immortal

Entanglement cannot be used to transmit information faster than the speed of light, quantum cryptography requires that a classical signal travelling at the speed of light must be sent between two communicating entities like Alice and Bob before they can communicate with each other.

What is the contribution of metaphysics here, meditational techniques are being practiced even before the advent of metaphysics. What is new here and what does metaphysics has to say about it. People are going to practice it anyway they don't really want that final word from a metaphysician. By stating meditation you seem to have argued in favor of my point that it is a waste of time to test theories based on logic alone and that it is highly unrealiable. Stop pretending that you know unity. If you really know what it is then can you give back life to a dead plant or can you teleport from one place to another or can you say what will happen in the future with your precognitive abilities. Now do you really know what unity is? Its only book knowledge, what about practical knowledge, where is the positive evidence for it. Even if you write 100 books about them you can hardly convince yourself then how can you convince others. If they truly understand what they're talking about then why don't they demonstrate their knowledge in public. The fact that no one is willing to demonstrate it shows that no one really understands it and that no one knows what they're talking about. I think they are not true philosophers they're just trying to earn respect by claiming too many things when they really doesn't deserve any respect what so ever. This shows why the skill of doing experiments is more important than the metaphysical skills of logic. The problem with metaphysicians is that they stop at logic they never go on to put their theories to test. Without positive evidence one has no choice but to accept alternative natural and psychological explanations for mysticism without the need to invoke the concept of unity. So far what you've been proposing is that there is a logical framework in support of mysticism. Before they used to accept things on faith for their practical commitment now you've established it in a rational way but its not enough to convince anyone. There is? What empirical data we have in this 21st century? If someone turns water into wine some two thousand years ago how can it be an experimental data in this 21st century. What knowledge do we really have? Can you repeat it now? I am not saying it is impossible to have empirical data but so far I have not seen anyone demonstrating with positive evidence for the existence of unity. Again by stating that one has to go and check their claims you've demonstrated that logic alone is very unrealiable to test any theory.

Take your metaphysical theory for example, metaphysical questions are mainly concerned with ontology, questions are normally like what is the fundamental nature of the world, is space fundamental? or field? what is the world made up of? what is its true nature? Now you say the world is a unity, what is unity? do you yourself got any idea as to what you're talking about? I cannot observe it and I don't know what the heck unity means. So just because someone is talking about something which no one really understands and uses the names of great scientists like schroedinger and intellectual persons like shankara doesn't mean the theory is correct and testified by logic alone. The knowledge that it adds to my database is absolutely zero. There has been no increase of knowledge, there has been no addition of information just redundant information repeating the same things calling it by different names like brahman or unity or Tao. So if there is no observational data and no experimental data then we cannot really know whether what we are talking about as any value or is it full of rubbish and B.S. I think metaphysicians should stop relying only on logic and start doing some experiments to testify the doctrine of transcendental realism so that we can truly know what the world is really made of.

Simple, majority of people who believe in God are not interested in killing others they are more interested in killing their enemies and in knowing the truth. Who are their enemies? Its pride, ignorance, lust and dishonesty.

Building a simulation model to test for alternative designs based on an existing system is part of an engineering process and it is based on observations. I don't think we can apply the same validation processes for metaphysical theories because much of its theories are unobservable and deciding a theory based on logic alone without any observational data is never realiable.

I think its normal to have hope and it is what keeps us breathing whether it is of the hope that humans will go beyond the earth and explore other earth like planets in other solar systems or the hope that religion gives that there is another realm out there which need to be explored and the interesting things it throws up. "I have to keep breathing. Tomorrow, the sun will rise. Who knows what the tide could bring," he says.

Logical Positivism is a dead end. Science adopts positivism, it only accepts things which can be observed. Metaphysics is not science it branched off from science and it is mainly concerned with the non-empirical and unfalsifiable theories. A fundamental theory doesn't necessarily have to address metaphysical problems. Metaphysical questions are normally treated as meaningless in physics. Physics doesn't claim to explain metaphysical questions. Its the job of metaphysicians to answer metaphysical questions and as long as we don't have a method to falsify those metaphysical theories, the correct answer to such questions is we don't know not that we can say that the world is like this or like that only with the help of logic. Mathematics alone is not science. Wittgenstein said 'whereof we cannot speak, thereof we should remian silent".

