Why Scientific Realism might be false?

[LimbicLoser]

The simple truth of the matter is that the so called scientific method itself is saying that scientific realism is false...

This is simply not true, immortal. I know for a fact that it is not something that you will ever be able to get over, so I don't have any pressure to invest much more here. You have very clearly proven on far more than just a few examples, that there are some major errors in some of the finer points which build the ideas behind some terms which you misuse, as well as some fault in being able to reason correctly. Misconstruction is often enough found in your several posts, so as to undermine your very position to a very high degree.

 

Scientific method, in the broadest sense, is what can be understood through the operation of the brain. It is not something that only the H. sapiens exercise. Everything which is discovered through that method, is a discovery about the external actuality of nature at large. There is not a single stitch of evidence which demonstrates that what has been soundly understood (sound knowledge) to date about the world we live in, is not an external or internal reality of this world.

 

Now it is true--as we can see (through the course of dealing with your posts across the boards)--that you may have had some twisted explanation of what you wish to delimit the term 'scientific realism' to actually be defined as. Nevertheless, going by the OP, I do not see how one can escape all sound knowledge as being included in that phrase 'scientific objects.' That sticking your hand in a full-volume of fire will burn it, is an object of sound knowledge learned through the scientific process. That drinking salt water only, for a certain period of time, will cause extreme health problems is sound knowledge learned by the same scientific method process. That the female development track is the default mode, is also, just like the above, an item of sound knowledge. That if one's ascending reticular activating system is totally disabled, that one will absolutely not have the condition of having a state of consciousness, is sound knowledge. The list goes on and on and on, and it is clear that there is not an item of sound knowledge which has been over turned by another--for such theories and hypothesis which have been over turned, altered, adjusted, or so on, do not amount to sound knowledge.

 

What you may well wish to have been presenting, is the fact that in the studies and experiments in quantum physics, it has become evidenced that there is more happening in the external actuality of nature than we have been able to perceive thus far without all the fancy equipment and set ups, and such. (And please do not forget that all that equipment represents sound knowledge; scientific method processing.) No contest there, immortal. When you go applying that to an interpretation of some ancient theist-involved religious text--that is, interpreting the text in light of what is being learned of, or seen, or interpreted from experiments in quantum physics--and then conclude by that misgiven and illicit interpretation that some god exists, and our over-all, objective perception of external reality is a falsehood, your proper sensible rationing has fatally broken down. Your above quoted claim is due to your not being capable of understanding in a rationally developed manner.

 

and the stupidity is not on my part but actually its on your part for not understanding what is being discussed here...

This assertion has no value. That the element and portions of what you have been presenting and saying are in fact erroneous--that is, they are not factual, but rather false in their overall setting--is one thing which I fully realize now, you will never be able to handle properly so as to learn from being corrected on them. That your mix of things held in mind is based on some primary errors, and that if you don't fix those, the position you hold will never be correct, may of course make it appear (in that rose-colored setting you hold in mind) that what I have been trying to correct you with, appears to be stupid. That you hold such in mind is now most obvious! That your errors have not been corrected for, is now most obvious as well!

 

... and what interesting is that the methodologies in esotericism have also been saying the same thing about our nature for all these years that what we call empirical reality is only a state of mind.

Well, I had tried to see if I could get an example going to demonstrate something about this matter of knowing something, but it seems not to have worked. I have of course been down this road before--trust me, it's nothing new on the internet, at all !! Phenomenology is good to a point; but you will always find those that mix it with Mysticism and inaccurate and incorrect renderings and interpretation of ancient (pre-10th century) theist-based religious belief system information sources, and taking it to FAR extremes. It gets so ludicrous that it becomes a sad laugh.

 

No, immortal, reality is not only a state of mind. This is a fact. The mere fact that you are denying this fact very clearly shows, in fact, that you are hopelessly drunk with this illicit and illegitimate mix of imagination and results from studies in quantum physics. Tell us, therefore, about what it is that I have next to the thing beside my computer here (a relatively fixed, always there item), and, additionally, what that thing is and what my computer model is. These tubes of paint over there across the room, and that canvas, what do they portray in that particular situation that they are presently in? Do you think that if you jump off the downhill side of the roof of my dozo (an old, thick-walled Japanese storage house) which I rebuilt to house my studio, a fall of some 10 meters, that you will land on the ground with the same momentum as would be the case if you jumped off a step ladder? Do you think that any person, elephant, cow, dog, and even cat, would experience the same pressure of sudden stop with the two distances? Do you think moving the two distances to different locations on the face of the globe would result in similar impact forces between them? Do you think the same would be the case on the moon? The real, down-to-earth-like reality that is the same (as can be understood clearly enough) for all who experience, or don't experience it, is real. Can you prove that the certain scars on my forehead are only in your mind, and the historical events, and objects which led to such scars, had only been in my sister's mind? The only way to know of it is through brain, in a scientific method process of trial and error, testing and learning, over a high number of sample space examples, over a long stretch of time, but that in no way at all makes it only an internal actuality of nature. Complexity makes that hard in some areas, and requires a number of special and fancy machines, equipment, and set-ups, but it is still the same single thing--scientific method.

 

You are deluding yourself again and again by ignoring facts established from experiments and that's what ought to be corrected. Did you understand? I am not attacking the scientific method instead I am attacking the scientific consensus.

I am clearly not the one deluded here on this thread. The OP makes that pretty obvious. Additionally, if you are not attacking the scientific method in its broadest sense (which I would tend to say that you have not specifically been doing), its because you are not paying any attention to it; that's all. If you had been paying attention to scientific method, then you would not have started this thread, because you would have known (unless your phrase 'scientific realism' has some yet untold meaning for you which the bare words themselves cannot identify for us other readers) that the results of the quantum experiments do not prove that external reality is false, or not there, or is only in our brains as a totally internal alone matter. The scientific consensus is largely built on sound knowledge gained through scientific method--after having set less secure theories and hypothesis of academic and professional fields aside for further sample set testing and more time over which to do so. So, what's the problem? Is some Vedaic author's wild imagination getting in the way in an a priori fashion?

 

The truth of the matter is that both religion and science are converging and there is no conflict between religion and science. Like it or not.

Again--and exactly has I have pointed out in this post, and in others here and elsewhere--you are not using your terms nearly accurate enough, and thereby are misleading and confusing your terms and your ideas, and related matters. Religion and science are not converging. To assert that is blatant ignorance of the more accurate and correct, and standard usage of, the definitions of the terms used. Like it or not, one has got to use language as carefully as can be, and you have failed here on more than one account. In that I have (and more than once, this will make it) basically decided not to invest much more in this silly mistaken nonsense of your position--since it is obviously much, much more of an ideology which you have avowed yourself to, rather than part of a process of learning and expanding sound knowledge and sound beliefs--I will only ask you here to please expand fully (as comprehensively and exhaustively as you can) what exactly falls under the word 'science' as you wish to use it, and what exactly falls under the word 'religion' as you wish to use it. Since it is clear that you have ignored my corrections on the better usage of these terms, I want to see just how mixed up you actually are--and thus I ask for you fill them out here.

 

PS: I do not think that there is any value at all in simply quoting a WHOLE post just to answer to a few points therein. It does because clutter more than anything else.

 

Contrary to your immortal misunderstanding, quantum mechanics is perfectly compatible with realism.

A very, very should-have-been-most-obvious-from-the-get-go fact. I am aware, at the same time, that we might have to get a full description (definition with an inclusion of all items falling within it) from immortal, however. He could be holding that term in some totally incorrect (relative to set definition and common usage in the English language) manner.

 

Congrats by linking to the typical sensationalist article from New Scientist with such nonsenses...

LOL !! That reminded me of when my mentor shared one article from NS on consciousness, and said up front (and along with it) that this journal is one that a person has to be careful with--it's very tilted in a direction of imaginative freedom taking. He added that if we use articles from NS and SciAM (yes, even Scientific American, though much better, at times leans a bit... you'll very seldom find it cited in papers) we should fully collaborate with studies in the several professional journals (as opposed to magazine) and professionally targeted books. I subscribed to NS (hard copy) for a number of years, but finally got rid of it (although I of course have access to it still)--more than half of each issue was for job hunting, and I was paying for that too?!

[immortal]

"Counterfactual definiteness" is a rather vague term (it lacks a precise definition) used in some interpretations of quantum mechanics.

 

Nope, its a well defined term.

 

Counterfactual definiteness

 

 

In some interpretations of quantum mechanics, counterfactual definiteness (CFD) is the ability to speak meaningfully about the definiteness of the results of measurements, even if they were not performed. (i.e., the ability to assume the existence of objects and properties of objects even when they have not been measured).

Counterfactual definiteness is a basic assumption, which, together with locality, leads to Bell inequalities. In their derivation it is explicitly assumed that every possible measurement, even if not performed, can be included in statistical calculations. Bell's Theorem actually proves that every quantum theory must violateeither locality or CFD.^[2][3]

 

CFD is present in any interpretation of quantum mechanics that regards quantum mechanical measurements to be objective descriptions of a system's state independent of the measuring process. It is not present in interpretations such as the Copenhagen interpretation and its modern refinements which regard the measured values as resulting from both the system and the measuring apparatus without being defined in the absence of an interaction between the two.

 

 

Experiments have clearly disallowed and rejected the assumption of counterfactual definiteness and I go by evidence.

 

 

 

Contrary to your immortal misunderstanding, quantum mechanics is perfectly compatible with realism.

 

The Einstein's notion of mathematical realism is wrong and its a proved fact now. Wake up to the truth.

 

If you were not repeating the same mistake a hundred of times, surely I would not be quoting Weinberg once again. Unlike you, he is well aware of the limitations and weakness of the old Copenhagen interpretation and of how modern interpretations have surpassed it.

 

The popularity of the Copenhagen interpretation is related to being the older of all them and that it still work for a large class of quantum systems and also when one does not look into the details. There are situations where the old Copenhagen interpretation fails and has been surpassed by more general and rigorous interpretations, as explained in the modern literature cited hundred of posts ago.

 

We cannot speak anything about quantum mechanical reality without in the context of the measuring device and the arrangement of the measuring device and in the absence of such measurements quantum mechanical reality makes no sense at all and this is a fact established from experiments.

 

Congrats by linking to the typical sensationalist article from New Scientist with such nonsenses as "single photon that exists in three locations at once", "properties of one particle can immediately affect those of another regardless of the distance between them", and so on.

 

Your selection reflects again your immortal inability to differentiate a reliable scientific source (as those given to you by several posters) from popular misinterpretations. Why do not link again to the pseudo-journal with the hidden agenda? Why do not cite again that pseudo-religious Prize awarded to nonsense?

 

Blame the science reporter and the magazine, don't blame me. Instead of reading what the experimental results have concluded and what the researchers are saying you seem to be very much fond of reading what the science reporter is saying. I am not someone who uses non-scientific terms and I very well know what I am talking here and that's the reason why I changed the title of the article and said "Real experiments confirm Kochen-Specker theorem". I could have easily cited it as "Quantum magic trick says reality is what you make it" as it was there but I didn't said it because I very well know that that's not what the experiments are actually saying. Again its not my fault, one of the reasons I cited it is because it gives some implications as to what the researchers are saying.

 

Again I am neither the part of John templeton foundation nor the Journal of Scientific Exploration and I definitely don't associate myself with anyone because I know no one holds the kind of radical views which I hold and what's important for me is the correct representation of both religion and science. However for the first time it actually makes sense to show some sympathy towards Bernard D'Espagnat and the ideas of these foundations and they are just holding a logically possible hypothesis which is a God hypothesis which physicists have ignored or rejected such a hypothesis just purely based on their personal taste and just squabbling against other interpretations without realizing that religion can give a solution to it and answer their questions if they look into it.

 

As the authors correctly note you cannot find a [classical] joint probability distribution allowing "a quantum system to be classically understood". They add: "We provide the first experimental evidence that even for a single three-state system, a qutrit, no such classical model can exist that correctly describes the results of a simple set of pairwise compatible measurements."

 

I have already stated, about 200 posts ago, that quantum mechanics describes quantum reality. Universe is not classical, but quantum in essence, and quantum mechanics describes quantum reality.

 

We know very well that classical reality is only an approximation to a more fundamental quantum reality.

 

What should be focused and emphasized from the experimental results of that paper is that there is no absolute reality at the level of quantum mechanical reality and we need to give up the classical notion of realism at the quantum mechanical level.

 

We already know what are the deficiencies of the Copenhagen Interpretation. This is not a secret known only among an elite of researchers, but can be found even in popular magazines as Physics Today (Weinberg's article cited before). You can ignore the facts, but they will not disappear...

 

That's your personal bias, the experiments are clearly saying that 'there is no element of physical reality corresponding to a physical quantity'. There is no objective reality independent of the context of the measurements.

 

Sure, everyone knows that universe is made of elementary particles such as quarks and electrons, and that those particles existed in the universe before the first human was born. Look for "quark epoch" in some cosmology textbook.

 

You hold the very laughable opinion that those elementary aspects of modern physics are only beliefs by CERN scientists and that universe is made of your five pseudo-religious 'elements'; but such collection of nonsense only reflects your ignorance of such matters.

 

The recent experiments have casted some doubts about our place in the cosmos and we need a radical new revision about our ideas on space and time.

 

Of course electrons, hadrons, jets, neutrinos and muons all behave quite differently as they pass through the detector and there by allows us to identify each type but experiments done on particles which are stable shows that the attributes or the properties of these particles like spin, polarisation etc cannot have pre-determined values and hence such properties cannot be thought to have any existence or sense independent of measurements and therefore we cannot speak anything about the reality which is out there. It really casts doubts on the kind of reality which we are living in.

 

Contrary to what you say that is the correct approach to religion and that's what religion is saying that the world is made of five elements and its very important to understand and define reality in the context of esoteric religions and as I said your personal distaste for religion will not turn religion to be false. Be rest assured of that.

 

This is simply not true, immortal. I know for a fact that it is not something that you will ever be able to get over, so I don't have any pressure to invest much more here. You have very clearly proven on far more than just a few examples, that there are some major errors in some of the finer points which build the ideas behind some terms which you misuse, as well as some fault in being able to reason correctly. Misconstruction is often enough found in your several posts, so as to undermine your very position to a very high degree.

