immortal

Read the Seven Sermons to the Dead by Carl Jung. Did Hitler ever talked about the pleroma of God? Jung's summary of his Red Book has nothing to do with this world at all.

I know that its nothing new and I myself said that before you stated it. I learn both physics as well as religion. I am doing a disservice to humanity? If you have read the work of Jonathon Duqette which I given to you in my OP you wouldn't have said that. The work of Jonathon Duqette is not apologetic and that paper is mainly concerned with the problems and differences in epistemology between science and religion. Don't make me do this again so that I have to make you read and instead you can easily do that by following a link and reading the full paper. There is a lot of BS written about quantum mechanics and mysticism everywhere and most thinkers don't really know about these religions and its leading to all sorts of confusion. Why? It is because they are lacking wisdom, I am not here to push an ideology. I am here to clearly establish the relationship with science and religion and save the time of many who study these things. Its very unlikely that God had used Big Bang or DNA to create the universe or life on earth. If one wants to accept Religion accept it as it is otherwise be a strong atheist. I did not pushed this as a scientific hypothesis. I did not opened this thread in the speculation forum because this is definitely not science. I pushed it as a God hypothesis and one cannot study God based on the scientific method. This might not have any importance for you but it does for these people. Well thanks to this forum and I have learnt a lot from here and this wouldn't have been possible without the help of the members of this forum. I do learn and follow the advancements made in science and something bothers me and that's the pleroma of God. Carl Jung and Devudu were not goat herders, they were highly intellectual people and most people are not aware of their works and they give some valuable insights into the nature of reality and I want to know whether these half truths are really true or false.

Religion doesn't exist to control you, religion exists to make you free and in that sense it will never die. "Many would hold that, from the broad philosophical standpoint, the outstanding achievement of twentieth-century physics is not the theory of relativity with its welding together of space and time, or the theory of quanta with its present apparent negation of the laws of causation, or the dissection of the atom with the resultant discovery that things are not what they seem; it is the general recognition that we are not yet in contact with ultimate reality. We are still imprisoned in our cave, with our backs to the light, and can only watch the shadows on the wall". - Sir James Jeans

That's not how the story ends. "To track down a theory of everything, we might have to accept that the universe only exists when we're looking at it" This is about what science is and how it should be taught. We need to abandon the notion of an objective reality. "So does the universe exist independently of measurements? That is a question we will have to face. May be it is time to revisit Einstein’s lost quest, if we are serious about uncovering the basic laws of the universe; the money spent on particle smashers such as the Large Hadron Collider certainly suggests we are. Perhaps we need to move quantum entanglement and the nature of reality to the centre of the quest to find a theory of everything. What was once a quirky side show may yet prove to be the main event." The answer to the question "where do we come from?" not only lies on particle smashers but also on quantum entanglement and the nature of reality and drastically changes our view on science. Science is not a description of an objective world of things independent of human minds instead it is just a set of predictive rules to predict the possible values that we can assign to a physical system and it cannot in any way claim anything on the nature of the physical objects itself. This is what should be taught and there are serious problems or you'll get into lot of troubles if you view science as a description of an objective world of things, physicists don't have an objective account of reality. It is the business of science to explain an objective world as it is independent of a human mind but physicists just don't have it and other branches of philosophy which can give an objective account of reality should be considered very seriously. This lecture by David Mermin sums it up quite nicely. Now you replace those Red and Blue color properties with the property of an object called the spin, say spin up and spin down and those A, B and C with the X, Y, Z spin components of an object then as Mermin shows these properties cannot exist in prior to the measurements and the observed correlations are infact instantaneous. Its not that one physicist was right or the other one was wrong but instead their intellectual arguments and facts established from experiments have concluded that we need to abandon the notion of an objective reality. Einsteinian realism or the commonsense view of the world is simply unattainable. As Bohr says "There is essentially the question of an influence on the very conditions that define the possible types of prediction regarding the future behaviour of the system". According to Bohr the polarisation of a photon is an idealistic concept extrapolated from the results of our observations and no greater reality should be attributed to it. There is no element of physical reality corresponding to a physical quantity and Einsteinian objective world or his mathematical realism is just isn't out there. What ever is out there science cannot know what it is. As Bernard D'Espagnat writes in his paper 'Reality and Physicists' pleading the physics community that there should be a philosophy with in science guiding the debates of physicists and says, "Unless we discard altogether the very idea of reality that is independent of our knowledge, we have to accept that such a reality cannot be identified with the ensemble of phenomena. This in turn means that we cannot escape what I claim is the fundamental distinction between reality in itself or as such - reality independent of the human minds - and the ensemble of phenomena - or empirical reality. As we shall see, this distinction is not for the use of philosophers alone. Scientists seeking to understand in depth the nature of certain debates internal to the scientific community will also find it useful." Bernard d'espagnat nicely puts it this way that "what we call empirical reality is only a state of mind". Some are very much fond of correcting others without realizing that it is they who have to re-define their physical concepts but reality is same for everyone whether you like it or don't like it. "We have always had a great deal of difficulty understanding the world view that quantum mechanics represents. At least I do, because I’m an old enough man that I havent’ got to the point that this stuff is obvious to me. Okay, I still get nervous with it…. You know how it always is, every new idea, it takes a generation or two until it becomes obvious that there’s no real problem. I cannot define the real problem, therefore I suspect there’s no real problem, but I’m not sure there’s no real problem." - R.P.Feynman, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 21, 471 (1982)

