immortal

It wasn't just a blind attack, its something which I remember from my past meet off with you. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/67437-particle-wave-duality/page__st__160__p__689788#entry689788 We humans can only understand particles as billiard balls and waves as smeared out oscillating entities and when some entity behaves differently than a particle or a wave then there is no justification for calling it a particle. Obviously Bernard's claim contradicts your research and hence you cannot swallow that fact. With all the recent experimental findings and facts electrons, protons, quarks cannot be thought of as self existent. Is that clear to you? They don't exist independent of measurements. You have indeed twisted the context of how the meaning of the word 'Myth' was used in this paper. and Bernard's claims are not wrong in fact all evidence establishes Bernard's open realism on a firm ground. Griffiths is a proponent of Consistent histories interpretation of quantum mechanics which is adopted by a minority of physicists and the corrections to his formalism have been made in the quantum theoretical literature and not seriously considered. A set of no-go theorems contradict such an interpretation of quantum physics. Nature agrees with me and I don't need any support from anyone and Bernard's position is turning out to be more sound than any other interpretation. Try refuting again. I am not gullible like you are and you can go on and lead a life of delusion ignoring the history of humanity, ignoring the truth of religions and ignoring evidence and facts. Congrats and all the best.

One example is enough to show how much intellectually dishonest some of the members in this forum are and how they take a research paper out of context to prove that they are right so that they can maintain their stubborn flawed position. There is no point in arguing with such members. Quantum Mechanics: Myths and Facts Like I always said from the beginning, there is no accepted consensus among the scientific community on these topics and just because some crazy stubborn scientists doesn't want to give up realism even though all evidence is pointing against realism the works of Bernard is considered to be nonsense or rubbish. I very well know who is intellectually honest and who is not.

Before we move on I like to clarify some of my position on this matters which have been misrepresented or misunderstood. This is my thread and I hope I can have my own ideas. Firstly, when I refer to Penrose I am not talking of his Orch-OR model because Penrose believes in some kind of hidden variable theory and experiments have already abandoned all hidden variable programs and the fact that all approaches to explain consciousness whether it is of microtubules in the axon ultrastructure or any other theory based on neural processing have failed shows that all these approaches are wrong. When I refer to Penrose I only stick with his mathematical arguments just because his Orch-OR model is wrong it doesn't change the fact that strong AI is impossible and human quantum teleportation is impossible and therefore my argument is in support of Penrose's mathematical arguments because our ancients knew what Mind is and they also knew that Intellect exists in platonic realms. I am not using science to prove religion instead I am using religion to correct science. Secondly, I did not used QM to prove that quantum healing works or mind control works or telepathy works. No I didn't do that, that's again a misrepresentation of my views and I very well know how science works and how religion works. If anyone looks at my post #233 not a single word is talked about Quantum physics or non-locality. I am someone who know that what we learn from science is one thing and what we learn from religion is another. That's wisdom, you can't find that in books. Wisdom traditions know neither about quantum mechanics nor they know about General Relativity and all they do is worship gods and have their own methodologies and its based on their own epistemology. Thirdly, I very well know that Anton Zielinger is not supporting my views, Anton is not talking of the pleroma of God, is he? Its quite silly to say that I am quoting Anton in support of my views, I very well know that no one supports my radical views except Bernard D'Espagnat perhaps my only saviour who believes that religion can access the noumenon. The reason why I refer to Anton Zielinger is simply because of this. What is Reality? Is it out there? Its a question which has been raised by him and it questions the very basis of Scientific enquiry and the answer to that question from the esoteric religions is an affirmative no, the external world doesn't exist independent of the human mind. I am saying that Religion can answer and solve some of the paradoxes and the thorny philosophical questions and not the other way around where one says that science proves religion. I am applying the methodologies of Esotericism and saying that it can answer or solve some of our problems in science.

Or it reflects your laziness to read the full statement? counterfactual definiteness (CFD) is the ability to speak meaningfully of the definiteness of the results of measurements that have not been performed (i.e. the ability to assume the existence of objects, and properties of objects, even when they have not been measured), This is the assumption of realism that an objective reality exists independent of measurements. Of course QM doesn't require any such assumptions and its quite fine on predicting the outcomes of nature and contrary to what you believe Counterfactual definiteness is quite a common term in the literature of Bell theorems and experiments. The recent experiments have confirmed that it is counterfactual definiteness i.e the assumption of the existence of objects and properties even when they have not been measured that we need to give up. I have doubts that whether you have seriously studied QM or whether you're deliberately trying to misrepresent my credible claims. Its very much related. Einstein and his co-workers namely Boris Podolski and Nathan Rosen in 1935 concluded, "If, without in any way disturbing the system, we can predict with certainty (i.e. with probability equal to unity) the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of physical reality corresponding to a physical quantity." This is the notion of Einstein's mathematical realism and this is the kind of realism we need to abandon. I don't have to say it, yours posts says it all. I am not misunderstood. The truth of the matter is this. "There is no sense in assuming that what we do not measure about a system has [an independent] reality," Zeilinger concludes. This is the scientific fact. Perhaps you need to read a textbook which teaches QM based on the Copenhagen Interpretation. Yet physicists or even biologists don't have a model to model conscious thought and physicists have got no idea of how to unify a unrealistic theory of QM with GR. Yet you were the same guy who earlier argued in favour of realistic interpretations of quantum physics i.e it corresponds to an element of reality, (i.e. an objective attribute that exists before measurement). See your post #131. Your double standards and how you go by authority rather than looking at evidence and what nature is saying is quite evident. Nuf' said. Aren't you doing some personal research and said that the wave-particle duality is a myth? I very well know that you have a personal bias against the Copenhagen interpretation. I don't like to trouble the scientific community but please don't be dogmatic and as Stephen Hawking asks, Is that the final word? Is that a true understanding of nature? It is for the same property that the Bell Inequality is tested and found to be violated in experiments and such a property doesn't exist independent of the context of measurements. I still insist that physicists must adopt weak objectivism while describing their scientific models because science as an enterprise has become predictive which was an enterprise to give objective and descriptive explanations of nature and this dissatisfaction is what led the founders of quantum physicists like Schroedinger, Pauli and Bohr to resort into mysticism If Einstein was alive today he would be really angry with you. "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views." - Albert Einstein, according to the testimony of Prince Hubertus of Lowenstein; as quoted by Ronald W. Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times, New York: World Publishing Company, 1971, p. 425. "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings." - Albert Einstein. And what was Spinoza's concept of God? Comparison to Eastern philosophies Similarities between Spinoza's philosophy and Eastern philosophical traditions have been discussed by many authorities. The 19th-century German Sanskritist Theodore Goldstücker was one of the early figures to notice the similarities between Spinoza's religious conceptions and the Vedanta tradition of India, writing that Spinoza's thought was "... a western system of philosophy which occupies a foremost rank amongst the philosophies of all nations and ages, and which is so exact a representation of the ideas of the Vedanta, that we might have suspected its founder to have borrowed the fundamental principles of his system from the Hindus, did his biography not satisfy us that he was wholly unacquainted with their doctrines... We mean the philosophy of Spinoza, a man whose very life is a picture of that moral purity and intellectual indifference to the transitory charms of this world, which is the constant longing of the true Vedanta philosopher... comparing the fundamental ideas of both we should have no difficulty in proving that, had Spinoza been a Hindu, his system would in all probability mark a last phase of the Vedanta philosophy."[86][87] Max Muller, in his lectures, noted the striking similarities between Vedanta and the system of Spinoza, saying "the Brahman, as conceived in the Upanishads and defined by Sankara, is clearly the same as Spinoza's 'Substantia'."[88] Helena Blavatsky, a founder of the Theosophical Society also compared Spinoza's religious thought to Vedanta, writing in an unfinished essay "As to Spinoza's Deity—natura naturans—conceived in his attributes simply and alone; and the same Deity—as natura naturata or as conceived in the endless series of modifications or correlations, the direct outflowing results from the properties of these attributes, it is the Vedantic Deity pure and simple."[89] Nuf' said. This is exactly the concept of God which I am espousing here. Your ignorance of religion and personally biased views on QM is quite well known. What error? What lie? I don't speak lies. "Kabbalah is a set of esoteric teachings meant to explain the relationship between an unchanging, eternal and mysterious Ein Sof (no end) and the mortal and finite universe (his creation)." What you don't understand is in Vedic terminology there are two kinds of worship to gods one is the Samasthi form and the other one is the Vishrutha form. In the latter worship they worship individual gods by invoking them individually and in the former worship they worship all the gods in a holistic way representing a deity and hence its called the pleroma of gods. He is a person, a God and his body consists of lower gods. This is the concept of the pleroma, its esoteric meaning. I have already explained the concept of this above and what you don't understand is that for these traditional religious scholars pleroma is a locality and has a location and it exists somewhere. However you are right in saying that I should have used it in a singular form like "Pleroma of God". Its just I am trying to convey the clear concept of this and I am finding it hard because there is no single word in English to convey this concept and the only one word which I found best suited and in fact more best suited than the words from the eastern languages is the word pleroma as Carl Jung and the Gnostic Valentinian tradition had an identical conception of it. I don't forget the basics. On the other note the wisdom in these wisdom traditions and their ideas are far more important for me than the person or the tradition which it hails from.