 

Scientific method, in the broadest sense, is what can be understood through the operation of the brain. It is not something that only the H. sapiens exercise. Everything which is discovered through that method, is a discovery about the external actuality of nature at large. There is not a single stitch of evidence which demonstrates that what has been soundly understood (sound knowledge) to date about the world we live in, is not an external or internal reality of this world.

 

Now it is true--as we can see (through the course of dealing with your posts across the boards)--that you may have had some twisted explanation of what you wish to delimit the term 'scientific realism' to actually be defined as. Nevertheless, going by the OP, I do not see how one can escape all sound knowledge as being included in that phrase 'scientific objects.' That sticking your hand in a full-volume of fire will burn it, is an object of sound knowledge learned through the scientific process. That drinking salt water only, for a certain period of time, will cause extreme health problems is sound knowledge learned by the same scientific method process. That the female development track is the default mode, is also, just like the above, an item of sound knowledge. That if one's ascending reticular activating system is totally disabled, that one will absolutely not have the condition of having a state of consciousness, is sound knowledge. The list goes on and on and on, and it is clear that there is not an item of sound knowledge which has been over turned by another--for such theories and hypothesis which have been over turned, altered, adjusted, or so on, do not amount to sound knowledge.

 

What is simply not true? that experiments which is based on the very notion of scientific method has casted serious doubts on the existence of the empirical reality existing independent of the human mind? that nature disagrees with you? that objects like protons, quarks, electrons are not self-existent independent of the human mind? One can see how you are doing injustice to your own intellectual reasoning by ignoring facts.

 

 

What you may well wish to have been presenting, is the fact that in the studies and experiments in quantum physics, it has become evidenced that there is more happening in the external actuality of nature than we have been able to perceive thus far without all the fancy equipment and set ups, and such. (And please do not forget that all that equipment represents sound knowledge; scientific method processing.) No contest there, immortal. When you go applying that to an interpretation of some ancient theist-involved religious text--that is, interpreting the text in light of what is being learned of, or seen, or interpreted from experiments in quantum physics--and then conclude by that misgiven and illicit interpretation that some god exists, and our over-all, objective perception of external reality is a falsehood, your proper sensible rationing has fatally broken down. Your above quoted claim is due to your not being capable of understanding in a rationally developed manner.

 

This is BS, Bernard is a philosopher of science and we know what scientific realism is and what quantum physics is saying. If you want to be deluded and ignore facts, by all means you can but don't claim that Bernard doesn't understand it in a rationally developed manner. Scientific realism is a well defined term in philosophy of science.

 

According to scientific realism, an ideal scientific theory has the following features:

 

• The claims the theory makes are either true or false, depending on whether the entities talked about by the theory exist and are correctly described by the theory. This is the semantic commitment of scientific realism.
• The entities described by the scientific theory exist objectively and mind-independently. This is the metaphysical commitment of scientific realism.
• There are reasons to believe some significant portion of what the theory says. This is the epistemological commitment.

 

It is a well established fact that quantum mechanics is a successful universal theory and that it is complete and its fundamental to the universe and this theory directly questions the metaphysical commitment of scientific realism and forces us to renounce that belief.

 

 

This assertion has no value. That the element and portions of what you have been presenting and saying are in fact erroneous--that is, they are not factual, but rather false in their overall setting--is one thing which I fully realize now, you will never be able to handle properly so as to learn from being corrected on them. That your mix of things held in mind is based on some primary errors, and that if you don't fix those, the position you hold will never be correct, may of course make it appear (in that rose-colored setting you hold in mind) that what I have been trying to correct you with, appears to be stupid. That you hold such in mind is now most obvious! That your errors have not been corrected for, is now most obvious as well!

 

Dude, these are facts established from experiments and I obviously have to state the stupidity of the way you seem to have made up in your mind that my position is erroneous and how you're deluded that Bernard and Penrose ideas have been falsified. No its not, as long as they are not falsified their argument stands and along with my argument stands as well.

 

Well, I had tried to see if I could get an example going to demonstrate something about this matter of knowing something, but it seems not to have worked. I have of course been down this road before--trust me, it's nothing new on the internet, at all !! Phenomenology is good to a point; but you will always find those that mix it with Mysticism and inaccurate and incorrect renderings and interpretation of ancient (pre-10th century) theist-based religious belief system information sources, and taking it to FAR extremes. It gets so ludicrous that it becomes a sad laugh.

 

Its because of the amount of misrepresentation of religion that was there not only over the internet but also in the circles of scholars, scientists and philosophers was the main reason to start this thread and this is the correct approach to study religion.

 

No, immortal, reality is not only a state of mind. This is a fact. The mere fact that you are denying this fact very clearly shows, in fact, that you are hopelessly drunk with this illicit and illegitimate mix of imagination and results from studies in quantum physics. Tell us, therefore, about what it is that I have next to the thing beside my computer here (a relatively fixed, always there item), and, additionally, what that thing is and what my computer model is. These tubes of paint over there across the room, and that canvas, what do they portray in that particular situation that they are presently in? Do you think that if you jump off the downhill side of the roof of my dozo (an old, thick-walled Japanese storage house) which I rebuilt to house my studio, a fall of some 10 meters, that you will land on the ground with the same momentum as would be the case if you jumped off a step ladder? Do you think that any person, elephant, cow, dog, and even cat, would experience the same pressure of sudden stop with the two distances? Do you think moving the two distances to different locations on the face of the globe would result in similar impact forces between them? Do you think the same would be the case on the moon? The real, down-to-earth-like reality that is the same (as can be understood clearly enough) for all who experience, or don't experience it, is real. Can you prove that the certain scars on my forehead are only in your mind, and the historical events, and objects which led to such scars, had only been in my sister's mind? The only way to know of it is through brain, in a scientific method process of trial and error, testing and learning, over a high number of sample space examples, over a long stretch of time, but that in no way at all makes it only an internal actuality of nature. Complexity makes that hard in some areas, and requires a number of special and fancy machines, equipment, and set-ups, but it is still the same single thing--scientific method.

 

The fact that reality is only a state of mind is not an extraordinary claim as you seem to think. Its a well sort out argument.

 

Read this: Is it all in the mind?

 

 

I am clearly not the one deluded here on this thread. The OP makes that pretty obvious. Additionally, if you are not attacking the scientific method in its broadest sense (which I would tend to say that you have not specifically been doing), its because you are not paying any attention to it; that's all. If you had been paying attention to scientific method, then you would not have started this thread, because you would have known (unless your phrase 'scientific realism' has some yet untold meaning for you which the bare words themselves cannot identify for us other readers) that the results of the quantum experiments do not prove that external reality is false, or not there, or is only in our brains as a totally internal alone matter. The scientific consensus is largely built on sound knowledge gained through scientific method--after having set less secure theories and hypothesis of academic and professional fields aside for further sample set testing and more time over which to do so. So, what's the problem? Is some Vedaic author's wild imagination getting in the way in an a priori fashion?

 

As I said you need a reality check.

 

The reality tests

 

Again--and exactly has I have pointed out in this post, and in others here and elsewhere--you are not using your terms nearly accurate enough, and thereby are misleading and confusing your terms and your ideas, and related matters. Religion and science are not converging. To assert that is blatant ignorance of the more accurate and correct, and standard usage of, the definitions of the terms used. Like it or not, one has got to use language as carefully as can be, and you have failed here on more than one account. In that I have (and more than once, this will make it) basically decided not to invest much more in this silly mistaken nonsense of your position--since it is obviously much, much more of an ideology which you have avowed yourself to, rather than part of a process of learning and expanding sound knowledge and sound beliefs--I will only ask you here to please expand fully (as comprehensively and exhaustively as you can) what exactly falls under the word 'science' as you wish to use it, and what exactly falls under the word 'religion' as you wish to use it. Since it is clear that you have ignored my corrections on the better usage of these terms, I want to see just how mixed up you actually are--and thus I ask for you fill them out here.

 

PS: I do not think that there is any value at all in simply quoting a WHOLE post just to answer to a few points therein. It does because clutter more than anything else.

 

Religion falls under the noumenon and science falls under the phenomenon which is the empirical reality.

Edited October 8, 2012 by immortal

[LimbicLoser]

What is simply not true?

You quoted a portion of the explanation backing that up; did you not actually read it? What I know is not true is spelled out there, so, it may be good to back through that again. That you are arguing that it is true, is no surprise to anyone following.

 

... that experiments which is based on the very notion of scientific method ...

This is spinning here. Please stay on track!

 

... has casted serious doubts on the existence of the empirical reality existing independent of the human mind?

Speaking of quantum, this is a perfect example of where the cliche 'quantum jump' came from. A jump from one point that falls within a contextual setting of presentative theme, and jumping to a totally irrelevant (once again) point which is in no way supported by the earlier. What you need to do is stop wasting time doing internet searches, and get down the nitty-gritty of logical explanation so as to attempt to clarify what in the world you wish to hold your terms to be at--at least that much. I gave you a bunch of stuff to think about, and you don't. What will fall under realism and what would fall under being in your mind alone and not in mine?

 

... that nature disagrees with you? that objects like protons, quarks, electrons are not self-existent independent of the human mind?

How is it that a neuron depolarizes with something that does not exist except in my mind? Solipsism is dethroned nonsense.

 

This is BS, Bernard is a philosopher of science and we know what scientific realism is and what quantum physics is saying. If you want to be deluded and ignore facts, by all means you can but don't claim that Bernard doesn't understand it in a rationally developed manner. Scientific realism is a well defined term in philosophy of science.

A tangent. Go back and read with the intent to fully see the whole picture of what I had written there. What you had written in reply is a different thing from what I had been talking about.

 

It is a well established fact that quantum mechanics is a successful universal theory and that it is complete and its fundamental to the universe...

Other than the fact that it involves yet much theory, some more secure, some less, and for that reason is largely a different thing from knowing that a 2x6 laying flat will never be as strong in supporting weight as a 2x6 laying on its side, I see no room for disagreement on this much. What you have written here, is disconnected from what you had just written above it. I am aware of the idea of the three dimensions of scientific realism in general, but am also aware that that very blogged down in mire playing field is largely irrelevant to any rounded-out, reasonable pragmatic concern.

 

and this theory directly questions the metaphysical commitment of scientific realism and forces us to renounce that belief.

LOL ! Here's another one of those 'quantum jumps.' Going way off on a tangent on non-relationship. Questions, yes; denies, no--and that is the difference.

 

Dude, these are facts established from experiments and I obviously have to state the stupidity of the way you seem to have made up in your mind that my position is erroneous and how you're deluded that Bernard and Penrose ideas have been falsified.

I have found an error in my text which I will correct for first here. The following should have been the correct read (bold italics below)--I unintentionally omitted a connector:

 

That the element and portions of what you have been presenting and saying

that

are in fact erroneous--that is, they are not factual, but rather false in their overall setting--is one thing which I fully realize now, you will never be able to handle properly so as to learn from being corrected on them.

 

I am not particularly talking about the results of any of the experiments in physics. I have been trying to correct the error which you have not yet corrected yourself; and have demonstrated the disposition of not be willing to do so. I know that I have plainly told you that before.

 

 

Its because of the amount of misrepresentation of religion that was there not only over the internet but also in the circles of scholars, scientists and philosophers was the main reason to start this thread and this is the correct approach to study religion.

Misguided misconception on the internet of course, among philosophers, it has been well enough shown, among religious scholars, yes, but among scholars of religious knowledge hardly at all ! This is the truth of that matter. Scholars of religious knowledge are fully aware of the proper use of the collective, non-count noun 'religion,' and the countable sense which requires the indefinite article--'a religion.' It is here where you keep making the same mistake again and again--a mistake, which is an error.

 

The fact that reality is only a state of mind is not an extraordinary claim as you seem to think. Its a well sort out argument.

Besides the sidestepping, I have shown in that very post, that actuality of nature at large is not something that is in your mind alone--again, solipsism is dead. The claim that reality (actualities of nature at large in total) cannot exist without a human brain to create them, is in no way a fact. An argument can be valid, without being sound. An argument can be logically correct without being true, or so fully representing all true pertinent and applicable details which could be involved with the matter under discussion. Therefore, to assert an argument's logical coherency as representing its faithfulness to sound knowledge, is really 'the fallacy of misplaced concreteness.'

 

As I said you need a reality check.

As I said, you need to correct your errors and inaccuracies.

 

Religion falls under the noumenon and science falls under the phenomenon which is the empirical reality.

You are using the word 'religion' here to signify, not any specific theist-involved (or non-theist-involved) religious belief system, but the collective human emotional element by which, and through which, such systems derived. In that there is full incompatibility amongst them, we cannot in any correctly and soundly assert that their individual claims to know, are correct; much less that they represent sound knowledge of external actualities of nature at large. Your usage of the word 'science' is not accurate enough here, in any reasonable pragmatic degree, as something to compare in evaluating against the human emotional element. If you were to compare the sound knowledge and belief which has been pragmatically demonstrated against any theist-based religious system's information source statements and claims, then that is a different story. Will you never correct for that?

[immortal]

You quoted a portion of the explanation backing that up; did you not actually read it? What I know is not true is spelled out there, so, it may be good to back through that again. That you are arguing that it is true, is no surprise to anyone following.

 

 

This is spinning here. Please stay on track!

 

Its quite clear that you're moving the goal posts and not looking at what the evidence is saying, I am sorry, it might be good for you if you back through what nature is saying rather than correcting an evidence based position.

 

 

Speaking of quantum, this is a perfect example of where the cliche 'quantum jump' came from. A jump from one point that falls within a contextual setting of presentative theme, and jumping to a totally irrelevant (once again) point which is in no way supported by the earlier. What you need to do is stop wasting time doing internet searches, and get down the nitty-gritty of logical explanation so as to attempt to clarify what in the world you wish to hold your terms to be at--at least that much. I gave you a bunch of stuff to think about, and you don't. What will fall under realism and what would fall under being in your mind alone and not in mine?

 

In quantum mechanics the term counterfactual definiteness is a well defined term and it means that objects have well defined values independent of measurements but recent experiments from quantum mechanics have falsified such an assumption and if we cannot in any way assign the value to an attribute of an object then the attribute loses its objective meaning and we cannot say what is it that exists out there in the physical world.

 

Please don't use fuzzy words in QM because people will laugh at you, only when you put much effort to understand QM you will realize the reasoning behind these arguments.