1. What is space-time actually made of? 2. What is the mechanism for quantum entangelemnt? How can one give explanations for the correlations observed? 3. A machine capable of strong AI - Those traditions already seem to know that "intelligence" exists in platonic realms so this is an important test. 4. Cognitive scientists solving the problem of qualia and the problem of universals. These were the challenges which I made earlier and it is irrelevant as to how much knowledge I have about science and nature. You didn't gave any evidence for these challenges and we'll see as to who has misconceptions about the formalisms of quantum mechanics and its implications. That didn't explained the observed correlations seen in Bell experiments. So you don't have it then? Non-local realism is also violated and we very well know now that no mysterious signal faster than light explains the correlations seen in Bell experiments. We need to abandon the notion of an objective reality. Its funny how you don't give an explanation and at the same time argue that local realism is maintained in nature. No local or non-local causes can explain the correlations seen in Bell experiments and the only viable option is to give up our notions of realism. Einstein asked his friend Abraham Pais that "Do you really think the moon isn't there if you aren't looking at it?" to know whether he was on his side or on the side of anti-realists and I don't think that the response from Bohr to this question by Einstein would have been any more different than what he had answered to him to Einstein's earlier statement that "God does not play dice" and Bohr replied, "Einstein, don't tell God what to do". The Ballentine paper rigourously addresses the Theory of Measurement in the formalism of Quantum Mechanics. As Ballentine himself states, "But if one assumes that the state vector completely describes an individual system, then the dispersion of pointer positions must somehow be a property of the individual system, but it is nonsensical to suppose that a macroscopic pointer has no definite position. None of the attempts to solve this problem using some form of reduction of the state vector are satisfactory" It was Von Neumann who introduced that concept of a conscious observer reducing the state vector and introduced the projection postulate and as Ballentine argues that if this is taken to its logical extreme then this third observer apart from the observed object and the measuring apparatus requires a fourth observer and a fifth and so on leading to an infinite regression. Can wave–particle duality be based on the uncertainty relation? We now know from the above paper that the reason interference pattern vanishes is because of the very act of knowing which way the quantum object has passed between two slits and its entanglement or correlations between the measuring apparatus and the observed object is the main reason for the loss of interference pattern in a double slit experiment. Since we don't have a mechanism of how entanglement works we don't have an explanation as to why the fringe pattern vanishes when we try to know which-way an object is gone. If one assumes that the state vector completely describes an individual system then the observed object is in entanglement with the measuring apparatus and as Von Neumann argues it makes no difference whether the measuring apparatus is considered to be a part of the observer or part of the object being observed. Therefore the observed object, the measuring apparatus and the mind of the observer are in entanglement with each other and there is deep mechanism which is at work. It is not due to the reduction of the state vector or due to the uncertainty principle but in fact there is a mechanism which gives us an actuality from a range of potentialities. Entanglement is the key and I think the mind of the observer is albiet necessary because even the classical apparatus can be in a superposition of states and its inevitable. It is science which deals with subjective knowledge not Religion. Religion deals with the reality as it is and not with how it appears to us. This is what Steven Weinberg means that "Niether Bohr nor Einstein had actually dealt with the real problem in quantum mechanics." Those traditions are necessary for they give possible explanations and fill gaps in science and they are the alternative competing God hypothesis wanting to explain a wide range of physical phenomena. Well, I am afraid that this God hypothesis is actually very serious because those philosophers investigating the pleroma of God might take over as true physicists.

