immortal Posted August 28, 2012 Author Share Posted August 28, 2012 You may not want to discuss this paper, but it goes very far to illustrates the fact that you only see what you want to see and only go so far to understand something to make your point. So, I give you two published articles that deal with the notion of reality that is independent of our knowledge of it. And you attack it by calling it a "crap paper"? You say that it is a "very bad paper"? And your only evidence to this is a blog post? Really, a blog post? What is even more egregious, is that the blog that you linked to has been shown by others to be in error in that the author misinterprets the argument made by the paper (and so did you!). Your evidence for a crap paper, is a link to a crap blog! The irony! I would like to say that your disposition is becoming ever clearer, except that it has been all too evident from the first page of this thread. But you seem to want to give more examples, so I guess I am obliged to point them out to you. So, in case you have hidden it from yourself. Try some other blogs where the authors actually understand the argument. I'll take your blog link, and raise you three more. http://mattleifer.in...-statistically/ http://infoproc.blog...ction-real.html http://www.scottaaro...com/blog/?p=822 And sorry, blogs are not at the same level as a published article. You have missed that point again, for the 1000th time. There are other scientists who would completely disagree with your "crap paper" comment. This is the second time you have made sweeping statements about me without reading or understanding what is being discussed here. I gave a link to that blog not to defend the claims of that physicist blogger but to enlighten you that, that paper is surrounded with controversies and I very well know that a personal rant on a blog cannot be evidence of anything, earlier you misunderstood me and claimed that I am doing disservice to humanity and I showed you how some crazy thinkers try to epistemologically connect mysticism with QM which leads all sorts of pseudo-scientific approaches and nonsense, now again you've misunderstood my posts. I very well knew about this paper even before you posted about this and so I gave that particular link to make you aware of the confusions dealing with that paper and I am not trying to hide anything here and as you can see your three more bloggers too interpret the paper in their own ways and make conclusions about that paper and even you're using that paper in your own way to justify your claims. All this confusion is because the auhors have merged a lot of separate interpretations into one and have used bad terminologies and its obscure as to what the assumptions of their theorem is and what its conclusions are. This is theoretical physics so I advice you take this to a separate thread and clear up the misconceptions and then perform experiments based on that theorem and try to post it as a refutation to Bernard D'Espagnat's claims and let us see if your paper refutes Bernard's claims or not. As I said I don't trust anyone of those bloggers. If you can't differentiate between a fact claim and a claim which is mere speculation then its not my problem, you're either ignorant or misinformed or you're posting your biased beliefs as facts. One of those bloggers namely Matt leifer makes conclusions about that paper in support of Bernard's claim and I could have easily used that as supporting Bernard's claims but I am not going to do that because it has not been experimentally established as fact and a blog post cannot be termed as scientific evidence for something. I very well said in the beginning itself let's not go there. If its anything that is very clear is that those papers shows that the conceptual difficulties of Quantum mechanics has not been resolved yet and as I said there is no accepted consensus on this matter among the physics community and some here argue calling fundamental concepts as myths when we very well know that there is no accepted consensus from the physics community. Why there is no accepted consensus? Its because the implications of Bell experiments falls beyond science and it belongs to philosophy and it is philosophy which keeps as eye on the foundations and assumptions of a particular discipline and as you know majority of the physicists don't want to do philosophy and you'll never see them participating in discussions like this and considering this one should have enough knowledge to differentiate between facts and sweeping assumptions without no evidence. Bernard's claim is based on Bell theorem and experiments associated with it and its a fact claim. - Anthony Zeilinger's paper The observed correlations in Bell experiments and also the experiments based on Leggett's formula excludes local realistic theories as well as a set of non-local realistic theories and it is an experimental fact, a scientific fact. What are the implications of this? "To quote Einstein, the necessity of completing quantum mechanics in a local–realist way could be escaped “only by either assuming that the measurement of S1 (telepathically) changes the real situation of S2 or by denying independent real situations to things which are spatially separated from each other. Both alternatives appear to me