immortal

Roger Penrose takes a top down approach for the origin of the universe, he is the only physicist who strongly believes in the hidden variable theories and he thinks that quantum physics is incomplete and according to him all the information for the origin of the universe, including qualia is embedded in the planck scale and he calls them as platonic values. So according to him the future is fixed and deterministic but it is non-computable, the quantum jump is non-computable, so he argues in favor of the fine tuning problem as though it was planned that life was going to originate on earth and if this is true this would make the force of natural selection a very feeble force and irrelevant for the origin of novel design solutions which implies that it just acts as an outside force and not a force as modern biology intends to give importance to it. Irrespective of whether brain supports the necessary environment for quantum phenomena first we need to test his theory of quantum gravity and his interpretation of quantum mechanics which he calls as the Objective reduction. The problem with non-computability is that there is no place in the physics that we know of where we can see atleast a hint of non-computable processes or non-computable physics. Quantum physics is highly deterministic, I mean the wave function evolves in a deterministic and in a computable way, the problem actually arises when one makes a measurement and we all know classical physics is highly deterministic and computable too and therefore he thinks the only place where non-computability might find a place is during the measurement process. If you are going to argue for quantum consciousness you need to come up with an objective account of quantum reality and positivism of science clearly says that such thinking is purely metaphysical and one shouldn't give any reality to the physical nature of the quantum system itself. So your argument that quantum entanglement and quantum tunelling phenomena have some connection to brain and consciousness is at best pseudoscience. Therefore I only stick with his mathematical argument that human conscious thought as an element of non-computability and its implications on nature and how it implements such a thing is highly speculative and metaphysical.

We certainly need a New Synthesis. Molecular drive and programmed responses of genomes due to environmental changes is something new and indicates that the Genome is more dynamic than we had thought and this indicates that there are mechanisms other than natural selection but any New Synthesis will not override the basic tenets of Darwinian theories. There is no need for any metaphysical theories for evolution.

One can set up a community in such a way that they are completely isolated from the outside world and make them breed with themselves with in their small world and we can assume that there are a few adults who act as though they have never heard of religion and they would never give such a knowledge to the children, so they never went to temples or churches and never heard about Gods or unicorns. Now even if you assume that all observed phenomena will be explained through scientific models this doesn't prevent children from becoming philosophers and ponder over questions like why we are here? what is our purpose in our cosmos? what's the point of ploughing seeds and cultivating crops? So its inevitable that the children would question such things to adults and when the adults fail to satisfy their intellect with a rational answer they start looking somewhere else. This is what happened in our history, there were few philosophers who were atomists or reductionists, somewhere platonists and others thought that we should understand ourselves to know our purpose here. So I think its inevitable that the children are going to have thought experiments of an anthropomorphic creator.

But that doesn't take you to heaven. That depends on which physical reality is the actual objective reality and which reality is purely subjective. So it can go either way, the reality given by the mystics can be the actual objective ultimate reality and the reality given by modern science can be purely subjective.

Knowing that Father and You are One gives you immortality, this is some kind of experiential knowledge, you cannot know it through a rational or an empirical way. There is no reason for why consciousness exists, the body can survive on its own, we don't have to be self aware of our bodies. That's how you cheat death not by taking some anti-oxidants. What do you mean, that's all they are mystics? St . Teresa of Avila has reported that she was transported to hell. http://www.mountainrunnerdoc.com/stteresaofavila.html But when you say that we experience heaven and hell here on earth it inidrectly implies that heaven and hell don't exist apart from earth. There are humans who don't desire anything and surrender themselves to Gods, they neither care if their God takes them to heaven nor they care if he takes them to hell, God hates pride, give up pride you'll cheat sinning.