The God hypothesis is both testifiable and falsifiable. The God hypothesis is a reasonable explanation for the origins of our cosmos, what the world is made of, what the nature of space and time is, what is intelligence, what is mind, explaining every damn unsolved puzzles of mankind. It is quite a reasonable one supported along with facts established from experiments and it makes the existence of God very likely and such a hypothesis should be considered seriously if anyone ever wish to give an objective account of reality. The world is going to retain an element of mystery in it and religion indeed is going to give an objective account of reality which science cannot give. Physicalism is false, physical objects don't exist out there in the external physical world. Substance dualism is quite necessary and the mind and brain are two different things and in fact brain and matter as such don't exist independent of the mind. The empirical reality is only a state of mind brought into existence by the inter play of a metaphysical mind along with metaphysical sense organs and five elements as espoused in major world religions. Physicists don't know the true nature of the physical universe. Reality is not been given to us as it is and therefore your hag fish don't exist out there as it is made of atoms, our bodies and therefore the whole empirical reality do not exist independent of a metaphysical mind. Your hag fish is actually made of only five elements but it appears as though it is made of various tissues only when you interact with the world through the metaphysical sense organs which is entangled to a metaphysical mind. Disentangle yourself then you will see the actual reality as it is. Physicists will never know the nature of time because time is an anthropomorphic God which exists out there in the external physical world. You can talk with time and you can also talk with your own mind because these are anthropomorphic entities which exists and are very much alive and these gods are pervaded everywhere. Physicists will never be able to explain the asymmetric flow of time while all their physical laws are time symmetric. The only reason we cannot see all of time from past to future is that our metaphysical mind is entangled to our metaphysical sense organs making us experience a flow of time and if you can disentangle your mind from those metaphysical sense organs then you can actually see the past, present and the future. Time exists out there and past, present and future already exists. Divinity exists in human beings and we are truly made in the image of God. "He who practices and becomes proficient in Samyama can go beyond time and space. He will be enabled to perceive everything everywhere. He can understand whatever has happened in the past and whatever is going to happen in the future. If the mind learns to work without being entangled by the senses, then it becomes all powerful and very potent. He who practices this technique of Samyama will be able to know what happens where, why and how". -Devudu One thing is very certain we can definitely be not sure of the kind of reality which we are living in. The Real has not been given to us as it is and only God can give an objective account of reality.

Why do you just assume that I haven't read about the Standard Model? Let me tweet the arguments of the cosmoslogist Andrei Linde here. I also want you to learn that we cannot be sure of the kind of reality which we are living in unless if you give sufficient evidence for my challenges posted earlier. Don't you realize for one moment that the same thing applies to the scientific community that they refuse to step out of the scientific method and investigate on something else and assume prima facie that nothing exists outside the scientific method and it is you who is playing the role of Pope here because you neither gave any evidence which contradicted those traditions and rejected all evidence supporting those traditions. I very well know relativity is not violated and what I am demanding is an explanation or a mechanism to explain the correlations seen in these Bell experiments. If you think physicists have an objective account of reality then there shouldn't be any problem in explaining those correlations but the fact of the matter is you don't have any explanation or mechanism for quantum entanglement even after over 50 years have passed and physicists still don't have it and the reason is quite simple physicists don't have an objective account of reality and if they are really struck by something far more fundamental then they cannot ever have it. These are all cop-outs to simply escape from addressing the arguments. And the advice to Einstein by Bohr was "Einstein, don't tell God what to do". And as experiments have confirmed “Maybe Bohr and Heisenberg were right after all,” Aspelmeyer says. Your personal distaste and bias against the tenets of copenhagen interpretation has no bearing in reality whatsoever. I believe that your body exist but I don't believe that it exists independent of my mind. That's your nonsense, not mine. You think that the Observer is represented by the states of his brain and body and therefore you think QM applies to the observer and it leads to an infinite regression as to who the ultimate observer is. When I say QM doesn't apply to Observers I am not referring to Physicists's brain or their bodies but I am referring to their metaphysical mind(metaphysical anti-realism) and it is the mind which is absolute and the thing which exists out there in the external world. All your physical laws and theories along with brain and matter are a result of this metaphysical mind and yes it is not subjected to the laws of physics, in fact it is other way round the laws of physics are a result of this metaphysical mind. There is still a small possibility that QM might break down at some classical point and a honest person accepts that he might be wrong something which you haven't learnt. Your previous statements verifies that it is you who is very much fond of misrepresenting other's position and argue that they are wrong. That's so typical of you something which whoever had argued with you knows it very well. You frequently insulted those traditions by equating them with your made up entities assuming prima facie that they are false so I just made you aware what the fact of the situation is, physicists are mere empiricists and they don't have an objective account of reality, if you think that was an insult then what was yours? I just showed why the consensus of the scientific community is not correct and that has nothing to do with how much I know about science and nature. I'm sorry to tell you that a God hypothesis has not yet been falsified and we don't know whether it is valid or invalid. That's how you do science? Without differentiating between a rejected hypothesis and a falsified hypothesis?