entirely unacceptable.” - Alain Aspect Holding on to "elements of reality" or hidden variables independent of measurements like those physicists which you have cited means accepting non-locality of nature which is highly unacceptable, some think that we can keep one and exclude other but as Einstein specifically states both locality and realism are very important and any violation of even one of them is highly unacceptable and casts fundamental doubts on scientific realism. Look where Bernard D'Espagnat, a senior most physicist stands and look where you and those physicists which you cited stand and you're claiming that the papers you have cited refutes Bernard's claims. You like being ridiculed? Bernard's claim that "What we call reality is only a state of mind" stands undisturbed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juanrga Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Stephen Hawking has an habit of changing his mind and I don't know what he is going to say after 10 years. This is named "learning" and it is one of the pillars of the scientific method. Science advances and in the next 10 years we will know reality better than today. Stephen Hawking himself is a strong proponent of the positivism of science and positivism is a branch of philosophy. Physicists will never be able to know what time, space etc actually is and without knowing that physicists will be mere empiricists caught up in the cave and its true philosophers who are going to investigate the pleroma of God who might have control over nature. He is not supporting your point of view. In fact he says the contrary that you. At Google's Zeitgeist Conference in 2011, Hawking said that "philosophy is dead." He believes philosophers "have not kept up with modern developments in science" and that scientists "have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge." He said that philosophical problems can be answered by science, particularly new scientific theories which "lead us to a new and very different picture of the universe and our place in it". He is confirming my claim that your traditions/philosophies/religions are useless... All evidence shows that one cannot make a distinction between what is objective and what is subjective. The objectivity of the scientific laws is made evident by the fact they work. The subjectivity of religion is evident by a similar reasoning. When there is absence of evidence from both science as well as religion then they both are equivalent. Both have not accurately explained the origin of the cosmos. Trying to compare what science has discovered/explained about the origin of the cosmos with the lack of any discovery/explanation from religion is terribly unfair. You did not specifically said that I already knew that you invented the quote. Unfortunately those traditions have not described a Flying Spaghetti Monster has their supreme deity in their works. What confirms that they are all useless. This time it will be religion which is going to correct the scientific consensus. This is not going to happen, you even cannot convince others in a non-academic forum. I cited his works to show that for particle physicists the world is made of particles and for field theorists the world is made of fields and for information theorists the world is made of information. I already explained to you that fields are non-observable objects and valid only under certain approximations and that information requires a physical substratum. The New Scientist article by Michael Brooks who himself holds a PhD in quantum physics is based on the works of these researchers. Simon Groblacher,1, 2 Tomasz Paterek,3, 4 Rainer Kaltenbaek,1 Caslav Brukner,1, 2 Marek Z_ ukowski,1, 3 Markus Aspelmeyer,1, 2, and Anton Zeilinger1, 2, y 1 Faculty of Physics, University of Vienna, Boltzmanngasse 5, A-1090 Vienna, Austria 2 Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information (IQOQI), Austrian Academy of Sciences, Boltzmanngasse 3, A-1090 Vienna, Austria 3 Institute of Theoretical Physics and Astrophysics, University of Gdansk, ul. Wita Stwosza 57, PL-08-952 Gdansk, Poland 4 The Erwin Schrodinger International Institute for Mathematical Physics (ESI), Boltzmanngasse 9, A-1090 Vienna, Austria When I comment on the material you answer with an authority argument, when I comment on the supposed authority you reply that authority is not important only content, when I comment on content you again try an authority argument... You're claiming that all these quantum researchers are wrong? Can you read my posts? Realism - that the outcome of a measurement on a physical system is determined by physical properties of the system prior to and independent of the measurement. Local - independent of the measurement (realism), and that the outcome cannot depend on any actions in space-like separated regions (Einstein locality). Griffith's textbook is outdated and those researchers seriously contradict his claims. What you do not still understand is that he has developed an improved formulation of quantum mechanics that eliminates the inconsistencies, ambiguities and paradoxes of the ancient Copenhaguen formulation. He also provides consistency checks that your 'experts' are missing. I know that the claims of "those researchers" are wrong. They do not understand