Our scientific and technological progress is credited to scientists and mathematicians. One can speculate whether scientists and mathematicians invent or discover things on their own or is it that there was a per-determined plan that they were going to invent or discover them anyway which would mean that it was per-determined that Einstein was going to have thought experiments which would completely change the way we think about our physical universe and may be it was known in prior that he is going to be famous for his ideas on Special Relativity, General Relativity and the Photo electric effect or some would say that it was by chance that Louis Pasteur discovered a vaccine but that is if chance exists in the first place. So whether God planned it this way and guided our intellect is kind of a speculation and that depends on whether we can give an objective account of reality side-stepping God. As far as aliens are concerned, I don't think the architects of modern physics were in touch with some alien beings and got their ideas from them. We certainly miss Einstein and his knowledge, I would have liked to hear his reaction after the Aspect's experiments violated Bell's inequality which upholds quantum mechanics, he hated quantum mechanics and who would be a more better person than him to harmonize special relativity with Quantum Gravity. I wish we had the technology to bring back him.

How can you say where we won't go or where we will go after we die when all that we can see is the life and death of a body? Many Christian mystics have had a trip to hell and they have seen hell, so the reality is open for the existence of heaven or hell. Sure, we can find it, come out of your finite senses and see the world. This doesn't imply that heaven or hell do not exist as such. Closeness to God is not Heaven, Heaven is a place where people desire to go for pleasure and power, God doesn't embrace pleasure and pain. To OP - If you ask me, I neither want to go to heaven nor I want to go to hell, I just don't care, I'm not interested in those things because those things doesn't give you immortality.

Its neither, it is a votary.

His strength lies when he is a mathematical physicist arguing from the mathematical side of things and not when he is a philosopher or a bio-physicist denying evolution by natural selection.

We are in the dark age.

Of course one cannot document the evidence of a soul like they document the evidence for Big Foot or Loch Ness monster. The method is documented and they can be repeated and the same phenomena can be demonstrated even today, its just there are hardly a few who try such methods and as long as someone demonstrates it the topic is open to debate.

It is documented that Shankara, the founder of non-dual advaita, left his body and entered the body of a dead King and brought that body back to life and this can be only possible if "jiva" or a "soul" exists. Adi Shankara - wiki

Criticizing one's idea or a view doesn't mean that one is calling the person an idiot. Roger Penrose is someone who has all the potential to be the next Einstein, he is a true inspiration and I admire him. He says QM is incomplete and also says that there is nothing in the physics we know of where there is a non-computable process or non-computable physics and yet he tries to reduce consciousness to space-time quantum gravity and objective reduction. This reminds me of what Erwin Schroedinger said "Consciousness cannot be found in the world picture because it itself is the world picture". I don't know why you always wonder what's on others mind and start assuming things yourself. Yes to me only qualia are real, even mind itself is a qualia, everything is a qualia. Penrose seems to be a reductionist he doesn't have to necessarily agree with me. Feel free to express your views.

Time in minutes = (hours * 60) + minutes. Time(min) = (1 * 60) + 25 Time(min) = 85 min.

I think Swansont has said to you many times that your speculation about space is an ontological one or its a metaphysical issue which is irrelevant to science and repeating the same thing again is not going to change anything. It is not space which curves, it is Space-time which curves, the curvature of Space-time. What is important is the model of general relativity which explains why light bends in gravitational lensing, why the objects don't follow their geodesic paths and accumulate at the center of earth, its not because there is a gravitational force field which is acting as a downward attracting force which keeps objects on earth but its because the external objects induce external forces which prevents other objects to follow their geodesic paths, an object moves due to the curvature of space-time. Science doesn't work that way, science works by testing its models empirically through observations or measurements and no matter how logical a theory is, if it doesn't stand up when it is put to test then the model doesn't really model reality and it has to be eliminated and a more accurate model no matter how illogical or counter-intuitive it is to our minds, if it models reality accurately then it will be accepted. Science doesn't advice us to believe that space bends, we don't know what space is, we neither know how it bends but the Einstein's equations of GR accurately models observed phenomena, it doesn't claim to explain the nature of space and time, it claims to explain why the world appears to behave in this way when it is perceived or measured by us, what you need is an introduction to general relativity, a quick read on Wikipedia will do a world of good to you. No, you cannot say that and its wrong to say like that. It is the same properties of matter like energy, mass and momentum which says space-time how to curve and the content of matter determine how space-time will curve, so when there is alteration of the path of a light ray it is not due to the gravitational force field of Sun or matter, there is no attracting force what so ever, the light ray takes such a path solely due to the curvature of Space-time which is determined by the matter content present in Sun. The Riemann tensor and metric gives an accurate description of this, it is full of geometry and curvature and not about force fields. So matter-space-time are all interlinked in a holistic way and we have to consider all those elements to describe the events of nature and not stress on those individual separate concepts of space, time and matter, they are interdependent. ---------------------