I believe in myself, I believe only in what I see, the problem you're not seeing is that there are different traditions with their own pantheon of Gods which are much older than Gnosticism, even though these different gnostic traditions say the same thing in phylosophy and psychology they say different things about their mythology. I am interested in the God of the Gods in those traditions or the perfect one(as you call him the Father) in Gnosticism. When youngsters begin to question things about the religions that they were brought up in much of it doesn't make any sense, they seem very unlikely and if the idea of a religion has got any chance of surviving in this 21st century world then a lot depends on how much truth exists in these gnosis traditions. These gnosis traditions say that the pleroma of god exists in each and everyone i.e the perfect one exist in each and everyone of us and to know whether he exists or not is my only hope. If the perfect one made God and if God went on to make imperfect things then isn't it that it is the perfect one who made imperfect things and that would make him the imperfect one not the perfect one. Your view is a depressing view, this is the Sethian view of Gnosticism but that's not how the Valentinians see it, man is imperfect not because he was created by god man is imperfect because he is ignorant of the true nature of the perfect one and so are other gods and angels. Its not that we are evil, we are just ignorant of the perfect one and its wrong to see the world as evil, the world is very much important in sowing the seed of knowledge in individuals to alleviate them to have gnosis. Therefore the world, the God and man is not evil but just ignorant. If we were evil then we all came from the perfect one and that would make the perfect one imperfect. I never said that the Bible is garbage, that's not what I said. I said it has a deep different hidden meaning behind it and we should stop taking it literally making inferences about this world of empiricism from the bible.

Even if they made it up on their own I should still respect them as individuals, theists are human beings. There is a religious leader who at the age of 106 gets up early in the morning and takes english classes to 5th grade students and climbs the staircase of a three storeys building without taking anyone's support. I would still respect him for his works even if I disagree with his belief in God. Anyways God does not exist is not a fact so there is no reason to show disrespect towards someone for holding a personal belief.

Can you please be more careful and responsible when you make assertions like that. Advaita Vedanta is not theism? Really? You're either trying to twist the doctrines of these traditions to suit your metaphysical theory or you do not know the importance of the concept of Ishvara in Advaita Vedanta. Ishvara is the personal God, so advaita is not the death of gods instead by arguing for this doctrine you're also arguing that this personal God also exist, therefore advaita is theism. I am sorry to say this but I find your position to be extremely ridiculous. Ishvara is the Sun God and he originated from a golden egg(metaphorical) and he has his own pantheon or the pleroma of god with Agni, Soma, Prana and other gods and in the Gnostics we have Sophia, demiurge and other aeons, so please stop putting all these different traditions in the same line, there are lots of differences even though philosophically they say the same thing. It depends on the credibility of the prophets themselves. How can you know whether it was all made up or their works authenticate the existence of God? One can criticize something or someone without showing disrespect to them.

This sounds like a good definition of true love.

In this context being childlike is to ask questions. If you had spent time with kids like I have a cousin who goes to Euro Kids and one day he asked me which bird flies fast? Eagle or Vulture? I had never asked such a question to myself and if you give him a book of animals he points his fingers and asks what is this? .. and this? .. and this? it goes on and on. So the point is do great people become great because they ask the right questions at the right time? If one doesn't ask the right questions to oneself how can you get an insight? Is it this trait which makes them great? I posted that image of Einstein riding a bicycle as an indication that they had kept such a trait even when they were adults.

I did thought that this topic required a seperate thread in the environment science forum before posting it here but I thought it was necessary to post it in this thread. I didn't knew that many people here hold different views on GM crops, thank you.

It was not my intention to hijack this thread, the OP wanted to explore or study why liberals deny science and brought the topic of GM crops and I gave some valid reasons as to why biotechnology and its products should be screened effectively before releasing them into the environment indicating that one can use science to deny an application of science.

I am not concerned about the effects that GM crops have on my body. I am more concerned about the effects that it has on our environment and the biological diversity as postulated by the ESA. Perhaps you've misunderstood the theme of my post.

Is being childlike a necessary characteristic of great creative and innovative people with great insights? Like Einstein or Leonardo Da Vinci. Michael Gelb - How to think like Da Vinci. I haven't read that book just saw the cover page some years back in a book store which mentioned about the childlike qualities of Da Vinci.

In web-programming i.e in Dynamic web documents with JavaScript they provide default event handlers namely - onmouseout onmouseover onmouseup onmousedown We can define an event handler with an event handler function which might be predefined in a seperate file or within the same file (i.e .js). for example - onmousedown = "displayit(event);" onmouseup = "hideit();" function displayit(event) { //body of the function here } function hideit() { //body of the function here } I am not sure such an option is available for touchscreens or not and hence they're not able to display any information when you just move over a link or an image.