quantum mechanical reality. Even I find it very ironic that you argue with a stubborn mind even after providing much evidence which contradicts your world-view and you don't even want to acknowledge that there is a problem that's why I think that yours is an intellectually dishonest position. And the irony continues, specially when the other part has explained to you that "you have not given any evidence"... The nature agrees with you? hmm? http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/aspect.html Yes she agrees. I already explained to you how those experiments are in agreement with quantum mechanics but are unrelated to your religions/traditions. Your above link only provides a misunderstanding of quantum mechanics plus pseudo-philosophical babbling. Not a surprise that was published in the pseudo Journal of Scientific Exploration: You must enjoy this quote: The JSE, while presented as neutral and objective, appears to hold a hidden agenda. They seem to be interested in promoting fringe topics as real mysteries and they tend to ignore most evidence to the contrary. Our traditional scholars especially Devudu Narasimha Shastry, a traditional scholar based on his knowledge of the mandalas of the Vedas very well knew what mind is and the evidence for his works was cited earlier. It inevitably leads to an esoteric world-view. God is not dead yet and neither is philosophy. The science of mind does not rely on traditions, God or philosophy, because the three are useless for such matters. Actual experiments confirming John Wheeler's delayed choice experiment John Wheeler's participatory universe is probably right and with all this evidence you really think that your statement that quarks, protons, photons etc etc existed prior to Humans is a scientific fact? I think otherwise and I have serious doubts about the nature of reality which we are living in. Many resources demystify delayed choice experiments. The textbook cited above devotes and entire chapter to such experiments and explain how people misunderstand such experiments. A consistent application of quantum mechanics reveals that reality existed before the observer was born. If you can't differentiate between a fact claim and a claim which is mere speculation then its not my problem, you're either ignorant or misinformed or you're posting your biased beliefs as facts. One of those bloggers namely Matt leifer makes conclusions about that paper in support of Bernard's claim and I could have easily used that as supporting Bernard's claims but I am not going to do that because it has not been experimentally established as fact and a blog post cannot be termed as scientific evidence for something. Your personal attack on akh will not hide the facts. The facts are that Matt Leifer present three position 1,2, and 3. About the 2 he says: I would classify the Copenhagen interpretation, as represented by Niels Bohr, under option 2. One of his famous quotes is: There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature... This is the same quote that you repeated to us as support for your incorrect point of view. Matt claim about position 1: Perhaps the best known contemporary advocate of option 1 is Rob Spekkens, but I also include myself and Terry Rudolph (one of the authors of the paper) in this camp. Rob gives a fairly convincing argument that option 1 characterizes Einstein’s views in this paper, which also gives a lot of technical background on the distinction between options 1 and 2. And finally adds: then it would be superficially resonable to pick option 1 and try to maintain scientific realism. [...] Those of us who cling to realism have mostly decided that the ontic state must be a different type of object than it is in the framework described above. It is evident that he is not supporting your point of view against realism. The more I read your posts the more I find ironic your accusations of lying and intellectual dishonesty. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akh Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 (edited) This is the second time you have made sweeping statements about me without reading or understanding what is being discussed here. What exactly am I misunderstanding? The paper deals with scientific realism and whether quantum mechanics can be interpreted as an epistemic state (state of knowledege) or ontic state (state of reality). How exactly is this not relevant? I gave a link to that blog not to defend the claims of that physicist blogger but to enlighten you that, that paper is surrounded with controversies and I very well know that a personal rant on a blog cannot be evidence of anything, earlier you misunderstood me and claimed that I am doing disservice to humanity and I showed you how some crazy thinkers try to epistemologically connect mysticism with QM which leads all sorts of pseudo-scientific approaches and nonsense, now again you've misunderstood my posts. I very well knew about this paper even before you posted about this and so I gave that particular link to make you aware of the confusions dealing with that paper and I am not trying to hide anything here and as you can see your three more bloggers too interpret the paper in their own ways and make conclusions about that paper and even you're using that