Since Bioinformatics is a broad field with different computational and data mining techniques which includes sub-disciplines like genomics, proteomics, ionomics etc. I would recommend you read this book. Developing Bioinformatics Computer Skills by - Cynthia Gibas Per Jambeck Google the book and download it.

Both P and NP problems are decidable problems which means that there exist algorithms which can check whether the given inputs satisfy the constraints or not. There is a lot of difference between checking whether a number is an armstrong number or not and generating a series of armstrong numbers say from 1 to 1000. Halting problem is classified as an undecidable problem for which there is no algorithm to check whether a given input and a program halts or runs forever.

Game theory can be applied to evolutionary biology in various ways. John Maynard Smith came up with what he calls an evolutionary stable strategy. A evolutionary stable strategy is one which is adopted by the whole population such that it can't be altered by alternative strategies. If a better strategy arises compared to the existing strategy then the new strategy will replace the original strategy. This is the prisoners dilemma problem applied to the evolutionary system of predator and prey relationships. The best strategy is to make a choice such that you won't end up in the worst possible outcome in the game. When an iterative prisoners dilemma is played then the prisoners take a tit for tat strategy by remembering what strategies his opponent followed in previous games. This same problem can be applied to populations of organisms competing with other populations or within the populations for resources and for viable mates. In this way we can explain why a population has taken a particular strategy and why such a population behaves in such a altruistic or selfish way. It explains the behaviors of helper bees, emperor penguins, praying mantis etc. So game theory is mainly useful in evolutionary psychology and explains why animals are hard-wired in such a way and what makes them the way they are. It is these per-programmed genes which makes what we are as humans, a highly advanced cultural mammal. The game of life by John Horton Conway of the Cambridge university applies game theory in cellular automaton and explains how by starting with a few cells such highly complex patterns could be formed in his computational models. Kauffman applies mathematical models for co-evolution and explains the role of attractors, a mathematical term and his simulations shows that evolution works by period of statis followed by sudden rapid changes which sweeps through the entire eco-system and gives support to the theory of punctuated equilibrium. These books would be worth reading to know more about the applications of game theory to biology. 'Games of Life: Explorations in Ecology, Evolution and Behaviour' by Karl Sigmund has some interesting discussions of games and strategies. John Maynard Smith's book 'Did Darwin get It right?' Essays on games, sex and evolution is also well worth reading. 'The Raptor and the Lamb' by Christopher McGowan. 'The Red Hourglass: Lives of the Predators' by Gordon Grice.

It is important to note in what context it was being said. Some do come here to learn something while others come here purposely to cause trouble and I thought he was the latter kind of guy and hence such a reaction to his posts. If he had said we're all gods then I would have had more respect for him. Theism is not magic, we don't believe in everything blindly, there is rationality behind it, even God goes by some rules. If he was really going through some kind of psychological or personal problem then I really apologize to him. I do owe him an apology in that case.

