Why Scientific Realism might be false?

[immortal]

Both scientific objects and God cannot exist in the external physical world. Either scientific objects exist and disproves God or God exists and disproves our notion that scientific objects exist independent of the mind.

 

 

Chapter 1, On physics and philosophy[/url] – Bernard d'Espagnat.

 

Towards a Philosophical Reconstruction of the Dialogue between Modern Physics and Advaita Vedanta:–Jonathon Duquette.

 

"QUANTUMPHYSICS AND VEDANTA": A PERSPECTIVE FROM BERNARD D'ESPAGNAT'SSCIENTIFICREALISM – Jonathon Duquette.

 

Science and Mysticism: AComparative study of Western Natural Science, Theravada Buddhism and AdvaitaVedanta – an essay on Richard H.Jones book.

 

Edited July 28, 2012 by immortal

[tar]

Immortal,

 

Have not read through the links yet, (have plans today, and was having trouble with the links). But I would like to fall in with an uninformed stance, that your either/or is not completely defined, or logically forced. Things can be "of mind" without proving god exists as easily as something can be of TAR2 without my physical possesion of the thing.

 

If there are ideas about things, and there are things, we are already assuming a dialectic of sorts. A universe to be in and of, and our ideas about it. If your definition of God, is us having an idea, that is, if having an idea is proof of God, then you are concluding your premise. Which, does not require our thoughts to be "powered" by anything other than real entities. Which in my book would say that the external world is both the source and the object of our consideration of it.

 

Regards, TAR2

[immortal]

Immortal,

 

Have not read through the links yet, (have plans today, and was having trouble with the links). But I would like to fall in with an uninformed stance, that your either/or is not completely defined, or logically forced. Things can be "of mind" without proving god exists as easily as something can be of TAR2 without my physical possesion of the thing.

 

If there are ideas about things, and there are things, we are already assuming a dialectic of sorts. A universe to be in and of, and our ideas about it. If your definition of God, is us having an idea, that is, if having an idea is proof of God, then you are concluding your premise. Which, does not require our thoughts to be "powered" by anything other than real entities. Which in my book would say that the external world is both the source and the object of our consideration of it.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

I would advice you to study the paper of Jonathon Duquette which is the second link and his other paper is from Wiley Library and its new so we can't have full access to that paper. Its important to study the full paper of the first link of Jonathon Duquette to clearly understand the amount of confusion in this field, however from page 263 onwards its very important and you can skip other things.

 

[When making parallels] it could be thatWestern thought is unconsciously or consciously being taken as the supreme standard, with a corresponding lack of sensitivity to other interests: Asian thought must be shown to be positivistic in a time when positivism was in vogue, or existential for those who value existentialism. . .Or it must share our moral values, if not our beliefs. The various traditions cannot stand on their own terms but must be related to a Western standard. The danger here is in distorting the fundamental nature of these traditions in order to fulfill this demand rather than in understanding them in their own milieu.

 

- Richard H.Jones.

 

 

My main concern is eastern traditions do not require any justification from science or from the metaphysicians to prove that it is true, eastern traditions stands on its own, if anyone wants to understand it one should understand it in its own milieu and not misrepresent its teachings so as to justify one's broken forms of reasoning. Tradition is important one cannot discard its sensitive issues and differences and only study it the way you want.

 

Eastern traditions are completely based on a different epistemology and it has nothing to do with Science or the empirical world and I strongly criticize scholars like Fritjof Capra and others who try to find parallels between Modern science and these eastern traditions.

 

Eastern religions says that Scientific realism is false and when one sees the common esoteric essence in all the religions of the world one can say from a highly religious perspective and not by mere speculation that if God has to exist then Scientific Realism must be false. Its a necessary requirement. Prove Scientific Realism then we can abandon this form of religious thinking and move forward.

[ecoli]

can you explain what a scientific object is? I know a lot about science and have come across many objects, but I've never heard science being referred to as an object.

[immortal]

can you explain what a scientific object is? I know a lot about science and have come across many objects, but I've never heard science being referred to as an object.

