immortal

People often try to find explanations for correlations because such correlations demand explanations. There is a lot of difference between saying, "Most societies which are religious tend to have lower standard of living and worse social conditions" and saying, "Most societies which have a low standard of living and worse social conditions tend to be extremely religious." See what I mean, if you were not making an attempt to causally link religion with poverty then frame you sentences in the right context rather than using words like "tendency" which means a causal influence leading to a certain effect. They are only a minority of people who misinterpret religious texts for their justification for cruel acts, it is definitely not the opinion of genuine muslims. Its wrong to put the blame on religion for someone misinterpreting and misusing religion, just because someone misused a technology doesn't mean that the science behind that technology is bad.

No, its not my problem, its a problem faced by many members who have participated in this thread which you have not addressed to. Its quite obvious that you are arguing for the position that religion correlates to poverty, worse societies and bad living conditions which is a causal fallacy as supported by that study.

Ah, that's a cop out, this is exactly what you claimed, "In fact, societies which are the most religious tend to have the worst poverty and the worst living conditions." You put religion as the root cause for the worst poverty and the worst living conditions prevailing in many of the societies which is obviously wrong, try to show some honesty and accept the truth as they are.

From the second link: One theory is that religion plays a more functional role in the world's poorest countries, helping many residents cope with a daily struggle to provide for themselves and their families. I think that's true. If your life is hard, you can lean on religion and the thought that a better life awaits you. I guess I wasn't so active when this thread was being discussed but any ways I think I have something valuable to add to this thread. I don't agree with iNow that religion is the root cause behind producing lower standard of living and poverty stricken societies as this study contradicts his conclusion, natural selection is favouring those genetic changes which makes women to reproduce very early in their life since they carry a higher reproductive success and genes do affect human behaviour and therefore the call to reproduce and to drop out from higher university education by women may very well have been influenced by genetic factors rather than by religion. iNow seems to make wrong conclusions which are often biased towards his preconceived beliefs and notions without caring to know what the truth is, especially when it comes to matters of religion. http://www.websterworld.com/websterworld/scienceupdates/a/arehumansstillevolving549.html I agree with your proposed theory, yes lack of good quality education especially for women and also for men does affect the family size and that leads to poverty and a lower standard of living and in turn leads to urge to reproduce in dozens to back up for the bad decisions made in family planning and that leads to look for hope from somewhere outside and greatly force them to believe in superstition and a miraculous God. But I don't agree with iNow's conclusion that religion is somehow behind in producing worse societies, where does religion stop women from taking higher university education or influence women not to take up higher university education? (It is the education of women which is the main cause of higher standard of living and not the mere absence of religion in a society). Also it is wrong on your part to suggest that higher education or an higher intellect make one a non-believer as the saying goes "Don't limit your knowledge by saying God did it" but actually it is much of this intellectuality and our understanding of the workings of the universe which force us to envision a superior entity, scientific education and religious belief aren't mutually exclusive, perhaps only for a minority of dogmatic religious fundamentalists.

Philosophy is the universal Set and science and religion are its subsets, that's why we have a philosophy of science and a philosophy of religion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_religion

That's exactly the kind of connection that Bernard D'Espagnat has put forward in his theory of consciousness. - Jonathon Duqette, philosopher of religion.

Welcome to SFN, I guess the third largest science forums in the world. I go the other way round I figure out what properties God should not have based on recent empirical evidences,this is known as negative theology, for example, if all evidence is pointing to idealism then God should be a personal God. - Carl Jung, Seven Sermons to the Dead. http://gnosis.org/library/7Sermons.htm#Sermo_II

Kindly ignore scholars, scientists turned philosophers and metaphysicians who try to mix Advaita with either modern science or with metaphysics, the only path they lead us is into a blind darkness but read scholars who study religion in its own milieu giving respect to the traditional view. Only fools think that they can understand Brahman and God through logic and dogmatically claim that they know the truth but their scholarship is worth nothing and they know nothing.

That's the point I'm making science cannot go beyond mere appearances of phenomena, it is the science of occult which gives us the true nature of things as it exists, you said the future as a whole already exists which is not a bad idea but in what sense, these are the questions which science cannot penetrate and know the true nature of things as it exists, the reality which exists out there might be completely different than the kind of ontology you are using. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJVDeusOfFM The nature of time which is the subject of ontology is beyond the knowable of science and its nature is completely different from the conceptualization of time that we make using mathematical relationships which are only mere appearances of phenomena. I do believe that the future as a whole already exists but the empirical sciences cannot know in what sense it exists, it is the science of the occult which deals with nature of the things. The Science of prophecy is also an another hypothesis which need to be tested. "Do practitioners of yoga attain paranormal abilities? The third book of the Yoga-Sūtras deals in detail with the attainment of supernormal power (e.g., Woods, 1998). Upon mastery of fixed-attention, contemplation and concentration, practitioners of the yoga method can be expected to have many such abilities, among them to be able to see into the future, read the thoughts of other persons, and make their bodies indiscernible (see also Paranjpe, 1982). Again, similar claims are made for Tibetan Buddhists who have attained the state of pure consciousness. Apart from the above, the abilities postulated include various forms of extrasensory perception, recalling one’s previous lifetimes, moving through solid objects, walking on water, or multiplying one’s own forms (Wallace, 1999, p. 185). There seems to be already some preliminary evidence in favor of the general hypothesis (and probably some more against it) from systematic studies, but the empirical basis, at least as systematic research attempts are concerned is still rather scarce (Ramakrishna Rao, 1982; Ramakrishna Rao, Dukhan & Krishna Rao, 1978). Also for the examination of this hypothesis, it would probably be a good idea to review all the available evidence before conducting new studies. " - Peter Sedlmeier, Indian Psychology and the Scientific method. The nature of time should not be treated as something objectively existing even time is idealistic and is a manifestation of a Aeon(Gnosticism) of the Pleroma. ^ Schopenhauer wrote of this Neoplatonist philosopher: "With Plotinus there even appears, probably for the first time in Western philosophy, idealism that had long been current in the East even at that time, for it taught (Enneads, iii, lib. vii, c.10) that the soul has made the world by stepping from eternity into time, with the explanation: 'For there is for this universe no other place than the soul or mind' (neque est alter hujus universi locus quam anima), indeed the ideality of time is expressed in the words: 'We should not accept time outside the soul or mind' (oportet autem nequaquam extra animam tempus accipere)." (Parerga and Paralipomena, Volume I, "Fragments for the History of Philosophy," § 7) ^ Similarly, professor Ludwig Noiré wrote: "For the first time in Western philosophy we find idealism proper in Plotinus (Enneads, iii, 7, 10), where he says, "The only space or place of the world is the soul," and "Time must not be assumed to exist outside the soul."