 

To put it in Bernard words:

 

"This reality is something that, while not a purely mind-made construct as radical idealism would have it, can be but the picture our mind forces us to form of ... Of what ? The only answer I am able to provide is that underlying this empirical reality is a mysterious, non-conceptualisable "ultimate reality", not embedded in space and (presumably) not in time either. "

 

So this is a different kind of idealism and it leads to Kantian philosophy of the phenomenon and the noumenon.

 

How is it that a neuron depolarizes with something that does not exist except in my mind? Solipsism is dethroned nonsense.

 

I know about the action potential. Its done by Na+ and K+ ions and uses ATPase to pump the ions in and out of the neuron and this is what all neural processing is based on. The problem is that even neurons are made of the same particles like protons and electrons and they are subjected to the same QM rules and they lose objective meaning when a quantum measurement is made on them. The states of the brain also do not have elements of physical reality corresponding to their physical quantities. In the absence of measurements i.e without an observation even the neurons exists in a superposition of states and to get an actual reality from the range of possibilities an act of observation is necessary.

 

A tangent. Go back and read with the intent to fully see the whole picture of what I had written there. What you had written in reply is a different thing from what I had been talking about.

 

Other than the fact that it involves yet much theory, some more secure, some less, and for that reason is largely a different thing from knowing that a 2x6 laying flat will never be as strong in supporting weight as a 2x6 laying on its side, I see no room for disagreement on this much. What you have written here, is disconnected from what you had just written above it. I am aware of the idea of the three dimensions of scientific realism in general, but am also aware that that very blogged down in mire playing field is largely irrelevant to any rounded-out, reasonable pragmatic concern.

 

 

LOL ! Here's another one of those 'quantum jumps.' Going way off on a tangent on non-relationship. Questions, yes; denies, no--and that is the difference.

 

You have got no idea how successful quantum theory has been in predicting the probability of the outcomes of nature and I go by what nature says and what evidence says. You're talking blindly here.

 

I have found an error in my text which I will correct for first here. The following should have been the correct read (bold italics below)--I unintentionally omitted a connector:

I am not particularly talking about the results of any of the experiments in physics. I have been trying to correct the error which you have not yet corrected yourself; and have demonstrated the disposition of not be willing to do so. I know that I have plainly told you that before.

 

You're attitude sucks, its like saying who cares about evidence and what nature is saying I am going to screw someone no matter what. Shall I assume you don't want to discuss about the results of the experiments in physics because as you have admitted its something which you have read less about. Don't go off topic please.

 

 

Misguided misconception on the internet of course, among philosophers, it has been well enough shown, among religious scholars, yes, but among scholars of religious knowledge hardly at all ! This is the truth of that matter. Scholars of religious knowledge are fully aware of the proper use of the collective, non-count noun 'religion,' and the countable sense which requires the indefinite article--'a religion.' It is here where you keep making the same mistake again and again--a mistake, which is an error.

 

I am talking Esoteric religions here and it is a well defined term.

 

Besides the sidestepping, I have shown in that very post, that actuality of nature at large is not something that is in your mind alone--again, solipsism is dead. The claim that reality (actualities of nature at large in total) cannot exist without a human brain to create them, is in no way a fact. An argument can be valid, without being sound. An argument can be logically correct without being true, or so fully representing all true pertinent and applicable details which could be involved with the matter under discussion. Therefore, to assert an argument's logical coherency as representing its faithfulness to sound knowledge, is really 'the fallacy of misplaced concreteness.'

 

I am arguing for a sound idealism here and not for solipsism and contrary to what you believe idealism is very much alive and replacing the crude materialism of classical physicists.

 

"There are many signs that a sound idealism is surely replacing, as a basis for natural philosophy, the crude materialism of the older physicists."

 

Its not quite far that theists are going to laugh at atheists for holding a flawed position.

 

 

As I said, you need to correct your errors and inaccuracies.

 

You are using the word 'religion' here to signify, not any specific theist-involved (or non-theist-involved) religious belief system, but the collective human emotional element by which, and through which, such systems derived. In that there is full incompatibility amongst them, we cannot in any correctly and soundly assert that their individual claims to know, are correct; much less that they represent sound knowledge of external actualities of nature at large. Your usage of the word 'science' is not accurate enough here, in any reasonable pragmatic degree, as something to compare in evaluating against the human emotional element. If you were to compare the sound knowledge and belief which has been pragmatically demonstrated against any theist-based religious system's information source statements and claims, then that is a different story. Will you never correct for that?

 

Don't try to enforce your self-invented terminologies here like this one "theist involved belief systems" which is a very vague meaningless term.

 

I am talking about Eosteric religions in this thread and the term Esotericism is a well defined term.

 

 

These are the main characteristic features of Esotericism and the first correct definition of Esotericism was given by Antoine Faivre and this is his definition and it is the most agreed one in the academia of Esotericism.

 

"(1) Correspondences. Correspondences, symbolic or real, are believed to exist between all parts of the visible and invisible universe. "These correspondences are considered more or less veiled at first glance, and they are therefore meant to be read, to be decoded. The entire universe is a great theater of mirrors, a set of hieroglyphs to decipher; everything is a sign, everything harbours and manifests mystery" (Faivre l992b: xv). A distinction may be made between correspondences between visible and invisible levels of nature, and between nature (the cosmos) and history as exemplified in revealed texts.

 

(2) Living nature. The vision of a complex, plural, hierarchical nature permeated by spiritual force(s) is exemplified most clearly in the Renaissance understanding of magia. The perception of nature as a living milieu - a dynamic network of sympathies and antipathies - furnishes [112] a theoretical foundation for concrete implementation: various kinds of magical practice, "occult" medicine, theosophical soteriologies based on the framework of alchemy, and so on.

 

(3) Imagination and mediations. The idea of correspondences implies the possibility of mediation between the higher and lower worlds, by way of rituals, symbols, intermediate spirits, etc. The imagination, far from being mere fantasy, is regarded as an " 'organ of the soul' by means of which a person can establish cognitive and visionary rapport with an intermediary world, with a mesocosm" (Faivre 1992b: xvii), or mundus imaginalis. Imaginatio is the main instrument for attaining gnosis; it is "a tool for the knowledge of the self, of the world, of myth; it is the eye of fire penetrating the surface of appearances in order to make meanings, "connections", burst forth, to render the invisible visible ..." (Faivre 1992b: xvii-xviii).

 

(4) Experience of transmutation. This alchemical terminology is perhaps most appropriate to define the concept of an "initiatic path of development". The esotericist gains insight into the hidden mysteries of cosmos, self and God, and undergoes a process of purification on all levels of his being.

 

(5) The practice of concordance. The practice of concordance involves "a marked tendency to seek to establish commonalities between two or more different traditions, sometimes even between all traditions, with a view to gaining illumination, a gnosis of superior quality" (Faivre 1992b: xix).

 

(6) Transmission. Transmission refers to the flow of esoteric teachings"from master to disciple following a channel already dug, abiding by a course already charted" (Faivre 1992b: xix)."

 

This is the field which studies the truth about religions and it has its own methodologies and its own assumptions about the nature of the cosmos. I have defined what scientific realism is for you and I have also defined what Esoteric religions is for you and there is no confusion in what I am arguing here.

Edited October 8, 2012 by immortal

[Anilkumar]

Sure.

1. Valentinian Tradition of the Gnostic Christians.

2. Smartha Tradition of the Vedic Aryans.

3. Jewish Mysticism, Kabbalah

4. Tibetan Buddhism

5. Neoplatonism

6. Proto Indo-Iranian Religions

7. Proto Indo-European Religions

 

 

Immortal,

 

Religious Traditions are the laws, regulations, beliefs, doctrines, set of customs, usages and practices which are handed down from one generation to another.

 

Nevertheless, the list of seven given by you is the links to information on different religions with glimpses of some customs.

 

However, like you said;

 

They are based on a different methodology . . .

 

. . . They have non-positivistic methods which help them to gain practical useful knowledge just like we have got modern technology by applying the scientific empirical method which is solely based on basic observation.

 

I had asked for clear-cut Methods, Set of Customs, Practices, and Regulations that would help us

 

• To attain Truth i.e. as defined by you, to know what the world is made of, whether we have free will, where do we come from and understand how nature works to build testable models.
• To attain mastery over nature
• To attain the understanding of the working of the cosmos

To make it more precise;

 

What precisely is the Method by which we would know what the world is made of?

What precisely is the Method by which we would know whether we have free will or not?

What precisely is the Method by which we could know where do we come from?

What precisely is the Method by which we could know the working of the Cosmos?

What precisely is the Method by which we could attain mastery over nature?

Which are the testable models by which we could achieve all the above?

Edited October 9, 2012 by Anilkumar

[juanrga]

Nope, its a well defined term.

 

Counterfactual definiteness

 

And your link confirms what I said. First that this is not essential to quantum mechanics, but only found in some interpretations of quantum mechanics. Second, that this is a vague term: "the ability to speak meaningfully about the definiteness of the results of measurements" is not a precise definition by any standard. Your counter-claim reflects, once again, how far you are from physics standards and how ignorant you are of quantum mechanics.

 

The Einstein's notion of mathematical realism is wrong and its a proved fact now. Wake up to the truth.

 

I wrote about quantum mechanical realism. You reply with something unrelated about Einstein's mathematical realism. This time you forgot to say something about intellectual honesty...

 

We cannot speak anything about quantum mechanical reality without in the context of the measuring device and the arrangement of the measuring device and in the absence of such measurements quantum mechanical reality makes no sense at all and this is a fact established from experiments.

 

This is your immortal misunderstanding of quantum mechanics.

 

It is true that the role of measurement devices was over-hyped in earlier interpretations of quantum mechanics developed when this new stuff was not still completely understood. But our understanding of quantum mechanics has increased a lot of in last 60 years.

 

In modern formulations/interpretations, measuring devices are just quantum systems and measurements just a kind of processes. The modern textbook cited about 100 posts ago explains how our modern understanding of quantum mechanics does not require any special role for measurements and/or observers.

 

Blame the science reporter and the magazine, don't blame me. Instead of reading what the experimental results have concluded and what the researchers are saying you seem to be very much fond of reading what the science reporter is saying.

 

This is another instance of how you avoid what was written...

 

However for the first time it actually makes sense to show some sympathy towards Bernard D'Espagnat and the ideas of these foundations and they are just holding a logically possible hypothesis which is a God hypothesis which physicists have ignored or rejected such a hypothesis just purely based on their personal taste and just squabbling against other interpretations without realizing that religion can give a solution to it and answer their questions if they look into it.

 

D'Espagnat ideas have received the sympathy from an organization known by awarding nonsensical work.

 

You must be well unaware of this, but physicists have the sane tendency to ignore useless hypothesis as the "God hypothesis" by evident reasons to all of us.

 

What should be focused and emphasized from the experimental results of that paper is that there is no absolute reality at the level of quantum mechanical reality and we need to give up the classical notion of realism at the quantum mechanical level.

 

It has been known for 100 years that one has "to give up the classical notion of realism at the quantum mechanical level". After the occasional laugh, I will say you that this is explained in any textbook on quantum mechanics that I know. Moreover, the difference between classical reality and quantum reality has been emphasized dozens of times in this forum. It was made in the same message that you are supposedly replying now.

 

That's your personal bias

 

Saying that material published in Physics Today, by one of the most important physicists alive, is my "personal bias" is one of the most funny jokes that you have written here. :lol:

 

The recent experiments have casted some doubts about our place in the cosmos and we need a radical new revision about our ideas on space and time.

 

Maybe you did dream that. But here, in the real word, the CERN site continues explaining to general public of what is made the world according to what experiments show us, as I said in the previous message.

 

but experiments done on particles which are stable shows that the attributes or the properties of these particles like spin, polarisation etc cannot have pre-determined values

 

Spin is one of the properties that defines an elementary particle. E.g. photons are particles with spin 1, electrons are particles with spin one-half...

 

Contrary to what you say that is the correct approach to religion and that's what religion is saying that the world is made of five elements and its very important to understand and define reality in the context of esoteric religions and as I said your personal distaste for religion will not turn religion to be false. Be rest assured of that.

 

It is unimportant if religion claims that the world is made of five elements or of 50000. Religion is useless to understand the physical nature of reality and no post in this forum will change this well-known fact.

 

P.S.: In the past you gave partial, out of context, quotations by Albert Einstein in an attempt to convince us that he agrees with your nonsense. I gave full quotations that show the contrary.

 

I know what you will like this link as well

 

http://abcnews.go.co...tarting-2165601

Edited October 9, 2012 by juanrga

[LimbicLoser]

There is so much to iron out, and so seemingly, so little willingness on your part, immortal, to actually open the eyes of coherent exchange of pieces of evidence and thoughts, and try to fit all the puzzle pieces together to at least a more coherent whole. Anyway, deadlines have pressurized the time for me at the moment, so I have to break things down into smaller chunks spread farther apart chronologically. I'll stick with basics for a moment.

 

Its quite clear that you're moving the goal posts...

This is the second time that you have said that--although I cannot recall your verbatim form in the first instance, and do not have time now to look it up. Here, however, you have specifically and expressly evidenced the emotional (at least) understanding that I have continued moving the goal posts. (more than one post?) I claim that this understanding is not correct, and the charge groundless. I ask that you please specifically, and in no uncertain terms, identify the goal posts specifically, in verbatim format, and then point out where any 'moving' occurred, and the specific and verbatim format for that (or those) took place in my posts. I would suggest that you be sure to start from my first post #180 on page 9 linked to herein (If I get this linking correct.)

 

I wish to ask that you take your time, get it right, and make it as logically coherent and consistent as you can; please. This is something you have a need of carrying out correctly and conscientiously. Thank you.