Good questions and its important to emphasize that even I am an outsider and not part of these traditions but I have made a considerable effort in understanding their world-views and practices and I should consider myself as a novice when it comes to the vast amount of knowledge and methodologies available in these wisdom traditions. All I can provide you is the correct insights which I have gained along with my little bit of wisdom which I have gained from traditional and religious scholars. Its very important to understand them in their own milieu. Its called Panchathma Sankramana Vidya. "Chapter I—The Sheath of Food 1 Om. May Mitra be propitious unto us! May Varuna be propitious unto us! May Aryaman be propitious unto us! May Indra and Brihaspati be propitious unto us! May Vishnu, of wide strides, be propitious unto us! Salutation to Brahman! Salutation to Thee, O Vayu! Thou indeed art the visible Brahman. Thee indeed, O Vayu, I shall proclaim as the right! Thee indeed, I shall proclaim as the true! May It protect me! May It protect the teacher! May It protect me! May It protect the teacher! 2 Om. May Brahman protect us both! May Brahman bestow upon us both the fruit of Knowledge! May we both obtain the energy to acquire Knowledge! May what we both study reveal the Truth! May we cherish no ill—feeling toward each other! Om. Peace! Peace! Peace! 3 Om. He who knows Brahman attains the Supreme. On the above, the following mantra is recorded: “He who knows Brahman which is Reality, Knowledge and Infinity, hidden in the cave of the heart and in the highest akasa—he, being one with the omniscient Brahman, enjoys simultaneously all desires.” From the Atman was born akasa; from akasa, air; from air, fire; from fire, water; from water, earth; from earth, herbs; from herbs, food; from food, man. He, that man, verily consists of the essence of food. This indeed is his head, this right arm is the right wing, this left arm is the left wing, this trunk is his body, this support below the navel is his tail. Chapter II—The Sheath of the Vital Breath 1. “From food, verily, are produced all creatures—whatsoever dwell on earth. By food alone, furthermore, do they live and to food, in the end, do they return; for food alone is the eldest of all beings and therefore, it is called the panacea for all.” “They who worship food as Brahman obtain all food. Food alone is the eldest of all beings and therefore it is called the panacea for all. From food all creatures are born: by food, when born, they grow. Because it is eaten by beings and because it eats beings, therefore it is called food.” Verily, different from this, which consists of the essence of food, but within it, is another self, which consists of the vital breath. By this the former is filled. This too has the shape of a man. Like the human shape of the former is the human shape of the latter. Prana, indeed, is its head; vyana is its right wing; apana is its left wing; akasa is its trunk; the earth is its tail, its support. Chapter III—The Sheath of the Mind 1 “The gods breathe after the prana, so also do men and cattle; for the prana is the life of creatures. Therefore it is called the life of all. Those who worship the prana as Brahman obtain a full life; for the prana is the life of creatures. Therefore it is called the life of all.” 2 This sheath of the Prana is the embodied soul of the former. Verily, different from this sheath, which consists of the essence of the prana, but within it, is another self, which consists of the mind. By this the former is filled. This too has the shape of a man. Like the human shape of the former is the human shape of the latter. The Yajur—Veda is its head, the Rig—Veda is its right wing, the Sama—Veda is its left wing, the teaching is its trunk, the hymns of Atharva and Angiras are its tail, its support. Chapter IV—The Sheath of the Intellect 1 “He who knows the Bliss of Brahman, whence all words together with the mind turn away, unable to reach it—he never fears.” 2 This sheath of the mind is the embodied soul of the former. Verily, the different from this sheath, which consists of the essence of the mind, but within it, is another self, which consists of the intellect. By this the former is filled. This too has the shape of a man. Like the human shape of the former is the human shape of the latter. Faith is it head, what is right is its right wing, what is truth is its left wing, absorption is its trunk, Mahat is its tail, its support. Chapter V—The Sheath of Bliss 1 “The intellect accomplishes the sacrifice; it also accomplishes all actions. All the gods worship the intellect, who is the eldest, as Brahman.” “If a man knows the intellect as Brahman and if he does not swerve from it, he leaves behind in the body all evils and attains all his desires.” 2 This is the embodied soul of the former. Verily, different from this, which consists of the essence of the intellect, but within it, is another self, which consists of bliss. By this the former is filled. This too has the shape of a man. Like the human shape of the former is the human shape of the latter. Joy is its head, delight is its right wing, great delight is its left, bliss is its trunk. Brahman is its tail, its support. " - Taittiriya Upanishad Notice that every sheath is said to have a shape of man which means that these five elements i.e earth, fire, air, space, water along with the mind and intellect are anthropomorphic Gods with whom you can have a dialogue with. Carl Jung has already shown to the western world that these archetypes do exists and in fact his spiritual teacher which he called 'Philemon' was an anthropomorphic God from where he got his idea of Archetypal psychology. Its something which science understand very little about this. Its by Mandala worship where all the phenomena is realized as the activities of the gods and the delusion that you are in control of your life will be demolished. This is what all these traditions have been saying that we are spirits controlled by God as Elaine Pagels has discovered from the Valentinian tradition. A modern commentary on Karma Lingpa's Zhi-Khro teachings on the Wrathful and Peaceful Deities We come from a place where all the opposites reconcile into one unity. The Vedic Aryans called it the "Brahman", the Jews called it the "Ein Sof", the Valentinians called it the "Unknowable" and the Buddhists call it the "Sunya". We cannot make a conceptualization of it. Its called Avastatreya. "III The first quarter is called Vaisvanara, whose sphere of activity is the waking state, who is conscious of external objects, who has seven limbs and nineteen mouths and who is the experiencer of gross objects. IV The second quarter is Taijasa, whose sphere of activity is the dream state, who is conscious of internal objects, who is endowed with seven limbs and nineteen mouths and who is the experiencer of subtle objects. V That is the state of deep sleep wherein one asleep neither desires any object nor sees any dream. The third quarter is Prajna, whose sphere is deep sleep, in whom all experiences become unified, who is, verily, a mass of consciousness, who is full of bliss and experiences bliss and who is the door leading to the knowledge of dreaming and waking. 1 Visva is all—pervading, the experiencer of external objects. Taijasa is the cognizer of internal objects. Prajna is a mass of consciousness. It is one alone that is thus known in the three states. 2 Visva is the cognizer through the right eye; Taijasa is the cognizer through the mind within; Prajna is the akasa in the heart. Therefore the one Atman is perceived threefold in the same body. 3—4 Visva experiences the gross; Taijasa, the subtle; and Prajna, the blissful. Know these to be the threefold experience. The gross object satisfies Visva; the subtle, Taijasa; and the blissful, Prajna. Know these to be the threefold satisfaction. 5 The experiencer and the objects of experience associated with the three states have been described. He who knows these both does not become attached to objects though enjoying them. 10 Turiya, the changeless Ruler, is capable of destroying all miseries. All other entities being unreal, the non—dual Turiya alone is known as effulgent and all—pervading. 11 Visva and Taijasa are conditioned by cause and effect. Prajna is conditioned by cause alone. Neither cause nor effect exists in Turiya. 12 Prajna does not know anything of self or non—self, of truth or untruth. But Turiya is ever existent and all—seeing. 13 Non—cognition of duality is common to both Prajna and Turiya. But Prajna is associated with sleep in the form of cause and this sleep does not exist in Turiya. 14 The first two, Visva and Taijasa, are associated with dreaming and sleep respectively; Prajna, with Sleep bereft of dreams. Knowers of Brahman see neither sleep nor dreams in Turiya. 15 Dreaming is the wrong cognition and sleep the non—cognition, of Reality. When the erroneous knowledge in these two is destroyed, Turiya is realized. " - Mandukya Upanishad One will be baffled to know that the Upanishadic seers are saying the same thing which Bernard D'Espagnat is saying which he arrived at that same conclusion based on the scientific method and his sound rational philosophical analysis that "what we call reality is only a state of mind" and religion including the oral Jewish texts and the Rabbis have been saying the same thing that "What we call reality is only a state of mind" for over a millennia. This is the reason that Erwin Schroedinger argued for 40 years that the writers of the Upanishadic seers knew the truth. Its done by invoking the gods and gaining knowledge and wisdom from them. The hypothesis for that has already been laid out by the esotercists. The Vedas in the light of Aurobindo The whole basic model for all of this is the Agnisoma Mandala also called the pleroma of Gods and one of the precise clear cut methods which I am aware of to achieve all of this is this. An ancient method to achieve all of this Finally I like to end this post by a note from the wisdom literature of the Old Testament.