 

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

[tar]

Immortal,

 

And why can Western thought not be considered on its own merits, without having to bow to the "wisdom" of the ancient masters?

 

Perhaps you might consider that many in the West, have read the teachings of the Eastern "Masters" and have considered the ideas and folded them into their own thought, in whole or part, or categorized them appropropriately, consistent with available knowledge and logic, based on their value and merit and dealt with them as they should be dealt with.

 

The East has as much to learn from the West, as the West from the East, and what is foolish remains foolish in either hemisphere, and what is valuble remains valuable. What is real remains real, and what is woo, remains woo.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

And sorry, I have not read the links yet.

[immortal]

Immortal,

 

And why can Western thought not be considered on its own merits, without having to bow to the "wisdom" of the ancient masters?

 

We already know from the wisdom of the ancient masters that the empirical world is brought into existence by an entanglement between the metaphysical mind and the metaphysical senses(not biological organs), its nothing new, its old, its ancient. Its only recently that Bernard D'Espagnat has arrived at the same conclusion coming from a different approach into the nature of reality.

 

It is probably true quite generally that in the history of human thinking the most fruitful developments frequently take place at those points where two different lines of thought meet. These lines may have their roots in quite different parts of human culture, in different times or different cultural environments or different religious traditions; hence if they actually meet, that is, if they are at least so much related to each other that a real interaction can take place, then one may hope that new and interesting developments will follow.

 

- Werner Heisenberg

 

 

That's two traditions if you include Valentinian monism into it +modern science and I wonder what Mishnah, Zohar, Talmud and Midrash secret oral traditions of Jewish have to say about this.

 

Perhaps you might consider that many in the West, have read the teachings of the Eastern "Masters" and have considered the ideas and folded them into their own thought, in whole or part, or categorized them appropropriately, consistent with available knowledge and logic, based on their value and merit and dealt with them as they should be dealt with.

 

 

No, there is a huge difference between the interpretation of the traditional scholars and the interpretation of other scholars and scientists turned philosophers outside the tradition. The traditional scholars seem to know beyond any doubt that Scientific Realism is false something which scholars outside the tradition never actually make an effort to understand it and unconsciously misrepresent it.

 

 

The East has as much to learn from the West, as the West from the East, and what is foolish remains foolish in either hemisphere, and what is valuble remains valuable. What is real remains real, and what is woo, remains woo.

 

Are there not good scientists coming from the east?

 

 

 

[tar]

Immortal,

 

I tend to look at with some skepticism, claims that a way of thinking is false. You say that scientific realism is false, and certain realities are brought about by consciousness. And that this reality is known and has been known by the ancient masters. Can you not agree though, that reality would exist, in its entirety, with or without me and you looking at it, this way or that?

 

I like to bring up the thought, again, that when the monk on the mountaintop reaches nirvana, the event, while immensely significant to the monk, does not much effect the rest of the universe, nor what TAR2 is going to have for dinner tonight.

This logically demands that there is a significant reality, that exists, other than the monk's consciouness of it. Therefore it is not the monk that causes reality. He or she is a piece and part of it, and their consciousness of it, is an after effect, more than a cause of it.

 

That is my take anyway. And it seems reasonable to me. Which part of this sensible take is impossible for the Eastern masters to accept?

 

Regards, TAR2

[immortal]

Immortal,

 

I tend to look at with some skepticism, claims that a way of thinking is false. You say that scientific realism is false, and certain realities are brought about by consciousness. And that this reality is known and has been known by the ancient masters. Can you not agree though, that reality would exist, in its entirety, with or without me and you looking at it, this way or that?

 

I like to bring up the thought, again, that when the monk on the mountaintop reaches nirvana, the event, while immensely significant to the monk, does not much effect the rest of the universe, nor what TAR2 is going to have for dinner tonight.

This logically demands that there is a significant reality, that exists, other than the monk's consciouness of it. Therefore it is not the monk that causes reality. He or she is a piece and part of it, and their consciousness of it, is an after effect, more than a cause of it.

 

That is my take anyway. And it seems reasonable to me. Which part of this sensible take is impossible for the Eastern masters to accept?