Everyone knows that the universe exists but the question is whether it exists independent of the human mind or not. As experiments in quantum mechanics shows researchers have concluded that the universe doesn't exist independent of the mind. If its hard for you to accept it because it contradicts with your personal beliefs then that's not my problem. Spooky action at a distance is a fact and it needs an explanation and explaining quantum entanglement holds the key to the puzzles in physics and on the fate of how other theories and their physical concepts will be explained. Stop pointing out on what I don't understand and instead give a mechanism of how quantum entanglement works if not accept you don't know. I very well know relativity is one of the well established physical theories in science. What's so special about the measurement apparatus even they can be treated as a quantum system and its the observer who always makes the final observation. That's why I call you intellectually dishonest for you ignore facts established by experiments. If a system cannot have pre-determined values or counterfactual definiteness i.e. no element of physical reality corresponding to a physical quantity then we cannot assign these attributes to an object and hence we cannot forever know the nature of the quantum system and this is what Einstein meant that "that the goal of science was to discover the way the world really is as opposed to our perceptions and conceptions of it, and that orthodox quantum theory had not only failed to achieve such a goal but had prematurely abandoned any such quest." Its not that I do not understand the problem is you have a distaste for philosophy and its you who are not understanding the philosophical consequences of the violation of Bell Inequality. For your kind information the violation of local realism is already a well established fact. The evidence for it was given numerous times already. Objective local theories have to be excluded for further advancements in physics. In which world are you in. You're not physically changing the quantum system, the nature of the quantum system eludes us, what we can actually do is just predict the possible values we can assign to a quantum system. Thanks for that. What counts now is evidence and not history. If your definition of observers was true then your observers don't exist independent of an observer. When Steven Weinberg states that the Bohr's interpretation of quantum mechanics was deeply flawed he is referring to the fact that physicists and the measurement apparatus are not treated as quantum systems in the copenhagen interpretation and no one is saying that they should not be treated as quantum systems. He goes further and writes in the same quote that "It is enough to say that neither Bohr nor Einstein had focused on the real problem with quantum mechanics." We know today that a far more fundamental problem is at work with quantum mechanics and that is entanglement. As Anthony Leggett says "We have seen that recent experiments push tests of QM to the level of 103–106 in the case of molecular diffraction, biomagnetic and quantum-optical systems, and to the level of 1010 in the case of Josephson devices; thus, we can say that on a logarithmic scale we have come about 40% of the way from the atomic level to that of the everyday world. " So we are not far away from testing QM on objects of the everyday world which is of the order 1024 so we actually don't know whether QM applies for all sizes or it fails at some classical level. I hope that clears up your misconceptions about my statements. 1. So according to you anyone who makes arguments to challenge the scientific community are typical anti-science people. I would say that's so anti-scientific of you because you're not putting the assumptions of science to test and there by refining our theories. Science is done by criticizing of ideas and accepted theories and if you don't do it then you're on a road to scientific dogma. 2. When there is a crisis accept there is a crisis or when there is a problem accept there is a problem or accept we don't know. There is no clear scientific consensus on these topics and if you don't argue in good spirit then inevitably that's what I have to call you, that you're Intellectually dishonest. 3. This thread is in a religion forum and the main aim of this thread was to explain what those traditions actually say which is often misrepresented by scholars and from the perspective of tradition that's actually true and if they are right then physicists cannot have an objective account of reality and they cannot know what space-time actually is. 4. I am not doing a personal rant here, my claims were well supported by scientific papers from peer reviewed journals and its you who actually is not able to swallow these scientific facts.

