immortal

See it looks nice when you cite papers from reputed journals instead of anonymous users in the wiki page. It helps us to better understand your point of view. Isn't it that this statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics cannot account for non-local effects without violating the principles of relativity? i.e if a hidden variable theory has to exist then it has to be non-local. Okay. I was concerned about the ontological implications of your quantum particle. Yes, Steven Weinberg is a proponent of Many world Interpretation. So when you quote his words to refute the Copenhagen Interpretation who seem to be its critic, obviously I have to say like that in that context. No, you're moving the goal posts, I asked you a specific request or a question to cite papers to support your claims.

I am not going to take you seriously if you don't cite papers from peer-reviewed journals and no one should take you seriously. If it is an idea which you are using for your reasearch then keep it with you, why do you try to convince me to accept your claims as fact before convincing the whole of the scientific community. I am not going to take you seriously if you don't cite papers from peer-reviewed journals to support your claims. Look, I have no problem if you want to term it as a quantum particle but then you go on to say that "particles behave as particles" you do know that they cannot be described in any way classically, this is what I mean when I say you're claiming too much, you're statement is meaningless, if something cannot be described using a term in its usual sense then it is in no way justified to be called as a particle. May be you're the one who have misconceptions, not the Physics teacher, the view given in that paper is the view supported by Steven Weinberg himself which you quote him often. Steven Weinberg remarks: I have defined you the Bohr's complementary principle earlier and now can you cite papers where the Bohr's complementary principle has been violated? If not I cannot take your claims seriously and there is too much ambuiguity in what Steven Weinberg meant in his quote.

Esotericism deals with a universal metaphysical reality and the worldview it embraces will obviously will be a religious worldview. So is it appropriate to apply scientific enquiry for something which is inherently metaphysical? As I said earlier there are scholars who not only study the scriptures from the outside but also practice and try to get esoteric knowledge hidden in it. So based on argument from authority one can study their works and come to a conclusion whether much of what he or she says about the subject is true or not. I don't think we can trust anyone apart from a scholarly expert on that subject and you don't have to just blindly accept or believe whatever this expert on the subject says. Its left to you to atleast have a practical commitment on the subject based on Faith as sub-doxastic venture model as someone else defined the different types of faith in an another thread. So you're bound to get disappointed and defeated and unfortunately in a subject like this where we have lost the practical knowledge and where we can no longer trust anyone on this subject apart from the experts, this is the only hard way. One of the things that the esotericists keep asking us is that how will you get faith in it if you don't experience it for yourself? So you don't have to believe in it or accept it just because someone says it.

Even in the Tonomura (1989) paper which is given in the wiki quote it clearly says that our results unambiguosly demonstrate the wave-particle duality. http://www.ifi.unica...08%202010s1.pdf This was what I was searching for how does the more advanced formulation of Quantum Mechanics which is the QFT(Quantum field theory) treats the case of double slit interference experiment. I think it is a must read for everyone. Teaching Quantum Physics Without Paradoxes Even in the more advanced formulation of QFT wave-particle duality do exists. No one is arguing that Particles are waves. What I'm arguing for is the Bohr's Complementarity principle which says that it is impossible to simultaneously know which way information and to observe the fringe pattern completely. No experiments done so far have violated the Bohr's Complementarity principle. This is the heart of quantum mechanics and anyone who denies this has clearly misunderstood quantum mechanics and wave-particle duality do exists.

You're right in saying that they are only studying it from a historical perspective but as this paper discusses that if you study it from such a perspective you won't understand anything about its deeper meaning. Empirical method in the study of esotericism Esotericism and the Academy.pdf I guess the whole point of esotericism is to look for alternative traditions of knowledge other than the scientific method and I would not like to see esotericism as a scientific discipline and I am least bothered about pushing it as a science and there is no need to reject esotericism with contempt like you do. This should be the accepted definition of esotericism. This is the view of the perennialist school of thought and in my opinion only such an approach can give the truth about religions and esotericism. I don't think this can be made as an academic discipline because it requires a prior belief. Faith is the key, its left to the individuals to believe in it or not. I can say it in an article but it can only be positively testified through the perennialist perspective i.e via intuitive access to the numinous and can be falsified by science.