 

Regards, TAR2

 

All religions agree that there is a noumenon which they can have access too. Bernard thinks that the noumenon can be accessed through other means. Science is only concerned with the phenomenon and hence it cannot give a complete account of physical reality.

 

When a Buddhist monk reaches nirvana or says that the world dissolves in him, he is talking both of the noumenon world as well as the phenomenon world. The noumenon world exists and it is not an illusion and is the basis for the phenomena. So even though all the worlds dissolve into for a monk who has achieved nirvana the noumenon world is real and it still exists for all of us and each one of us have that metaphysical mind, metaphysical sense organs, the Lord responsible for the retrospective creation of the phenomenal reality.

 

The western scholars think that the ancient seers worshipped the star Sun of the milky way galaxy but that is not true, they worshipped the secret Sun - The lord which is residing in all creatures. All eastern traditions agree with this.

 

 

Wikipedia - Mandala - The soul of the Universe in which all deities exists and the master of this mandala is Sun.

 

 

 

 

 

It is through the worshipping of the mandala that they gain access to the noumenon world. These are the gates to the noumenon. Something which the western scholars don't really investigate it.

[Severian]

I disagree. The existence of scientific objects and God (in a general sense) are entirely consistent with each other.

[immortal]

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

[Severian]

From a traditional point of view both empirical objects and God are mutually exclusive, something gotta give, either people have to give up their belief in scientific realism or they have to give up their belief in God.

 

Why?

[immortal]

Why?

 

 

Because I don't like to hide God like others, I want to falsify him. Everyone should know what the truth is.

 

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

[Greg H.]

Because I don't like to hide God like others, I want to falsify him. Everyone should know what the truth is.

 

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

 

[emphasis mine]

 

What you've got here is a false dichotomy because you haven't shown why the third option - that both exist - is untenable. "Tradition says so" isn't much of a reason. Tradition also said the earth was flat and we see how well that worked out.

 

 

[Severian]

If the God of religious traditions has to exist scientific realism must be false. Either the reality of God is real or the empirical reality of Science is real. Both cannot be real.

 

I have to ask again: why? I can see no reason why both cannot be real, and you have presented no reason why both can't be real.

 

In fact, the only thing that can be in conflict with current scientific findings is something that is measured under scientific conditions and is reproducable. Most religious traditions do not qualify, so can't be in contradiction with science.

[immortal]

 

A growing number of scholars, scientists and philosophers are leading us to an esoteric worldview without themselves being aware of this. While there seems to be much confusion on how to reconcile modern science with eastern and western esotericism most of the confusion seems to have come from choosing incompetent scholars for their study.

 

 

 

Methodology in the study of Esotericism

 

While esotericism has existed since millennia as a form of study of the esoteric essence and wisdom hidden in allancient mystery religions, recently few have argued to push the field of Esotericism into the academic. One such attempt has been made by a historian of religion,Wouter J. Hanegraaff and argues that esotericism can be studied from an empirical approach where one can measure its influence from a historical perspective. Any student of esotericism who accepts the most authoritative definition of Antoine Faivre knows that esotericism deals more with the reality of the numinous and less with our historical past. Hanegraaff who is well aware of this implicitly admits that to truly know the truth behind these religions only the empirical approach would not suffice. A simultaneous perennialist approach is needed where an intuitive access to the numinous is albeit necessary in order to completely understand these esoteric religions which are inherently metaphysical and hence not falls under the positivism of science or the empirical method.

 

Based on this argument or assumption a competent scholar can be defined as one coming from the tradition and not someone from outside the tradition and one who has the competent skills and intuitive knowledge to interpret the works of our ancient people and give us a picture as these ancient people saw it and not as how one sees it individually which inevitably leads to conflicts based on how each one interprets these ancient works subjectively without any intuitive knowledge which our ancients claimed to have access to.