That's where the problem lies in order to reconcile QM with GR one has to inevitably accept the fact that the Universe doesn't exist when no one is looking at it. Evidence for this was given earlier. It is you who needs to be corrected. "While quantum researchers may find this satisfying, it raises deep concerns for anyone attempting to unify the universe. General relativity, Einstein’s theory of gravity, is fully realistic – it relies on things existing independent of measurements. So the search for a theory of everything, which involves uniting quantum physics with general relativity, may be even more difficult than we thought. “It is not at all clear how to construct a theory of gravity that is not real, which is what we need to do if we want to quantise gravity,” Vedral says." Experiments violate local realism and we need to abandon it and physicists still holding on to old beliefs of local realism which is fundamentally flawed need to get over those beliefs. Quoting something else for some other point doesn't refute the point which was being made. The act of measurement changing the state of a quantum system is something any student of quantum mechanics knows. The evidence on how the choice of the experimenter affects the outcomes of measurements in the past were given earlier in this same thread. There is nothing special about a water molecule, even molecules like Buckminster Fullerene have been shown to exhibit quantum properties. The whole compound system should be treated as a single quantum system even if the parts or the subsystems exists in opposite ends of the universe. The single quantum system is in an entangled state and its spin-pair states are anti-correlated to make the spin of the whole system to be zero. This is what entanglement is and this is what needs to be explained as to how the whole system is correlated in an instantaneous way violating locality and realism since such a system do not possess any pre-determined values. Without locality and realism objectification of a system is impossible and hence nonseparability is a fact of nature. When you start with a wrong premise then everything which you follow and say is wrong. You're exposing your own misconceptions. Local realism is fundamentally flawed. In quantum teleportation and in quantum entanglement you're not changing the photon physically, you're only changing the allowed values of a quantum system. Nature is fuzzy. Empirical reality is purely abstract and we need to abandon the usage of objectivist language when explaining physical concepts. Physicists don't know the nature of the physical universe. I said religion can explain things which science cannot explain. When science don't even have an explanation for a phenomena then there are no scientific facts and in such a case any viable explanation for that phenomena is equivalent irrespective of whether it comes from religion or science. BTW, myths are possibly as real as scientific facts and they are testable and falsifiable. When I mean QM doesn't apply to observers I am resorting into metaphysical anti-realism. The above argument leads to the Shroedinger's Cat paradox and according to the strict formalism of Copenhagen interpretation the quantum equation representing the macroscopic states of being alive and being dead should not be treated real and only the axioms of standard measurement gives a definite result. We cannot be sure that the cat already exists in a definite state due to decoherence before the measurement is being made. Ofcourse QM applies to everything and as experiments on superconductivity and diffraction of large biomolecules shows that the interference pattern can be observed for macroscopic objects too and either QM breaks down at some point and there exists a sharp dividing line between the classical and the quantum realm and there by establishes that QM doesn't apply to classical objects and detectors or QM applies to everything and discards all objective realistic theories at all levels and only an irreversible measurement ensures the actualization of physical reality. Which means the universe as a whole does not exist when we are not looking at it. So anyone who challenges the scientific community is funny to you so that you can make any damn wrong consensus you want hiding the truth and keeping the people of the world in darkness. I didn't knew that some people in the scientific community are intellectually dishonest. The universe doesn't exist when no one is looking at it and people should be made aware of that fact. You didn't give any evidence to my challenges and you keep proving again and again that physicists don't have an objective account of reality.

The authors very well know what local realism is. "Understanding entanglement means understanding a great deal about the principles upon which physical theories are based," Aspelmeyer says. "We need to rethink and radically revise our basic physical concepts before we can make the next big breakthrough in physics," Caslav Brukner says. "According to Deutsch, we are blocked by something even more fundamental than that. Entanglement is real, he says, but it tells us more about how information can be extracted from quantum systems than the nature of the physical universe." "This local realism stuff is all to do with whether it is possible to have a classical world view," Deutsch says. "It's a completely pointless controversy that should have ended in the 1950s." We need to abandon local realism and we need to radically revise the way we teach basic physical concepts. The system is decomposed or disentangled after a measurement is made by an observer before that the system exists as an unbroken whole and it is nonseparable. The violation of local realism means that the separability principle is violated in Bell experiments and quantum theory is inherently nonseparable. It is the end of scientific realism. The new term is "Active scientific realism" where we actively create reality rather than passively observing it as Vedral says. It is we who make a holistic compound system to decompose into localised states. Forms of Quantum Nonseparability and Related Philosophical Consequences The article was well cited with sources backing up his claims and if you have got problems with it then cite some sources for it if not why should anyone take you seriously. Those experiments are possible based on context-dependent description of physical reality and the experience of empirical reality arises due to the functional role of the observer and in the absence of such measurements or interactions nature is nonseparable. Its speculative but as Vedral says it is not surprising if everything is explained in terms of an information concept in the near future. Everything is information, genomics, proteomics, metabolimics, cognitive information processing, game theory applied to evolutionary biology, Maxwell's Demon, Origin of Life, Quantum information processing etc and these all are connected. We are information. However Sir Roger Penrose thinks that human teleportation is impossible because one would have model the states of human consciousness to completely teleport a human and he thinks there is nothing in current physics which can model the non-computable nature of human consciousness. Religion does give an answer to our origins and answers where did all this come from and it can reach where science cannot reach. That's why I requested a model to model consciousness. QM doesn't apply to me (observer), I'm not in a super-position of states, when the information reaches my mind I know what has occured the cat is either dead or alive. If Steven Weinberg thinks that QM applies to observers, the classical appratus and the universe as a whole then he is wrong because we have not yet modeled conscious thought. The challenge is for the whole scientific community and if physicists cannot give an objective account of reality then they are mere empiricists and that doesn't mean that all of physics and their experiments are wrong.