 

While I await for the above, and as mentioned at the opening of this post, don't have time, I would like to point this out here--as a good example of things gone haywire:

 

The simple truth of the matter is that the so called scientific method itself is saying that scientific realism is false ... ( from post #220)

 

This is simply not true,

immortal

. ... Scientific method, in the broadest sense, is what can be understood through the operation of the brain. It is not something that only the H.

sapiens

exercise. Everything which is discovered through that method, is a discovery about the external actuality of nature at large. There is not a single stitch of evidence which demonstrates that what has been soundly understood (sound knowledge) to date about the world we live in, is not an external or internal reality of this world. (

from my #226

)

 

What is simply not true? that

experiments

which is

based on

the very notion of

scientific method

has casted serious doubts on

the existence of the

empirical reality existing independent of the human mind

? (from his 227 above; bold and underscore mine)

 

Speaking of quantum, this (that bold and underscore above) is a perfect example of where the cliche '

quantum jump

' came from. A jump from one point that falls within a contextual setting of presentative theme, and jumping to a totally irrelevant (

once again

) point which is in no way supported by the earlier. (my note added here for explanation)

 

In quantum mechanics the term counterfactual definiteness is a well defined term and it means that objects have well defined values independent of measurements but recent experiments from quantum mechanics have falsified such an assumption and if we cannot in any way assign the value to an attribute of an object then the attribute loses its objective meaning and we cannot say what is it that exists out there in the physical world.

This is--the above--is a quantum jump. I hope you can follow through and see how that is. By the way, what's that on my desk here? You consist of mind, so what is it? At any rate, I await your carefully researched out explanation and defense for the upper most matter of this post.

[immortal]

Immortal,

 

Religious Traditions are the laws, regulations, beliefs, doctrines, set of customs, usages and practices which are handed down from one generation to another.

 

Nevertheless, the list of seven given by you is the links to information on different religions with glimpses of some customs.

 

However, like you said;

 

 

I had asked for clear-cut Methods, Set of Customs, Practices, and Regulations that would help us

 

• To attain Truth i.e. as defined by you, to know what the world is made of, whether we have free will, where do we come from and understand how nature works to build testable models.
• To attain mastery over nature
• To attain the understanding of the working of the cosmos

To make it more precise;

 

What precisely is the Method by which we would know what the world is made of?

What precisely is the Method by which we would know whether we have free will or not?

What precisely is the Method by which we could know where do we come from?

What precisely is the Method by which we could know the working of the Cosmos?

What precisely is the Method by which we could attain mastery over nature?

Which are the testable models by which we could achieve all the above?

 

 

Good questions and its important to emphasize that even I am an outsider and not part of these traditions but I have made a considerable effort in understanding their world-views and practices and I should consider myself as a novice when it comes to the vast amount of knowledge and methodologies available in these wisdom traditions. All I can provide you is the correct insights which I have gained along with my little bit of wisdom which I have gained from traditional and religious scholars. Its very important to understand them in their own milieu.

 

What precisely is the Method by which we would know what the world is made of?

 

Its called Panchathma Sankramana Vidya.

 

"Chapter I—The Sheath of Food

 

1 Om. May Mitra be propitious unto us! May Varuna be propitious unto us! May Aryaman be propitious unto us! May Indra and Brihaspati be propitious unto us! May Vishnu, of wide strides, be propitious unto us! Salutation to Brahman! Salutation to Thee, O Vayu! Thou indeed art the visible Brahman. Thee indeed, O Vayu, I shall proclaim as the right! Thee indeed, I shall proclaim as the true! May It protect me! May It protect the teacher! May It protect me! May It protect the teacher!

 

2 Om. May Brahman protect us both! May Brahman bestow upon us both the fruit of Knowledge! May we both obtain the energy to acquire Knowledge! May what we both study reveal the Truth! May we cherish no ill—feeling toward each other! Om. Peace! Peace! Peace!

 

3 Om. He who knows Brahman attains the Supreme. On the above, the following mantra is recorded: “He who knows Brahman which is Reality, Knowledge and Infinity, hidden in the cave of the heart and in the highest akasa—he, being one with the omniscient Brahman, enjoys simultaneously all desires.” From the Atman was born akasa; from akasa, air; from air, fire; from fire, water; from water, earth; from earth, herbs; from herbs, food; from food, man. He, that man, verily consists of the essence of food. This indeed is his head, this right arm is the right wing, this left arm is the left wing, this trunk is his body, this support below the navel is his tail.

 

Chapter II—The Sheath of the Vital Breath

 

1. “From food, verily, are produced all creatures—whatsoever dwell on earth. By food alone, furthermore, do they live and to food, in the end, do they return; for food alone is the eldest of all beings and therefore, it is called the panacea for all.” “They who worship food as Brahman obtain all food. Food alone is the eldest of all beings and therefore it is called the panacea for all. From food all creatures are born: by food, when born, they grow. Because it is eaten by beings and because it eats beings, therefore it is called food.” Verily, different from this, which consists of the essence of food, but within it, is another self, which consists of the vital breath. By this the former is filled. This too has the shape of a man. Like the human shape of the former is the human shape of the latter. Prana, indeed, is its head; vyana is its right wing; apana is its left wing; akasa is its trunk; the earth is its tail, its support.

 

Chapter III—The Sheath of the Mind

 

1 “The gods breathe after the prana, so also do men and cattle; for the prana is the life of creatures. Therefore it is called the life of all. Those who worship the prana as Brahman obtain a full life; for the prana is the life of creatures. Therefore it is called the life of all.”

 

2 This sheath of the Prana is the embodied soul of the former. Verily, different from this sheath, which consists of the essence of the prana, but within it, is another self, which consists of the mind. By this the former is filled. This too has the shape of a man. Like the human shape of the former is the human shape of the latter. The Yajur—Veda is its head, the Rig—Veda is its right wing, the Sama—Veda is its left wing, the teaching is its trunk, the hymns of Atharva and Angiras are its tail, its support.

 

Chapter IV—The Sheath of the Intellect

 

1 “He who knows the Bliss of Brahman, whence all words together with the mind turn away, unable to reach it—he never fears.”

 

2 This sheath of the mind is the embodied soul of the former. Verily, the different from this sheath, which consists of the essence of the mind, but within it, is another self, which consists of the intellect. By this the former is filled. This too has the shape of a man. Like the human shape of the former is the human shape of the latter. Faith is it head, what is right is its right wing, what is truth is its left wing, absorption is its trunk, Mahat is its tail, its support.

 

Chapter V—The Sheath of Bliss

 

1 “The intellect accomplishes the sacrifice; it also accomplishes all actions. All the gods worship the intellect, who is the eldest, as Brahman.” “If a man knows the intellect as Brahman and if he does not swerve from it, he leaves behind in the body all evils and attains all his desires.”

 

2 This is the embodied soul of the former. Verily, different from this, which consists of the essence of the intellect, but within it, is another self, which consists of bliss. By this the former is filled. This too has the shape of a man. Like the human shape of the former is the human shape of the latter. Joy is its head, delight is its right wing, great delight is its left, bliss is its trunk. Brahman is its tail, its support. "

 

- Taittiriya Upanishad

 

Notice that every sheath is said to have a shape of man which means that these five elements i.e earth, fire, air, space, water along with the mind and intellect are anthropomorphic Gods with whom you can have a dialogue with. Carl Jung has already shown to the western world that these archetypes do exists and in fact his spiritual teacher which he called 'Philemon' was an anthropomorphic God from where he got his idea of Archetypal psychology. Its something which science understand very little about this.

 

 

What precisely is the Method by which we would know whether we have free will or not?

 

Its by Mandala worship where all the phenomena is realized as the activities of the gods and the delusion that you are in control of your life will be demolished. This is what all these traditions have been saying that we are spirits controlled by God as Elaine Pagels has discovered from the Valentinian tradition.

 

A modern commentary on Karma Lingpa's Zhi-Khro teachings on the Wrathful and Peaceful Deities

 

 

What precisely is the Method by which we could know where do we come from?

 

We come from a place where all the opposites reconcile into one unity. The Vedic Aryans called it the "Brahman", the Jews called it the "Ein Sof", the Valentinians called it the "Unknowable" and the Buddhists call it the "Sunya". We cannot make a conceptualization of it.

 

What precisely is the Method by which we could know the working of the Cosmos?

 

Its called Avastatreya.

 

"III The first quarter is called Vaisvanara, whose sphere of activity is the waking state, who is conscious of external objects, who has seven limbs and nineteen mouths and who is the experiencer of gross objects.

 

IV The second quarter is Taijasa, whose sphere of activity is the dream state, who is conscious of internal objects, who is endowed with seven limbs and nineteen mouths and who is the experiencer of subtle objects.

 

V That is the state of deep sleep wherein one asleep neither desires any object nor sees any dream. The third quarter is Prajna, whose sphere is deep sleep, in whom all experiences become unified, who is, verily, a mass of consciousness, who is full of bliss and experiences bliss and who is the door leading to the knowledge of dreaming and waking.

 

1 Visva is all—pervading, the experiencer of external objects. Taijasa is the cognizer of internal objects. Prajna is a mass of consciousness. It is one alone that is thus known in the three states.

 

2 Visva is the cognizer through the right eye; Taijasa is the cognizer through the mind within; Prajna is the akasa in the heart. Therefore the one Atman is perceived threefold in the same body.

 

3—4 Visva experiences the gross; Taijasa, the subtle; and Prajna, the blissful. Know these to be the threefold experience. The gross object satisfies Visva; the subtle, Taijasa; and the blissful, Prajna. Know these to be the threefold satisfaction.

 

5 The experiencer and the objects of experience associated with the three states have been described. He who knows these both does not become attached to objects though enjoying them.

 

10 Turiya, the changeless Ruler, is capable of destroying all miseries. All other entities being unreal, the non—dual Turiya alone is known as effulgent and all—pervading.

 

11 Visva and Taijasa are conditioned by cause and effect. Prajna is conditioned by cause alone. Neither cause nor effect exists in Turiya.

 

12 Prajna does not know anything of self or non—self, of truth or untruth. But Turiya is ever existent and all—seeing.

 

13 Non—cognition of duality is common to both Prajna and Turiya. But Prajna is associated with sleep in the form of cause and this sleep does not exist in Turiya.

 

14 The first two, Visva and Taijasa, are associated with dreaming and sleep respectively; Prajna, with Sleep bereft of dreams. Knowers of Brahman see neither sleep nor dreams in Turiya.

 

15 Dreaming is the wrong cognition and sleep the non—cognition, of Reality. When the erroneous knowledge in these two is destroyed, Turiya is realized. "

 

- Mandukya Upanishad

 

One will be baffled to know that the Upanishadic seers are saying the same thing which Bernard D'Espagnat is saying which he arrived at that same conclusion based on the scientific method and his sound rational philosophical analysis that "what we call reality is only a state of mind" and religion including the oral Jewish texts and the Rabbis have been saying the same thing that "What we call reality is only a state of mind" for over a millennia. This is the reason that Erwin Schroedinger argued for 40 years that the writers of the Upanishadic seers knew the truth.

 

What precisely is the Method by which we could attain mastery over nature?

 

Its done by invoking the gods and gaining knowledge and wisdom from them.

 

The hypothesis for that has already been laid out by the esotercists.

 

The Vedas in the light of Aurobindo

 

 

Which are the testable models by which we could achieve all the above?

 

The whole basic model for all of this is the Agnisoma Mandala also called the pleroma of Gods and one of the precise clear cut methods which I am aware of to achieve all of this is this.

 

An ancient method to achieve all of this

 

 

Finally I like to end this post by a note from the wisdom literature of the Old Testament.

 

 

How much greater must have been the gulf between the truly educated and the bulk of the population in the past. Jesus ben Sira, writing about 190 B.C. puts it quite blundy, when he says:

 

The wisdom of the wise depends on the opportunity of leisure; and he who has little business may become wise.

 

How can he become wise who handles the plow, and who glories in the shaft of a goad, who drives oxen and is occupied with their work, and whose talk is about bulls?

 

He sets his heart on plowing furrows, and he is careful about fodder for the heifers.

 

So too is every craftsman and master workman who labours by night as well as by day; those who cut the signets of seals, each is diligent in making a great variety; he sets his heart on painting a lifelike image, and he is careful to finish his work.

 

So too is the smith sitting by the anvil, intent upon his handiwork in iron; the breath of the fire melts his flesh, and he wastes away in the heat of the furnace; he inclines his ear to the sound of the hammer, and his eyes are upon the pattern of the object.

 

He sets his heart on finishing his handiwork, and he is careful to complete its decoration.

 

So too is the potter sitting at his work and turning the wheel with his feet; he is always deeply concerned over his work, and all his output is by number.

 

He moulds the clay with his arm and makes it pliable with his feet; he sets his heart to finish the glazing, and he is careful to clean the furnace.

 

All these rely upon their hands, and each is skilful in his own work.

 

Without them a city cannot be established, and men can neither sojourn nor live there.

 

Yet they are not sought out for the council of the people, nor do they attain eminence in the public assembly.

 

They do not sit in the judge's seat, nor do they understand the sentence of judgement; they cannot expound discipline or judgement, and they are not found using proverbs.

 

But they keep stable the fabric of the world, and their prayer is the practice of their trade.

 

On the other hand he who devotes himself to the study of the law of the Most High will seek out the wisdom of the ancients, and will be concerned with prophecies;

 

he will preserve the discourse of notable men and penetrate the subtleties of parables;

 

he will seek out the hidden meanings of proverbs and be at home with the obscurities of parables.

 

He will serve among great men and appear before rulers; he will travel through the lands of foreign nations, for he tests the good and evil among men.

 

- (Ecclus. xxxviii. 24-xxxix. 5)

[LimbicLoser]

... the Jews called it the "Ein Sof", ...

Leaving all the other saliently vehement figments aside, this especially quite appears to be, if not an outright lie, an extremely gross instance of blanket statement. At best, you will need to refine your subject class, and then will need to refine your usage range and contextual setting. This is gross error--again. The failure to correct for all the error you have been making all this time, ought, we can more commonly understand through common rationing, make one at least work to present more accurately and clearly. (And optimally correct error once it has been called to the attention of the error maker.)

 

... Its done by invoking the gods ...

This is correct and accurate usage of English standard rule of thumb. Good job !

 

... the pleroma of Gods ...

This is incorrect. The English proper noun form cannot, in this specific case, be pluralized. The error here is lazy and careless use (on whomever's part that may be) of the personal name of the Jewish god, or (by extension, though less accurate) the biblical god. In other words, actually the noun form found in the above quote should have been used. Additionally, transliterated Koine Greek serves no purpose without further explanation of what the Greek term means--and of course it simply means 'fullness,' or 'being full of something,' so it will actually prove much better, and academically acceptable, to inform us on what that thing is which is doing the filling of the retainer, or receiver of that which fills it.

 

... Finally I like to end this post by a note from the wisdom literature of the Old Testament.