 

 

 

A few words about the Scholar chosen for this study -

 

 

Devudu Narasimha Shastry (1896-1962) was a colourful personality and a polymath. He was a thinker and writer of unusual and extraordinary merit. A forceful speaker, he was equally apersuasive writer, and an indefatigable enthusiast for reformation and revolution within the ambit of tradition. He was chosen for the honour of being 'worshipped' in the ceremonial way, as one among the hundred traditional scholars, by the first president of India, Babu Rajendra Prasad, in the sacred Varanasi. He hailed from a family of royal priests in Mysore, but the stature that he had as a traditional scholar was acquired by him as a result of his systematic study of the shastras for 20 years.

 

Popularly known by his pen name 'Devudu', was not merely a great writer but like the seers who had the Vedas in vision, he gave visual shape to the Upanishadic verses in his transcendental work.

 

 

If what we call empirical reality is only a state of mind then what is mind?

 

This was the question asked by someone in Guardian and no one had an answer to it and not even modern science has an answer to it because cognitive scientists are reductionists and they see perception and cognition as neuronal activity in the brain but as Bernard D'Espagnat says even neurons fall under empirical reality which is only a state of mind. So what is mind then?

 

Here's the answer:

 

The word esoteric means "intelligible only to those with special knowledge" – esoterically. The scholar uses the traditional way of storytelling or dialectic to convey his ideas which is common in most forms of wisdom literatures which give us knowledge about the divine and the nature of reality.

 

 

Koushika said, "Blessed Vamadeva, for these three days I have been longing to ask aquestion. The distance between our house and Sage Vashita's is of two days journey. How did you manage to reach that place right on time on that fateful day? If you hadn't turned up at that moment what would have been my fate? May I request you kindly to explain all this?"

 

Vamadeva beamed a significant smile andsaid, "you yourself can understand all this, Koushika. But I wonder why haven't you attempted to explore the secret … All right … The desire to talk for longhas seized me today.. Tell me, what you wish to know. I'll tell you what you desire. It's your responsibility to ask and mine to answer".

 

"Then", said Koushika, "Please tell me how you were able to reach the spot precisely at the time of my distress. How did you get to know that I was in danger?

 

The sagacious and highly evolved Vamadeva replied, "know, Koushika, that the mind is a pillar of light. When we are engaged in worldly affairs we see only one end of that pillar. Owing to its close link with the sensory organs the light gets broken into five beams. That means that the one concentrated stream of light gets scattered. There is a method of which the scattered beams can be united into one stream. That method is called Samyama (full control over the sensory organs). He who practices and becomes proficient in Samyama can go beyond time and space. He will be enabled to perceive everything everywhere. He can understand whatever has happened in the past and whatever is going to happen in the future. When the mind operates through the senses (and therefore subjected to the likes and dislikes of latter), it "acts" like a "stage-king". That is, it plays the role of the king and cannot be the real living king. Hence, it will be powerless and impotent. If the mind learns to work without being entangled by the senses, then it becomes all powerful and very potent. He who practices this technique of Samyama will be able to know what happens where, why and how".

 

-Devudu

 

 

 

 

When Devudu uses words like sense organs and mind he is not referring it to biological organs and the brain instead he is talking of sense organs and the mind existing in the noumenal world which is responsible for the retrospective creation of our empirical reality which not only includes biological organs and the brain but everything which we see through our eyes. This is what Bernard D'Espagnat means that our empirical reality is a kind of Veiled reality and that there is an ultimate reality which is not embedded in space and time. Bernard is one of them who believes that the noumenon of Kant can be accessed by other means.

 

All that can be supported by verses from the scriptures and it shows that the ancient seers had access to the numinous or the noumenon. The God exists in the noumenon and the traditional scholars know beyond any shadow of doubt that scientific realism is false. So either scientific objects exist in the external physical world and disproves God or God exists in the external noumenal world and disproves our notion of scientific objects existing independent of the mind.

 

 

 

Devudu Narasimha Shastry. The Glory of Gayathri (Maha Bramhana in Kannada). Translated into English by Prof .N. Nanjunda Sastry. Bangalore: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan,2004. (Original work in Kannada – 1950, Bangalore).