Its quite clear that you're moving the goal posts and not looking at what the evidence is saying, I am sorry, it might be good for you if you back through what nature is saying rather than correcting an evidence based position. In quantum mechanics the term counterfactual definiteness is a well defined term and it means that objects have well defined values independent of measurements but recent experiments from quantum mechanics have falsified such an assumption and if we cannot in any way assign the value to an attribute of an object then the attribute loses its objective meaning and we cannot say what is it that exists out there in the physical world. Please don't use fuzzy words in QM because people will laugh at you, only when you put much effort to understand QM you will realize the reasoning behind these arguments. To put it in Bernard words: "This reality is something that, while not a purely mind-made construct as radical idealism would have it, can be but the picture our mind forces us to form of ... Of what ? The only answer I am able to provide is that underlying this empirical reality is a mysterious, non-conceptualisable "ultimate reality", not embedded in space and (presumably) not in time either. " So this is a different kind of idealism and it leads to Kantian philosophy of the phenomenon and the noumenon. I know about the action potential. Its done by Na+ and K+ ions and uses ATPase to pump the ions in and out of the neuron and this is what all neural processing is based on. The problem is that even neurons are made of the same particles like protons and electrons and they are subjected to the same QM rules and they lose objective meaning when a quantum measurement is made on them. The states of the brain also do not have elements of physical reality corresponding to their physical quantities. In the absence of measurements i.e without an observation even the neurons exists in a superposition of states and to get an actual reality from the range of possibilities an act of observation is necessary. You have got no idea how successful quantum theory has been in predicting the probability of the outcomes of nature and I go by what nature says and what evidence says. You're talking blindly here. You're attitude sucks, its like saying who cares about evidence and what nature is saying I am going to screw someone no matter what. Shall I assume you don't want to discuss about the results of the experiments in physics because as you have admitted its something which you have read less about. Don't go off topic please. I am talking Esoteric religions here and it is a well defined term. I am arguing for a sound idealism here and not for solipsism and contrary to what you believe idealism is very much alive and replacing the crude materialism of classical physicists. "There are many signs that a sound idealism is surely replacing, as a basis for natural philosophy, the crude materialism of the older physicists." Its not quite far that theists are going to laugh at atheists for holding a flawed position. Don't try to enforce your self-invented terminologies here like this one "theist involved belief systems" which is a very vague meaningless term. I am talking about Eosteric religions in this thread and the term Esotericism is a well defined term. These are the main characteristic features of Esotericism and the first correct definition of Esotericism was given by Antoine Faivre and this is his definition and it is the most agreed one in the academia of Esotericism. "(1) Correspondences. Correspondences, symbolic or real, are believed to exist between all parts of the visible and invisible universe. "These correspondences are considered more or less veiled at first glance, and they are therefore meant to be read, to be decoded. The entire universe is a great theater of mirrors, a set of hieroglyphs to decipher; everything is a sign, everything harbours and manifests mystery" (Faivre l992b: xv). A distinction may be made between correspondences between visible and invisible levels of nature, and between nature (the cosmos) and history as exemplified in revealed texts. (2) Living nature. The vision of a complex, plural, hierarchical nature permeated by spiritual force(s) is exemplified most clearly in the Renaissance understanding of magia. The perception of nature as a living milieu - a dynamic network of sympathies and antipathies - furnishes [112] a theoretical foundation for concrete implementation: various kinds of magical practice, "occult" medicine, theosophical soteriologies based on the framework of alchemy, and so on. (3) Imagination and mediations. The idea of correspondences implies the possibility of mediation between the higher and lower worlds, by way of rituals, symbols, intermediate spirits, etc. The imagination, far from being mere fantasy, is regarded as an " 'organ of the soul' by means of which a person can establish cognitive and visionary rapport with an intermediary world, with a mesocosm" (Faivre 1992b: xvii), or mundus imaginalis. Imaginatio is the main instrument for attaining gnosis; it is "a tool for the knowledge of the self, of the world, of myth; it is the eye of fire penetrating the surface of appearances in order to make meanings, "connections", burst forth, to render the invisible visible ..." (Faivre 1992b: xvii-xviii). (4) Experience of transmutation. This alchemical terminology is perhaps most appropriate to define the concept of an "initiatic path of development". The esotericist gains insight into the hidden mysteries of cosmos, self and God, and undergoes a process of purification on all levels of his being. (5) The practice of concordance. The practice of concordance involves "a marked tendency to seek to establish commonalities between two or more different traditions, sometimes even between all traditions, with a view to gaining illumination, a gnosis of superior quality" (Faivre 1992b: xix). (6) Transmission. Transmission refers to the flow of esoteric teachings"from master to disciple following a channel already dug, abiding by a course already charted" (Faivre 1992b: xix)." This is the field which studies the truth about religions and it has its own methodologies and its own assumptions about the nature of the cosmos. I have defined what scientific realism is for you and I have also defined what Esoteric religions is for you and there is no confusion in what I am arguing here.