An experimental test of non-local realism "Therefore it is reasonable to consider the violation of local realism a well established fact." No matter how many times you keep denying the evidence, nonseparability is a well established fact of nature. Holism and Nonseparability in Physics Even my claim of the nonseparability of nature is based on a experimental claim. Those were not my claims, it is quantum information theorists who say that the world is made of information. Go and ask them. Bell's theorem and the tests conducted to verify the EPR thought experiment conclusively prove that the Copenhagen interpretation of Niels Bohr was correct and Einstein's criticism of it was wrong. It was settled that Bohr was right and Einstein was wrong with regard to the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum physics in 1982. You didn't give any evidence to questions which were posed to the scientific community earlier in this thread. There is a lot of difference between saying all physicists are wrong and saying the consensus of some physicists are wrong.

Nature is not an illusion, Nature is real, Nature is not what you think it is. That's your misunderstanding. It is physicists themselves who are saying that the universe doesn't exist when no one is looking at it and say what we call empirical reality is only a state of mind. Not me. Quantum physicists working on optics are preparing to test Aharonov's paper and that would tell us whether a future choice affects a past measurement, you can't run away from the truth. One needs to differentiate between the empirical nature and the physical nature. The empirical reality is produced by the physical nature and Religion gives a possible explanation as to how the empirical reality is generated because religion deals with nature as it is and not how it appears to us. The correlations of particles under Bell experiments demands explanations and we need to abandon local realitsic models to explain those correlations which means nonseparability of nature is a fact. To those physicists working in field theory the world is made of fields. For those working on the standard model the world is made of particles. To those working on quantum information theory the world is made of information. Each one is right from their own point of view. Steven Weinberg is a proponent of Many world interpretation and its not surprising to hear this from him. You don't win a consensus by quoting physicists, you win it by providing evidence and by giving reasonable explanations to the questions which were posed to you earlier. I didn't said all physicists are wrong. I said that to those who want to use science as a dogma and to those who make wrong consensus. I have mutual respect for physicists, scholars, philosophers and psychologists working in their own respective fields.

Quantum mechanics is an universal theory and that's what the correspondance priniciple of Bohr says, as n=>infinity, quantum mechanics => classical mechanics. This is not your personal blog, every paper on Bell experiments assert that nonseparability is a fact of nature and local realism is false. If you think otherwise then back up your assertions if not no one should take your claims seriously. Its a consensus which you have not yet won. The camp of Bohr and Heisenberg is very much alive and active. It is Nature who decides what's correct and what's not. Not you.

For the process of objectification of the nature or to build a concrete model of the world we need two important features, 1. Separability or spatial separation 2. Hidden variables or an element of physical reality corresponding to a physical quantity. The violation of Bell's Inequality implies, 1. Nonseparability is a fact of nature which means two entangled quantum objects at the opposite ends of the universe should be treated as a single quantum system. 2. Physical quantities do not have pre-determined values and hence the universe cannot be described as made into individual parts and we have to abandon the multitudinous language of clasically describing the nature. These two above points shows that physics cannot in any way model the objective world and those correlations demands explanations and to give an objective account of the physical system and not just merely predicting the probabilities that a system can exist in. No one can deny the role of the observer or the choice of the experimenter in a quantum measurement. Can a Future Choice Affect a Past Measurement's Outcome? If experiments confirms this then we have to abandon our notion of free will. We don't have free will. Elitzur, one of the researcher says, "Aharonov's view is somewhat Talmudic: everything you're going to do is already known to God, but you still have the choice." Our lives have been already shaped there is no point in shaping our own lives. Not only the properties of physical objects does not exist prior to measurements its outcome too is actually constrained by both past and future.