Edited July 30, 2012 by immortal

[tar]

He who practices and becomes proficient in Samyama can go beyond time and space. He will be enabled to perceive everything everywhere. He can understand whatever has happened in the past and whatever is going to happen in the future.

 

Come on Immortal,

 

Really?

 

How many fingers am I holding up... ...or was holding up, in between the dots?

 

How many countries will there be on Earth in 2837?

 

What are the total number of lifeforms that exist in the Milky Way Galaxy at the moment?

 

How many of each? What are they all doing right now?

 

If Samyama would give one the ability to percieve everything everywhere, there would be no empirical question that could possibly stump the master. He/she could easily write down for the rest of us, where and when every dangerous and destructive event that will happen on Earth for the rest of year will be and we can make preparations, or plan not to be standing in the wrong spot, when any of them happen. Or tell us now the cure for every disease that will ever be cured. And tell us now, the major technological advances and discoveries that will ever be made, so we can take advantage of them now. Why keep everything a secret?

 

Cause he/she doesn't really know. Right?

 

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Saw a show once about a guy who felt he understood Grizzlies. that he was one with the grizzlies and they would not harm him. One day the grizzlies ate him. He was not correct.

[immortal]

I didn't strated this thread saying scientific realism is false, I started it by stating scientific realism might be false. I started to show if those religious traditions are understood in their own milieu then what its implications are for modern science. You are missing the point I am making in a larger context, there are plenty of prophecy books that are written but lets not go there and I don't know anyone who is proficient in that technique of Samyama to answer your questions as to know what happens where, why and how. If that was true then we all had to inevitably give up our belief in Scientific realism.

 

That scholar was an expert on the mandalas and his whole worldview is based on that. I have only revealed a short passage of his works and the ancient seers seem to have known that intelligence does exist in the platonic realms as espoused by Plato in his theory of Forms and the implication of this is that as strong Platonists like Roger Penrose argues strong AI seems to be impossible if these traditions turn out to be true. So if scientists can come up with strong AI then again these traditions will be disproved.

 

Nothing is kept secret, Tar. Its just no one takes it seriously and investigates it. We all know that Carl Gustav Jung took his idea of mandala from the eastern religions and argued that there is a collective unconscious which exists in everyone from the beginning of mankind and started the archetypal psychology. In all this muddle there is infinite wisdom and just because it looks like nonsense from outside we don't investigate it. There is a documentation of dialogue with gods in Carl Jung's Red Book and the same if with this scholar but much more well organized and systematic.

 

There is not much good info over the internet about this and I don't like to quote from the works of that scholar since expressiveness are copyrighted. I extracted this while arguing with someone from Nepal and it explains the kind of worldview expressed by our ancient seers.

 

 

Indeed.

 

We are sun worshipers, but not solely so. As you show awareness of, the sun perceived by the senses and delivered through the sensorial mind, manas, to the intellect is not the true Sun. Intellect, bridged by cit kala confers the status of Purusha. This is what gayatri is, the request to bridge the intellect to the noumenon by purifying through the sun's rays.

 

Yes, the inner and the secret sun are of vital importance in our religion. We must understand it however in the larger overall context.

 

Firstly, what is a mandala? It is a concentration of energies and identities which also concentrates the aspirant's focus. As you call them both the vishrutha and the samasthi methods involve disparate rays and a unified focus, whether proceeding outwards or inwards. There is another third form of worship, but we won't go into that here. It is also said there is a secret fourth.

 

Anyway, the mandalas of the Vedas are invoked through Richas - the hymns of the Rig Vedas. This is equivalent to the vedantic & agamic prana pratistha. The mandala is recognized as pervading all reality, irrespective of artificial, egoborn division between the inner and the outer. The Self is transposing its internal divinity into the external reality, or recognizing the samarasa of the two.

 

In overapplying Western concepts of Monotheism, which certain circles of Indians have learned to curry favor with, we run the risk of losing the essence of the Vedas.

 

We are Sun worshipers, we are Moon worshipers, we are Fire worshipers.

 

And none of these are what men and dictionaries call as per the sun, the moon, and the fire, rather they are the cognates.