Nope, its a well defined term. Counterfactual definiteness Experiments have clearly disallowed and rejected the assumption of counterfactual definiteness and I go by evidence. The Einstein's notion of mathematical realism is wrong and its a proved fact now. Wake up to the truth. We cannot speak anything about quantum mechanical reality without in the context of the measuring device and the arrangement of the measuring device and in the absence of such measurements quantum mechanical reality makes no sense at all and this is a fact established from experiments. Blame the science reporter and the magazine, don't blame me. Instead of reading what the experimental results have concluded and what the researchers are saying you seem to be very much fond of reading what the science reporter is saying. I am not someone who uses non-scientific terms and I very well know what I am talking here and that's the reason why I changed the title of the article and said "Real experiments confirm Kochen-Specker theorem". I could have easily cited it as "Quantum magic trick says reality is what you make it" as it was there but I didn't said it because I very well know that that's not what the experiments are actually saying. Again its not my fault, one of the reasons I cited it is because it gives some implications as to what the researchers are saying. Again I am neither the part of John templeton foundation nor the Journal of Scientific Exploration and I definitely don't associate myself with anyone because I know no one holds the kind of radical views which I hold and what's important for me is the correct representation of both religion and science. However for the first time it actually makes sense to show some sympathy towards Bernard D'Espagnat and the ideas of these foundations and they are just holding a logically possible hypothesis which is a God hypothesis which physicists have ignored or rejected such a hypothesis just purely based on their personal taste and just squabbling against other interpretations without realizing that religion can give a solution to it and answer their questions if they look into it. What should be focused and emphasized from the experimental results of that paper is that there is no absolute reality at the level of quantum mechanical reality and we need to give up the classical notion of realism at the quantum mechanical level. That's your personal bias, the experiments are clearly saying that 'there is no element of physical reality corresponding to a physical quantity'. There is no objective reality independent of the context of the measurements. The recent experiments have casted some doubts about our place in the cosmos and we need a radical new revision about our ideas on space and time. Of course electrons, hadrons, jets, neutrinos and muons all behave quite differently as they pass through the detector and there by allows us to identify each type but experiments done on particles which are stable shows that the attributes or the properties of these particles like spin, polarisation etc cannot have pre-determined values and hence such properties cannot be thought to have any existence or sense independent of measurements and therefore we cannot speak anything about the reality which is out there. It really casts doubts on the kind of reality which we are living in. Contrary to what you say that is the correct approach to religion and that's what religion is saying that the world is made of five elements and its very important to understand and define reality in the context of esoteric religions and as I said your personal distaste for religion will not turn religion to be false. Be rest assured of that. What is simply not true? that experiments which is based on the very notion of scientific method has casted serious doubts on the existence of the empirical reality existing independent of the human mind? that nature disagrees with you? that objects like protons, quarks, electrons are not self-existent independent of the human mind? One can see how you are doing injustice to your own intellectual reasoning by ignoring facts. This is BS, Bernard is a philosopher of science and we know what scientific realism is and what quantum physics is saying. If you want to be deluded and ignore facts, by all means you can but don't claim that Bernard doesn't understand it in a rationally developed manner. Scientific realism is a well defined term in philosophy of science. According to scientific realism, an ideal scientific theory has the following features: The claims the theory makes are either true or false, depending on whether the entities talked about by the theory exist and are correctly described by the theory. This is the semantic commitment of scientific realism. The entities described by the scientific theory exist objectively and mind-independently. This is the metaphysical commitment of scientific realism. There are reasons to believe some significant portion of what the theory says. This is the epistemological commitment. It is a well established fact that quantum mechanics is a successful universal theory and that it is complete and its fundamental to the universe and this theory directly questions the metaphysical commitment of scientific realism and forces us to renounce that belief. Dude, these are facts established from experiments and I obviously have to state the stupidity of the way you seem to have made up in your mind that my position is erroneous and how you're deluded that Bernard and Penrose ideas have been falsified. No its not, as long as they are not falsified their argument stands and along with my argument stands as well. Its because of the amount of misrepresentation of religion that was there not only over the internet but also in the circles of scholars, scientists and philosophers was the main reason to start this thread and this is the correct approach to study religion. The fact that reality is only a state of mind is not an extraordinary claim as you seem to think. Its a well sort out argument. Read this: Is it all in the mind? As I said you need a reality check. The reality tests Religion falls under the noumenon and science falls under the phenomenon which is the empirical reality.

.... and quantum mechanics doesn't allow counterfactual definiteness, its the premise of realism that is actually wrong. Perhaps this is the hundredth time that you have quoted Steven Weinberg and still holding on to a biased position against Copenhagen Interpretation but actually the truth of the matter is that majority of the practising quantum physicists are still Copenhagenists and Anton Zeilinger is one of them to name a few. The Copenhagen Interpretation is quite safe and actually turning out to be the right one with slight modifications. The conclusion is that elements of physical reality or hidden variables that requires non-contextuality (i.e independent of measurement arrangement) is false. "There is no sense in assuming that what we do not measure about a system has [an independent] reality," Zeilinger concludes. Real experiments confirm Kochen-Specker results Experimental non-classicality of an indivisible quantum system - Original paper The Copenhagen Interpretation is going well along with other interpretations and its very likely that its going to be the right one for the Quantum theoretical framework. Nope, there is such an axiom and it was postulated by Bohr. You were the guy who told that there is a well accepted scientific consensus in the scientific community on this topic. Isn't it? Well looking at what all the recent research papers and experimental findings are saying and what several quantum physicists are themselves saying it clearly shows that its the premise realism which should be renounced as we move into the future. So contrary to what you say, there is a philosophical problem in science and it solely falls into the subject of philosophy. Don't say that I am mistaken but instead accept that you were deluded with your pre-conceived notions and beliefs.

Selectively quoting a particular passage of my post instead of fully quoting it like you always do to prove your intellectual dishonesty and your biased ignorant position on QM shows that hidden variable theories are highly untenable and that holding on to realism leads to some serious troubles and shows that the Copenhagen Interpretation is right like it always been. "If one viewed the quantum state as a real physical object, one could get the paradoxical situation that future actions seem to have an influence on past and already irrevocably recorded events. However, there is never a paradox if the quantum state is viewed as no more than a `catalogue of our knowledge'2. Then the state is a probability list for all possible measurement outcomes, the relative temporal order of the three observers' events is irrelevant and no physical interactions whatsoever between these events, especially into the past, are necessary to explain the delayed-choice entanglement swapping." - Researchers Your textbook is outdated perhaps it needs a revision, I guess. That's turning out to be seriously wrong. It is a fundamental axiom of quantum theory that no elementary phenomena is a phenomena until it is a registered one. People like John Wheeler becomes a sceptic and ponders: "Who has observed the big bang? Who has observed the early universe? How has the past of the universe actualized?"

These scientific papers are not simple Citations but facts established from experiments. What? facts established from experiments. This is the way Nature is and what we call empirical reality is only a state of mind and this is a scientific fact. Do I have to go your way and say "get that through your head", I hope not. That's the reason why we have philosophers in science and religion to understand what the implications of the experiments are and that's exactly what I have cited in my OP. You can't run away from the truth. Its quite self evident. The simple truth of the matter is that the so called scientific method itself is saying that scientific realism is false and the stupidity is not on my part but actually its on your part for not understanding what is being discussed here and what interesting is that the methodologies in esotericism have also been saying the same thing about our nature for all these years that what we call empirical reality is only a state of mind. You are deluding yourself again and again by ignoring facts established from experiments and that's what ought to be corrected. Did you understand? I am not attacking the scientific method instead I am attacking the scientific consensus. The truth of the matter is that both religion and science are converging and there is no conflict between religion and science. Like it or not.