I don't know to which camp you belong to but you just can't dismiss the claims of the other camp and act as though they doesn't exist and in fact their arguments are quite sound. That commonsense view of Einstein is wrong as experiments violate Bell's Inequality and confirms the completeness of quantum mechanics and therefore we have to give up the classical local realistic worldview, local realism is false. Whatever the objective world might be but it is definitely different from the realism of Einstein. The scientific objects do not have pre-determined attributes (i.e There is no element of physical reality corresponding to a physical quantity). Reality is indeed Veiled. We need to abandon the usage of the multitudist language and as Einstein said quantum theory "had prematurely abandoned any such quest" to describe the nature as it really is and hence the need to know the noumenon by other means. John Wheeler tackles those arguments and explains how the past of our universe has been actualized. The Universe just appears to exist to us as though it is billions of years old and I am definitely not sure about the reality which we are living in. The Sankhya philosophy is purely atheistic and it is not entirely subjective. It is the analytic method of studying the constituents of nature(objective) and also the observers in it. It is a philosophy which systematically studies the noumenon of the world and Sankhya is the theory and Sankhya-yoga is the experimental methodology and the methodology works irrespective of whether you believe in a god or not. The noumenal world can be empirically tested.

That's not a flawed argument. Those conclusions are from leading quantum physicists working in the field of quantum mechanics. Anthony Leggett, Lee Smolin, Anton Zeilinger, Markus Aspelmeyer, David Deutsch, Caslav Brukner, Vlatko Vedral etc these are all researchers of quantum mechanics and it is they who are saying that Universe only exists when we are looking at it. Remember Bernard d'Espagnat was not even mentioned in the list. We know that no text on quantum mechanics is perfect because each author embraces his own version of the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Why do you want to make things personal? There is no complete accepted consensus on this from the scientific community. If you have any arguments publish it or cite some sources to back up your arguments or call all physicists for a conference like the Solvay Conferences and let physicists put forward their arguments and present their thought experiments and then arrive at an accepted consensus on what is fact and what's not. You physicists might just Shut Up and Calculate the equations without questioning the assumptions of science but philosophers will question the assumptions of science because for them the truth is far more important than anything else. What is subjective and what is objective? DOES THE MOON EXIST ONLY WHEN SOMEONE IS LOOKING AT IT? The thing is not about a hatredness towards physics or the scientific method. The thing is about giving an objective account of reality and if physics can't tell us how nature really is then we have to move beyond physics and that's why Bernard d'Espagnat leaves room for spirituality and says the noumenon can be known by other means and religion is in main contention for giving an objective account of reality which physics can't give. If you can't know what time and space actually is then its not true philosophy at all.

There is indeed much scientific evidence to state that "What we call empirical reality is only a state of mind". The New Scientist- Reality Check - Michael Brooks (Cover story) - The End of Reality "To track down a theory of everything, we might have to accept that the universe only exists when we're looking at it" says Michael Brooks. "Rather than passively observing it, we in fact create reality". "The researchers take this to mean we have to abandon the idea of an objective reality. “Maybe Bohr and Heisenberg were right after all,” Aspelmeyer says." “Physics doesn’t tell us how nature is, it only tells us what we can say about nature.” That's where the main argument lies, physicists inevitably have to explain "If what we call empirical reality is only a state of mind then what is mind?" as asked by someone in Guardian and I think it was a very good question and my argument is that religion does provide an answer to it When I refer to Penrose I am only referring to his mathematical arguments and I don't accept his theory on quantum consciousness because that is considered to be peusdoscientific by the scientific community and according to Bernard even neurons fall under empiricism. We knew from Bohr-Einstein debates that there were epistemological, ontological, philosophical and theological problems in the correct formalism of quantum mechanics and very few physicists actually talk about the philosophical implications of all this. As I said my main concern was the repeated misrepresentation of these traditions by different scholars and scientists turned philosophers both in the west as well in the east and which led to terrible confusion and too much misinformation everywhere. Those traditions should be understood in its own milieu and modern physics doesn't have anything to do with them. If its anything it might give possible explanations in its own milieu and its implications are quite disturbing too when you understand them in their own milieu. You won't find this information anywhere where the pleroma of God of the Gnostics is identified with the mandala of the eastern traditions which most scholars never take it seriously for their investigation of those traditions.

It does violate the equivalence principle. In General Relativity the gravitational field and the curvature of space-time are indistinguishable, nothing is absolute. http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec07.html

There is much evidence to state that "what we call empirical reality is only a state of mind". <link removed, copyright violation>