Nope, Indra, Soma, Agni, Prana etc are anthropomorphic gods with whom you can have a dialogue with. The sooner you realize the epistemology of modern science is different from that of eastern religions and that they are epistemologically incompatible the better is for you.

Well you were the one who claimed Indra, Agni, Soma etc and other gods are just mythological stories and that they do not exist, in the very beginning of our discussion. Isn't it? That was the cause of this confusion, have you changed your mind now? The concept of Vedic deities are as important as the concept of Brahman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occult#Science_and_the_occult Science and the occult To the occultist, occultism is conceived of as the study of the inner nature of things, as opposed to the outer characteristics that are studied by science. The German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer designates this "inner nature" with the term Will, and suggests that science and mathematics are unable to penetrate beyond the relationship between one thing and another in order to explain the "inner nature" of the thing itself, independent of any external causal relationships with other "things". Schopenhauer also points towards this inherently relativistic nature of mathematics and conventional science in his formulation of the 'World as Will'. By defining a thing solely in terms of its external relationships or effects we only find its external, or explicit nature. Occultism, on the other hand, is concerned with the nature of the "thing-in-itself". This is often accomplished through direct perceptual awareness, known as mysticism. From the scientific perspective, occultism is regarded as unscientific as it does not make use of the standard scientific method to obtain facts. I honestly don't think Brahman has anything to do with science or with quantum mechanics or even with metaphysics. This is not science for we use different methods like intuitive reasoning and rely on psychological observation i.e by directly accessing the numinous or the noumenal and more importantly we are not studying the empirical world at all and hence this is mysticism or esotercism and this is not science. As Schopenhauer and Bernard D'Espagnat say science cannot get beyond mere appearances of phenomena and study the things which exists in itself, the noumenon. I strongly suggest to abandon this approach of linking these esoteric concepts with either science or with metaphysics, these things are not what you think they are. There cannot be an equation for Brahman and nor can science study it, its quite silly and based on a very serious misunderstanding of Religion. My goal is not to prove these things using science because science can never dwell into those things but to show scientists why it is so compelling to invest their time in esotericism rather than seeing it with contempt eyes and rejecting it al together from the academia as a whole, I am arguing for a scientific field of esotericism and not for the exact sciences like physics or chemistry. I think this makes it very clear. The deep understanding that we have no access to ultimate reality in the “new physics” but only to “shadows on the wall,” had a significant impact on the great physicists of the last century: it led the most sensitive among them to look “outside the cave,” i.e., beyond physics, to know more about this reality. Their interest for the doctrines, ideas and concepts of Eastern philosophies corroborates this. It is not, as many authors believe, that there are particular affinities between the world views of physics and mysticism. As Wilber rightly points out, it was the “radical failure of physics, and not its supposed similarities to mysticism, that paradoxically led so many physicists to a mystical view of the world.” - Jonathon Duqette, philosopher of religion. It is the business of physics to give true descriptions of objectively existing objects such as the moon. Philosophers refer to this sort of claim as "scientific realism". According to Einstein, the whole purpose of science is to get behind the phenomena of experimental data and their mathematical description to the real world that underlies them. As he put it, "Reality is the business of physics". He believed, to the end, that the goal of science was to discover the way the world really is as opposed to our perceptions and conceptions of it, and that orthodox quantum theory had not only failed to achieve such a goal but had prematurely abandoned any such quest. - DOES THE MOON EXIST ONLY WHEN SOMEONE IS LOOKING AT IT? Raymond D. Bradley It was not the similarities between quantum mechanics and Vedanta that attracted physicists of the past century into it rather it was the failure of quantum mechanics to give a complete objective account of reality was what led physicists to look for alternative philosophical models of reality. Quantum mechanics and Advaita have no similarities between each other whatsoever.