I see that some of them still have not grasped my arguments and I will try to explain my arguments once again. The same Anton Zeilinger and Caslav Brukner et al team have made recent experiments known as 'Experimental delayed-choice entanglement swapping'. This is an very important paper for physics. Experimental delayed-choice entanglement swapping Please kindly try to understand this paper because it is very essential to understand the current problem in physics and in further understanding my solution to it. In this experiment two pairs of photons 1, 2 and 3, 4 are entangled and the photons 2 and 3 are given to Victor for him to measure and the photons 1 and 4 are given to Alice and Bob respectively. First Alice and Bob makes respective measurements on their photons but they cannot know whether the correlations observed are either of entangled photons or of well separated photons. Now at some later time say 485ns after Alice and Bob's measurement, Victor makes a choice as to which type of measurement to make i.e a separable-state measurement (SSM) or a Bell-state measurement (BSM). "According to Victor's choice of measurement (that is, entangled or separable state) and his results, Alice and Bob can sort their already recorded data into 4 subsets. They can now verify that when Victor projected his photons onto an entangled state, each of their joint subsets behaves as if it consisted of entangled pairs of distant photons. When Victor projected his photons onto a separable state, Alice's and Bob's joint subsets behave as if they consisted of separable pairs of photons. In neither case Alice's and Bob's photons have communicated or interacted in the past. This indicates that quantum mechanical predictions are completely indifferent to the temporal order of Victor's choice and measurement with respect to Alice's and Bob's measurements. Whether Alice's and Bob's earlier measurement outcomes indicate entanglement of photons 1 and 4 strictly depends on which measurements Victor performs at a later time on photons 2 and 3." This is highly unacceptable because it seems as if Victor's choice was pre-determined or fixed or that the future is affecting the past. Its highly unacceptable because it directly clashes with General theory of Relativity which says that future cannot affect the past. Therefore if one chooses to believe that the polarisation of a photon exists out there in the physical world prior to measurements or the idea of hidden variables(counterfactual definiteness or realism) then it leads to a serious paradox and its highly unacceptable and hence any realistic interpretation of QM which argue for hidden variables which correspond to elements of reality is in direct conflict with General Relativity. "If one viewed the quantum state as a real physical object, one could get the paradoxical situation that future actions seem to have an influence on past and already irrevocably recorded events. However, there is never a paradox if the quantum state is viewed as no more than a `catalogue of our knowledge'2. Then the state is a probability list for all possible measurement outcomes, the relative temporal order of the three observers' events is irrelevant and no physical interactions whatsoever between these events, especially into the past, are necessary to explain the delayed-choice entanglement swapping." One indeed need to give up or renounce the notion of scientific realism in order to avoid a serious paradox and giving up realism is not enough what we actually need is a sound idealism because as Michael Brooks says, "To track down a theory of everything, we might have to accept that the universe only exists when we're looking at it" . I am no sure how physicists can sleep without figuring out this first. As Anton Zeilinger says relativity has been there for 100 years and quantum physics has been there for 100 years and we need a new breakthrough. Everyone knows that poor Schroedinger spent forty years of his life arguing that the writers of the Upanishads knew the truth but the scientific community never took him seriously. We all know how his book What is Life? was the building stone for the discovery of the genetic code and the DNA which revolutionized the field of biology and in the same way his other books, 'Mind and Matter' and 'My view of the World' is going to revolutionize the way we see the world around us. Erwin Schroedinger: Wiki quote The sound idealism which Schroedinger was arguing was this. Idealism in Ancient philosophy That's the the world existing independently of the human mind not the empirical reality. Now some might ask what this has got to do with Carl Jung and the Gnostics and the answer is even their doctrine was identical. This is the doctrine of the Upanishads which Schroedinger was arguing and its going to correct the scientific consensus, that's for sure.

Its my job to cite evidence for my claims and I just don't quote scientists and philosophers, I also understand their reasonable arguments and if you got some problem with my ideas then try to refute it by citing sources I'll be more than happy to address them, if not accept that you were wrong, don't tell me that it has shown to be wrong already, show some intellectual honesty for god sake. Its not my beliefs which have been shattered, actually its the beliefs of atheistic scientists which has been shattered. All this live and let live philosophy is not going to go on for too long, the time has come to show intolerance towards atheism and atheistic scientists who say that there is no need for a God hypothesis and who hold on to their fanatical position when all evidence are against their false preconceived notions. Actually there is no excuse for still holding on to the belief that the empirical reality exists out there independent of the human mind and its an experimental scientific fact and its not going to change what some special people say what. I go by facts not by group thinking. Actually Depth psychology is also a real investigation. Depth Psychology If you want to know how relevant Carl Jung's ideas are for our present age and time in which we are living and how much the notion of scientific realism is discussed and criticized then you should read these works. Recasting Reality: Wolfgang Pauli’s Philosophical Ideas and Contemporary Science, Dr. Harald Atmanspacher What most people don't know is that the Carl Jung's idea of the archetypes leads only to one thing: to Abraxas, the Holy Father of the Gnostics which is the pleroma of God and most people actually don't know about this. Isn't it fair to give the credit to the right person? i.e. to God, I am accused for speaking the truth or stating the facts, Carl Jung's ideas ultimately leads to the pleroma of God and I am just being way ahead of everyone and stating the truth. I am going to investigate the pleroma of God like I always have and perhaps you are going to do laundry like you always have. This topic is in the current events and its not surprising that this topic has been rigorously discussed here at great depth. If you happen to notice some of the papers which I have cited are from 2009-2012 and the beauty of discussing it in an open forum is that it helps one to question their preconceived misconceptions and start to see things from a different perspective. If some scholars, scientists and amateurs had not misrepresented pagan ideas and beliefs then there was no point in starting this thread in the first place, I hope as a member of this forum I can start a thread without hijacking other threads. If I am not allowed to discuss this topic in this sub-forum which is the "Forum for the discussion and examination of rational foundations of religion" as defined by this forum then where should I discuss this. Yes, some of these ideas have been ignored or been pushed under the carpet or seriously misunderstood and it takes much effort to change that attitude among people and make people aware as to what the evidence is actually saying. I think by now you should have understood how the Gnostic idea of the pleroma of God is turning out to be right and in the future more and more scientists and philosophers are going to investigate the pleroma of god, its just that not many have realized what the recent findings have been saying. Actually the evidences which I have asserted all lead to the conclusion that the empirical reality is only a state of mind and there by directly leads to the existence of the pleroma of God. Whatever it is, one thing is for sure there is no element of physical reality corresponding to a physical quantity and scientific realism is dead. The quantum state doesn't represent anything physical out there in the physical world and its just a mathematical tool to predict the outcomes of a system or the experiences of the physicist.

Thanks for proving your dishonety again. Penrose argument of non-computability of human thought might be wrong from your perspective but not from the perspective of Esoteric religions. I am not talking of his Orch-OR model instead I am talking of his pure mathematical arguments which lead to mathematical Platonism. Roger Penrose: A Knight on the tiles “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.” So how does mathematical insight or non-computable or non-alogrithmic thinking is possible? "Koushika, you remember what I said on an earlier occasion" said Vamadeva, "I told you that the mind is like a pillar of light. Hold on to that pillar. When the light gets scattered its power gets dispersed. But if the light is focused and one-pointed then it is all powerful and quite bright. The same principle holds in respect of the mind. By nature it is fickle. When you intend to hold an object in your hand, use all your fingers to clasp it, don't you? Likewise, if you wish to "hold' your mind, you should have a perfect hold on the sensory organs which are the instruments of the mind. If you wish to achieve or attain anything you should see that your concentrated attention of mind is not led astray by your senses. That concentrated mind should be focused fully on what you wish to achieve. Then, like a top, which spins round a centralized point, your mind remains fully, unswervingly concentrated on the aim or target. It is like a serpent turning its head round to contact the tail. Your mind which begins with a strong question or doubts finds a suitable answer after a concentrated spin round the point. This I would say, is the first or primary step for your tapas". - Devudu Narasimha Shastry, ritualist and a Sanskrit scholar. Its quite clear how human understanding is very much different than the way a machine works and mathematical intuition is possible for mathematicians because they directly access already hidden truths existing in its own platonic realm. I repeat again: Come up with a machine capable of strong AI and simulating conscious thought then the whole doctrine of esoteric religions will be falsified. This is one of the main reasons why I believe in Esotericism. Your personal abhorrence towards a topic is not going to make the ideas just die off, after this discussion of topic I am going to continue investigating the pleroma of god as I always have because for the first time in the intellectual history of mankind esoteric religions are going to correct the scientific consensus.