Its wrong to study esoteric religions with empirical methods or through reasoning and such a difference can be clearly seen between the works of scholars without practical knowledge and the works of scholars who are also esotericists. No one can give the wisdom hidden in these traditions other than the latter type of scholars. Yes, esotericism is very old, its ancient wisdom, its nothing new but I think before individual scholars used to involve themselves in these religious traditions and would try to understand their way of life and not just sit in a remote corner of the world and just publish papers about it, these things cannot be fully conveyed or understood with words of a different foreign language, one needs to venture into their culture and their linguistics and understand their way of thinking. No, you're mistaken here. Eostericism as a field is an exception when it comes to acquiring testable and repeatable information apart from the scientific method. The religious traditions had methods to gain religious experiences and these religious experiences were repeatable by following such methods. So a person's religious experience who existed 2000 years ago should be identical to a person's religious experience who exists in the 21st century. This is what makes a religious tradition and these traditions kept such experiential knowledge secret with in them because if everyone knew about it then it would be difficult to differentiate between a genuine experience and a fake one where anyone can claim to have seen God. Such knowledge were kept secret to test the genuinity of someone's experience by asking them certain questions to test them. You can't completely understand their worldview or their ideas without practically involving yourself in the practices of these traditions. Once you understand the meaning behind the words they use and the things they represent there is nothing stopping you to go on and do a trial and error method to access esoteric knowledge yourself and its very important as to with what intentions you're approaching it, esoteric knowledge is the knowledge of the gods and it should only be used for enlightenment but gods do give you what you wish for and I don't think everyone are prepared enough to ask for good things. http://ccwe.wordpress.com/category/religious-experience-and-tradition-international-interdisciplinary-scientific-conference/

To put it bluntly the worldview of an Esotericist is this. “Gods are real. And these gods are everywhere, in all aspects of existence, all aspects of human life.” - James Hillman http://ccwe.wordpress.com/2012/03/10/gods-are-real-call-for-submissions-to-anthology-of-polytheistic-experience/ To them we are not alone. So I was wondering how much mentally prepared they are and with what seriousness are they venturing into this sensitive issue which has far reaching implications for orthodox religions, politics, culture, more importantly for science and religion and other emotional aspects of humans. Its almost like finding an alien civilization. Is the world prepared to accept it? How can they ensure that these traditions do not become corrupted by mixing it with other false misinformation? Who owns this knowledge and what are they going to do? What if they misuse it? What if this new field of Esotericism becomes more powerful than science and the orthodox religion?

What about these equations of applying matter waves to matter? ∆x ∆k ≈ 1, ∆t ∆ω ≈ 1 and vg = v where the group velocity of the wave packet is equal to the speed of the particle which implies that a quantum object can be described as a particle or as a wave and these equations lead us to the Heisenberg's uncertainty relation which says that in theory it is impossible to determine the wave and particle properties simultaneously which is not due to some consequence of technological limitations. Are these equations wrong? What do they imply?

I am not sure how much the Cambridge Centre for the study of Western Esotericism is associated with the University of Cambridge, both seem to exist in the same city and many of the books in her blog written by different scholars is published by the Cambridge University Press. http://www.cambridge.org/se/knowledge/isbn/item6577534/?site_locale=sv_SE

Why is Cambridge University all of a sudden collecting information about esoteric religious traditions around the globe? What are they up to? See this - http://ccwe.wordpress.com/

Address my arguments or accept that we don't know the physical nature of the world first then I'll think about it. Ah, you've edited your post, what does that statement mean?

Philosophy is the boss!! Physics is a branch of science and science is a branch of philosophy and it has the authority to question what claims can scientists make and how much they can claim to know what. So far you have not addressed any of my arguments so shall I assume that scientists are doing bad philosophy. Then please can you give the standard definition for the quantum particle? Oh really? Then everyone should be made aware of the controversial problems surrounding it. Go and read it. http://scholar.google.co.in/scholar?q=not+quite+particles+not+quite+fields+humana+mente&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5

Elaine Pagels is a highly respected scholar in the field and we know what Gnosticism is. Some of the things which you say are correct and some not much. http://en.wikipedia....he_Gnostic_Paul ">

