immortal

Because I don't like to hide God like others, I want to falsify him. Everyone should know what the truth is. That's what the implications are of finding parallels between modern science and religious traditions. Either modern science have to give up its assumption of scientific realism which is taken for granted or scientific objects exist independent of the mind and disproves God. If the God of religious traditions has to exist scientific realism must be false. Either the reality of God is real or the empirical reality of Science is real. Both cannot be real. The religious traditions already know that Scientific realism is false and therefore if these traditions have to be true then scientific realism must be false.

Anyone can call anything as God, it depends on the definition of god. From a traditional point of view both empirical objects and God are mutually exclusive, something gotta give, either people have to give up their belief in scientific realism or they have to give up their belief in God.

All religions agree that there is a noumenon which they can have access too. Bernard thinks that the noumenon can be accessed through other means. Science is only concerned with the phenomenon and hence it cannot give a complete account of physical reality. When a Buddhist monk reaches nirvana or says that the world dissolves in him, he is talking both of the noumenon world as well as the phenomenon world. The noumenon world exists and it is not an illusion and is the basis for the phenomena. So even though all the worlds dissolve into for a monk who has achieved nirvana the noumenon world is real and it still exists for all of us and each one of us have that metaphysical mind, metaphysical sense organs, the Lord responsible for the retrospective creation of the phenomenal reality. The western scholars think that the ancient seers worshipped the star Sun of the milky way galaxy but that is not true, they worshipped the secret Sun - The lord which is residing in all creatures. All eastern traditions agree with this. Wikipedia - Mandala - The soul of the Universe in which all deities exists and the master of this mandala is Sun. It is through the worshipping of the mandala that they gain access to the noumenon world. These are the gates to the noumenon. Something which the western scholars don't really investigate it.

We already know from the wisdom of the ancient masters that the empirical world is brought into existence by an entanglement between the metaphysical mind and the metaphysical senses(not biological organs), its nothing new, its old, its ancient. Its only recently that Bernard D'Espagnat has arrived at the same conclusion coming from a different approach into the nature of reality. That's two traditions if you include Valentinian monism into it +modern science and I wonder what Mishnah, Zohar, Talmud and Midrash secret oral traditions of Jewish have to say about this. No, there is a huge difference between the interpretation of the traditional scholars and the interpretation of other scholars and scientists turned philosophers outside the tradition. The traditional scholars seem to know beyond any doubt that Scientific Realism is false something which scholars outside the tradition never actually make an effort to understand it and unconsciously misrepresent it. Are there not good scientists coming from the east?

Scientific objects means things which are empirical and that includes quarks, protons, electrons, neurons of the brain etc etc. According to Bernard even the neurons fall under empiricism and hence he concludes that "what we call empirical reality is only a state of mind".

I would advice you to study the paper of Jonathon Duquette which is the second link and his other paper is from Wiley Library and its new so we can't have full access to that paper. Its important to study the full paper of the first link of Jonathon Duquette to clearly understand the amount of confusion in this field, however from page 263 onwards its very important and you can skip other things. My main concern is eastern traditions do not require any justification from science or from the metaphysicians to prove that it is true, eastern traditions stands on its own, if anyone wants to understand it one should understand it in its own milieu and not misrepresent its teachings so as to justify one's broken forms of reasoning. Tradition is important one cannot discard its sensitive issues and differences and only study it the way you want. Eastern traditions are completely based on a different epistemology and it has nothing to do with Science or the empirical world and I strongly criticize scholars like Fritjof Capra and others who try to find parallels between Modern science and these eastern traditions. Eastern religions says that Scientific realism is false and when one sees the common esoteric essence in all the religions of the world one can say from a highly religious perspective and not by mere speculation that if God has to exist then Scientific Realism must be false. Its a necessary requirement. Prove Scientific Realism then we can abandon this form of religious thinking and move forward.

