic. Consider this thought experiment, when Alice measures something (I say something because in the absence of measurements there is no sense in assuming anything exists) on one end of this universe and Bob measures something on the opposite end of the universe and yet they find that pairs of particles exhibit correlations then it must be deduced that the whole phenomenal world or the empirical reality only exists as a product of our minds and the separation of distances is a stubborn illusion because even Alice(Observer 1) observes an empirical reality(the whole universe) through her metaphysical mind and Bob(Observer 2) also observes an empirical reality (the whole universe) through his metaphysical mind and only the mind of Alice and the mind of Bob are real entities existing out there in the physical world and therefore what seems like magic for Alice and Bob even though they are at opposite ends of the universe and yet observe that their results of the experiments are correlated in fact in actual reality the mind of Alice and the mind of Bob are the only real entities existing out there in the physical world. Or to put it more simpler if you have an entangled pair of dice and you throw one of them here and the other one 15 km away and if they both give the same number and if experiments have ruled out both the explanations of non-local influences and also a hidden deterministic cause then it must be said that each observers have an empirical reality in their own minds and what looks like magic for us in actual independent reality there might be something which is determining such events in a non-computable way and this might be the non-computable physics which Penrose says is missing in the current physics. According to Bernard D'Espagnat QM is a pointer to an independent reality and it is pointing to the pleroma of God. This is my rational justification that God is going to provide an objective account of reality. I very well know what I am talking here and I very well understand the arguments of both Bernard D'Espagnat and Kant. I didn't argued for 13 pages for nothing, I just want to understand the way the nature works. Quantum Theory : A Pointer To An Independent Reality B. d’Espagnat, Laboratoire de Physique Th´eorique et Hautes Energies1, Universit´e de Paris-Sud, Bˆatiment 210, 91405 Orsay Cedex, France GianCarlo Ghirardi and the interpretation of quantum physics Bernard d'Espagnat 2007 J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 40 2971 Abstract This paper comprises a few notes illustrating the impact of GianCarlo Ghirardi's achievements, even on the thinking of a 'non-realist'. Finally, why censor different ways of thinking? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBEMvE_7meo