This has gone unaddressed and to emphasize more on it. According to the positivist philosophy of science, Science should be viewed as a set of predictive rules and it cannot claim to give an objective account of reality. So the claim everything is made up of particles and particles behaves as particles is a claim on the nature of the physical world or the nature of the quantum system and the continuous dodging of requests to give a clear definition of the particle not only proves that it is not a scientific claim and it also shows that its a problem of ontology. Assuming that CERN scientists are not using the term particle in the usual sense of the term, your terminology of the use of the standard 'quantum particle' has so far no clear definition or consensus among the scientists and philosophers working to interpret the quantum field theory. It has its own problems and its interpretations are more naive with non-seperability and with no clear definition of a particle. The way particle physics is done doesn't in any way make the problems go away. It uses detectors or a classical apparatus to determine the value of a physical quantity and there are different detectors to detect different physical properties and the energy-time uncertainty principle applies to such systems and it doesn't in any way change what Bohr said that the information gained about a single physical quantity of a quantum system exhausts all objective knowledge about the quantum system. When you have solved all these problems and have a clear definition of what your quantum particle is only then it would be appropriate to say that everything in the world is made up of particles. If not then you're claiming too much and its not a scientific claim.

Whether you call it a quantum particle or I call it a quantum object we cannot know how it has behaved without observing it and hence we cannot attribute properties to that 'entity' and describe its behaviour and hence we don't know what it is, which implies that we don't know what the world is made up of. This is Intellectual dishonesty of the highest order. I'm done with you. Solve the measurement problem and convince all of the scientists in the scientific community and then come back to me and assert that the world is made up of particles(in your own terminology) clearly defining what it is and what its attributes are.

Yes he is not arguing in good spirit and addressing the arguments of the conventional thinking of Quantum Mechanics. When you a pass a quantum object in an interference experiment, how can you say that it has passed through one slit or the other and as behaved as a particle when we have not measured or observed it? Science doesn't give an objective account of reality. Its strange that not even once you have used the word 'measurement' here and have just speculated your own version of the interpretation of the quantum mechanics and this clearly belongs to the discussion of crackpot ideas in the speculation forum. In quantum mechanics we don't know the physical meaning of the properties which we are dealing with and hence it is meaningless to term it has a particle or a wave. Properties only have operational meaning based on the context of the measuring device used. Alastair Rae clearly answers this. As you see, the properties of the quantum object are assigned depending on the context of the measuring device. It has no objective physical meaning and no reality should be attributed to it. This is also a meaningless question and Alastair answers your questions here and this is the direct consequence of the way quantum mechanics works and not based on any limitation. This is a direct consequence due to the alteration of the state by measurement which is the conventional interpretation of quantum mechanics. Those links which you gave didn't answered the questions relevant to my arguments so please stop giving me such links and yes, I have addressed it now and please answer to my arguments and don't evade it. http://plato.stanfor.../qm-copenhagen/ The Copenhagen rules is not claiming anything and it is accepting that we don't know but you're the one who is insisting by making positive claims that we can give an objective description of reality based on particle physics without in any way addressing how it solves the measurement problems and its questions. So the onus is on you to show it and provide us evidence challenging the accepted consensus. This is a question of how science should be done and its clear that you're claiming too much and you need to back up your claims with evidence and address the criticisms.

Read this paper - Can wave-particle duality be based on the uncertainty relation? - Stephan Durr and Gerhard Rempe from the Max Planck Institute, Germany.

You're such a liar, now I know why you don't give us links when you quote someone. The complete quote says this and can be found here- Copenhagen Interpreation - wiki No one is arguing that the Copenhagen Interpretation is a complete conception and not without its problems today, there is a real problem and we all know it. In the absence of a well tested theory of the Interpretation of quantum mechanics Copenhagen Interpretation must be accepted. You're deliberately posting misinformation here and creating havoc and confusion among the well coherent thought of all the scientists in the scientific community.

Ah, No, that's not what most religions say. We all are gods .

Those are not my ideas, that's the accepted scientific attitude in the absence of a well tested interpretation. Are you aware that SW remaks are subjective opinions and not objective truths? If my arguments are invalid then why don't you address them rather than quoting someone who is anonymous or the opinions of a Nobel laureate or accept that you were wrong.

That's not true, the Non-dual of Advaita existed in the east long before Jesus was born. You can believe in dualism or whatever you want but just let you know that the scholars in the field think otherwise.