You've made some valid points, Thank you. I am not saying those models are scientific. What is Science? Science is all about making models of the physical world which can be testified. Of course those models cannot be testified based on the positivist approach of science because they are not observable so that we can put an instrument and measure them but that doesn't mean they cannot be known in any other way, they can be known through intuition or immediate access if we give up our reductionist approach and take top bottom approach. Such a model should be investigated and we should speculate on whether we can turn such schools of philosophy into proper or exact sciences. As you said there are universities who give a course or help the students to study different philosophies but its not taken seriously so as to more people investigate them practically in the field and parallely with scientific education and if there is room for such philosophical models then it should be allowed to discuss its implications and investigate them and not reject them straight away. So I was very disappointed with how that thread of "personal liberty and freedom" took its direction and no one was willing to waste their time to think about it hypothetically, perhaps the thread was not framed properly and all I tried was to give a direction to the thread. If such discussions are not allowed then it is better to keep a separate webpage for religion or philosophy forums(since these are related to personal beliefs) and just place a redirect link on the mainstream science forum or if one takes them seriously only when someone comes up with positive evidence then it is better to just place a sticky thread for religion and philosophy topics in the speculation forum making a rule that one should post there only if they have credible evidence rather than rejecting, dismissing and ridiculing personalities who have worked on other schools of philosophical thought for whom some have very high due respect. For example:- Marcus Aurelius and Saint Augustine. No, science cannot give an objective account of reality, if physical objects had those physical attributes then we should have been able to predict what's happening in a quantum system without having to disturb or observe the quantum system, the violation of Bell's inequality which indicates that physical objects don't always have pre-determined values for position and momentum but they appear to possess those attributes when a measurement is being made induces enough skepticism so as to if we remove the attributes of qualia, position, momentum, polarisation, spin and other properties from a physical object then what is left of it or what IS it. This question which science refuses to answer because it cannot and also do not ensure that an element of physical reality exists for these physical quantities. The equations says all possible values for a physical quantity exists simultaneously which is very meaningless to think of and therefore the quantum system is closed and we cannot describe an objective account for such a system and all that we can measure are the possible values of the quantum system, its very nature and how it behaves at the most fundamental level is not known of. Physicists think that quantum approximations give rise to the classical world, a very good model indeed but the question is does it have an one-to-one correspondence with the objects or representations in the model with the real world objects in nature. This was the main objection of Einstein that quantum theory does not have an one-to-one correspondence with the elements in its theory and the real physical elements in the nature. That's how he came up with the EPR paradox. The experiments have upheld quantum physics which means to say that the external physical objects don't have the attributes which are being attributed by mathematical models, those attributes don't exist in the external physical world and hence science cannot give an objective account of reality. There is no one-to-one correspondance. This indicates that the objective world is very much different than how it is being described by physics and obviously the observable universe through the sense organs will be consistent with scientific models but that doesn't mean why someone who has access to manipulate the actual objective world cannot exit through the window from the 5th floor of a building. Its not that nature prevents us from doing such a thing or its like the way it is as described by science, its just we does not have a complete understanding of nature, hence we are constrained to follow the rules set up for the human mind. Those conclusions were not drawn by observation or putting an instrument to measure those entities, those conclusions are drawn by accessing new qualia through intuition (i.e through immediate direct access to knowledge) and qualia do represent some real knowledge. Most mathematicians think that they don't invent new mathematics but they just discover them and some think that integers do exist in their own realm, an idea developed by Plato and his platonic values. If anyone assert that such kind of intuitive knowledge is impossible then they have to reduce such qualia to the physical sciences but the problem is qualia are unmeasurable, we cannot measure sweetness and hence the positivist approach of science which asserts that only those things which are measurable are real cannot account for qualia but it is self evident that they exist and we experience it all the time and the positivist approach of science is not the best way to investigate them and fails miserably to understand what they are or to model them and hence we need new methods to investigate nature and "intuition" i.e knowledge gained through immediate access is one of the method through which we can gain new knowledge without using the sense organs. If those things exist and if such a method do give us some real knowledge then sure we can use them to create discrepancies or cracks in our reality and that would make it very scientific. So its not right to devalue other schools of philosophical thought either and you cannot reject those schools of philosophical thought easily without giving a valid reason, science doesn't say that such a thing is impossible and as for as evidence is concerned what efforts have been made to investigate qualia other than through the positivist approach. I mean one invest tons of pounds to build particle accelerators to smash atoms but what efforts have been made to access new direct knowledge, if you're locked up inside a room in which the events in the room are laid out by scientific models, you yourself have to come out of the room to know what's outside the room, the nature of the room is not going to create any cracks in its reality on its own because inside the room the events occur based on scientific models and it will be consistent with scientific theories. So we have to first investigate them by coming out of our positivist approach and not by asking evidence by staying within the room, if no one investigates them then obviously the world given by science is all the world that we know of and by doing so we are not investigating the nature with our full potential and this would undermine our course of actions on this cosmos without a true complete understanding of its workings.