Jesus Ben Sira's works are not part of the specific Old Testament library. Those scrolls have been included in some Christian Bible Copies, but do not fall in the specific library. If you had written something along the lines of '[io]a note from the wisdom literature of Second Temple Judaism at large[/i],' you would have created no error. I really reason, as I am sure others do too, that if you were to simply rush less, and expend far more energy on accuracy and correctness, at least your argumentation would be more error free--at least, I repeat (for your position is as useful to human life on earth as the putative water under the frozen surface of... oh well, I forget which moon that was at the moment. Maybe its time to put into practice what you had supposedly learned in school. (That too, might help at getting a job using that background?) Edited October 10, 2012 by LimbicLoser

[immortal]

And your link confirms what I said. First that this is not essential to quantum mechanics, but only found in some interpretations of quantum mechanics. Second, that this is a vague term: "the ability to speak meaningfully about the definiteness of the results of measurements" is not a precise definition by any standard. Your counter-claim reflects, once again, how far you are from physics standards and how ignorant you are of quantum mechanics.

 

 

Or it reflects your laziness to read the full statement?

 

counterfactual definiteness (CFD) is the ability to speak meaningfully of the definiteness of the results of measurements that have not been performed (i.e. the ability to assume the existence of objects, and properties of objects, even when they have not been measured),

 

This is the assumption of realism that an objective reality exists independent of measurements.

 

Of course QM doesn't require any such assumptions and its quite fine on predicting the outcomes of nature and contrary to what you believe Counterfactual definiteness is quite a common term in the literature of Bell theorems and experiments. The recent experiments have confirmed that it is counterfactual definiteness i.e the assumption of the existence of objects and properties even when they have not been measured that we need to give up. I have doubts that whether you have seriously studied QM or whether you're deliberately trying to misrepresent my credible claims.

 

 

I wrote about quantum mechanical realism. You reply with something unrelated about Einstein's mathematical realism.

 

Its very much related.

 

Einstein and his co-workers namely Boris Podolski and Nathan Rosen in 1935 concluded,

 

"If, without in any way disturbing the system, we can predict with certainty (i.e. with probability equal to unity) the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of physical reality corresponding to a physical quantity."

 

This is the notion of Einstein's mathematical realism and this is the kind of realism we need to abandon.

 

 

This time you forgot to say something about intellectual honesty...

 

I don't have to say it, yours posts says it all.

 

This is your immortal misunderstanding of quantum mechanics.

 

It is true that the role of measurement devices was over-hyped in earlier interpretations of quantum mechanics developed when this new stuff was not still completely understood. But our understanding of quantum mechanics has increased a lot of in last 60 years.

 

In modern formulations/interpretations, measuring devices are just quantum systems and measurements just a kind of processes. The modern textbook cited about 100 posts ago explains how our modern understanding of quantum mechanics does not require any special role for measurements and/or observers.

 

I am not misunderstood.

 

The truth of the matter is this.

 

"There is no sense in assuming that what we do not measure about a system has [an independent] reality," Zeilinger concludes.

 

This is the scientific fact. Perhaps you need to read a textbook which teaches QM based on the Copenhagen Interpretation.

 

D'Espagnat ideas have received the sympathy from an organization known by awarding nonsensical work.

 

You must be well unaware of this, but physicists have the sane tendency to ignore useless hypothesis as the "God hypothesis" by evident reasons to all of us.

 

 

Yet physicists or even biologists don't have a model to model conscious thought and physicists have got no idea of how to unify a unrealistic theory of QM with GR.

 

It has been known for 100 years that one has "to give up the classical notion of realism at the quantum mechanical level". After the occasional laugh, I will say you that this is explained in any textbook on quantum mechanics that I know. Moreover, the difference between classical reality and quantum reality has been emphasized dozens of times in this forum. It was made in the same message that you are supposedly replying now.

 

Yet you were the same guy who earlier argued in favour of realistic interpretations of quantum physics i.e it corresponds to an element of reality, (i.e. an objective attribute that exists before measurement). See your post #131. Your double standards and how you go by authority rather than looking at evidence and what nature is saying is quite evident. Nuf' said.

 

 

Saying that material published in Physics Today, by one of the most important physicists alive, is my "personal bias" is one of the most funny jokes that you have written here. :lol:

 

 

Aren't you doing some personal research and said that the wave-particle duality is a myth? I very well know that you have a personal bias against the Copenhagen interpretation.

 

 

Maybe you did dream that. But here, in the real word, the CERN site continues explaining to general public of what is made the world according to what experiments show us, as I said in the previous message.

 

I don't like to trouble the scientific community but please don't be dogmatic and as Stephen Hawking asks, Is that the final word? Is that a true understanding of nature?

 

Spin is one of the properties that defines an elementary particle. E.g. photons are particles with spin 1, electrons are particles with spin one-half...

 

It is for the same property that the Bell Inequality is tested and found to be violated in experiments and such a property doesn't exist independent of the context of measurements.

 

It is unimportant if religion claims that the world is made of five elements or of 50000. Religion is useless to understand the physical nature of reality and no post in this forum will change this well-known fact.

 

I still insist that physicists must adopt weak objectivism while describing their scientific models because science as an enterprise has become predictive which was an enterprise to give objective and descriptive explanations of nature and this dissatisfaction is what led the founders of quantum physicists like Schroedinger, Pauli and Bohr to resort into mysticism

 

 

 

P.S.: In the past you gave partial, out of context, quotations by Albert Einstein in an attempt to convince us that he agrees with your nonsense. I gave full quotations that show the contrary.

 

I know what you will like this link as well

 

http://abcnews.go.co...tarting-2165601

 

If Einstein was alive today he would be really angry with you.

 

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

 

- Albert Einstein, according to the testimony of Prince Hubertus of Lowenstein; as quoted by Ronald W. Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times, New York: World Publishing Company, 1971, p. 425.

 

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

 

- Albert Einstein.

 

And what was Spinoza's concept of God?

 

 

Comparison to Eastern philosophies

Similarities between Spinoza's philosophy and Eastern philosophical traditions have been discussed by many authorities. The 19th-century German Sanskritist Theodore Goldstücker was one of the early figures to notice the similarities between Spinoza's religious conceptions and the Vedanta tradition of India, writing that Spinoza's thought was "... a western system of philosophy which occupies a foremost rank amongst the philosophies of all nations and ages, and which is so exact a representation of the ideas of the Vedanta, that we might have suspected its founder to have borrowed the fundamental principles of his system from the Hindus, did his biography not satisfy us that he was wholly unacquainted with their doctrines... We mean the philosophy of Spinoza, a man whose very life is a picture of that moral purity and intellectual indifference to the transitory charms of this world, which is the constant longing of the true Vedanta philosopher... comparing the fundamental ideas of both we should have no difficulty in proving that, had Spinoza been a Hindu, his system would in all probability mark a last phase of the Vedanta philosophy."^[86][87]

 

Max Muller, in his lectures, noted the striking similarities between Vedanta and the system of Spinoza, saying "the Brahman, as conceived in the Upanishads and defined by Sankara, is clearly the same as Spinoza's 'Substantia'."^[88] Helena Blavatsky, a founder of the Theosophical Society also compared Spinoza's religious thought to Vedanta, writing in an unfinished essay "As to Spinoza's Deity—natura naturans—conceived in his attributes simply and alone; and the same Deity—as natura naturata or as conceived in the endless series of modifications or correlations, the direct outflowing results from the properties of these attributes, it is the Vedantic Deity pure and simple."^[89]

 

 

Nuf' said. This is exactly the concept of God which I am espousing here. Your ignorance of religion and personally biased views on QM is quite well known.

 

Leaving all the other saliently vehement figments aside, this especially quite appears to be, if not an outright lie, an extremely gross instance of blanket statement. At best, you will need to refine your subject class, and then will need to refine your usage range and contextual setting. This is gross error--again. The failure to correct for all the error you have been making all this time, ought, we can more commonly understand through common rationing, make one at least work to present more accurately and clearly. (And optimally correct error once it has been called to the attention of the error maker.)

 

What error? What lie? I don't speak lies.

 

"Kabbalah is a set of esoteric teachings meant to explain the relationship between an unchanging, eternal and mysterious Ein Sof (no end) and the mortal and finite universe (his creation)."

Kabbalah is the ancient Jewish mystical tradition that teaches the deepest insights into the essence of God, His interaction with the world, and the purpose of Creation. The Kabbalah and its teachings—no less than the Law—are an integral part of the oral tradition. They are traced back to the revelation to Moses at Sinai, and some even before (one book is said to have been Adam's). The Kabbalah teaches that science will inform spirituality, and spirituality will inform science by the time the Messianic era arrives. Kabbalah means reception, for we cannot physically perceive the Divine; we merely study the mystical truths.

This is correct and accurate usage of English standard rule of thumb. Good job !

 

What you don't understand is in Vedic terminology there are two kinds of worship to gods one is the Samasthi form and the other one is the Vishrutha form. In the latter worship they worship individual gods by invoking them individually and in the former worship they worship all the gods in a holistic way representing a deity and hence its called the pleroma of gods. He is a person, a God and his body consists of lower gods. This is the concept of the pleroma, its esoteric meaning.

 

This is incorrect. The English proper noun form cannot, in this specific case, be pluralized. The error here is lazy and careless use (on whomever's part that may be) of the personal name of the Jewish god, or (by extension, though less accurate) the biblical god. In other words, actually the noun form found in the above quote should have been used. Additionally, transliterated Koine Greek serves no purpose without further explanation of what the Greek term means--and of course it simply means 'fullness,' or 'being full of something,' so it will actually prove much better, and academically acceptable, to inform us on what that thing is which is doing the filling of the retainer, or receiver of that which fills it.

 

I have already explained the concept of this above and what you don't understand is that for these traditional religious scholars pleroma is a locality and has a location and it exists somewhere. However you are right in saying that I should have used it in a singular form like "Pleroma of God". Its just I am trying to convey the clear concept of this and I am finding it hard because there is no single word in English to convey this concept and the only one word which I found best suited and in fact more best suited than the words from the eastern languages is the word pleroma as Carl Jung and the Gnostic Valentinian tradition had an identical conception of it.

 

Jesus Ben Sira's works are not part of the specific Old Testament library. Those scrolls have been included in some Christian Bible Copies, but do not fall in the specific library. If you had written something along the lines of '[io]a note from the wisdom literature of Second Temple Judaism at large[/i],' you would have created no error. I really reason, as I am sure others do too, that if you were to simply rush less, and expend far more energy on accuracy and correctness, at least your argumentation would be more error free--at least, I repeat (for your position is as useful to human life on earth as the putative water under the frozen surface of... oh well, I forget which moon that was at the moment. Maybe its time to put into practice what you had supposedly learned in school. (That too, might help at getting a job using that background?)

 

I don't forget the basics. On the other note the wisdom in these wisdom traditions and their ideas are far more important for me than the person or the tradition which it hails from.

 

 

 

Edited October 10, 2012 by immortal

[juanrga]

counterfactual definiteness (CFD) is the ability to speak meaningfully of the definiteness of the results of measurements that have not been performed (i.e. the ability to assume the existence of objects, and properties of objects, even when they have not been measured),

 

Again confirming what I said: "the ability to speak meaningfully of" is as a vague term as "the ability to assume the".

 

By pretending that such vague terms are "precise definitions", you show again your ignorance of modern scientific standards and specially your lack of familiarity with the precise definitions used in physics, particularly quantum mechanics.

 

Counterfactual definiteness is quite a common term in the literature of Bell theorems and experiments. The recent experiments have confirmed that it is counterfactual definiteness i.e the assumption of the existence of objects and properties even when they have not been measured that we need to give up. I have doubts that whether you have seriously studied QM or whether you're deliberately trying to misrepresent my credible claims.

 

A simple academic search by "Bell Theorem" gives 4030 results. Only 43 of them use the term "counterfactual definiteness", which is the one percent. One percent must be your own definition of "common", but it disagrees with everyone else definition. Moreover, I have checked Bell's book "Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics" and he uses the term "counterfactual definiteness" zero (0) times in the entire book.

 

It is simply false that experiments have ruled out existence. Experiments say something different. Your misunderstanding of the experiments was already corrected before in this thread. Go back and read.

 

Einstein and his co-workers namely Boris Podolski and Nathan Rosen in 1935 concluded,

 

"If, without in any way disturbing the system, we can predict with certainty (i.e. with probability equal to unity) the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of physical reality corresponding to a physical quantity."

 

This is the notion of Einstein's mathematical realism and this is the kind of realism we need to abandon.

 

And you repeat the same immortal mistake once again. First, I already pointed that Einstein was wrong in his EPR argument, but due to your ignorance of you did not notice. I will explain this to you: the failure of the EPR argument is what Weinberg did mean when he wrote "Bohr's version of quantum mechanics was deeply flawed, but not for the reason Einstein thought." in the Physics Today article which I cited very often in this thread.

 

EPR in their criticism of quantum mechanics considered a naive notion of classical realism, which of course is incompatible with quantum reality. I will add that modern post-90s developments in the field of chaos have shown EPR naive conception of realism is in conflict even with classical reality.

 

As stated many times before, physical reality is essentially quantum, with classical reality arising only as approximation.

 

Your mistake is mentioned in modern textbooks (Griffiths):

 

Quantum mechanics is clearly superior to classical mechanics for the description of microscopic phenomena, and in principle works equally well for macroscopic phenomena. Hence it is at least plausible that the mathematical and logical structure of quantum mechanics better reflect physical reality than do their classical counterparts. If this reasoning is accepted, quantum theory requires various changes in our view of physical reality relative to what was widely accepted before the quantum era

 

You can continue equating "reality" with "classical reality" and then misinterpreting what quantum mechanics says about the world, but the facts will not change.

 

The truth of the matter is this.

 

"There is no sense in assuming that what we do not measure about a system has [an independent] reality," Zeilinger concludes.

 

This is the scientific fact. Perhaps you need to read a textbook which teaches QM based on the Copenhagen Interpretation.

 

And without any surprise you repeat the same immortal mistake once again.

 

First, you honestly omit the citation. You got the above quote from New Scientist. The nonsenses found in this news of the sensationalist magazine were reported a few posts before. No need to repeat again.

 

Second, I already pointed that the old Copenhagen Interpretation is incorrect. This is not top-secret. This is even remarked in magazines as Physics Today. The wikipedia also has a section devoted to criticism of this old interpretation.