Our understanding of the world has advanced a lot of since Bohr. In last 100 years, we have developed advanced formulations which are very far from the original work by Bohr. We know today that particles always behave as particles with independence of the existence or absence of an observer. I what wrote is standard quantum physics, whereas what you write is unrelated. Our modern picture of the physical world as made of particles is based in QM. This is the standard vision of the physical world and you are who do not still get it (http://public.web.ce...rdModel-en.html): You're moving the goal posts, you never addressed my well thought arguments. Now you pick and choose quotes from the critics of Copenhagen Interpretation and argue as though it is a scientific fact. Either you're deliberately lying to everyone to desperately hold on to your extreme claims or these physicist's are lying to the students of the world. Let people decide who is doing crackpottery in this thread.

Bohr suggested us that we must use classical concepts in redefined abstract way(not literal) to explain our physical experiences with the atomic system. Anyone familiar with QM knows that it is impossible to give a mechanistic description of the events taking place at the atomic level. Bohr said there is no way a quantum object can be described. When no one is observing a quantum object the Copenhagen interpretation says that whether you call it wave properties or particle properties and Kinematic properties or dynamic properties they are not assigned to the quantum object. The properties whether it is of a wave or of a particle is assigned to an object depending on the context of the measuring device and the experimental set up. This is the accepted consensus. Got it? Bohr was a instrumentalist. Correct, I never said that the wavefunction is physical. Incorrect, the wavefunction is symbolic and it doesn't represent anything physical. Then please quote from reputed source. This is wrong, you're claiming too much. QM doesn't allow that, if the property of position and momentum cannot be attributed to a particle before a measurement is being made then even to think of it as a particle is meaningless. Got it? Again, it depends on the context of the measuring device and experimental set up, QM doesn't allow that. Please stop confusing people around here.

Yes, to many of them through out the human history across different cultures. Its an argument from religious experience. Professor Marts Vanucci says "It is illogical to test the validity of ancient knowledge with XX century methods and techniques. Statements should be assessed in the context of the level of culture and language of the time when they were expressed" If you test religious scriptures like the way Daniel Dennet does when he says that Why does God doesn't talk about mathematics in his scriptures? then obviously religion sounds like a ridiculous ideology, a silly idea. But when you assess those scriptures with the view that they are not talking about the empirical reality but a numinous one then it makes some sense and has lot of wisdom in it and more importantly it questions our basic notions of reality. More than immortality and omniscience what is important to me is the question do religious ideas have any basis in reality? Omniscience is just an inevitable consequence if religion is right since majority of the content in religious scriptures is only about immortality, birth and rebirth. Good night.

He didn't ignore anything. He was ignorant of his own divine nature and the divine nature of all of humanity and thought that their race was superior than others and called it the Hitler's Master Race and this ignorance was the reason for the killing of innocent lives. Do you have anything interesting to say? Agnostic is the belief that the existence of God cannot be known, that cannot be a neutral position as there are many sects who believe that existence of God can be known. If I was arguing for a particular religion then you can term me as religious but I'm not arguing for a particular religion and dismissing other religions as false. I hardly do idol worship and I won't do anything if it doesn't look rational to me or without understanding something or fall blindly. A neutral position is to have both the theistic mindset and the atheistic mindset as modules or worldview in your brain. I really don't care which worldview turns out to be wrong. A growing number of scholars and philosophers are discussing and recognizing this worldview in Religion and theology journals and the worth of such papers are measured in dollars and just because someone like you call it silly it doesn't change anything. Why not? If you take a top down approach to the origin of our cosmos where you have to know only one thing to know about everything that is there to know, it is not so impossible. Immortality is the point of life, I think, otherwise life as no meaning. I didn't invoked that term, the original poster did. Its normal to have such experiences when one is under medication or when one is being subjected to a high dosage of medical drug and these experiences can be easily explained by one or the other types of epileptic seizures - Types of seizures. There is no need to invoke a supernatural explanation. I was once under high dosage of Deriphyllin and experienced a form of complex focal seizure and it felt like if I had slept that day I would never wake up again. Neurologists term this as a partial near death experience. You can believe in whatever you want but you cannot objectively convince everyone with your subjective claims. A complete near-death experience should be of this type - Then we can investigate it objectively.