It doesn't solve the hard problem. Roger Penrose takes a top bottom approach for the origin of the universe and deals with quantum gravity, he thinks that we have to model consciousness if we want to have a unified theory of everything. I only appreciate his mathematical side of the argument for consciousness which he thinks that human thought processes are non-computable and his idea of platonic values embedded at planck scale would make most of his theory unfalsifiable right now with no technology to test his idea. His idea only indicates that there is some new physics which we yet have to discover but that doesn't mean consciousness is in any way connected to quantum gravity or microtubules which would make most of his theory rubbish. I don't know why someone with a caliber of Roger Penrose ever had to come up with such a mumbo-jumbo idea, I would have had more respect for him if he had only argued for non-computability of consciousness processing from the mathematical side of things.

It is normally believed that angels enter human bodies from the right shoulder, I don't know how much this is true, may be your body is aware of those things while many others aren't aware of that but there can be other explanations for your bodily changes.

Yes the people of Upanishads were gnostic theists and if you think book knowledge is real knowledge then you're going to real darkness. I am talking of practical knowledge which can only be attained from a master. Just by reading something you'll not understand or get anything, one need to have revelations, that's how religion works. There are a whole lot of rituals and practices which can only be performed after you get some rights by performing a ritual. Like I said there are Brahmins who think that even other people are deserved to know this knowledge and they write them in the form of books but that kind of knowledge is not enough, they cannot give practical knowledge through books, one has to learn them personally from a master and that would make most of the practical knowledge inaccessible to other fellow men. I am in favor of mysticism, I don't object the doctrine of mysticism, what I'm objecting is your incorrect views of mysticism. You cannot attain the knowledge of absolute unity without a master. One is very clear about this. What will you practice if you don't have real practical knowledge which works all the time, such a knowledge can only come from a master. If you lack the practical knowledge to attain revelations then you have been denied access to that knowledge. The term ancient goat herders is common term which is being used in this forum saying that those people were in the dark ages. I used the term because normally I send the message to other people from my posts to you. I know if they're right they had more wisdom and knowledge than other civilizations. That's what I was intending to say from my posts that they weren't in a dark age. Yes since I'm here, I have already demonstrated why your views are incorrect and there are serious objections to your view from the seers of the upanishads themselves. No, we can know what those rituals and practices are and how they are performed by reading books, we have access to that knowledge but we don't have access to practical knowledge and not everyone have access to that kind of practical knowledge. Either we have lost them or people are not sharing that knowledge to the outside world. Let me tell you this, atheism is not scientific and neither is metaphysics, we normally dump unfalsiable theories in metaphysics and call them unscientific, science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of Gods, there are no God hypothesis in science so that we can have a set of predictions and test the existence of God to determine he exists or not. That's not how religion works, I don't have any desire to make religion scientific, it doesn't have to be scientific. 1. I seriously object those who merge modern science with mysticism, there is nothing in modern science which connects with mysticism, irrespective of gods or absolute unity exists or not, it has no implications for scientific models. Quantum Entanglement has nothing do with mysticism, mystics don't talk in terms of particles, particles has no place in mysticism. 