 

Third, several modern interpretations have been developed to correct the defects of the old interpretation. As I pointed in numerous occassions the role of measurements is de-emphasized in modern quantum mechanics. From Griffiths textbook:

 

At the same time it is worth emphasizing that there are other respects in which the development of quantum theory leaves previous ideas about physical reality unchanged, or at least very little altered. The following is not an exhaustive list, but indicates a few of the ways in which the classical and quantum viewpoints are quite similar:

 

1. Measurements play no fundamental role in quantum mechanics, just as they play no fundamental role in classical mechanics. In both cases, measurement apparatus and the process of measurement are described using the same basic mechanical principles which apply to all other physical objects and physical processes. Quantum measurements, when interpreted using a suitable framework, can be understood as revealing properties of a measured system before the measurement took place, in a manner which was taken for granted in classical physics. See the discussion in Chs. 17 and

18. (It may be worth adding that there is no special role for human consciousness in the quantum measurement process, again in agreement with

classical physics.)

 

Fourth, evidently no serious scientist will be abandoning the modern and corrected interpretation by the old and flawed one. Of course I am well aware that laymen as you reject the modern and corrected interpretation because conflicts with your laugdable religious beliefs.

 

Fiveth, your fixation by Zeilinger is also well-known. He gave a recent interview at the German Newspaper "Die Zeit" Let me translate you some paragraphs (bold mine):

Anton Zeilinger... attracts mystics like light attracts moths, "quantum healers" or "quantum doctors" refer to him. "I am sorry," says Zeilinger, "there's nothing I can do about this." At the Documenta he will try to defend his research against such interpretations.

 

He says about the relation between art and science:

Scientists and artists have a lot in common, says Zeilinger: "Intuition and creativity are their most important tools, it is all about new approaches for the study of reality." But there is a point where [scientists and artists] differ: Science demands testability. And they have a claim of truth. "We say things about the world that are simply right." But if contradictions occur, scientists sometimes just throw out their view of the world. That was the case with quantum theory which entirely changed physics a hundred years ago.

 

And says about recent experiments and the mind:

 

Entangled photons can be hundreds of kilometers apart. And yet, if one carries out a measurement on which to do something immediately to the other. The two are interconnected in a way that does not control the mind.

 

Therefore once again we find that one of your favourite experts is not supporting your nonsense. He apologizes for how his work is misinterpreted by "mystics" like yourself. Ignorant mystics would I add.

 

Yet physicists or even biologists don't have a model to model conscious thought and physicists have got no idea of how to unify a unrealistic theory of QM with GR.

 

Another post unrelated to what I wrote.

 

It has been known for 100 years that one has "to give up the classical notion of realism at the quantum mechanical level". After the occasional laugh, I will say you that this is explained in any textbook on quantum mechanics that I know. Moreover, the difference between classical reality and quantum reality has been emphasized dozens of times in this forum. It was made in the same message that you are supposedly replying now.

Yet you were the same guy who earlier argued in favour of realistic interpretations of quantum physics i.e it corresponds to an element of reality, (i.e. an objective attribute that exists before measurement). See your post #131. Your double standards and how you go by authority rather than looking at evidence and what nature is saying is quite evident. Nuf' said.

 

And once again you fail to differentiate classical reality from quantum reality in despite of what I wrote. It is evident that you are in religious-zealot mode, and your mind is blocked from reading what others write.

 

The last part of your post is also very laughable When will you return to post here about how you are sure that scientists of all the world are conspiring against your religious ideas and your revealed Truth?

 

Saying that material published in Physics Today, by one of the most important physicists alive, is my "personal bias" is one of the most funny jokes that you have written here.

Aren't you doing some personal research and said that the wave-particle duality is a myth? I very well know that you have a personal bias against the Copenhagen interpretation.

 

You must "very well know" a lot of wrong stuff, but that does not explain why you affirm that material by a Nobel winner published in Physics Today is my "personal bias". Don't worry I do not really wait an answer from you!

 

About the second part of your post, you show again your terrible ignorance of such topics. There are many modern references devoted to the myth of wave-particle duality. For instance this recent Foundations of Physics paper is well-known (bold from mine):

 

These myths include wave-particle duality, time-energy uncertainty relation, fundamental randomness, the absence of measurement-independent reality...

 

Now after explaining the above issue "personal bias" (recall I know you will not retract but will continue being silly) you would explain us how a paper published in FoP by other author is my "personal research"

 

I don't like to trouble the scientific community but please don't be dogmatic and as Stephen Hawking asks, Is that the final word? Is that a true understanding of nature?

 

Another unrelated post plus your immortal misunderstanding of what is science or does.

 

 

Spin is one of the properties that defines an elementary particle. E.g. photons are particles with spin 1, electrons are particles with spin one-half...

It is for the same property that the Bell Inequality is tested and found to be violated in experiments and such a property doesn't exist independent of the context of measurements.

 

Completely nonsensical answer showing that you do not understand what I wrote.

 

If Einstein was alive today he would be really angry with you.

 

Why would he be angry by me linking to an auction of a letter where Einstein dismisses "God" as "nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses" and religion as "a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish"?

 

At contrary he would be very happy that his ideas are so seriously considered and pay a high price. Would Einstein be hungry because he will becomes a target for your irrational attacks? Of course no

Edited October 10, 2012 by juanrga

[immortal]

Before we move on I like to clarify some of my position on this matters which have been misrepresented or misunderstood. This is my thread and I hope I can have my own ideas.

 

Firstly, when I refer to Penrose I am not talking of his Orch-OR model because Penrose believes in some kind of hidden variable theory and experiments have already abandoned all hidden variable programs and the fact that all approaches to explain consciousness whether it is of microtubules in the axon ultrastructure or any other theory based on neural processing have failed shows that all these approaches are wrong. When I refer to Penrose I only stick with his mathematical arguments just because his Orch-OR model is wrong it doesn't change the fact that strong AI is impossible and human quantum teleportation is impossible and therefore my argument is in support of Penrose's mathematical arguments because our ancients knew what Mind is and they also knew that Intellect exists in platonic realms. I am not using science to prove religion instead I am using religion to correct science.

 

Secondly, I did not used QM to prove that quantum healing works or mind control works or telepathy works. No I didn't do that, that's again a misrepresentation of my views and I very well know how science works and how religion works. If anyone looks at my post #233 not a single word is talked about Quantum physics or non-locality. I am someone who know that what we learn from science is one thing and what we learn from religion is another. That's wisdom, you can't find that in books. Wisdom traditions know neither about quantum mechanics nor they know about General Relativity and all they do is worship gods and have their own methodologies and its based on their own epistemology.

 

Thirdly, I very well know that Anton Zielinger is not supporting my views, Anton is not talking of the pleroma of God, is he? Its quite silly to say that I am quoting Anton in support of my views, I very well know that no one supports my radical views except Bernard D'Espagnat perhaps my only saviour who believes that religion can access the noumenon.

 

The reason why I refer to Anton Zielinger is simply because of this.

 

What is Reality? Is it out there?

 

 

Its a question which has been raised by him and it questions the very basis of Scientific enquiry and the answer to that question from the esoteric religions is an affirmative no, the external world doesn't exist independent of the human mind. I am saying that Religion can answer and solve some of the paradoxes and the thorny philosophical questions and not the other way around where one says that science proves religion. I am applying the methodologies of Esotericism and saying that it can answer or solve some of our problems in science.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[juanrga]

Before we move on I like to clarify some of my position on this matters which have been misrepresented or misunderstood. This is my thread and I hope I can have my own ideas.

 

Firstly, when I refer to Penrose I am not talking of his Orch-OR model because Penrose believes in some kind of hidden variable theory and experiments have already abandoned all hidden variable programs and the fact that all approaches to explain consciousness whether it is of microtubules in the axon ultrastructure or any other theory based on neural processing have failed shows that all these approaches are wrong. When I refer to Penrose I only stick with his mathematical arguments just because his Orch-OR model is wrong it doesn't change the fact that strong AI is impossible and human quantum teleportation is impossible and therefore my argument is in support of Penrose's mathematical arguments because our ancients knew what Mind is and they also knew that Intellect exists in platonic realms. I am not using science to prove religion instead I am using religion to correct science.

 

Secondly, I did not used QM to prove that quantum healing works or mind control works or telepathy works. No I didn't do that, that's again a misrepresentation of my views and I very well know how science works and how religion works. If anyone looks at my post #233 not a single word is talked about Quantum physics or non-locality. I am someone who know that what we learn from science is one thing and what we learn from religion is another. That's wisdom, you can't find that in books. Wisdom traditions know neither about quantum mechanics nor they know about General Relativity and all they do is worship gods and have their own methodologies and its based on their own epistemology.

 

Thirdly, I very well know that Anton Zielinger is not supporting my views, Anton is not talking of the pleroma of God, is he? Its quite silly to say that I am quoting Anton in support of my views, I very well know that no one supports my radical views except Bernard D'Espagnat perhaps my only saviour who believes that religion can access the noumenon.

 

The reason why I refer to Anton Zielinger is simply because of this.

 

What is Reality? Is it out there?

 

Its a question which has been raised by him and it questions the very basis of Scientific enquiry and the answer to that question from the esoteric religions is an affirmative no, the external world doesn't exist independent of the human mind. I am saying that Religion can answer and solve some of the paradoxes and the thorny philosophical questions and not the other way around where one says that science proves religion. I am applying the methodologies of Esotericism and saying that it can answer or solve some of our problems in science.

 

Before you start the cycle of the nonsense once again, let me add that all of this was answered/corrected in the last 230+ posts.

 

For instance, you pretended to avoid criticism by appealing to the Orch-OR model, when we were not referring to that model. Concretely, I stated how Penrose's mathematical platonism is contrary to science, whereas another poster noted how his ideas about the mind are wrong.

Edited October 10, 2012 by juanrga

[immortal]

One example is enough to show how much intellectually dishonest some of the members in this forum are and how they take a research paper out of context to prove that they are right so that they can maintain their stubborn flawed position. There is no point in arguing with such members.

 

Quantum Mechanics: Myths and Facts

 

 

Like I always said from the beginning, there is no accepted consensus among the scientific community on these topics and just because some crazy stubborn scientists doesn't want to give up realism even though all evidence is pointing against realism the works of Bernard is considered to be nonsense or rubbish. I very well know who is intellectually honest and who is not.

[juanrga]

One example is enough to show how much intellectually dishonest some of the members in this forum are and how they take a research paper out of context to prove that they are right so that they can maintain their stubborn flawed position. There is no point in arguing with such members.

 

Quantum Mechanics: Myths and Facts

 

Like I always said from the beginning, there is no accepted consensus among the scientific community on these topics and just because some crazy stubborn scientists doesn't want to give up realism even though all evidence is pointing against realism the works of Bernard is considered to be nonsense or rubbish. I very well know who is intellectually honest and who is not.

 

The paper was cited when you did an ad hominem attack appealing that some member was doing "personal research" on the wave-particle duality myth. The paper shows that your charge was unfounded because there is literature on the wave-particle duality myth.

 

Evidently the paper does not support you. In fact, the paper says about your crazy belief on that QM implies there is no reality:

 

To conclude this section, QM does not prove that there is no reality besides the measured reality. Instead, there are several alternatives to it. In particular, such reality may exist, but then it must be contextual (i.e., must depend on the measurement itself.) The simplest (although not necessary) way to introduce such reality is to postulate it only for one or a few preferred quantum observables.

 

This is very very close to what Griffiths says in his textbook on quantum theory:

 

The idea of an independent reality had been challenged by philosophers long before the advent of quantum mechanics. However, the difficulty of interpreting quantum theory has sometimes been interpreted as providing additional reasons for

doubting that such a reality exists. In particular, the idea that measurements collapse wave functions can suggest the notion that they thereby bring reality into existence, and if a conscious observer is needed to collapse the wave function (MQS state) of a measuring apparatus, this could mean that consciousness somehow plays a fundamental role in reality. However, once measurements are understood as no more than particular examples of physical processes, and wave function collapse as nothing more than a computational tool, there is no reason to suppose that quantum theory is incompatible with an independent reality, and one is back to the situation which preceded the quantum era. To be sure, neither quantum nor classical mechanics provides watertight arguments in favor of an independent reality.

 

In the final analysis, believing that there is a real world “out there”, independent of ourselves, is a matter of faith. The point is that quantum mechanics is just as consistent with this faith as was classical mechanics. On the other hand, quantum theory indicates that the nature of this independent reality is in some respects quite different from what was earlier thought to be the case.

 

Contrary to your laughable claims, all known experiments and physical theories such as QM are perfectly compatible with the existence of an external reality: physical reality.

 

Try again!

Edited October 11, 2012 by juanrga

[akh]

The only thing close to immortal here, is this thread. I say "close" because somebody refuses to accept that it (the thread) died many pages ago when the initial claims were shown to be lacking in evidence, full of mis-understanding, and driven by zealotry.

 

Congrats Immortal!, you have finally put forward the only solid piece of evidence to your claims of mystical powers! It's a zombie! The thread is dead, but you keep resurrecting the empty corpse. You chant the same lines over and over...and finally a zombie arises!

[juanrga]

The only thing close to immortal here, is this thread. I say "close" because somebody refuses to accept that it (the thread) died many pages ago when the initial claims were shown to be lacking in evidence, full of mis-understanding, and driven by zealotry.

 

Congrats Immortal!, you have finally put forward the only solid piece of evidence to your claims of mystical powers! It's a zombie! The thread is dead, but you keep resurrecting the empty corpse. You chant the same lines over and over...and finally a zombie arises!

 

Completely agree on that this is a zombie thread!

[immortal]

The paper was cited when you did an ad hominem attack appealing that some member was doing "personal research" on the wave-particle duality myth. The paper shows that your charge was unfounded because there is literature on the wave-particle duality myth.

 

It wasn't just a blind attack, its something which I remember from my past meet off with you.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/67437-particle-wave-duality/page__st__160__p__689788#entry689788

 

juanrga on 10 July 2012 - 04:12 PM said:

 

We can explain the same quantum behavior using formulations of QM that do not rely on . I use one of that formulations in my research work. In fact, in more advanced and general formalisms of QM the wavefunction is superseded by the state vector (note that the term "wave" is dropped, which is again a good idea). Evidently, associating this state vector to a particle does not introduce a vector-particle duality.

 

/* and claimed */

the electron is always a particle and behaves as a particle.