I just informed to WHR that any discussion on a topic like "The fundamental flaw of the scientific method" is incomplete without mentioning the name Charles Fort, no one mentioned about him so I did. I think Fort's expressions have been misunderstood. Everyone agrees that what we call as exact sciences should be done based on the scientific method and there is no flaw in it because it removes subjective biases and gives an objective account of reality and no one has any doubts about it. It is on the criteria of falsification that we decide whether a theory is scientific or metaphysical and with the way science is done nowadays I don't think anyone would take anyone seriously if they just made statements like "The Sun will rise tommorrow" even though this statement is scientific but instead if they come up with a precise mathematical theory which makes exact predictions and makes quantifiable statements like "The theory predicts that the Sun will rise again at half past six" then one can devise experiments to test such a theory and such a theory will be useful for practical purposes. Apart from this exact sciences there are different types of science for example evolutionary biology is a type-2 science and there are many different types of sciences like such which fall under philosophy. This is what Fort means when he says "Let everything be reported" and I find less and less philosophical disciplines being converted into exact sciences and so what Fort is saying is that scientists should develop other talents too and should simultaneously be fathers of new science and defenders of accepted science. Ultimately it is empiricism which decides what's accepted and what's not and humans do have the capacity to differentiate between those two. I find no problem in dealing with emerging sciences as long as I know what's spooky and what's accepted. So there is nothing wrong to be open for new speculations and it is this part which Fort had problem with and said that the scientific community is very stubborn for they arrive at a consensus without investigating all phenomena. I have seen Kenneth Miller visiting a church and praying to God and at the same time going to a court to maintain the accepted consensus on evolutionary biology. You don't have to be an atheist to be a biologist or a physicist.

This paper doesn't claim to solve a problem in quantum physics. Our ancients neither knew about quantum physicis nor did they knew about modern science and hence its unwise of you to demand them to solve a problem on singularities but they did have much to say about the human mind and about the non-computable physics which you physicists don't have access to. This paper claims to explain the results of quantum experiments which violate Bell's Inequality and forces us to give up our beliefs on locality and counterfactual definiteness and explains why there is no element of physical reality corresponding to a physical quantity and since there is no consensus in the physics community on how to interpret these results this hypothesis from the religion side should be considered and its an alternative competing hypothesis which gives explanations for a physical phenomena.

According to the Copenhagen interpretation, the Schrodinger equation doesn't represent anything physical and hence that equation cannot be used to deduce anything about the nature of the physical system itself. I do know about the arrow of time and CPT Invariance. Penrose says Consciousness has non-computable ingredients and Bernard says Consciousness cannot arise out of ordinary matter since matter cannot exist independent of Consciousness. This implies that physicists are missing a key puzzle of nature which involves non-computable physics and it cannot be explained in any way with in the empirical sciences. http://www.edge.org/...re/v-Ch.14.html Bernard himself notices and suggests that the great eastern philosophical systems should be considered and just as he suggested it is indeed true that those traditions have answers to the existence of the plurality of conscious minds even though we all see the empirical reality as one by showing that each one of us have our own metaphysical mind and metaphysical sense organs. This is not a god of the gaps arguments, it is an argument which fills a gap in our knowledge. You don't even want to acknowledge this. Without realizing this you're repeating the same arguments again and again which is quite boring and insulting to the suggestion of Bernard d'espagnat and others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Fort#Forteana_and_mainstream_science http://journal.borderlands.com/1997/charles-hoy-fort-bibliomancer-extraordinaire/

No, it gives explanations and answers to questions for which even modern science doesn't have an answer. If this is true physicists will never know the real reality and hence they don't deserve to be called as physicists anymore because the science of physics deals with real as it is and not with abstract models. No, our traditional scholars arrived at the results way before top quantum physicists concluded about the nature of physical reality and they are way ahead of everyone. This kind of stupid arguments won't give you the label as true physicists. If you were wise you would have figured it out. The pleroma of God is considered to be the normal state of humanity so everyone needs a diagnosis and some need a hell more.

The main compelling reasons for investigating those traditions are that they indeed give explanations as to how the real reality is Veiled and that's what this thread is about. It was answered in this post http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/67990-why-scientific-realism-might-be-false/page__view__findpost__p__693738 That traditional scholar based on his knowledge of the mandala which he had studied it for 20 years has shown in his works as to how the ultimate reality is Veiled and this work was done in 1950's way before Bernard d'espagnat came up with the idea that the empirical reality is only a state of mind. That scholar doesn't talk about quantum physics in his works and nor he talks about science, his worldview is solely based on the mandalas and based on that knowledge he explains what mind is, something which modern science doesn't have an answer to the question if what we call empirical reality is only a state of mind then what is mind? What we need to stop discussing is about the unity but we can discuss about the pleroma of God and individual mandalas. The way it goes for philosophers who study these traditions is that they never really talk about the pleroma of God instead they logically try to understand unity and its pointless to do that. The pleroma of god can be known by different methods and constructive things will come out of it when philosophers practically investigate it and not just keep on thinking about it. I gave you specific claims which if proved will falsify those traditions.