Both scientific objects and God cannot exist in the external physical world. Either scientific objects exist and disproves God or God exists and disproves our notion that scientific objects exist independent of the mind. Chapter 1, On physics and philosophy[/url] – Bernard d'Espagnat. Towards a Philosophical Reconstruction of the Dialogue between Modern Physics and Advaita Vedanta:–Jonathon Duquette. "QUANTUMPHYSICS AND VEDANTA": A PERSPECTIVE FROM BERNARD D'ESPAGNAT'SSCIENTIFICREALISM – Jonathon Duquette. Science and Mysticism: AComparative study of Western Natural Science, Theravada Buddhism and AdvaitaVedanta – an essay on Richard H.Jones book.

Our gods won't appear to you unless you give your sacrifices to them. Waive crop loans borrowed by farmers Another ten thousand crores that's approximately 1.4 billion euros and I am sure some of it will be kept aside for the rituals.

That Says it all.

Operations research is a must for any kind of organisation or enterprise to be successful optimizing the best solution given a set of constraints. I'm glad you realized that in the end.

I don't see that way, they are not spending 17 crores for the happiness of all people, its a selfish act, a political strategy to gain vote banks and they want to keep only one form of sub-caste of people happy and Yes in middle of all this the rituals are an utter waste a cop out to show to the public that whatever they are doing is for the good of all people while having a selfish benefit hidden behind it. If someone was truly utilitarian and knew that gods existed to give us rain then he wouldn't have waited for the government to release that lump sum amount of money to perform that ritual. He would do on his own. It is such kind of acts that would indicate that these gods truly existed showing the presence of divine. A sane person wouldn't invest all his money and all his energy and show that much comittment if he didn't knew that these gods exist or not unless otherwise he had a selfish component hidden in his acts.

Approximately about 2 million euro. Those rituals indeed exists since ancient times and should be performed for the betterment of the world but if these gods don't exist then they are going to burn rice, dry fruits, pure ghee, milk and other expensive things and turn it into an ash and all these rituals will be an utter waste.

My state government is spending 17 crores on rituals to gain the grace of rain gods at a time of severe drought across the state instead of spending the same lump sum on scientific measures in this 21st century and its going to spend more. http://www.ndtv.com/article/south/karnataka-temples-to-hold-prayers-for-rain-today-bill-will-be-17-crores-248142 When we are not even sure as to whether these gods exist or not how silly it is to release that much funds on these kind of rituals?

"THE MYSTERY OF THE LOGOS."

Its compatible with pagan beliefs, the stoics believed in providence and both the Gnostic Christians and the eastern religions believe in predestination. The people in the east will better accept the outcomes of modern science and the Veiled reality of Bernard d'espagnat and will embrace it. We have to abandon the multitudinist view of the classical physics and accept that there is a reality where nonseparability and non-locality are the key elements of our reality. There can be other choices. If there is ever a law of both Religion and Science then it will be this- "What we call empirical reality is only a state of mind"

I don't think God had used Big Bang and DNA to create the universe and the life in it respectively. I am not a proponent of Intelligent Design or a creationist, religion is based on a different epistemology and I'm least concerned of making my beliefs scientific and hence it would be silly to speculate about the divine in that direction. If you ask from a religious perspective, yes, most of the religions teach us about predestination and you do realize that if we can measure the classical forces acting on the dice then we can determine the outcome in a deterministic way, rolling a dice is not true randomness.

Yes, I was off for a while sorry. Its something which should be addressed in every evolution textbook. A serious evolutionary biologist will address it and it has been addressed in the evolution textbook which I refer. After searching the papers which was cited by the author in that textbook I can put forward my argument in a more formal way. What I was getting at is this. Holland, J., Spindler, K., Horodyski, F., Grabau, E., Nichol, S. & Vande Pol, S. (1982) Science 2 Rapid evolution of RNA Genomes Genetic error and Genome Design What my argument is this - Examining The Theory of Error Catastrophe - NCBI Lethal Mutants and Truncated Selection Together Solve a Paradox of the Origin of Life - NCBI Anyone from a background of computer networks or communications theory will understand that the problems nature faced to develop life out of scratch is something similar to the problems a computer networks engineer faces. As the above paper shows that the mutation rates in such highly evolved RNA viral genomes is of the magnitude millions of fold higher than DNA genomes and one can easily imagine the error rates for the first RNA initiator protogenes and solar radiation and other enviromental damage will definitely hinder the preservation of meaning or specificity in the message sequences of these protogenes and it is highly likely that where ever life started it became extinct then and there itself if not there existed some catalysts or strategies to preserve the meaning in these protogenes and make it viable but such strategies are impossible without the origin of meaning in the first place. There is a paradox, there is a mystery and it should be accepted and taught in schools.