 

We humans can only understand particles as billiard balls and waves as smeared out oscillating entities and when some entity behaves differently than a particle or a wave then there is no justification for calling it a particle. Obviously Bernard's claim contradicts your research and hence you cannot swallow that fact. With all the recent experimental findings and facts electrons, protons, quarks cannot be thought of as self existent. Is that clear to you? They don't exist independent of measurements.

 

 

Evidently the paper does not support you. In fact, the paper says about your crazy belief on that QM implies there is no reality:

 

You have indeed twisted the context of how the meaning of the word 'Myth' was used in this paper.

 

 

It also cannot be overemphasized that “myths” in this paper do not necessarily refer to claims that are wrong, but merely to claims about which there is not yet a true consensus.

 

and

 

 

Most pragmatic physicists seem to (often tacitly) accept the soft-orthodox interpretation. From a pragmatic point of view, such an attitude seems rather reasonable. However, physicists who want to understand QM at the deepest possible level can hardly be satisfied with the soft version of the orthodox interpretation. They are forced either to adopt the hard-orthodox interpretation or to think about the alternatives (like hidden variables, preferred variables, or quantum logic). Among these physicists that cope with the foundations of QM at the deepest level, the hard-orthodox point of view seems to dominate. (If it did not dominate, then I would not call it “orthodox”). However, even the advocates of the hard-orthodox interpretation do not really agree what exactly this interpretation means. Instead, there is a number of subvariants of the hard-orthodox interpretation that differ in the fundamental ontology of nature. Some of them are rather antropomorphic, by attributing a fundamental role to the observers. However, most of them attempt to avoid antropomorphic ontology, for example by proposing that the concept of information on reality is more fundamental than the concept of reality itself [24], or that reality is relative or “relational” [25, 26], or that correlations among variables exist, while the variables themselves do not [27]. Needless to say, all such versions of the hard-orthodox interpretation necessarily involve deep (and dubious) philosophical assumptions and postulates. To avoid philosophy, an alternative is to adopt a softer version of the orthodox interpretation (see, e.g., [28]). The weakness of the soft versions is the fact that they do not even try to answer fundamental questions one may ask, but their advocates often argue that these questions are not physical, but rather metaphysical or philosophical.

 

Bernard's claims are not wrong in fact all evidence establishes Bernard's open realism on a firm ground.

 

This is very very close to what Griffiths says in his textbook on quantum theory:

 

Griffiths is a proponent of Consistent histories interpretation of quantum mechanics which is adopted by a minority of physicists and the corrections to his formalism have been made in the quantum theoretical literature and not seriously considered. A set of no-go theorems contradict such an interpretation of quantum physics.

 

Contrary to your laughable claims, all known experiments and physical theories such as QM are perfectly compatible with the existence of an external reality: physical reality.

 

Try again!

 

Nature agrees with me and I don't need any support from anyone and Bernard's position is turning out to be more sound than any other interpretation. Try refuting again.

 

The only thing close to immortal here, is this thread. I say "close" because somebody refuses to accept that it (the thread) died many pages ago when the initial claims were shown to be lacking in evidence, full of mis-understanding, and driven by zealotry.

 

Congrats Immortal!, you have finally put forward the only solid piece of evidence to your claims of mystical powers! It's a zombie! The thread is dead, but you keep resurrecting the empty corpse. You chant the same lines over and over...and finally a zombie arises!

 

I am not gullible like you are and you can go on and lead a life of delusion ignoring the history of humanity, ignoring the truth of religions and ignoring evidence and facts. Congrats and all the best.

[juanrga]

It wasn't just a blind attack, its something which I remember from my past meet off with you.

 

http://www.sciencefo...788#entry689788

 

Your ad hominem attack was so blind that looks like a desperate effort to maintain alive your zombie thread.

 

The above link shows that what I am saying in that message is that I am using certain formulations of quantum mechanics in my research work. Moreover, I cite therein L. Ballentine textbook, Quantum Mechanics, A Modern Development for details about those formulations of quantum mechanics.

 

We humans can only understand particles as billiard balls and waves as smeared out oscillating entities and when some entity behaves differently than a particle or a wave then there is no justification for calling it a particle.

 

The particles in particle physics are not billiard balls. Why do you insist again on confounding reality with classical reality?

 

Obviously Bernard's claim contradicts your research and hence you cannot swallow that fact. With all the recent experimental findings and facts electrons, protons, quarks cannot be thought of as self existent. Is that clear to you? They don't exist independent of measurements.

 

Obviously this is a collection of nonsense

 

You have indeed twisted the context of how the meaning of the word 'Myth' was used in this paper.

 

The discussion of the exact definition of myth is irrelevant, the important part is that the author clearly states that QM is perfectly compatible with realism.

 

and

 

here you quote in bold face something said to you before, that in older interpretations of QM it was incorrectly believed that the human observer had some special role. Why do you repeat what was said to you?

 

Of course, as the same author correctly concludes, human observers do not play any special role in QM.

 

Bernard's claims are not wrong in fact all evidence establishes Bernard's open realism on a firm ground.

 

Bernard is so right that his main award is a pseudo-religious prize awarded to nonsensical work.

 

Griffiths is a proponent of Consistent histories interpretation of quantum mechanics which is adopted by a minority of physicists and the corrections to his formalism have been made in the quantum theoretical literature and not seriously considered. A set of no-go theorems contradict such an interpretation of quantum physics.

 

You continue showing that you do not know what you are writing.

 

He is not a mere "proponent of" but one of his originators. Popularity has a historical component because this modern approach was born in the 90s (i.e. six decades after the old Copenhagen interpretation) and is still under development by several experts including the famous Nobel Prize for physics Murray Gell-Mann (the father of the quarks) for application in sophisticated fields such as quantum cosmology. Moreover, the number of quantum cosmologists is very inferior to the number of solid state or molecular physicists. I do mean that not everyone needs to know this modern approach.

 

As is well-known, the consistent histories interpretation is an extension/improvement of the old Copenhagen interpretation advocated by your 'experts'.

 

Who knows what new kind of misunderstanding is behind your abstract appeal to "no-go theorems"?

Edited October 12, 2012 by juanrga

[Anilkumar]

Good questions and its important to emphasize that even I am an outsider and not part of these traditions but I have made a considerable effort in understanding their world-views and practices and I should consider myself as a novice when it comes to the vast amount of knowledge and methodologies available in these wisdom traditions. All I can provide you is the correct insights which I have gained along with my little bit of wisdom which I have gained from traditional and religious scholars. Its very important to understand them in their own milieu.

 

 

 

Its called Panchathma Sankramana Vidya.

 

"Chapter I—The Sheath of Food

 

1 Om. May Mitra be propitious unto us! May Varuna be propitious unto us! May Aryaman be propitious unto us! May Indra and Brihaspati be propitious unto us! May Vishnu, of wide strides, be propitious unto us! Salutation to Brahman! Salutation to Thee, O Vayu! Thou indeed art the visible Brahman. Thee indeed, O Vayu, I shall proclaim as the right! Thee indeed, I shall proclaim as the true! May It protect me! May It protect the teacher! May It protect me! May It protect the teacher!

 

2 Om. May Brahman protect us both! May Brahman bestow upon us both the fruit of Knowledge! May we both obtain the energy to acquire Knowledge! May what we both study reveal the Truth! May we cherish no ill—feeling toward each other! Om. Peace! Peace! Peace!

 

3 Om. He who knows Brahman attains the Supreme. On the above, the following mantra is recorded: "He who knows Brahman which is Reality, Knowledge and Infinity, hidden in the cave of the heart and in the highest akasa—he, being one with the omniscient Brahman, enjoys simultaneously all desires." From the Atman was born akasa; from akasa, air; from air, fire; from fire, water; from water, earth; from earth, herbs; from herbs, food; from food, man. He, that man, verily consists of the essence of food. This indeed is his head, this right arm is the right wing, this left arm is the left wing, this trunk is his body, this support below the navel is his tail.

 

Chapter II—The Sheath of the Vital Breath

 

1. "From food, verily, are produced all creatures—whatsoever dwell on earth. By food alone, furthermore, do they live and to food, in the end, do they return; for food alone is the eldest of all beings and therefore, it is called the panacea for all." "They who worship food as Brahman obtain all food. Food alone is the eldest of all beings and therefore it is called the panacea for all. From food all creatures are born: by food, when born, they grow. Because it is eaten by beings and because it eats beings, therefore it is called food." Verily, different from this, which consists of the essence of food, but within it, is another self, which consists of the vital breath. By this the former is filled. This too has the shape of a man. Like the human shape of the former is the human shape of the latter. Prana, indeed, is its head; vyana is its right wing; apana is its left wing; akasa is its trunk; the earth is its tail, its support.

 

Chapter III—The Sheath of the Mind

 

1 "The gods breathe after the prana, so also do men and cattle; for the prana is the life of creatures. Therefore it is called the life of all. Those who worship the prana as Brahman obtain a full life; for the prana is the life of creatures. Therefore it is called the life of all."

 

2 This sheath of the Prana is the embodied soul of the former. Verily, different from this sheath, which consists of the essence of the prana, but within it, is another self, which consists of the mind. By this the former is filled. This too has the shape of a man. Like the human shape of the former is the human shape of the latter. The Yajur—Veda is its head, the Rig—Veda is its right wing, the Sama—Veda is its left wing, the teaching is its trunk, the hymns of Atharva and Angiras are its tail, its support.

 

Chapter IV—The Sheath of the Intellect

 

1 "He who knows the Bliss of Brahman, whence all words together with the mind turn away, unable to reach it—he never fears."

 

2 This sheath of the mind is the embodied soul of the former. Verily, the different from this sheath, which consists of the essence of the mind, but within it, is another self, which consists of the intellect. By this the former is filled. This too has the shape of a man. Like the human shape of the former is the human shape of the latter. Faith is it head, what is right is its right wing, what is truth is its left wing, absorption is its trunk, Mahat is its tail, its support.

 

Chapter V—The Sheath of Bliss

 

1 "The intellect accomplishes the sacrifice; it also accomplishes all actions. All the gods worship the intellect, who is the eldest, as Brahman." "If a man knows the intellect as Brahman and if he does not swerve from it, he leaves behind in the body all evils and attains all his desires."

 

2 This is the embodied soul of the former. Verily, different from this, which consists of the essence of the intellect, but within it, is another self, which consists of bliss. By this the former is filled. This too has the shape of a man. Like the human shape of the former is the human shape of the latter. Joy is its head, delight is its right wing, great delight is its left, bliss is its trunk. Brahman is its tail, its support. "

 

- Taittiriya Upanishad

 

Notice that every sheath is said to have a shape of man which means that these five elements i.e earth, fire, air, space, water along with the mind and intellect are anthropomorphic Gods with whom you can have a dialogue with. Carl Jung has already shown to the western world that these archetypes do exists and in fact his spiritual teacher which he called 'Philemon' was an anthropomorphic God from where he got his idea of Archetypal psychology. Its something which science understand very little about this.

 

 

 

 

Its by Mandala worship where all the phenomena is realized as the activities of the gods and the delusion that you are in control of your life will be demolished. This is what all these traditions have been saying that we are spirits controlled by God as Elaine Pagels has discovered from the Valentinian tradition.

 

A modern commentary on Karma Lingpa's Zhi-Khro teachings on the Wrathful and Peaceful Deities

 

 

 

 

We come from a place where all the opposites reconcile into one unity. The Vedic Aryans called it the "Brahman", the Jews called it the "Ein Sof", the Valentinians called it the "Unknowable" and the Buddhists call it the "Sunya". We cannot make a conceptualization of it.

 

 

 

Its called Avastatreya.

 

"III The first quarter is called Vaisvanara, whose sphere of activity is the waking state, who is conscious of external objects, who has seven limbs and nineteen mouths and who is the experiencer of gross objects.

 

IV The second quarter is Taijasa, whose sphere of activity is the dream state, who is conscious of internal objects, who is endowed with seven limbs and nineteen mouths and who is the experiencer of subtle objects.

 

V That is the state of deep sleep wherein one asleep neither desires any object nor sees any dream. The third quarter is Prajna, whose sphere is deep sleep, in whom all experiences become unified, who is, verily, a mass of consciousness, who is full of bliss and experiences bliss and who is the door leading to the knowledge of dreaming and waking.

 

1 Visva is all—pervading, the experiencer of external objects. Taijasa is the cognizer of internal objects. Prajna is a mass of consciousness. It is one alone that is thus known in the three states.

 

2 Visva is the cognizer through the right eye; Taijasa is the cognizer through the mind within; Prajna is the akasa in the heart. Therefore the one Atman is perceived threefold in the same body.

 

3—4 Visva experiences the gross; Taijasa, the subtle; and Prajna, the blissful. Know these to be the threefold experience. The gross object satisfies Visva; the subtle, Taijasa; and the blissful, Prajna. Know these to be the threefold satisfaction.

 

5 The experiencer and the objects of experience associated with the three states have been described. He who knows these both does not become attached to objects though enjoying them.

 

10 Turiya, the changeless Ruler, is capable of destroying all miseries. All other entities being unreal, the non—dual Turiya alone is known as effulgent and all—pervading.

 

11 Visva and Taijasa are conditioned by cause and effect. Prajna is conditioned by cause alone. Neither cause nor effect exists in Turiya.

 

12 Prajna does not know anything of self or non—self, of truth or untruth. But Turiya is ever existent and all—seeing.

 

13 Non—cognition of duality is common to both Prajna and Turiya. But Prajna is associated with sleep in the form of cause and this sleep does not exist in Turiya.

 

14 The first two, Visva and Taijasa, are associated with dreaming and sleep respectively; Prajna, with Sleep bereft of dreams. Knowers of Brahman see neither sleep nor dreams in Turiya.

 

15 Dreaming is the wrong cognition and sleep the non—cognition, of Reality. When the erroneous knowledge in these two is destroyed, Turiya is realized. "

 

- Mandukya Upanishad

 

One will be baffled to know that the Upanishadic seers are saying the same thing which Bernard D'Espagnat is saying which he arrived at that same conclusion based on the scientific method and his sound rational philosophical analysis that "what we call reality is only a state of mind" and religion including the oral Jewish texts and the Rabbis have been saying the same thing that "What we call reality is only a state of mind" for over a millennia. This is the reason that Erwin Schroedinger argued for 40 years that the writers of the Upanishadic seers knew the truth.