 

The physical reality is wholly constructed of devas arranged in mandalas and vahanas, orchestrated as per the music of the vedic meters and hymnal divisions. Their tanuu spreads itself through all the elements of the outer world (the Vasus), the Inner World (Adityas) and that which seams the two (the Rudras). Presiding over this weaving of the devatanu (Indra's net) are two corollary entities of Indra and Prajapati. Indra is the penultimate Lord, Prajapati the ultimate.

 

This is the guhya samaja mandala, reflected almost perfectly in the Vajrayana Buddhist tradition of the same name. Truly, the Vedas are preserved in the agamas, even and perhaps especially within Buddhism.

 

It is key to note that Indra's vajra reveals the sun. What is the meaning of this?

 

All of the mandalas are important, all of them. All of the deities are important.

 

To go back to what I was saying about cognates, the physical sun, moon and fire are representative of particular devas, and sets of devas which confer vidya and siddhi. All devas are manifest everywhere - devas are transdimensional beings whose protrusion into our limited-dimensional, simulated reality manifest as particular elements. Symbolically and qualitatively, certain deities are more manifest than others in certain substances. We identify through the outer sun with the inner sun of the enlightened intellect and the spreading and collection of the rays of consciousness (secret sun), and so forth.

 

The belief system itself is nigh worthless. People gain almost nothing by merely being reminded of the identity of Hiranyagarbha. It gains relevance only when it translates into practical understanding and practice.

 

Identities are as much veils as anything else. That spreading and collection of consciousness is a function of our capacity for attribution - earlier discussed as the dichotomy between vacaka and vakya.

 

This is what ought be focused on, not trumpeting from the rooftops what little we have learned under the mistaken assumption that it is, or ought be, a revolutionary shift in the thought of the current amnayas.

 

Frankly, you have acquired a particular, narrowed view on the Vedas, whether through fault of the scholar you are informed by, or your own reading of him. The Vedas must be taken fully, in context.

 

Basic point I want to make is this: We need to understand our esoteric relationship with the Sun, but we should not overemphasize the sun aspect and lose the other, greater aspects which, beyond the Sun, include kāla, kalā, vyoma, shunya and, of course, the atattva. All the traditions we currently have contain this.

 

 

This is what the archetypal pyschologist James Hillman from the school of Carl Jung means when he says Gods are real, Gods are everywhere in all aspects of human existence and in all aspect of human life. The eastern traditions though from outside look like separate independent traditions they all worship the Sun God(not the star) from inside and this is what these traditions say that gods are pervaded everywhere and just like how plato said that the things which are manifested in this world are representatives of the eternal Forms. This is what they have to say about the physical reality.

 

Whatever it is, one thing is for sure, its illogical to find parallels between these traditions and modern science, they are based on completely different epistemologies and the only message that these traditions seem to give us is that scientific realism is false.

 

 

 

[juanrga]

We already know from the wisdom of the ancient masters that the empirical world is brought into existence by an entanglement between the metaphysical mind and the metaphysical senses(not biological organs), its nothing new, its old, its ancient.

 

I'm sorry to inform you that quarks and electrons (what you call "Scientific objects") existed much before the first Human was born.

 

Moderators note: I submitted my post in ordinary font, just by clicking in the reply button but it seems that some post above is broken and anything add to this thread is automatically turned into bold font!!!

Edited July 31, 2012 by juanrga

[immortal]

I'm sorry to inform you that quarks and electrons (what you call "Scientific objects") existed much before the first Human was born.

 

Moderators note: I submitted my post in ordinary font, just by clicking in the reply button but it seems that some post above is broken and anything add to this thread is automatically turned into bold font!!!

 

Well, yes those traditions are in direct conflict with scientific realism and they are incompatible if scientific realism is true and all those traditions will be disproved. As we have discussed earlier there is no common consensus among you quantum physicists. So if you can prove scientific realism accepting the challenges which I have made against scientific realism then we should give up our beliefs on those traditions and move forward.

 

 

Contrary to what you have said, modern science seem to indicate something else. The papers that I have given in my OP is not outdated, this is an active topic discussed by scholars, philosophers and scientists.