Its funny how you move goal posts and delude yourself of falsifying Bernard and Penrose arguments and also the ideas of ancient wisdom. The truth is that facts established from experiments have led to a sound idealism in the philosophy of science. "There are many signs that a sound idealism is surely replacing, as a basis for natural philosophy, the crude materialism of the older physicists." My argument is quite simple and it logically follows like this, Bernard's life time work in the philosophy of science has led him to conclude that "What we call reality is only a state of mind". Someone in the guardian asked this question and it was a very good question. Gramlin23 March 2009 12:20PM If what we call 'reality' is just a state of mind, what is mind? This is where Esotericism comes in and explains what Mind is and what Intellect is. This is the reason for the need of a god hypothesis. Science will never be able to know what Mind is and hence the reason to adopt non-positivistic methods of our ancients. Actually much of the information is kept confidential and hardly a few people are genuinely interested in these kinds of esoteric knowledge. So I am not sure your time length and your life span is enough to conclude that the ancient wisdom traditions are false. The correct methodology to study our ancients is based on mandala of the east or the pleroma of the west. Mandala or Pleroma have a local existence, they exist in its own realm. Mandala According to the psychologist David Fontana, its symbolic nature can help one "to access progressively deeper levels of the unconscious, ultimately assisting the meditator to experience a mystical sense of oneness with the ultimate unity from which the cosmos in all its manifold forms arises." Even you need to come to terms on understanding what reality really is. In my country, philosophers are masters of nature and not its slaves and they deal with the real physical world as it exists out there and they enter and exit a dead person's body(not the empirical body) on their own will. Welcome to the real world. Oh really? say it again. People know now who is intellectually honest and who isn't.

Science is not all there is and the scientific method is not the only method that is out there for gaining valid means of knowledge. Science cannot get beyond mere appearances of phenomena. I am not going to make the same mistake of applying western scientific methodology which is solely based on basic observation for investigating religious traditions. If anyone wants to know the truth about religion then one should adopt the methodologies of Esotericism. The arguments of Penrose and Bernard have not been falsified and they can be falsified with in science and testified by methodologies in Esotericism. I and Bernard firmly believe that Esotericism can know the noumenon. @LimbicLoser desparately tried to falsify these ideas and he failed terribly and now he is resorting into censorship of ancient wisdom with his misunderstanding as it always happens that the scientific method is the only way to know the truth without being aware of the fact that there are methodologies in esotericism which takes a top-down approach of reality and tries to access knowledge hidden already in nature, we don't invent anything, we just discover it. Extra Credit Assignment: The Nature of Things No wonder why I have respect for physicists who adopt the positivistic philosophy of science than those who are dogmatic that scientific models are the only way of understanding and describing nature. "If it can get someone to look at the problem from a different angle and it leads to a different description of nature, that’s great." The next breakthrough is going to come from Esotericism and it is going to redefine and reshape both the orthodox religions as well as Science. The empirical world isn't out there independent of the human mind as Anton Zeilinger clearly casts doubts and explicitly says that we create reality rather than passively observing it. Everything what I am saying is logically connected and very relevant.

I am not a chameleon to change colours, I have only one true colour and the quotes from the Gospel of Philip in my OP clears tells as to where I am coming from. Those are the mystical texts of Christianity and its a legitimate interpretation of Christianity. 'Gnostic' Texts vs. the New Testament Two scholars debate whether texts like the Gospel of Thomas are incompatible with traditional Christianity. Scholarly Smackdown: Did Paul Distort Christianity? BY: With Elaine Pagels & Ben Witherington III I have nothing to hide. That's how one reads that verse in Greek and it clearly specifies the term pleroma as used many times in the Pauline Epistles. For the Valentinians the term pleroma represents a locality, it exists somewhere in its own realm. This is something you need to understand before trying to correct my errors. A casual reader who is not aware of early Christianity and the historical and the theological context of the usage of the term pleroma will not know that fullness (pleroma) should be interpreted as something which has a locality and its something which exists in its own realm and if you don't clearly specify what fullness (pleroma) is then its definitely not a good translation of the original meaning of the text and I stand by this. As Dr. Lightfoot clearly demonstrates that in early Christianity the term pleroma actually represented a locality and it exists in its own realm, its just not a substance which fills or a receptacle which is being filled. This meaning of the term pleroma as the totality of divine powers (Aeons) which forms the Mystical body of Christ is the correct meaning of the term pleroma in a theological context, what is nonsense to you it is gold for Valentinus.

I don't think God is being unfair or has done injustice to anyone. Everyone is being treated equally and everyone is made into fullness whether one is poor or rich, black or white, whore or nun, ignorant or knowledgeable, everyone is truly made in the image of God and everyone can become the Father or by default has the potential to become the father. The one who knows this its his strength, his divinity, his pleroma, no one can take this knowing from him. John 10:28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. John 10:29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. John 10:30 I and the Father are one.” Neither solely relying on the scriptures alone or on the oral traditions is the way to go, the right way to go is by scriptures + oral traditions and the main reason for the downfall of religion for all these years is because we have ignored the oral traditions and interpreted them the way you want without understand in its own milieu the way the oral traditions understood it.