paper in your own way to justify your claims. I did not make any statements outside of what is evidenced from your response. If you knew so much about the paper, why then did you respond with a blog post that is in error as it miss-interprets the results of the authors of the paper? Why did you not respond with a paper that refutes? If it is so controversial, there is bound to be mountains of published rebuttals. Where are the published results that refute? FYI, there is always some controversy around any published paper, especially ones that break new ground. That is part of the scientific process. You are not revealing anything to me or anybody else here. Controversy is to be expected and is welcomed. All this confusion is because the auhors have merged a lot of separate interpretations into one and have used bad terminologies and its obscure as to what the assumptions of their theorem is and what its conclusions are. This is theoretical physics so I advice you take this to a separate thread and clear up the misconceptions and then perform experiments based on that theorem and try to post it as a refutation to Bernard D'Espagnat's claims and let us see if your paper refutes Bernard's claims or not. As I said I don't trust anyone of those bloggers. No no, the responsibility is on you to provide recent (not antiquated, erroneous interpretations - as juanrga has pointed out to you multiple, multiple times) evidence in support of your and Bernard D'Espagnat's claims. You have yet to do that, or this thread would have died a long time ago, and all would be reveling in your accomplishments. So, were is your published paper? If you are so certain, and have irrefutable evidence (which is what you are trying to make us believe) then why waste time here? It is not my responsibility, all I did was post links to relevant material, which contrasts your view. Sorry, I thought that was what good science and healthy debate was about. It is your responsibility, you are the one making extraordinary claims, were is your extraordinary evidence? Theoretical physics bare far more weight than philosophical twaddle. If you can't differentiate between a fact claim and a claim which is mere speculation then its not my problem, you're either ignorant or misinformed or you're posting your biased beliefs as facts. One of those bloggers namely Matt leifer makes conclusions about that paper in support of Bernard's claim and I could have easily used that as supporting Bernard's claims but I am not going to do that because it has not been experimentally established as fact and a blog post cannot be termed as scientific evidence for something. I very well said in the beginning itself let's not go there. What about the paper itself? How does that paper support the claims of Bernard D'Espagnat's? Matt Lefier does not change the results of the paper, he has simply explained the results. Therefor, the paper should support your position and that of Bernard D'Espagnat's. There are other scientists who feel this paper has even greater significance in support of realism, but I haven't felt the need to post their comments. At any level, it all points heavily in favor of scientific realism. Scientific realism is what we are discussing, correct? Or are you going to insult me and claim this isn't relevant, or that I am ignorant, or that I misinterpret? Edited August 29, 2012 by akh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortal Posted August 30, 2012 Author Share Posted August 30, 2012 What exactly am I misunderstanding? The paper deals with scientific realism and whether quantum mechanics can be interpreted as an epistemic state (state of knowledege) or ontic state (state of reality). How exactly is this not relevant? I did not make any statements outside of what is evidenced from your response. If you knew so much about the paper, why then did you respond with a blog post that is in error as it miss-interprets the results of the authors of the paper? Why did you not respond with a paper that refutes? If it is so controversial, there is bound to be mountains of published rebuttals. Where are the published results that refute? FYI, there is always some controversy around any published paper, especially ones that break new ground. That is part of the scientific process. You are not revealing anything to me or anybody else here. Controversy is to be expected and is welcomed. Where did you find the links to those three blogs which discuss this paper? You found it from the link which I gave you, I had read all those three blogs before you did therefore I gave you that link to enlighten you about the mistakes of that paper. Now you accuse the one who actually made you aware of the controversy surrounding that paper. The fact that you raised three more blogs is not surprising at all but its the way you did it, you started saying that I am hiding something, very funny, isn't it. I had read those blogs before you did and that's a fact and I gave you that link to make you aware why the conclusions of that paper is actually very bad. Yes there are papers which strongly criticize the claims of the physicists which you cited and it has been refuted by experts in the field. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.2446v2.pdf [3] By dogmatic, I do not mean to imply that the authors are narrow minded - merely that their beliefs are not based on accessible evidence. Nevertheless, I feel I should point out the similarity to strongly held religious beliefs and the attached doctrines. The danger of dogmatism in science may be greater than physicists would like to think. The above statement was not made by me, it was made by Holger Hofmann himself, the author of this paper. If there is no difference between scientists and religious fundamentalists then what is the fate of science, some don't realize the dangers of dogmatic thinking in any culture. Education is the key and I have very well outlined as to what is the current state of consensus on this subject from the scientific community and I have also established the relationship of science and religion. Scientific realism is dead and many quantum physicists have already renounced scientific realism and I am convinced that scientific realism is false and slowly the whole humanity will realize that the universe only exists when one is looking at it. Dogmatic thinking destroys humanity, it makes people crazy and the only way to stop it is to educate people and I have not lost my sanity. No no, the responsibility is on you to provide recent (not antiquated, erroneous interpretations - as juanrga has pointed out to you multiple, multiple times) evidence in support of your and Bernard D'Espagnat's claims. You have yet to do that, or this thread would have died a long time ago, and all would be reveling in your accomplishments. So, were is your published paper? If you are so certain, and have irrefutable evidence (which is what you are trying to make us believe) then why waste time here? It is not my responsibility, all I did was post links to relevant material, which contrasts your view. Sorry, I thought that was what good science and healthy debate was about. It is your responsibility, you are the one making extraordinary claims, were is your extraordinary evidence? Theoretical physics bare far more weight than philosophical twaddle. You must be in some kind of wonderland, the evidence for Bernard D'Espagnat's claim was given many times in this very thread by different quantum physicists including David Mermin and others and its an experimental fact, go and check it out. You have got a very good authority behind you, all the best to you. What about the paper itself? How does that paper support the claims of Bernard D'Espagnat's? Matt Lefier does not change the results of the paper, he has simply explained the results. Therefor, the paper should support your position and that of Bernard D'Espagnat's. There are other scientists who feel this paper has even greater significance in support of realism, but I haven't felt the need to post their comments. At any level, it all points heavily in favor of scientific realism. Scientific realism is what we are discussing, correct? Or are you going to insult me and claim this isn't relevant, or that I am ignorant, or that I misinterpret? The mistakes in that paper are corrected and next time if you want to refute Bernard's claim come up with something more substantial and yes please don't waste my time and also your time. The onus is on you as much as it is on me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akh Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 It still begs the question as to why you have not published your own paper that will rock the foundations of humanity and everything we know. I am not the one making extrodinary claims, you are. Realsim is not dead in any sense. You keep making references to the consequences of this earth shattering claim. What exactly are those consequences? You seem to be getting more and more angry and hostile. Why is that? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juanrga Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 (edited) Yes there are papers which strongly criticize the claims of the physicists which you cited and it has been refuted by experts in the field. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.2446v2.pdf One looks to the "experts"... but only find one author. One looks to the html page and finds that the paper has not been published. One looks to the content and one find gems such as: It is therefore natural and straightforward to interpret the density operator ρ of a quantum state as a probability distribution. Of course some physicists may feel uneasy about the appearance of negative probabilities. However, it should be kept in mind that such negative probabilities never describe negative frequencies, since they always refer to joint probabilities of outcomes that cannot be obtained jointly. Thus negative probabilities can explain the origin of the uncertainty principle and provide a more detailed microscopic analysis of quantum physics. It is neither natural nor straightforward, in fact the density operator can be interpreted as the state with each pure state arising as an approximation when its density in the state is one and that of the rest of pure states zero. In fact, more rigorous literature calls it the "state operator" (see Ballentine textbook). Negative probabilities are really quasi-probabilities. The fifth excited state of the quantum harmonic oscillator gives "negative probabilities", but the ground