Like many others you have misunderstood the concept of Brahman, when I talk of Vedic deities I am not talking of sky gods, I am talking of inner gods, gods which exists with in you, all these gods are emanations of Brahman. Many academic scholars have failed to understand the all very important concept of Ishvara in Advaita Vedanta. Vedic Deities and Yoga http://www.vedanet.com/2012/06/vedic-deities-and-yoga/ "From the eastern viewpoint and especially the yoga traditions, it is impossible to separate yoga from the deities as they represent the universal forces of creation and transformation." It is impossible to separate the Vedic deities from yoga, many people are ignorant of this and they think that the eastern religions are atheistic, that's a serious misunderstanding, the eastern viewpoint is just the opposite and according to it, gods are real and these gods are everywhere in all aspects of human existence and in all aspects of human life - James Hillman. Whether you take Buddhism or Hinduism, the deities in it are very important and without them there is no non-dualism and no Brahman. To better understand this concept read about Adi Buddha which exists in the Vajrayana tradition of Buddhism. What are the divine light rays that I frequently talk about which is the very basis of Vedas and Vedic Knowledge? To see a sample read this - These divine light rays emanate from the body of Deities which is the very basis of all Vedic knowledge, even Shankara knew about this, its quite silly to say Advaita is atheistic, no without these deities there is no Advaita, no non-dualism and no Brahman. It existed from the very beginning of the Vedic era. No one is arguing for a God who is looking us from above, I am arguing for a personal God, the inner God which resides in you and the one who is stimulating your mind and Intellect to do noble deeds, this is what I'm arguing for.