 

 

"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment."

 

- Bernard d'espagnat

 

This was published in Scientific American

http://www.scientificamerican.com/media/pdf/197911_0158.pdf

 

"What quantum mechanics tells us, I believe, is surprising to say the least. It tells us that the basic components of objects – the particles, electrons, quarks etc. – cannot be thought of as "self-existent". He further writes that his research in quantum physics has lead him to conclude that an "ultimate reality" exists, which is not embedded in space or time.

 

-Bernard d'espagnat

[Ben Banana]

Here's just some words from "immortal" that I've picked at leisure:

 

Why Scientific Realism might be false?

By the way, this is one of the worst rhetorical questions I've ever heard.

 

A growing number of scholars, scientists and philosophers are leading us to an esoteric worldview without themselves being aware of this. While there seems to be much confusion on how to reconcile modern science with eastern and western esotericism most of the confusion seems to have come from choosing incompetent scholars for their study.

I started to show if those religious traditions are understood in their own milieu then what its implications are for modern science.

when he says

find parallels between these traditions

those traditions are in direct conflict with scientific realism

 

immortal (nonsense)'s strongest point is: It might be false because I might be right. By the way, religious research doesn't give you anything to "might" with. Nothing. Maybe around people who believe they're being open minded, but certainly not here! Get that through your head. The only way for us to make you stop is say "oh I'll consider it ..." because after all, there's nothing else for us to combat you. So now, I'll be the first to say this: your philosophical approach is not welcomed by me. You do not belong here. Go away please.

 

You always end every argument and sub-argument with something like: "traditions ... religious scholars ... my research contradicts!" Even if you could show me a number of posts where this is not the case; your credibility, comparatively, still means absolutely nothing.

[juanrga]

Well, yes those traditions are in direct conflict with scientific realism and they are incompatible if scientific realism is true and all those traditions will be disproved. As we have discussed earlier there is no common consensus among you quantum physicists. So if you can prove scientific realism accepting the challenges which I have made against scientific realism then we should give up our beliefs on those traditions and move forward.

 

Contrary to what you have said, modern science seem to indicate something else. The papers that I have given in my OP is not outdated, this is an active topic discussed by scholars, philosophers and scientists.

 

"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment."

 

- Bernard d'espagnat

 

This was published in Scientific American

http://www.scientifi...197911_0158.pdf

 

"What quantum mechanics tells us, I believe, is surprising to say the least. It tells us that the basic components of objects – the particles, electrons, quarks etc. – cannot be thought of as "self-existent". He further writes that his research in quantum physics has lead him to conclude that an "ultimate reality" exists, which is not embedded in space or time.

 

-Bernard d'espagnat

 

The belief that the human mind has some special role in quantum mechanics (e.g. wavefunction collapse) is not only an ancient point of view, but it is completely wrong. And the further claim that quarks and electron do not exist without a "human conscience" is nonsense.

 

Contrary to what you believe, there is an overwhelm consensus among the immense majority of quantum physicists, astrophysicists, cosmologists, and other scientists on that quarks and electrons existed much before the first Human was born. E.g., any textbook on cosmology describes the quark epoch.

Edited July 31, 2012 by juanrga

[immortal]

Here's just some words from "immortal" that I've picked at leisure:

 

By the way, this is one of the worst rhetorical questions I've ever heard.

 

immortal (nonsense)'s strongest point is: It might be false because I might be right. By the way, religious research doesn't give you anything to "might" with. Nothing. Maybe around people who believe they're being open minded, but certainly not here! Get that through your head. The only way for us to make you stop is say "oh I'll consider it ..." because after all, there's nothing else for us to combat you. So now, I'll be the first to say this: your philosophical approach is not welcomed by me. You do not belong here. Go away please.

 

You always end every argument and sub-argument with something like: "traditions ... religious scholars ... my research contradicts!" Even if you could show me a number of posts where this is not the case; your credibility, comparatively, still means absolutely nothing.

 

1. Are some scholars misrepresenting these traditions and not understanding it in its own millieu and its leading to confusion? Yes

 

2. It should be clearly emphasized what its implications are for science. If it had no implications for science I wouldn't have posted them here.