state is everywhere positive and still verifies the uncertainty principle... But the most exciting part was already predicted by one of the bloggers (Scott): I expect that PBR's philosophical opponents are already hard at work on a rebuttal paper: "The quantum state can too be interpreted statistically", or even "The quantum state must be interpreted statistically." [...] I expect the rebuttal to prove a contrary theorem, using a definition of the word "statistical" that subtly differs from PBRs. I expect the difference between the two definitions to get buried somewhere in the body of the paper. Amen! The mistakes in that paper are corrected and next time if you want to refute Bernard's claim come up with something more substantial and yes please don't waste my time and also your time. The onus is on you as much as it is on me. Thank by all this! Some quotes from here I don't like to sound hyperbolic, but I think the word 'seismic' is likely to apply to this paper,” says Antony Valentini, a theoretical physicist specializing in quantum foundations at Clemson University in South Carolina. Valentini believes that this result may be the most important general theorem relating to the foundations of quantum mechanics since Bell’s theorem David Wallace, a philosopher of physics at the University of Oxford, UK, says that the theorem is the most important result in the foundations of quantum mechanics that he has seen in his 15-year professional career. Robert Spekkens, a physicist at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Canada, who has favoured a statistical interpretation of the wavefunction, says that Pusey's theorem is correct and a “fantastic” result Now we can compare all that with the concept of "substancial" that you have when yuo give us as 'literature' an old popular work from a sensationalist magazine, a webpage linking to a crap journal, ancient 'mandalas'... Thank you! Edited August 30, 2012 by juanrga 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortal Posted August 31, 2012 Author Share Posted August 31, 2012 It still begs the question as to why you have not published your own paper that will rock the foundations of humanity and everything we know. I am not the one making extrodinary claims, you are. Realsim is not dead in any sense. The paper actually belongs in Esotercism and the soundness of my arguments lies in knowing both the technical and philosophical arguments of the Bohr-Einstein debates and experiments performed based on it along with the arguments of Bernard D'Espagnat and also in knowing the deepest truths of religion especially of the eastern traditions, the knowledge of these scriptures and also having knowledge of the methods of these traditions. I can back up all this with verses from scriptures showing evidence that our ancients actually viewed their world from this perspective. Anyhow, these problems are reminders that a certain expertise in the compared disciplines, as well as a fair knowledge of their historical and theoretical issues, are indispensable. - Jonathon Duqette, philosopher of religious studies The people of orthodox religions do not understand this because they have got themselves too much involved in idolatry and they say we don't have enough time to learn what science says and the scientific community cannot study this because its outside the scientific method and some of them prima facie conclude that its nonsense and those few who are actually aware of these kind of works by traditional scholars are not aware of the works of quantum physicists. So without showing any contempt or derision I might go and meet some scholars who actually are aware of this traditional scholar's work and inform them about this and also get some inputs from them. I know that they will understand at least the religious side of my arguments. This has very less to do with science and deals more with the pleroma of God. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Pavagada-Prakash-Rao/168848436504267?v=info Look I am neither a philosopher nor a scientist, I am an engineer and I was taught to code programs and develop software products, the IT industry is very vast and there is lot to learn so I don't like to waste my time convincing others about this despite citing numerous evidences and much of the papers on esoteric studies are really bad and they follow pseudo-science and therefore I really don't like to place this paper with one of theirs. I don't like proselytising either and as Richard H. Jones says many eastern thinkers place western standards as a pedestal for their studies and they have too much faith in the claims of physicists and that's the reason why dogmatic thinking is really dangerous in science and I plead physicists to be more responsible while making claims about reality because there are those who see science as god and don't realize that even science has some limitations and its assumptions, methods and foundations can be questioned. Bernard D'Espagnat said that quantum mechanics is a pointer to an independent reality that exists independent of the human mind and every quantum researcher knows this and I have shown where it is pointing to and its left to people whether they want to research the pleroma of God or not and like I said I don't like to proselytise