If you notice my posts in this thread I have not used the word consciousness at all or not used it quite often in my posts because I know no one knows what Consciousness is, its a term which is confusing and different people will give different definitions for that. I am clearly using the word "Mind" and separating it from the neural processing of the brain. For me Mind and brain are two different things and this is not just mere speculation because there is much scholarly evidence that our ancients did knew that there is a "Mind" which exists and also an "Intellect" which exists and the English language is clearly poor when it comes to conveying religious terminologies. For example - We have clear precise terms in the east for the Mind and the Intellect called as "Manas" and "Buddhi" respectively and the context of those words clearly specify that they are something different than the brain and that's exactly how the eastern philosophical traditions still see it and will continue to do so. So I hope you can understand the problem here for me for conveying these ideas in English, I need to change something or introduce a capitalization to convey my ideas so that people don't associate the idea of the Mind (Manas) with the brain because according to eastern philosophical schools Mind is really something different than the brain and its something which science hasn't figured it out yet. I am shocked by the fact that how you blatantly state that the arguments of Sir Roger Penrose and Bernard D'Epspagnat are false and incorrect, if it is so then why don't you come up with a machine capable of strong AI and there by simulating conscious thought and make machines answer problems with yes or no answers for which no algorithm exists. You're not doing that instead you are simply stating that their arguments are false by holding a personal biased position, if their arguments were falsified I would have packed my stuff up and would have gone by now. I don't think there is anyone who does better philosophy than Bernard D'Espagnat and he wasn't afraid to tackle those philosophical issues of Bell experiments where most physicists shy off from giving a proper answer. Please do read the entire thread before making comments like that. "The thrust of d'Espagnat's work was on experimental tests of Bell's theorem. The theorem states that either quantum mechanics is a complete description of the world or that if there is some reality beneath quantum mechanics, it must be nonlocal – that is, things can influence one another instantaneously regardless of how much space stretches between them, violating Einstein's insistence that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. But what d'Espagnat was really interested in was what all of this meant for discerning the true nature of ultimate reality. Unlike most of his contemporaries, d'Espagnat was one of the brave ones unafraid to tackle the thorny and profound philosophical questions posed by quantum physics." - NewScientist From Bernard D'Espagnat's paper Quantum Theory and Reality. This is the third or the fourth time I am asking the question which one of those three premises are in error? and no one gave me an answer and they simply dodge the question. I know Bernard D'Espagnat is intellectually honest and I know what recent experimental findings are saying and I didn't studied Michael Rae's 'A beginner's guide to Quantum Physics' and understood all the philosophical difficulties over the interpretation of quantum physics and the measurement problem for nothing. I very well know what I am talking here. "Dr. James G. Garrick, an orthopedic surgeon and director of the Center for Sports Medicine at St. Francis Hospital in San Francisco, said his clinic saw 39 patients with yoga injuries in 2002, up from 11 in 2001. Most of the injuries patients suffered were to the knee, followed by lower back and shoulder. The injuries result from people trying to stretch their bodies into difficult poses that are beyond their physical limitations. "The last couple of years we've been seeing a dramatic increase in the number of people injured doing yoga," Garrick said. "It's frightened us."" That's just the number of people who visited a hospital, imagine how many are out there who didn't go to the hospital and they know that there is something wrong with this world or its nature of reality just like the Gnostics who differentiated this empirical reality as kenoma and the Platonic reality the Pleroma which is far more real than this empirical reality. This is the reason why I said you guys do need a reality check. Bernard D'Espagnat is absolutely right when he says that the basic components of objects - the particles, electrons and quarks etc cannot be thought of as self-existent. Yes, I do understand what you mean, I better prefix the word religion with esoteric because I am not talking of the exoteric religions but I am talking of Esoteric Religions. Thanks. Before you write an abstract to a paper or even start doing a project on it what one needs to do at first is understand the problem. Understanding the problem is the first basic step and I do understand the problem of the current consensus among the physicists on scientific realism and religious thinkers and scientists turned philosophers who mix modern science with Eastern mysticism without noticing the fact that their epistemology is different. So basically what one needs is to first understand the current problems in various fields and the various competing hypothesis and ideas explaining a particular phenomena and I am quite well aware of the current problems in some of these fields. I am not being silly because you don't see what I see. "Esotericists frequently suggest that there is a concordance between different religious traditions: best example is the belief in prisca theologia (ancient theology) or in philosophia perennis (perennial philosophy)." - Esotericism (wiki) There is a common esoteric essence in all the esoteric religions of the world and most people don't see it because of their preconceived notions, cultural and other social issues and they are really myopic and the same is the problem with you. Throughout this thread I have been talking of the Pleroma of the west and the Mandala of the east and showing how common their understanding of the numinous was and that should be quite clear to others as to what concept of God I am talking here about. Thanks for citing all these sources and would love to read them and have a better hold on the recent developments on Consciousness studies and yes this will take time and also a whole specific thread for that and I have studied the basics of Molecular Neurobiology from Cell and Molecular Biology, E.M.F De Robertis jr and E.D.P De Robertis and if we go to the technical arguments that itself takes a whole another thread. However what Bernard D'Espagnat is arguing is that even neurons fall under empirical reality because even they are made of same objects like particles, quarks etc and the quantum rules apply to them and there by even neurons and in fact this whole empirical reality or the phenomenal world cannot be said to self-existent independent of the human mind. That doesn't change the fact that there are scientists with in the scientific community who disagree with you as I have shown in this very thread. That's what the main tenet of the paper was that science doesn't know what the world is made up of and it should be emphasized that when you quote from the CERN scientists website that its true only from their own perspective and not that its the final word. All along I am questioning the assumptions of science and its foundations and therefore your assumption that I see scientists as gods is not true and don't need their quotes to justify my beliefs because I am not making a God of the gaps argument here, I am making an argument which fills a gap in our knowledge and showing that even science can learn from religion and on that particular quote Einstein is indeed supporting my views as you yourself have quoted here. This is turning out to be true because science and religion are indeed converging at a common point and there is no conflict between science and religion. That doesn't mean I have to agree with all the other things Einstein said and I definitely don't agree with Einstein's views which is in bold and that's one of the reasons why there is still no common consensus as yet emerged from scientific community from the time of Einstein up to now on the interpretation of the results on Bell Experiments which has important consequences for a Theory of Everything. Its because scientists have ignored a God hypothesis which explains the origin of the cosmos. The truth of the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution was this. "Gods are real. And these gods are everywhere, in all aspects of existence, all aspects of human life." -James Hillman As far as I know Weinberg said "neither Bohr nor Einstein knew what the real problem was". That's what he said. The wisdom hidden in the wisdom traditions were showed in this very thread and they didn't made up these ideas on their own, they got that wisdom and knowledge because the methodology of religion works.

They are based on a different methodology and also on a different epistemology but the goals are the same i.e. to understand the way the nature works. Even Religion is after questions like what is the world made of? Do we have free will? Where do we come from? and therefore ultimately both Religion and Science is after the pursuit of understanding the way the nature works and build testable models of it. They have non-positivistic methods which help them to gain practical useful knowledge just like we have got modern technology by applying the scientific empirical method which is solely based on basic observation. Sure. 1. Valentinian Tradition of the Gnostic Christians. 2. Smartha Tradition of the Vedic Aryans. 3. Jewish Mysticism, Kabbalah 4. Tibetan Buddhism 5. Neoplatonism 6. Proto Indo-Iranian Religions 7. Proto Indo-European Religions

"Those who say they will die first and then rise are in error. If they do not first receive the resurrection while they live, when they die they will receive nothing." (Gospel of Philip) One doesn't get to enter the Kingdom of God by just reading a different book or by just knowing the higher teachings of St. Paul and Christianity. "Unlike most religious movements, the Valentinian eschatological myth does not present events that are postponed until the afterlife or the end of the world. They believed that those who had gnosis experienced the restoration to Fullness (pleroma) here and now through visionary experiences and ritual. The orthodox teacher Irenaeus reports with some bewilderment that Valentinians claimed that they were "in the heights beyond every power" (Irenaeus Against Heresies 1:13:6) and that they were "neither in heaven nor on earth but have passed within the Fullness and have already embraced their angel" (Irenaeus Against Heresies 3:15:2). They described the experience of gnosis itself in terms of the eschatological myth." One enters the Kingdom of God by being practical not by having book knowledge or by just keep believing in something. "We are spirits controlled by God" - Elaine Pagels. Everything will return to fullness, the body of Christ and its inevitable. "On the other hand, we see how here and there a reaction took place against the sacramental rites. A pure piety, rising above mere sacramentalism, breathes in the words of the Gnostics preserved in Excerpta ex Theodoto, 78, 2: But not baptism alone sets us free, but knowledge (gnosis): who we were, what we have become, where we were, whither we have sunk, whither we hasten, whence we are redeemed, what is birth and what rebirth." They don't preach the gospels and try to proselytise people and they don't come and knock your doors, if its anything you have to go in search of wisdom and knock their doors because they have nothing to lose. "The scriptures are ambiguous and the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition." (Irenaeus Against Heresies 3:2:1). - A Valentinian.

Perhaps you didn't watched the David Mermin's video, there is no element of physical reality corresponding to a physical quantity, the classical notion of scientific realism is dead and the apparent anthropism is quite evident. If you had read the article fully, he uses precise scientific terms like quantum objects, quantum fields etc. Who sees things only what they want to see? Shying away from the truth doesn't win your position. A lot of things have changed since Einstein died, no one knows what he was going to say now that the experiments of Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger have gone against his beliefs and the context of his quotations is no longer the same as was then. “Quantum theory is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. Quantum theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the Old One. I, at any rate, am convinced that He (God) does not throw dice.” - Albert Einstein Which was corrected by Stephen Hawking as, "God not only plays dice, but he throws them where we cannot see" And recently Elitzur said, "Aharonov's view is somewhat Talmudic: everything you're going to do is already known to God, but you still have the choice."

What makes you think that I have not looked out those translations, you are being unnecessarily rude with me. The original Barnes quote was taken from here - http://bible.cc/colossians/2-9.htm So I am well aware that the term pleroma is not transliterated but instead "all the fullness" is used instead of it. No, the fact of the matter is that the orthodox Church has simply suppressed the clear meaning of the pleroma and even you are arguing blindly without noticing its historical and theological context. The term should be understood in a historical and a theological context. “The term pleroma, we may presume, was common to St. Paul and the Colossian heretics whom he controverts. To both alike it conveyed the same idea, the totality of the divine powers or attributes or agencies or manifestations. But after this the divergence begins. They maintained that a single divine power, a fraction of the pleroma, resided in our Lord: the Apostle urges on the contrary, that the whole pleroma has its abode in Him.” - Lightfoot, J.B., The Epistles of St. Paul, Colossians and Philemon, 1904, (Macmillan co., New York, NY) pg 265. J.B. Lightfoot has an excellent commentary on The Epistles of St. Paul, Colossians and Philemon. All your queries will be answered by this chapter named - On the meaning of Pleroma That chapter sums it all and dissolves all our confusions. Thanks so much to J.B. Lightfoot for his excellent commentary. He talks both about the Pleroo (verb) and also the Pleroma (noun) and also the Valentinian view of the term Pleroma.