2. Occam's razor clearly eliminates the requirement for the existence of God and the same can be used to eliminate the requirement for the existence of unity too, it doesn't make it anymore scientific, science doesn't require any absolute unity in its models. Occam's razor himself was a theist and he himself has said that religion works based on faith and revelations. Everyone accepts his criteria for the scientific method but no one accepts his criteria for theology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor#God_as_beside_the_razor Religion works by faith and revelation. Your view of absolute unity is not self evident and we have left with reasoning, revelation in the form of experience and the sacred scriptures. You only go by reason or through logic and I use revelation and the sacred scripture to harmonize reason itself by harmonizing the opposites and making the law of contradiction has invalid. If you argue by reason alone then obviously you'll find that my views are incompatible with reason. But I'm arguing from revelation and the sacred scripture and see no contradiction in stating that the personal god as well as the absolute unity is as fundamental as it is real. My view harmonizes reason, experience and also the sacred scripture. Don't tell God has to what logic he has to go by. Just because you cannot harmonize the fact that both personal God as well as absolute unity exists with your constrained human logic doesn't mean those views which comes from revelation and sacred scriptures are invalid and illogical and say that gods don't exist. Yes, its illogical to a human mind but not to a mind which has had profound revelations and even such a reasoning has equal footing as yours. Saying that one shouldn't post revelations and the scripture in a religious forum is an ignorance shown by people who don't know how religion works. The authority of the scripture as well as revelations from true scholars and philosophers should be considered. I am not saying those revelations are mine, if it was mine then I would have demonstrated some real knowledge and I would prove the existence of gods proving gnostic theism and disproving atheism and agnosticism, we didn't had to discuss anything further. Atheism, agnosticism are all beliefs and even gnostic theism is a belief and one should be allowed to criticize other person's beliefs and you can criticize mine, I like people criticizing my views because it pushes me to attain real knowledge, I take it positively but you cannot say to me not to post from revelation and the sacred scripture. In religion revelation and sacred scripture has an higher authority than logic or science. I don't have to reduce my views and make it compatible with modern science, if my views are right, modern science itself will emerge has a sub case in the theological hypothesis of a personal God. I don't have any reason to take the views of atheists and agnostics seriously just as you think that no one has to take my views seriously. Just because you talk logic and science and quote great scientist doesn't make you right. We all are intellectually dishonest and you're showing double standards saying that "I can promote my views because my views are scientific". Atheism is not scientific neither is metaphysics. All our beliefs have equal footing and it stands on its own and anyone can criticize others personal beliefs,if not you're displaying dogmatism here. That's what I said just because you talk of modern science and quote from great scientists and meta-physicians doesn't mean we have to take you seriously in a religious forum either, you're claims are as unscientific as mine and That's the reason I criticized your views and should be allowed to do so. You didn't addressed this excerpt. Yajnavalkya clearly demonstrates that the law of contradiction is invalid and he harmonizes the opposites not by logic but through revelation. Logic has not won revelation has won. If it is not your view then don't claim that "upanishads support my metaphysical theory". Clearly it doesn't. If I was not here you would have claimed that upanishads support your view when it clearly does not, now that I have shown you that your views are incorrect you're retracting from your views and saying that its not my view. If its not your view then please don't blur the distinctions of different religions and claim that upanishads support your view when it really doesn't support but ciriticize your views completely. You're moving the goal posts. Sure, your view does eliminate the father of christ and its a major issue. Christian mystics would indeed criticize the views of the roman catholic church who see the Father has someone as a sky dictator wearing a crown and say that the "Father and I are one" . You think that Father of christ exist only in our minds but that's not true, the father of christ exist independant of the mind of the observer seperate from the mind, he has objective existence, you cannot blur the distinctions present in the mystical traditions of upanishads and chrisitianity and put them on the same line.