Tell that to someone who is ignorant of tradition, they might easily buy your ignorance but not to me. "Vivekananda was one such strong opponent of the Aryan Invasion Theory. He boldly challenged in this way (5:534-535): "And what your European pundits say about the Aryans swooping down from some foreign land, snatching away the lands of the aborigines and settling in India by exterminating them, is all pure nonsense, foolish talk! In what Veda, in what Sukta do you find that the Aryans came into India from a foreign country? Where do you get the idea that they slaughtered the wild aborigines? What do you gain by talking such nonsense? Strange that our Indian scholars, too, say amen to them; and all these monstrous lies are being taught to our boys!... Whenever the Europeans find an opportunity, they exterminate the aborigines and settle down with ease and comfort on their lands; and therefore they think the Aryans must have done the same!... But where is your proof? Guess work? Then keep your fanciful ideas to yourself. I strongly protested against these ideas at the Paris Congress. I have been talking with the Indian and European savants on the subject, and hope to raise many objections to this theory in detail, when time permits. And this I say to you–to our pundits–also, ‘You are learned men, hunt up your old books and scriptures, please, and draw your own conclusions.’ This was the genesis of his great enterprise, translating the Rig Veda with Sayana's commentary and the editing of the fifty-volume Sacred Books of the East. In this way, there can be no doubt regarding Max Muller’s initial aim and commitment to converting Indians to Christianity. Writing to his wife in 1866 he observed: "It [the Rig Veda] is the root of their religion and to show them what the root is, I feel sure, is the only way of uprooting all that has sprung from it during the last three thousand years." Two years later he also wrote the Duke of Argyle, then acting Secretary of State for India: "The ancient religion of India is doomed. And if Christianity does not take its place, whose fault will it be?" This makes it very clear that Max Muller was an agent of the British government paid to advance its colonial interests. Nonetheless, he still remained an ardent German nationalist even while working in England. This helps explain why he used his position as a recognized Vedic and Sanskrit scholar to promote the idea of the "Aryan race" and the "Aryan nation," a theory amongst a certain class of so-called scholars, which has maintained its influence even until today." http://www.stephen-knapp.com/aryan_invasion_theory_the_final_nail_in_its_coffin.htm Its quite disappointing to see that those who claim themselves to be Hindus don't know the truth about their own religion. Max Muller himself knew the truth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Iranian_religion "Max Müller believed that Indo-Iranian religion began as sun worship." What is the secret of the Vedas? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yajnavalkya "According to tradition, Yājñavalkya was the son of Devarāta and was the pupil of sage Vaisampayana .[3] Once, Vaisampayana got angry with Yājñavalkya as the latter argued too much to separate some latter additions to Yajurveda in being abler than other students. The angry teacher asked his pupil Yājñavalkya to give back all the knowledge of Yajurveda that he had taught him.[3] As per the demands of his Guru, Yājñavalkya vomited all the knowledge that he acquired from his teacher in form of digested food. Other disciples ofVaisampayana took the form of partridge birds and consumed the digested knowledge (a metaphor for knowledge in its simplified form without the complexities of the whole but the simplicity of parts) because it was knowledge and they were very eager to receive the same.[3] The Saṃskṛt name for partridge is "Tittiri". As the Tittiri (partridge) birds ate this Veda, it is thenceforth called the Taittirīya Yajurveda. It is also known as Kṛṣṇa Yajurveda or Black-Yajurveda on account of it being a vomited substance. The Taittirīya Saṃhitā thus belongs to this Yajurveda.[4] Then Yājñavalkya determined not to have any human guru thereafter. Thus he began to propitiate the Sun God, Surya. Yājñavalkya worshipped and extolled the Sun, the master of the Vedas, for the purpose of acquiring the fresh Vedic portions not known to his preceptor, Vaiśampāyana.[5] The Sun God, pleased with Yājñavalkya penance, assumed the form of a horse and graced the sage with such fresh portions of the Yajurveda as were not known to any other. This portion of the Yajurveda goes by the name of Śukla Yajurveda or White-Yajurveda on account of it being revealed by Sun. It is also known as Vajasaneya Yajurveda, because it was evolved in great rapidity by Sun who was in the form of a horse through his manes.The rhythm of recital of these vedas is therefore to the rhythm of the horse canter and distinguishes itself from the other forms of veda recitals. In Sanskrit, term "Vaji" means horse. Yājñavalkya divided this Vajasaneya Yajurveda again into fifteen branches, each branch comprising hundreds of Yajus Mantras. Sages like Kanva, Madhyandina and others learnt those and Śukla Yajurveda branched into popular recensions named after them.[3] It is important to note that within the hierarchy of Brāhmaṇas, certain sects believe in the Kṛṣṇa Yajurveda while others practice from the Śukla Yajurveda. Two important sects of Telugu Brāhmaṇas with a belief in Śukla Yajurveda are the Niyogis who are further sub-divided into sub-sects like Prathama Sakha Niyogis (śukla yaju) and Aaru Velu Niyogis (kṛṣṇa yaju) (aaru-velu = six-thousand Saṃskṛt) Yājñavalkya married two wives. One was Maitreyi and the other Katyaayanee.[6] Of the two, Maitreyi was a Brahmavadini (one who is interested in the knowledge of Brahman).The descendant sects of Brahmans are the progeny of the first wife Katyaayanee. When Yājñavalkya wished to divide his property between the two wives, Maitreyi asked whether she could become immortal through wealth. Yājñavalkya replied that there was no hope of immortality through wealth and that she would only become one among the many who were well-to-do on.[3] When she heard this, Maitreyi asked Yājñavalkya to teach her what he considered as the best. Then Yājñavalkya described to her the greatness of the Absolute Self, the nature of its existence, the way of attaining infinite knowledge and immortality, etc. This immortal conversation between Yājñavalkya and Maitreyi is recorded in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.[7] Wisdom of Yājñavalkya is shown in Brhadaranyaka Upanishad where he gives his teachings to his wife Maitreyi and King Janaka.[3] He also participates in a competition arranged by King Janaka about the selecting great Brhama Jnani (knower of Brahman). His intellectual dialogues withGargi (a learned scholar of the times) form a beautiful chapter filled with lot of philosophical and mystical question-answers in Brhadaranyaka Upanishad.[3] In the end, Yājñavalkya took Vidvat Sanyasa (renunciation after the attainment of the knowledge of Brahman) and retired to the forest. It is believed that during the spiritual cleansing of Kshatriya males by Parshurama, the noble families were unable to find suitable male suitors for the princesses. During this period, some of the descendants of Yājñavalkya were offered these princesses as brides as they were the only sects bestowed with the quality of pride amongst the various Brahman sects. Thus a new line of brahman nobility was created in the social hierarchy (prathama shakhi) advising the king on the spiritual and administrative aspects of ruling the kingdom. Yājñavalkya was one of the greatest sages ever known. His precepts as contained in the Upanishads (the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad) stand foremost as the crest-jewel of the highest teachings on knowledge of Brahman.[3] Most of the Hindu Laws today are based on the Yājñavalkya Smriti." Who is the master of the Vedas? Yes, it is the holistic Sun-god, the one who is situated at the centre of the Agnisoma Mandala of the gods. Without him there is no Vedas, no Upanishads and no revelation about Brahman. Hinduism is a sun-god worshipping religion, the truth of true Hinduism. You want evidence from the Upanishads? 8 Fools, dwelling in darkness, but wise in their own conceit and puffed up with vain scholarship, wander about, being afflicted by many ills, like blind men led by the blind. 9 Children, immersed in ignorance in various ways, flatter themselves, saying: We have accomplished life's purpose. Because these performers of karma do not know the Truth owing to their attachment, they fall from heaven, misery— stricken, when the fruit of their work is exhausted. 10 Ignorant fools, regarding sacrifices and humanitarian works as the highest, do not know any higher good. Having enjoyed their reward on the heights of heaven, gained by good works, they enter again this world or a lower one. 11 But those wise men of tranquil minds who lives in the forest on alms, practising penances appropriate to their stations of life and contemplating such deities as Hiranyagarbha, depart, freed from impurities, by the Path of the Sun, to the place where that immortal Person dwells whose nature is imperishable. - Mundaka Upanishad. 9 Into a blind darkness they enter who are devoted to ignorance (rituals); but into a greater darkness they enter who engage in knowledge of a deity alone. 10 One thing, they say, is obtained from knowledge; another, they say, from ignorance. Thus we have heard from the wise who have taught us this. 11 He who is aware that both knowledge and ignorance should be pursued together, overcomes death through ignorance and obtains immortality through knowledge. 12 Into a blind darkness they enter who worship only the unmanifested prakriti; but into a greater darkness they enter who worship the manifested Hiranyagarbha. 13 One thing, they say, is obtained from the worship of the manifested; another, they say, from the worship of the unmanifested. Thus we have heard from the wise who taught us this. 14 He who knows that both the unmanifested prakriti and the manifested Hiranyagarbha should be worshipped together, overcomes death by the worship of Hiranyagarbha and obtains immortality through devotion to prakriti. - Isha Upanishad. No one is saying there are two things, there is only one thing that is Brahman(The Self) and everything is an emanation from it. Where the barbaric interpretation of the scholars and where the esoteric interpretation of the tradition. LoL, if anyone thinks that the academicians know about Hinduism better than the natives then god help them.