 

 

 

Its done by invoking the gods and gaining knowledge and wisdom from them.

 

The hypothesis for that has already been laid out by the esotercists.

 

The Vedas in the light of Aurobindo

 

 

 

 

The whole basic model for all of this is the Agnisoma Mandala also called the pleroma of Gods and one of the precise clear cut methods which I am aware of to achieve all of this is this.

 

An ancient method to achieve all of this

 

 

Finally I like to end this post by a note from the wisdom literature of the Old Testament.

 

 

Immortal,

 

I would conclude that there is something missing with both Science & Religion, which can convince each other.

 

 

[LimbicLoser]

I am going to be busy for awhile now here and the particular rubbish (that portion which is such) which is being passed forward by immortal is being done so with an attitude that has presented itself as being unfixable, and I have another thread (or two [at the moment) which I wish to focus my energies and time for SFN on. Over a few more posts, other than correcting for a few errors, I will simply see if I can get responsible, matture answers to some of the questions I had asked along the way here, which were not answered.

 

The first thing you need to deal with, immortal, is my prime question in my post #232 linked to here which comes under the first quoted section. You need to show that is not groundless and false--which I argue it is. Then, there are still outstanding questions from the 7th paragraph (under the 3rd quote) which you have not answered yet on my post #226 linked to here. I am waiting to answers to these, please.

 

 

Then, please do take note of the better understanding, and higher in accuracy and correctness (as well as the matter of the more correct and original standard English usage of the noun form 'God') as presented below.

 

We come from a place where all the opposites reconcile into one unity. The Vedic Aryans called it the "Brahman", the Jews called it the "Ein Sof", the Valentinians called it the "Unknowable" and the Buddhists call it the "Sunya". We cannot make a conceptualization of it.

This is what you had said in your post #233. I responded to that with the following:

 

... this

(that is, the above quoted section)

especially quite appears to be, if not an outright

lie

, an extremely gross instance of blanket statement. At best, you will need to refine your subject class, and then will need to refine your usage range and contextual setting. This is gross error--

again

. The failure to correct for all the error you have been making all this time, ought, we can more commonly understand through common rationing, make one at least work to present more accurately and clearly. (And optimally correct error once it has been called to the attention of the error maker.)

What I have pointed out is that the descriptive terms in the Vedanata texts of Brahman, or the systems of gods it gives, does not match that of the ancient Jewish system. This is a fact. You came back with a twisted response, as seen below:

 

What error? What lie? I don't speak lies.

 

"Kabbalah is a set of esoteric teachings meant to explain the relationship between an unchanging, eternal and mysterious

Ein Sof

(no end) and the mortal and finite universe (his creation)."

The first thing is the matter of the source of what you had written--

since obviously it had not be you, yourself

. For the second, see below.

 

The Kabbala, or Cabbal tradition is far more post 11th century by any means of understanding. That some textual fragments of mysticism can only slightly likely can be said to be found by second century Jewish writers (non-Talmud and non-Mishna) in no way at all makes the largely Spanish developed theosophy ancient and exactly Jewish.⁽¹⁾ It is quite clear that the system was a revolt in some Jewish quarters of Medival Europe against Maimonides. That thought-up name, En Soph, is nowhere to be found in any single known ancient Hebrew scroll or fragment or manuscript extant; and neither do we find any alluding to it. It was not even a sideline sect in Second Temple Judaism. The name of the god which the ancient Jewish system published is YHWH. (I'll go into textual detail on the thread The Word God linked to here as time goes on) All the descriptrive material of that god in no way allows a match between it and the model of Brahman, or any other model. The is the fact of the matter!

 

Additionally, it is a very secure understanding that what you had presented there is not true. In light of that being the case, the author of such nonsense is either lying, or is hopelessly misled into a certain blindness towards what is securely known and understood--otherwise gross error. For one to verbatim assert that with the exact following words, "I don't speak likes," one can be expressly asserting that they do not orally communicate that a matter is such as A, while being fully and consciously aware that the matter is actually B--in other words, they do not SPEAK lies. That assertion could be held to be true while written communication would not be participating in the asserted statement. A person would not be lying (asserting a known truth to not be so) if (s)he were to assert that they did not SPEAK lies, all the while communicating lies in written form. (Because writing is not speaking) The wording, "I do not tell lies," would be a different thing, however.

 

Nevertheless, if a person passes along in whatever form of communication, an assertion or claim which quite fully contradicts a substantially known-to-be-so truth, it can be said that they are either a) telling lies, or lying, or, b) presenting gross error. If you were to look carefully at my wording, you will notice that I am talking about the specific statement. What I said is true. It is additionally a fact that you wrote those words into your post--whether directly typed in, or pasted from a copy--and to that degree a fact that you said such was so. In that the statement itself is either a lie, or gross error (in the form of blanket statment), it is necessary to discover the originator of such statement if it were not you, immortal, yourself. The source is either lying, or making gross error in the form of blanket statements. Which is it? I know, that it is not you. I know that that idea is from around the 13 century, or so, and is essentially Spanish Jewish in origin, and is false. The other things you have written are of course not true at all ! I know that, immortal, and will deal (as I have said above) with parts of them elsewhere; in time.

 

I am awaiting your very carefully researched, mature and rationally thought out answer to the questions which you still have not responded with answers towards, or to.

 

 

 

 

1. The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge Vol II, p326; Catholic Encyclopedia Vol 8, p 1514.

 

EDIT: I have edited just now to see if I could make a third indention. I had done that successfully on this PC in my studio, but at the office it didn't allow that today. It doesn't work; probably due to some coding in the link from immortal?... anyway...

Edited October 12, 2012 by LimbicLoser

[juanrga]

Additionally, it is a very secure understanding that what you had presented there is not true. In light of that being the case, the author of such nonsense is either lying, or is hopelessly mislead into a certain blindness towards what is securely known and understood--otherwise gross error. For one to verbatim assert that with the exact following words, "I don't speak likes," one can be expressly asserting that they do not orally communicate that a matter is such as A, while being fully and consciously aware that the matter is actually B--in other words, they do not SPEAK lies. That assertion could be held to be true while written communication would not be participating in the asserted statement. A person would not be lying (asserting a known truth to not be so) if (s)he were to assert that they did not SPEAK lies, all the while communicating lies in written form. (Because writing is not speaking) The wording, "I do not tell lies," would be a different thing, however.

 

I think that he is both "lying" and "hopelessly mislead".

 

I am awaiting your very carefully researched, mature and rationally thought out answer to the questions which you still have not responded with answers towards, or to.

 

Immortal has avoided almost all the questions made to him in the last 200 posts. I desire you good luck.

[LimbicLoser]

I think that he is both "lying" and "hopelessly mislead".

I see. I will yet give a touch of the benefit of a doubt a bit longer, and see. I cannot, in the same breath, so fully and drastically disagree with the notion entertained. (Oh, and in appreciation, you helped me find an error in my spelling--which happens at times--which I have now corrected in the main text. Thanks !)

 

Immortal has avoided almost all the questions made to him in the last 200 posts. I desire you good luck.

I do appreciate that. I can fully and quite strongly emotionally feel, that nothing less than very good luck will draw those out. Edited October 12, 2012 by LimbicLoser

[juanrga]

I see. I will yet give a touch of the benefit of a doubt a bit longer, and see. I cannot, in the same breath, so fully and drastically disagree with the notion entertained. (Oh, and in appreciation, you helped me find an error in my spelling--which happens at times--which I have now corrected in the main text. Thanks !)

 

Thank you! Let me add that I think that you would also change "I don't speak likes" by "I don't speak lies".

[immortal]

You continue showing that you do not know what you are writing.

 

Leaving Kant, D'Espagnat, and a number of other, earlier on and yet-to-be-more-fully-informed thinkers aside, for the moment (due to lack of any actually relative and sound enough bearing on the matter, in what they had to say), this assertion here needs some reference work cited. Let me make quite clear, all the while, that simply quoting the philosophers who made such like statements, in no way whatsoever amounts to referencing any pragmatic, scientific method-based studies and trial-and-error learning about things related to mental processing.

 

I'm very happy with this response, because it's a lot more rigid than anything you've said before; however, I remain in disagreement. I still see a critical lack of connection between all of your discrete beliefs expressed there.

 

1. "the mind is something different from the human brain and that the empirical reality which includes also the brain and that the attributes of particles doesn't exist independent of the mind"

2. mind alone exists out there in the physical world then what's behind the human mind is the "Intellect"

3. what's behind the Intellect is the "Pleroma of God" representing the totality of divine powers

 

Even if these were appropriately demonstrated to be strongly associated, by the collective manner they do not form a very robust belief. We can conclude the basis of just one of these components to be severely incorrect -- an event which has already occurred -- implying your total belief was weakly designated and nothing more. If these ideas don't logically correspond one-to-one, there's a great likelihood they were merely designated to unnaturally support a select core ideology: that means it's arbitrary.

 

 

Bernard has defined various forms of realism.

 

On Physics and Philosophy (pp.24-31),

 

1. objectivist realism: reality consists of a familiar group of impressions such as properties of objects, quantities, values of quantities, forms, and more specifically objects themselves;

 

2. Einsteinian or mathematical realism: reality consists of notions borrowed from mathematical physics (ex: four-dimensional spacetime, curvature of spacetime, etc.);

 

3. ontological realism: reality is Being, that is, ultimate reality and it can be reached by means of science;

 

4. open realism: it says that there is “something” real the existence of which does not hinge on thought;

 

5. near realism: reality consists of clear and distinct notions like figures, sizes and motions, and thus this form of realism is a restricted version of objectivist realism;

 

6. structural realism: only “structures” present in the mathematical or conceptual content of theories are real.

 

Bernard is neither an antirealist nor an idealist and among all these views the one Bernard is proposing is known as Open realism and it is this kind of realism that Bernard is a proponent of and we will see how the implications of Bell's theorem and the violation of his inequality inevitably leads to this notion of realism which is known as open realism.

 

First and foremost it should be emphasized that Bell's theorem is fundamental and its important in the sense that even if new theories might be formulated in the future the consequences of Bell's theorem will remain valid. The violation of Bell Inequality implies that Local realistic theories cannot account for the correlations observed in quantum entangled situations of particle pairs and it fails to model nature at this level and the recent experiments have shown that it is scientific realism which is at stake in Quantum Mechanics because even non-local realistic theories which allow non-local influences have failed to explain the correlations observed in nature. These correlations demand explanations and the aim of science should be to understand how nature works rather than just be a predictive endeavour, it should be descriptive and should give explanations for phenomena going on in nature.

 

In QM there is no element of physical reality corresponding to a physical quantity which means in the underlying reality which is reality as it is, doesn't have any of the physical attributes prior to a measurement process, its the very act of measurement which gives a particular value to an attribute or a value to the spin of a proton (in the absence of measurement we should not assume anything about the attributes of a system, it makes no sense) and its the only reality given to us and therefore physicists doesn't deal with the reality itself instead they only deal with reality as it has been given to us.

 

This is the distinction of phenomena and the noumena as explained by Kant.

Kant argued that this was even true of space and time. To us, the reality of space and time seems undeniable. They appear to be fundamental dimensions of the physical world, entirely independent of our consciousness. This, said Kant, is because we cannot see the world in any other way. The human mind is so constituted that it is forced to construct its experience within the framework of space and time. Space and time are not, however, fundamental dimensions of consciousness.

 

It was an astonishing claim at that time and probably still seems astonishing to many of us today but contemporary physics now lends weight to this extraordinary idea.

 

- Peter Russell

 

The empirical reality or the phenomenal reality is brought into existence by the retrospective action of five elements and a metaphysical mind and metaphysical sense organs. This the doctrine of Upanishads and this is how our ancients view the world.

 

Professor Max Muller has said: “The Upanishads are the sources of the Vedanta philosophy, a system in which human speculation seems to have reached its very pinnacle. They are to me like light of the morning, like the pure air of the mountain – so simple, so true, if once understood”.

 

How does this view helps to resolve the paradoxes and give an objective description of nature?

 

As Bernard D'Espagnat says there is reality independent of the human mind which is not embedded in space-time.

 

Non-separability is a fundamental aspect of this independent reality and nature is holistic. Consider this thought experiment, when Alice measures something (I say something because in the absence of measurements there is no sense in assuming anything exists) on one end of this universe and Bob measures something on the opposite end of the universe and yet they find that pairs of particles exhibit correlations then it must be deduced that the whole phenomenal world or the empirical reality only exists as a product of our minds and the separation of distances is a stubborn illusion because even Alice(Observer 1) observes an empirical reality(the whole universe) through her metaphysical mind and Bob(Observer 2) also observes an empirical reality (the whole universe) through his metaphysical mind and only the mind of Alice and the mind of Bob are real entities existing out there in the physical world and therefore what seems like magic for Alice and Bob even though they are at opposite ends of the universe and yet observe that their results of the experiments are correlated in fact in actual reality the mind of Alice and the mind of Bob are the only real entities existing out there in the physical world.

 

Or to put it more simpler if you have an entangled pair of dice and you throw one of them here and the other one 15 km away and if they both give the same number and if experiments have ruled out both the explanations of non-local influences and also a hidden deterministic cause then it must be said that each observers have an empirical reality in their own minds and what looks like magic for us in actual independent reality there might be something which is determining such events in a non-computable way and this might be the non-computable physics which Penrose says is missing in the current physics.

 

According to Bernard D'Espagnat QM is a pointer to an independent reality and it is pointing to the pleroma of God. This is my rational justification that God is going to provide an objective account of reality.

 

I very well know what I am talking here and I very well understand the arguments of both Bernard D'Espagnat and Kant. I didn't argued for 13 pages for nothing, I just want to understand the way the nature works.

 

Quantum Theory : A Pointer To An Independent Reality

B. d’Espagnat, Laboratoire de Physique Th´eorique et Hautes Energies1, Universit´e de Paris-Sud, Bˆatiment 210, 91405 Orsay Cedex, France

 

GianCarlo Ghirardi and the interpretation of quantum physics

Bernard d'Espagnat 2007 J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 40 2971

 

Abstract

This paper comprises a few notes illustrating the impact of GianCarlo Ghirardi's achievements, even on the thinking of a 'non-realist'.

 

Finally, why censor different ways of thinking?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBEMvE_7meo