I don't know how a republican brain works and how this is connected to them, but anyways. Environmental activists do have a point and one must appreciate their concerns upto a certain extent. I think GM crops and GMOs should be released to the environment based on ESA (Ecological society of America) standards. After reading too many articles and other sources to decide on which side to take for the question of 'Should the goverment allow the release of genetically modified organisms?' I have concluded that the ESA standards are the best standards and that every genetically modified product should meet the standards of the ESA. I think the europeans have done the right thing by banning GM crops. If a GM crop doesn't meet the ESA standards then I am against GM crops. The defenders of GM crops normally defend themselves by asking the activists that they should provide an alternative solution for 'how do we feed a ever growing world population of 7 billion people?' but if the risks outnumber the benefits it creates more problems rather than providing a solution for it. I think world hunger is just an illusion, as a cop out to release GMOs into the environment without realizing about the risks involved in it.

Being in a completely deterministic world of God doesn't necessarily mean that he has created robots. Is a robot capable of strong AI? Does a robot feel pride, pleasure, pain, sorrow, humility etc etc? One can program a robot to act in such a way by simulating human outward expressions but how can we know what it is like to be a robot, its very much likely that it is just a zombie. Religion says as long as you're subjected to the forces of space-time and the five elements(earth, water, fire, air and space) you don't have free will but religion doesn't stop here it goes on to say that man can free himself from this bondage and attain freedom. God has indeed created an intelligent cosmos, only if he exists though. Religion doesn't necessarily have to be incompatible with science most of the times it just adds an extra layer of accountability to science making science as a partial sub-case or an emergent property as a consequence of the numinous world of God, again only if religion is true though.

Yes, Physics is an exact science, its experiments are normally like + or - error_rate_of and such small changes in the precision of those values determines whether a model is accepted or not. According to many Physicists QM is one of the most intellectual theories mankind has ever achieved. There will always be new problems in physics and physicists will work towards to clearing up that mess.

Its not an assumption, it will be a self evident fact that he has made all of us in his own image that each one of us has the potential in us to create a whole new universe. Without a Self(soul) revelation of God is not possible. Its wise to abide in the truth and not turn away from it. This world belongs to God, the child belongs to God, he is the one who gives it and he is the one who takes it back because it always belonged to him. So we are not here to live our life the way we want based on our personal desires, we are here for the greater good of this world not for your own personal attachments and desires.

Its proof of providence (that the world is in the protective care of God). Kant is almost certain that it is impossible to know the noumenon i.e all knowledge has to come from the sense organs. Religion, especially the revealed truths of religion disagree with Kant and says there is an another way to percieve the world or to know the world. In such a case if god really exists then he is in command of every aspect of our reality, that includes your free will and just about everything. You don't have a choice. God is the one who brings drought and he is the one who floods, he is the one who controls all the opposites in this world, good and evil etc. In such a case god can see all the events in the past, present and the future at any place and at any point of time, so he is asking me to do something which I am going to do it anyway. People have no problem to believe if some crazy scientist develops precogs but if religious scholars assert that precognition is from divine then its ridiculous. I don't find the concept of God to be ridiculous. Its all providence. That's how it justifies my act.

That's not insanity, that's stoic principles, learning to be calm in all situations. If God literally exists then we are not here to make attachments, we're here to do his works. THAT TO STUDY PHILOSOPHY IS TO LEARN TO DIE. - Michel de Montaigne CICERO says "that to study philosophy is nothing but to prepare one's self to die." Moses really tried hard to know the nature or form of the Abrahamic God and failed miserably. That's one problem with the Abrahamic God we don't have a clear picture of his form and hence we can not say whether it was truly from God or from the Satan. If there are men who can clearly differentiate God from Satan and know it came from God then I don't find it to be an insane act.

People have done crazy things in the name of devotion. I said that based on such legends. Religion is a way of life for such people and they abide in the truth of god. If these legends are literally true then I don't find any insanity in it, it makes perfect sense. Here is a legend where a devotee gouged one of his eyeballs and almost went on to take out the other one. Here the King almost went on to kill his own wife even though he knew that she was innocent. Here a potter stamped and killed his own child while he was unaware of himself and was lost in his devotional singing towards his god. Here two devotees made a shoe from the skin of their own thigh for their revered considered divine religious leader.

Many people claim to hear voices from God and I don't think one can be certain that it came from God only by hearing a voice, it has too much noise and too much uncertainty, the brain does process things differently sometimes. However if God had literally appeared in form and had spoke to you then it is very much sane to kill your child. In God's terms you're not doing anything wrong, you're doing God's work but that doesn't excuse you from people pelting stones at you or from putting you behind bars. You still have to subject yourself to social normal justice.