My point is that very very few religious people or genuine theists are interested in explaining the missing matter in the universe through religion rather they are more concerned with understanding their relationship with God. Religion isn't about how Grand Canyon was formed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0w0eshXr2U

Well, I don't believe in anti-matter because some alien abducties claim that antimatter exists, I believe it because physicists have created a lump of anti-hydrogen in their labs and they have trapped it using laser cooling and a magnetic trap. If you want to discuss about UFO's then watch this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0gZMFD34Vc

Actually God indeed works in such mysterious ways even though he is in every facet of science. It is something of a paradox that we are within God, yet we do not recognize or know him. As Valentinus says, "It was quite amazing that they were in the Father without being acquainted with him and that they alone were able to emanate, inasmuch as they were not able perceive and recognize the one in whom they were" (Gospel of Truth 22:27-32) That doesn't mean we cannot know him or study him, we can indeed know God, see him and be One with him. Gospel of Mary According to the Gospel of Mary Magdelene, Jesus himself articulates the essence of Nous: "There where is the nous, lies the treasure." Then I said to him: "Lord, when someone meets you in a Moment of Vision, is it through the soul [psuchē] that they see, or is it through the spirit [pneuma]?" The Teacher answered: "It is neither through the soul nor the spirit, but the nous between the two which sees the vision..." —The Gospel of Mary Magdelene, p. 10 I honestly don't think the epistemology of religion is same as the epistemology of science, its incorrect to mix science and religion like you have done here, I am not a proponent of intelligent design and nor do I think antimatter has anything to do with god, if scientific realism turns out to be true then I will indeed give up my belief in God and proclaim myself as a strong atheist because I don't think God had used Big Bang and DNA to create the universe and life on earth.

Yes, people should be taught facts and not fiction, they should be taught the truth and not the lie. "Do not suppose that the resurrection is an illusion. It is not an illusion; rather it is something real. Instead, one ought to maintain that the world is an illusion, rather than resurrection" (Treatise on Resurrection 48: 12-17). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind%E2%80%93body_problem#Views_of_the_pioneers_of_quantum_mechanics "Wolfgang Pauli interpreted the laws of quantum mechanics as leading to a lucid Platonic mysticism, a position intermediate between the skepticism of Western science centered on objective observer-independent facts, and the philosophies of ancient Eastern mysticism which put primary emphasis on conscious experience. Werner Heisenberg reported on Pauli's position, and his own, as follows:[44] ...Pauli once spoke of two limiting conceptions, both of which have been extraordinarily fruitful in the history of human thought, although no genuine reality corresponds to them. At one extreme is the idea of an objective world, pursuing its regular course in space and time, independently of any kind of observing subject; this has been the guiding image of modern science. At the other extreme is the idea of a subject, mystically experiencing the unity of the world and no longer confronted by an object or by any objective world; this has been the guiding image of Asian mysticism. Our thinking moves somewhere in the middle, between these two limiting conceptions; we should maintain the tension resulting from these two opposites." Welcome to our world of Platonic mysticism, The Real World: Nous and Buddhi. Nous - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nous Buddhi - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhi

All those alternative schools of thought which you had mentioned are lost causes in theoretical physics. Hidden variables programs - http://www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/~streater/lostcauses.html#I "This subject has been thoroughly worked out and is now understood. A thesis on this topic, even a correct one, will not get you a job." Bohmian mechanics - http://www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/~streater/lostcauses.html#XI This subject was assessed by the NSF of the USA as follows [Cushing, J. T., review of Bohm, D., and Hiley, B., The Undivided Universe, Foundations of Physics, 25, 507, 1995.] "...The causal interpretation [of Bohm] is inconsistent with experiments which test Bell's inequalities. Consequently...funding...a research programme in this area would be unwise". Everett's Many world Interpretation - http://www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/~streater/lostcauses.html#XII As it is said by Max Planck, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die." John Wheeler who was a strong supporter of Everett's many-worlds interpretation has expressed doubts. In response to a questioner at a symposium held in Princeton in 1979 to mark the centenary of Einstein's birth, he expressed his revised views on the many worlds theory as follows: I confess that I have reluctantly had to give up my support of that point of view in the end --much I have advocated it in the beginning--because I am afraid it carries too great a load of metaphysical baggage. -Wheeler, J., "Some strangeness in the Proportion", ed, Harry Woolf, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1980, pp.385-6. It is best to say that the radical implications of quantum mechanics isn't much appreciated by majority of the physicists apart from a few physicists like Bohr, Pauli, Heisenberg and Wheeler. On the Interpretation and Philosophical foundation of Quantum Mechanics, Anton Zeilinger. http://www.quantum.at/fileadmin/quantum/documents/Interpretation_and_Philosophical_Foundation_of_Quantum_Mechanics.pdf Abstract When investigating various interpretations of quantum mechanics one notices that each interpretation contains an element which escapes a complete and full description. This element is always associated with the stochasticity of the individual event in the quantum measurement process. It appears that the implications of this limit to any description of the world has not been sufficiently appreciated with notable exceptions of, for example, Heisenberg, Pauli and Wheeler. If we assume that a deeper foundation of quantum mechanics is possible, the question arises which features such a philosophical foundation might have. It is suggested that the objective randomness of the individual quantum event is a necessity of a description of the world in view of the significant influence the observer in quantum mechanics has. It is also suggested that the austerity of the Copenhagen interpretation should serve as a guiding principle in a search for deeper understanding. Any attempt at a naive realistic interpretation of quantum mechanics is just a desperate attempt to save a classical picture of the world and a sign of evasion and dodging important questions. Evelyn Fox-Keller[31] has claimed, as another hint at the lack of such a paradigm, that there exists a cognitive repression of the interpretation problem by the majority of physicists. For that majority the questions concerning the meaning of quantum mechanics are answered once and for all by the Copenhagen interpretation, and all further inquiry is rejected as a sign that the inquirer does not understand the topic. Further questions are called "only philosophical" and thus not befitting a physicist. But if one inquires in depth what the Copenhagen interpretation says one gets a variety of different answers. According to Fox-Keller this, too, is a sign for evasion, whereby what is evaded is the necessity of a new cognitive structure which differs radically from the existing one. Fox Keller calls the old structure classical objectivism. To her, the confusion concerning the interpretation of quantum mechanics exists, thus, in the attempt to retain one or more components of the classical position. While this may be as it is; I suggest that the search for interpretations different from the Copenhagen interpretation very often is motivated by trying to evade its radical consequences, that is, an act of cognitive repression on the part of the proposers. Bohr knew we need to give special attention on the very act of observation or measurement itself. N. Bohr: Die Einheit der Wissenschaft. (The Unity of Science.) Lecture held on the occasion of the 200th anniversary of Columbia University. "Complementarity means in no way an abandonment of our position as detached observers. It should, on the contrary, be seen as a logical expression of our situation concerning objective description in this area of experience. The realization that the interaction between measuring devices and the physical systems forms an integrating part of quantum phenomena, has not only revealed an unexpected limitation of the mechanistic view of nature which attributes well defined properties to the objects themselves, but it has forced us to give special attention to the problem of observation when ordering the experiences." When Bohm and Hiley raised certain problems with the mind causes collapse interpretation of quantum mechanics they themselves provided a solution to it but they didn't go an and take such a solution seriously because they were not aware of eastern philosophical models of the mind and hence concluded it as a mystery. "A more serious criticism is hinted at by Bohm and Hiley [bH93, §2.4]. They write that “it is difficult to believe that the evolution of the universe before the appearance of human beings depended fundamentally on the human mind”. This criticism can be expanded as follows. Assuming that the only minds belong to humans and to certain animals, the universe in this interpretation would initially undergo no wave function collapse. If that were true, the universe’s wave function would become a linear superposition of many different possibilities and human beings or animals would not come into existence at any well-defined moment. It is therefore difficult to see at what point minds could start to observe the universe. Bohm and Hiley write “Of course one could avoid this difficulty by assuming a universal mind. But if we know little about the human mind, we know a great deal less about a universal mind. Such an assumption replaces one mystery by an even greater one.”. Indeed, if the interpretation were correct and if there were minds observing points outside human and animal brains, we would not know were to start looking for the quantum effects they must be causing!" There is no mystery here our ancients not only knew about the human mind they also knew about the universal mind and it can be empirically tested. Idealism in Ancient Philosophy "The oldest reference to Idealism in Hindu texts is in Purusha Sukta of the Rig Veda. This sukta espouses panentheism by presenting cosmic being Purusha as both pervading all universe and yet being transcendent to it.Absolute idealism can be seen in Chāndogya Upaniṣad, where things of the objective world like the five elements and the subjective world such as will, hope, memory etc. are seen to be emanations from the Self." All scientific evidence is pointing to the Pleroma of God and that's what scientists need to research rather than throwing these texts into the dustbin.