 

3. Many have serious interests in both Religion and Science.

 

4. If you are not interested to read those links, that's fine.

 

5. Make me say that from the owner of this forum that they don't allow anyone to educate people about religion just as they educate people about science and that they only like to bash religion then I will go away.

 

6. Everything cannot be studied under the assumptions of positivism of science. Yes, that's true.

 

cience can stand on its own feet and does not need any help from rationalists, secular humanists, Marxists and similar religious movements; and ... non-scientific cultures, procedures and assumptions can also stand on their own feet and should be allowed to do so ... Science must be protected from ideologies; and societies, especially democratic societies, must be protected from science... In a democracy scientific institutions, research programmes, and suggestions must therefore be subjected to public control, there must be a separation of state and science just as there is a separation between state and religious institutions, and science should be taught as one view among many and not as the one and only road to truth and reality.

 

— Feyerabend, Against Method, p.viii

 

 

 

7. Carl Jung has already made a huge contribution and has argued that there are symbols in all ancient cultures which represent these archetypes and give indirect evidence of their existence through the effects that they have on patients and could possibly explain the origin of religion in all cultures of ancient civilizations.

 

8. Keep aside my credibility, have I not cited sources for my claims, its only the content that counts.

[Ben Banana]

5. Make me say that from the owner of this forum that they don't allow anyone to educate people about religion just as they educate people about science and that they only like to bash religion then I will go away.

 

You're educating us? Start yet another church! You may educate your followers! This is about discussion. We don't bash religion. I have dis-welcomed your "education."

[immortal]

The belief that the human mind has some special role in quantum mechanics (e.g. wavefunction collapse) is not only an ancient point of view, but it is completely wrong. And the further claim that quarks and electron do not exist without a "human conscience" is nonsense.

 

 

Bohr never used the term wavefunction collapse. Bohr was an instrumentalist. Anyways physicists can never make any claims about the nature of the physical system itself and this point is well emphasized by Stephen Hawking.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism

 

Any sound scientific theory, whether of time or of any other concept, should in my opinion be based on the most workable philosophy of science: the positivist approach put forward by Karl Popper and others. According to this way of thinking, a scientific theory is a mathematical model that describes and codifies the observations we make. A good theory will describe a large range of phenomena on the basis of a few simple postulates and will make definite predictions that can be tested… If one takes the positivist position, as I do, one cannot say what time actually is. All one can do is describe what has been found to be a very good mathematical model for time and say what predictions it makes.

 

- Stephen Hawking, The Universe in a nutshell.

 

Contrary to what you believe, there is an overwhelm consensus among the immense majority of quantum physicists, astrophysicists, cosmologists, and other scientists on that quarks and electrons existed much before the first Human was born. E.g., any textbook on cosmology describes the quark epoch.

 

 

The same problem persists in cosmology too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_time

 

In Cosmoslogy:

“One might think this means that imaginary numbers are just a mathematical game having nothing to do with the real world. From the viewpoint of positivist philosophy, however, one cannot determine what is real. All one can do is find which mathematical models describe the universe we live in. It turns out that a mathematical model involving imaginary time predicts not only effects we have already observed but also effects we have not been able to measure yet nevertheless believe in for other reasons. So what is real and what is imaginary? Is the distinction just in our minds?”—Stephen Hawking

 

 

Those traditions are not subjectivists, they say an objective world exists, they are not solipsists, they actually know what it "IS" and not how things appear to us, a noumenal objective world does exist and they say it is made up of five elements as described in world religions.

 

You're educating us? Start yet another church! You may educate your followers! This is about discussion. We don't bash religion. I have dis-welcomed your "education."

 

 

I'm no one to educate you and I am an independent thinker.

 

When I say,

 

"The teachings and the wisdom in the religious scriptures are not so ordinary either to conclude that they were made up by goat herders or to call it childish."

 

They say,

 

"Immortal doesn't have anything to back up his claim"

 

When I bring something new.

 

You say,

 

"I don't welcome You"