And now, the answer to that first question is ... ? I am still waiting. Sure, I will address that. @LimbicLoser said, "One does not (and I guarantee you that such will not be found in scholarly handling of the texts, and translations) mix transliteration forms in with the translated text (of the target language) unless it is a proper noun, or its original meaning (referent) is in some material degree of question and uncertainty. The only instance of any exception to that rule-of-thumb that I am aware of, is when an original language word is held in transliterated form within an otherwise translated textual portion, so as to hold the translation aside for the moment. This tooling is aimed at getting the contextually more accurate translation in the target language, and to avoid misguided, misunderstood, and otherwise simply incorrect traditionally proposed translations, leaking in while translating. It is usually used in papers arguing for a more correct translation. We do have a pressing need to be as correct, and accurate as we can, on as practical a range of points as possible, when doing this kind of work." I have read books which are translated from the native language to a target language and in majority of the situations to avoid the change in context or the meaning of the word as understood in the native language the transliterated term is kept as it is without introducing a new term from the target language which fails to convey the same meaning which was conveyed by the original term in the native language. For example: Collosians 2:9 In Christ all the pleroma 1 of Deity lives in bodily form. [1] Pleroma refers to totality of Divine powers. This is a better translation than using the term "fullness". That's what I think.

Do you know who Abraxas is? He is the Holy Father of the Gnostics, its the place where all the pairs of opposites reconcile into one unity. Thanks for adding an another source which validates my position. This is not my interpretation, this is the interpretation of the Gnostic Christians, a legitimate Christian sect. The Greek word "Pleroma" is a well defined term and it represents the 'Mystical Body of Christ', there is no ambiguity in it, there is no need to act like kids. Mystical Body of Christ. In virtue of this union the Church is the fulness or complement (pleroma) of Christ (Eph. 1:23). It forms one whole with Him; and the Apostle even speaks of the Church as "Christ" (1 Cor. 12:12). This union between head and members is conserved and nourished by the Holy Eucharist. Through this sacrament our incorporation into the Body of Christ is alike outwardly symbolized and inwardly actualized; "We being many are one bread, one body; for we all partake of the one bread" (1 Cor. 10:17).G. H. JOYCE Its worthless to those who want be in ignorance and in delusion but its worth it for those who want to learn the higher teachings of St. Paul and Christianity and there by achieve eternal life. Valentinus, the Father of the Valentinian tradition is known as the Gnostic for all seasons and therefore whether its spring, summer or the winter Christianity will live forever. Restoration to fullness is inevitable . Two wrongs doesn't make a right. You guys do need a reality check, group thinking is dangerous and it only leads to delusion. Oh yes, my main concern of starting two threads in this religious forum is the amount of misrepresentation of pagan ideas and beliefs that has manifested all over the internet, people should know what the truth is, they should be made aware of the philosophical and the intellectual beliefs of pagan religions and how much their beliefs are relevant to this 21st century world and how powerful their ideas and knowledge were. Even I will not let that go unattended. Wouter J. Hanegraaff, Esotericism and the Academy: Rejected Knowledge in Western Culture Cambridge University Press 2012 Its very evident as to how ignorant some of the members here are about pagan ideas and how less it is being discussed in this forum but the time has come to take the highly philosophical and intellectual ideas coming from pagan roots highly seriously. Just because it doesn't suit their values and their culture a whole set of ancient wisdom is seen with contempt eyes and that attitude has to change, its not ancients who spoke nonsense, its your understanding of them that is nonsense. Most people don't know that Esotericism has testable consequences. I like to speak in very simple words, for me the term "Pleroma" is not a verb, adverb or an adjective, for me its a noun, it represents something, it represents the Mystical Body of Christ. The same is with the Mind, the capitalization is necessary to avoid the common misunderstanding of associating the mind with the brain. Mind and brain are two different things. All I am saying is that the Greek word gives some amazing insights into that passage of Collosians 2:9 if one uses the word 'pleroma' instead of fullness. The English word 'fullness' doesn't allow an allegorical interpretation of that passage. This is all what I am saying, hardly a few people would realize the depth of knowledge that can be obtained from that single verse if one uses the word "fullness" instead of "pleroma" Gnosticism is an open question and one is free to interpret the Pauline Epistles in the Gnostic sense and the work of Elaine Pagels put sufficient light on them. Don't be dogmatic and assert that my line of thinking is wrong or incorrect. Do know that your view may be wrong. From now on I will prefix the word religion with Esoteric and will put all the religions into one category called the Esoteric Religions. This will avoid the confusion of using the term religion in a capitalization sense, the Esoteric religions was what ought to be called as serious religion but since orthodox religions have corrupted that term in modern days, I will use the term Esoteric Religions for separating them from orthodox religions and that will help people to see my arguments in a clear light and also from where I am coming from.

Oh my gosh, there is no need for all this linguistic mumbo-jumbo, the term "Pleroma" is a well defined term and it means only one thing "the totality of divine powers(Aeons)" which forms the body of Christ. This is as simple a fact as a straight line is the shortest distance between any two points. When Euler was asked to prove his axioms he said the words which I have used in my axioms are everyday words, they are basic intuitive facts that anyone with a rational mind should understand. Pleroma "Pleroma (Greek πλήρωμα) generally refers to the totality of divine powers. The word means fullness from πληρόω ("I fill") comparable to πλήρης which means "full",[1] and is used in Christian theological contexts: both in Gnosticism generally, and by St. Paul the Apostle in Colossians Colossians 2:9 KJV [2] (the word is used 17 times in the NT)." Religious traditions have insights which linguistic scholars don't have and the methodology to study the scriptures should be in the context of the way the religious tradition interprets the text and one should understand the text in its own milieu. Take this very example as to how the Valentinian tradition interprets the same Pauline epistles and bring forth so much knowledge, insights and wisdom from the same very text where as modern scholars just sweep through the very text with out finding any kind of soul in them. What you are doing is trying to destroy the very soul of the text. The Gnostic Paul "The Gnostic Paul is a book by Elaine Pagels, a scholar of gnosticism and professor of religion at Princeton University. In the work, Pagels considers each of the non-pastoral Pauline Epistles, and questions about their authorship. The core of the book examines how the Pauline epistles were read by 2nd century Valentinian gnostics and demonstrates that Paul could be considered a proto-gnostic as well as a proto-Catholic. Her treatment involves reading the Pauline corpus as being dual layered between a Pneumatic, esoteric Christianity and a Psychic, exoteric Christianity." Look at the insights, knowledge and wisdom presented in the left hand side which is the Valentinian interpretation of the same Pauline epistles. I would advice just leave the scriptures to religious or traditional scholars who know how to interpret the scriptures because your methodology of understanding the scriptures truly sucks. "Hence passages which, when once fathomed, reveal a depth of knowledge & delicacy of subtle thought almost miraculous in its wealth & quality, strike the casual reader today as a mass of childish, obscure & ignorant fancies characteristic of an unformed and immature thinking. Rubbish & babblings of humanity’s nonage an eminent Western scholar has termed them not knowing that it was not the text but his understanding of it that was rubbish & the babblings of ignorance." - Aurobindo Its just sheer double standards, just not able to swallow the fact that ancient goat herders were far more intelligent than a 21st century modern Phd holder.