I very well know that I am on a science forum and I will show you how science and religion is converging and since you're not reading the links which I had already given to you I might have to make you read and make everyone understand since some are not willing to click on the links which I had provided before. So Sorry for this long post. The Nine Lives of Schrodinger’s Cat On the interpretation of non-relativistic quantum mechanics. Zvi Schreiber http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9501014v5.pdf Facts established from experiments strongly suggest that there is a non-physical mind and the measurement problem has not been solved for almost over a century and its mainly because science lacks a successful model of the human mind and what surprising is that not even a single reference is made to eastern philosophical notions of the mind in the philosophy section which could have given some amazing new insights to this idea. Unfortunately many academicians in the west don't know about eastern philosophical models of the mind and they are often personally biased against this idea because it doesn't allow an atheistic view of our existence in the cosmos. This is the kind of double standards that atheistic scientists are showing even though facts established from experiments and nature has shown that their views of the cosmos are wrong. Why should scientists hope for a different interpretation of quantum mechanics? Its simply because if one takes this interpretation very seriously it shatters their cornerstone beliefs and their ego-trip. Therefore me having investigated both modern science and the eastern philosophy and their science cannot let such bias against a very important idea and force one to abandon this research programme and look for an alternative realistic interpretation so that they can somehow desperately save scientific realism. This is the big mistake which many with in the scientific community are making just because they are too much hooked into their atheistic pre-conceived notions and beliefs and doesn't want to let them go even though there are credible evidence against their beliefs. So I am basically doing the exact opposite that is to take this research programme and this idea very seriously which has been side lined by atheistic scientists because of their ignorance and their cultural bias. Yes at the core of this, is my religion, the Tibetan Vajrayana Buddhism, Gnostic Christianity and the Vedic Aryan religion which can be put forward together as a single theory and in the midst of it is Western and Indian psychology and that's what this thread is all about. Psychologists are working on to test this hypotheses and how it can be incorporated into a scientific method but most of them in the academic community are not seem to be aware of this and as I will show you this is a serious research and the implications of it are earth shattering, I am not here to preach. http://www.ipi.org.in/second/teaching-ip.php How to do research in Indian Psychology? There is as yet no simple, comprehensive guideline on how to do research in Indian Psychology. There are, however a number of articles that deal with the basic principles, and that can help to find one's way. This article has been included with only a few minor changes in Matthijs Cornelissen, Girishwar Mishra and Suneet Varma (eds.) (2011), Foundations of Indian Psychology (Vol. 1), New-Delhi: Pearson. A slightly revised version of this article has been included in Matthijs Cornelissen, Girishwar Mishra and Suneet Varma (eds.) (2011), Foundations of Indian Psychology (Vol. 1), New-Delhi: Pearson. For a clear exposition of how the existing and well-established methods of mainstream psychology can be applied to Indian Psychology one may consult: Sedlmeier, Peter (2007), 'Indian Psychology and the Scientific Method'. For an excellent survey of the methods used in Transpersonal Psychology, one may consult: Braud, William (2007), 'Integrating yoga epistemology and ontology into an expanded integral approach to research'. For an introduction to first-person, yoga-based research in Indian psychology, one could have a look at the following three articles: - This article looks from an experiential angle at the different types of knowledge that are involved in yoga-based research. - A slightly shorter version has been included in Matthijs Cornelissen, Girishwar Mishra and Suneet Varma (eds.) (2011), Foundations of Indian Psychology (Vol. 1), New-Delhi: Pearson. This gives the basic argument why rigorous, yoga-based, research of first person experience is necessary to take Psychology further. Cornelissen, R. M. Matthijs (2006), 'What is knowledge? A reflection based on the work of Sri Aurobindo'. Cornelissen, R. M. Matthijs (2007), 'In Defence of Rigorous Subjectivity', in Transpersonal Psychology Review (BPS), Vol. 14 (1), 2007. Cornelissen, R. M . Matthijs (2011), Research about yoga and research in yoga.This article tries to explain how first-person, yoga-based research can be made rigorous and reliable. Read the article Indian Psychology and the Scientific Method by Peter Sedlmeier, it clearly outlines the hypothesis which need to be tested, the differences between the eastern and the western psychological views and also on the rigorous methodologies to test these hypotheses. Peter Sedlmeier is absolutely right when he makes a contrast of the western and the eastern psychological view. Differential hypothesis between Indian and Western Psychology The most important difference between the Indian and the Western approach seems to be about the existence of pure consciousness as postulated by the former. However, as far as “normal life” is concerned, ancient Indian psychology, especially as expressed in the systems of Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika have astonishingly parallel views with modern Western psychology (e.g., Raju, 1983; Sharma, 2003). But there are also some striking differences. For instance, in contemporary Western cognitive psychology, the relationship between brain and mind is seldom explicitly spelled out, but if one would press researchers to make a statement, most would probably resort to the view that cognitive processes co-vary with brain processes, and if pressed still harder, some might say that essentially brain processes produce cognitions and emotions (e.g., Damasio, 1999). The Indian view is just the opposite: the brain is used as an instrument by the mind (e.g., Raju, 1983). Does the mind use the brain or is the reverse true? This is a very interesting question, which cannot easily be tested. One might, however, try to find evidence for whether mind exists independently from brain. If the brain is the basis for the mind, there should be no mind if the brain is dead. So a good starting point to examine the hypothesis might be to look for evidence on near-death experiences or on reincarnation (for some attempts do to so see Cook, Greyson & Stevenson, 1998; Stevenson, 1987). Do the senses connect to their “sense-objects”? In Indian psychology, at least in the systems of Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika, Sāṁkhya, and Mīmāṁsā, it is assumed that the senses go out to their objects and contact them or even “become” the objects (e.g., Raju, 1983). Therefore, sense-organs such as the eye or the nose that do not really touch their objects seem to be not the whole story according to the Indian view. So one might, for instance, hypothesize that even if the visual sense in the Western understanding does not work any longer, the remaining part of the visual sense in the Indian understanding might still be functioning and an (incomplete) perception might be the result. This hypothesis might open up some interesting links to phenomena such as “blindsight” (e.g.,Cowey, 2004). - Peter Sedlemeier, Indian psychology and the scientific method(I couldn't put this in quotes because there seems problem when the editor renders it) Yes, that's the basic point, Indian psychology is just the opposite, the mind is something different than the mind and they recognize a metaphysical mind, an Intellect in the platonic realm, metaphysical sense organs etc. As I said, I come from the local and I very well know how people view the cosmos here and this is exactly what Indian psychology is based on and this is what need to be tested. Science and religion is indeed converging and theistic scientists know that very well and the next frontier is to investigate the gods. Scientists with in the scientific community, religious scholars and psychologists are quite aware of this but its ironic that this has not been discussed much in internet forums. This is the correct approach to science and religion, the correct approach to understand eastern and western mysticism. This is as much a genuine research programme as any other, the challenge to atheists is that build as many big particle accelerators as you want, take as many research funding you want but you people cannot escape from the cave especially if the attitude is "why should we consider it just because some guy said do". We have nothing to lose.

Then what is the purpose of a religious sub forum on a science forum when the scientific community is not open to investigate the supernatural, what is its purpose if one doesn't understand religion in its own milieu and understand its principles and methodologies and the way it works. I am a strong advocate of Non-overlapping magisteria its as much wrong to disprove the existence of God using logic and applying scientific methodologies to religion as much it is wrong to interpret and drag religious scriptures so that it fits with what modern science says. Both of these approaches are dead wrong, religion should be understood and tested in its own milieu but majority of them here want to disprove the existence of God using logic and science without having a shred of understanding about the meaning of God and how religion works. That's sounds double standards to me. Many of them even go on to say, this is a science forum and religion will be ridiculed and mocked if one uses just faith to justify his claims but as I have shown science and religion is converging and there are strong compelling scientific reasons to investigate and reassess religion again.