The central problem facing scientists is the identification of the first informational molecules, it doesn't necessarily have to be DNA, RNA or proteins, it could be anything. There are many problems for the origin of first replicating molecules in the pre-biotic earth and whatever it is, it is just pure speculation. Natural selection can only add information once it originates, it cannot generate information in denovo. Hence one cannot apply darwinian evolution through single intermediate steps by blind non-random selection of nature for the problem of life. The origin of life and evolution of life are two different problems. Shanon's information theory of communication systems is not concerned with the meaning of the message that is transmitted and hence to conserve the meaning of the message in the genetic strands there need to be specific strategies that have to be implemented considering the high error prone of early replication systems to various environmental damage but that is impossible without the origin of meaning in the first place. The above is the main problem facing biology today. It is unsolvable within science.

Penrose's claim that strong AI is impossible is not based on an ideology, it is based on sound mathematical arguments through which he has put Godel's ideas on a much firmer ground. Human thought is not mechanical or algorithmic, there is an element of non-computability in conscious thinking. Yes it is a low probability event and yet as it is self-evident it has happened and that implies that there are rules which we have yet to discover and the purpose may be hidden in those rules.

Other religiously motivated people might have an ideology to push in the form of fine-tuning but Roger Penrose is an atheist and he doesn't have any ideology to support. Fine-tuning cannot prove that a God exists but what it can show is that the universe as a purpose and therefore it has no implications for religion. According to Roger Penrose the odds against universe originating by chance is this much:

Its the fine-tuning of the universe that needs an explanation not an analysis to prove that fine-tuning has actually happened.

The problem is something different as shown below. Living organisms are not ordered crystals because they lack complexity means the correlations between the parts are not removed to make the messages more efficient and carry more information instead of repetitive structures as seen in ordered crystals and they are not random mixtures of their building blocks because they lack specificity. It is these two main factors complexity and specificity which distinguish bio-molecules from ordinary chemical molecules and the problem is how such specificity or meaningful instructions have originated for the origin of the machinary for life. If just the physico-chemical properties of the molecules could account for the specificty seen in bio-polymers then we could expect that just Self organisation sufficiently explains the origin of life on earth but the physico-chemical properties or Self organisation through the known laws of physics and chemistry cannot account for the specificity and we are left with random chance and that seems to be highly improbable.

There is many literature out there for the fine tuned argument of the universe but I'm arguing about Penrose's argument and his pre-big bang cosmology does have substantial evidence to support it and there indeed seems to be a low entropy state at the begining of the big bang and such an initial condition have to be precise following a definite set of rules and not by random chance. Penrose claims to have glimpsed universe before Big Bang Concentric circles in WMAP data may provide evidence of violent pre-big bang activity The last thing that I would doubt about Roger Penrose is his sound mathematical arguments. Why would you suppress that?

Potholer64 seems to have missed a point, even if we take account of the laws of physico-chemistry and other laws of electrochemistry it cannot account for the origin of biological information. The origin of machinery for life should solely rely on random chance and on chemical evolution prior to life The probem of origin of life is more of a problem which computer scientists have to deal with rather than biologists or the chemists and they are the ones who are better suited to understand this problem. The problem is that the chemical and physical properties of nucleic acids or any other molecule do not determine the sequence of the nucleic acid polymer and B. O. Kuppers says all combinatorial nucelotide sequences are equivally possible and yet amazingly the nucelotide sequences in biological systems or the bio-machinary which constitutes as life have a high degree of specificty (instructions/meaningful information) something which no known physico-chemical process can account for and with no selection pressure and with no natural selection life has to solely rely on random chance to originate the machinary for life which is highly improbable according to the laws of information theory. So as Yockey says we have to rule out both chance and Self organisation and just accept the origin of life as an axiom as it is unsolvable with in science.

That is a strawman, evolution works by cumulative selection and not by chance alone.