The words of a philosopher is enough to know whether he has any true knowledge or not, one doesn't require an approval from a layman like immortal, the soon you learn this the better it is for you. Everyone can know god, one doesn't have to be a great philosopher, mathematician or a scientist because everyone is made in the image of God, we're all gods. It means revelation is what is required to know truth not logic or metaphysics. There is no point in reading 101 upanishads if you don't have any revelations about them, a person who has revelations and really understood a single upanishad will have more knowledge compared to a person who has read 101 upanishads. The point is one must look for real and true knowledge. Yes, I may be a fool and silly to think that the world is made up of just five elements and that they're anthropomprphic gods in a 21'st century world, yes you don't have any trouble in the plotline of matrix if the external physical world was run by artificial intelligence agents or by extraterrestrial beings but no one sees the possibility of anthropomorphic gods existing in the external physical world and they have no clue as to what the external physical world looks like. The point is its not how logical a view is, its about does nature favours that view, that's more important, don't tell nature how it should be. Yes if they reject the traditional religious models by thinking that those goat herders were naive people then they'll laugh at us and its not the other way around and their view of the world has to be taken seriously. They're making a fool of themselves if they reject the traditional religious models even when they're aware of it but if they're not aware of it then they are just misinformed. I criticize scholars who mix modern science and the absolute unity, its no way they're connected to each other by any imagination, the view of absolute unity requires a completely different world view. If you want to adhere yourself to schroedinger and don't want to overcome your misconceptions then its fine by me but don't expect people to just accept his views without criticizing his views in the first place, I have given my criticisms to his views. That's what I criticize the doctrine of Upanishads is mainly a theistic doctrine and it says the doctrine of Buddhism is false and you seem to put all of them in line with your metaphysical theory blurring the essential distinctions necessary to understand those doctrines which is very much incorrect. All religions of the world stands on its own, you can put them on the same line by eliminating gods. The same is for you why should I not criticize your view of Christianity, what evidence do you have for your view, just because some great scientists hold your view doesn't make it right. Not all christian mystics agree with your view which eliminates the Father of Christ from a fundamental reality.

Thank god you addressed my post atlast. I don't see any reasonable rebuttal being made but all you've made is an appeal to authority. Well, let me get you to this straight, I have studied only one upanishad and it is the Isha Upanishad, it is one of the most significant upanishads, a short upanishad with just 18 sutras and more importantly Isha Upanishad is Yajnavalkya's upanishad which you quote his words quite often and in reality upanishads have no authors. http://www.aurobindo.ru/workings/sa/04/0010_e.htm This link above shows why everything is not as simple as you seem to think. As you can see the Isha Upanishad of yajnavalkya rejects the law of contradiction and harmonizes the extreme views not by logic but through revelation, with his knowledge of God. You cannot accept this because you think everything should go by logic but the upanishad of yajnavalkya says the opposite, to him the Personal God and the absolute unity is as fundamental as it is real. For you this is a contradiction but for a man who knows god he doesn't see any contradiction and he accepts both the personal God as well as the absolute unity. You accepted the view of those untrue scholars who don't have real revelations not because its true, its mainly because their view support your metaphysical theory, because they quote from great scientists, because they speak about modern science, which is to say that you were misinformed by those scholars. Pushan is one of the name of the Sun God and you can verify it by looking it up. The seer yajnavalkya of this Upanishad is clearly praying to a personal God and pleading him to reduce the intensity of his effulgent light rays so that he can see him and attain the knowledge that God and He are one. You think Gods are just misrepresentations which don't really exist and your view is so incorrect. The Vedas and Upanishads is purely a theistic doctrine and God lies at the heart of their fundamental reality. When christian mystics say that "I and my Father are one" it really means that the Father exists independent of the mind of the seer and the mind itself comes from the Father, he is the basis of the objective world made up of five elements and it is through the knowledge of Father that one realizes that He and God are one. You don't accept that Gods exist independent of the mind of the observer which is also an incorrect view. So don't try to bring christianity in line with Upanishads and schroedinger, Christianity stands on its own. You think that only knowledge of the absolute unity is possible but that's not entirely true, the knowledge of the external physical world of God made up of just five elements earth, water, air, fire and space is possible too and only those wise men who have knowledge of God can have a reconciliation between the external physical world of god, the world of absolute unity and the world of physical sciences. The word Isa means Ishvara or the Sun God, vasya means covering or like occupying a house, sarvam means everything, jagatyam jagat means all things which are mobile and immobile. It means the the whole world, everything is made of and occupied by the god of the gods, the Isa or Pushan or Purusha and he controls the world with his pantheon of Gods. I am not talking of the world described by the natural sciences, I am talking of the external physical world made up of anthropomorphic gods. Google it to know more about the Interpretation of Isha Upanishad As for appeal to authority is concerned my post speaks for itself and there are whole lot of secret knowledge held by orthodox Brahmins who are not willing to share their knowledge with the outside world. We have to get knowledge from people who think that everyone deserves to know this knowledge.