I think we have failed to understand the complex inter-relationship between the time cycles of the empirical universe and the time cycles of the things in the microcosm and the macrocosm. According to the ancients, the earth, the sun and the moon etc are mystical entities that used to circumambulate Mt Meru which was considered to be the axial centre of all the worlds.(That might explain why they considered even the Sun and the Moon as Planets) Mt Meru is considered to be the abode of gods and from their point of view the earth of the microcosm and the macrocosm may indeed be flat where as the earth of the empirical universe which is round might only exist in our minds and does not physically exists out there in the external world. Surya Siddhanta which is an ancient astronomical text whose date of origin and author is unknown explicitly states that the deities are invisible to human sight and according to tradition this ancient knowledge was revealed to Maya(an Asura) by the Sun-god. The text contains trigonometric functions which were unknown to the Greeks. The planets in the empirical universe does not influence us in any way and nor do any deities control their motion, they are just observable signs based on the sidereal year to predict the probable futures and the real influences are actually caused by the gods in the microcosm and the macrocosm who structure our Mind and body and control everything of our lives. A more thorough description of this cosmogony of the microcosm and the macrocosm can be found in Tibetan Symbols and Motifs by Robert Beer. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=XlqeS3WjSWIC&pg=PA103&lpg=PA103&dq=the+symbolism+of+mt+meru&source=bl&ots=iIVxfPWYwI&sig=2K7huHzdiya-fTlLquqJg8iAACg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fvDbUJDUL8H_rAe45ICYDw&ved=0CHIQ6AEwCA A translation of Surya Siddhanta http://www.wilbourhall.org/pdfs/suryaEnglish.pdf The first thing they teach is to learn about Antharmukh(the ability to see things in the microcosm and the macrocosm without the aid of sense organs) and Bahirmukh(observing the empirical universe via sense organs). The one who understands this might be able to correctly establish the relationship between the motion of the planets in the observable empirical universe with the symbolic nature of the things existing in the microcosm and the macrocosm and deduce its consequences to our world, such a good commentary on this text is very much lacking for our present age and time.

Of course the empirical evidence is always the judge, no one should ever believe in the things which goes in our subjective minds, everything need to be tested, any one who claims to be enlightened or claims he knows the ultimate reality should objectively demonstrate it but to bring that empirical evidence one need to investigate the secret stuff and we cannot drop it from our investigations. The problem here is religion, one will be brought up with the view that only their God is the true god and anyone worshipping other gods and following other religions is a deception by Satan or worshipping other gods is a serious sin or people think its proselytizing. Therefore these reasons might hinder everyone to investigate things equally but none the less it exists in all the major religions of the modern world and if people come out of their fundamentalist mindset and investigate things which exists in their own religion we can objectively figure out the truth of religion. There is secret stuff and I cannot drop it. http://www.shambhala.com/the-guhyagarbha-tantra.html This Secret Essence Tantra is the most advanced and extensively studied tantra within the Nyingma lineage. Yes, that's what it says. With the advent of internet outsiders can get a glimpse of what it is and its quite useful for comparative religion but the secret mantras will be kept secret and only be transmitted orally for an initiated few. Illusion Web - Locating the Guhyagarbha Tantra in Buddhist Intellectual history. http://himalaya.socanth.cam.ac.uk/collections/journals/jts/pdf/JTS_SL_10.pdf Luminous Essence A Guide to the Guhyagarbha Tantra by Jamgön Mipham http://ebookbrowse.com/gdoc.php?id=346202909&url=2b0b5ab32127d06c788d548a2993364b I cannot drop deities, mantras, jewels of gods, divine light rays because it forms the very soul of the eastern and western esoteric religious view of the world. We all don't know God yet.

Well I'm sure the Sufis, the Rabbis, the Buddhists and others would have their own practical methodologies, I don't like proselytizing people and of course one would have been brought up with one genuine religion or the other so rather than putting those books of oral traditions into a trash can if one reads them and gain insights into how these traditions viewed their world and what accurate methodologies they had discovered to consistently access the noumenon and if we do trial and error and it shows some positive results or even a new understanding of nature and if such results are repeatable then we have a new science here no matter how weird or strange it might get. Isn't the goal of science has always been to understand how nature works? If you still remember for example the technique of Samyama, a way to disentangle your metaphysical sense organs from the metaphysical mind so that one can know what happened where, why and how and see the past, present and the future. This isn't magic, they have their own theoretical model of the mind and their own practical methodologies, how many people have researched it, learnt it, figured it out how to do it? Has the knowledge been lost? I don't have answers to that because I don't have the statistics with me. An another example is Mithras Liturgy which is found in the Greek Papyri where a practical methodology is described by an Egyptian religious scholar of late antiquity to make an ascent to heaven, your physical body doesn't ascends literally but only the perception of it changes, again we don't know how much we understand those methodologies and how it was carried out and these are the reasons why I think the conclusion should have been more open, I single handedly cannot explore such a huge field, its a huge task.

Even I am discussing about entanglement, are you still in the illusion that an accepted consensus exists?

As an atheist I always found religious holidays, visiting temples, mosques and churches, giving thanksgiving etc quite ridiculous and I still find it ridiculous now because such behaviours can be easily explained through evolutionary psychology. The things which defy common sense and evolutionary mechanisms are this. Sufism Judaism Christianity Buddhism Hinduism