people. You keep making references to the consequences of this earth shattering claim. What exactly are those consequences? Accepting that the empirical reality is only a state of mind implies accepting, “Gods are real. And these gods are everywhere, in all aspects of existence, all aspects of human life.” -James Hillman You seem to be getting more and more angry and hostile. Why is that? Misrepresentation of someone's views does annoy very much. For example: "You're doing disservice to humanity" and "You like to see only what you want to see" which is very untrue. If you can't differentiate between a fact claim and a claim made based merely on speculation then its not my problem, I am least bothered to convince you and you are free to go against and believe in what ever you want despite available evidence contradicting it but don't misrepresent someone's else views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juanrga Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 (edited) the soundness of my arguments lies in knowing both the technical and philosophical arguments of the Bohr-Einstein debates and experiments performed based on it As shown, your arguments are soundless and follow from a misinterpretation of both quantum theory and experiments. Look I am neither a philosopher nor a scientist, I am an engineer and I was taught to code programs and develop software products, the IT industry is very vast and there is lot to learn so I don't like to waste my time convincing others about this Therefore we would do an act of faith and accept your claims because you are very busy and submit a pair of posts with the answers to the questions and challenges made to you... but wait a moment, you are not busy for preaching us for weeks here. Accepting that the empirical reality is only a state of mind implies accepting, "Gods are real. And these gods are everywhere, in all aspects of existence, all aspects of human life." -James Hillman Accepting the existence of the well-known Flying Spaghetti Monster implies accepting that those Gods are not real but only a product of the imagination of some human minds. Edited August 31, 2012 by juanrga 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juanrga Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 A typo it would read: Therefore we would do an act of faith and accept your claims because you are very busy and cannot submit a pair of posts with the answers to the questions and challenges made to you... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Banana Posted September 2, 2012 Share Posted September 2, 2012 @Modnote It's not a silly out-of-blue remark. "Jung's interest in European mythology and folk psychology has led to accusations of Nazi sympathies, since they shared the same interest." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_jung#Response_to_Nazism There's a variety of material which discusses this specifically with regards to Carl Jung. This is to illustrate the image I see: a very flawed psuedo-scientist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortal Posted September 2, 2012 Author Share Posted September 2, 2012 One looks to the "experts"... but only find one author. One looks to the html page and finds that the paper has not been published. One looks to the content and one find gems such as: It is neither natural nor straightforward, in fact the density operator can be interpreted as the state with each pure state arising as an approximation when its density in the state is one and that of the rest of pure states zero. In fact, more rigorous literature calls it the "state operator" (see Ballentine textbook). Negative probabilities are really quasi-probabilities. The fifth excited state of the quantum harmonic oscillator gives "negative probabilities", but the ground state is everywhere positive and still verifies the uncertainty principle... But the most exciting part was already predicted by one of the bloggers (Scott): Amen! Thank by all this! Some quotes from here Now we can compare all that with the concept of "substancial" that you have when yuo give us as 'literature' an old popular work from a sensationalist magazine, a webpage linking to a crap journal, ancient 'mandalas'... Thank you! One looks to the "experts"... but only find one author. One looks to the html page and finds that the paper has not been published. One looks to the content and one find gems such as: It is neither natural nor straightforward, in fact the density operator can be interpreted as the state with each pure state arising as an approximation when its density in the state is one and that of the rest of pure states zero. In fact, more rigorous literature calls it the "state operator" (see Ballentine textbook). Negative probabilities are really quasi-probabilities. The fifth excited state of the quantum harmonic oscillator gives "negative probabilities", but the ground state is everywhere positive and still verifies the uncertainty principle... But the most exciting part was already predicted by one of the bloggers (Scott): Amen! Thank by all this! Some quotes from here Now we can compare all that with the concept of "substancial" that you have when yuo give us as 'literature' an old popular work from a sensationalist magazine, a webpage linking to a crap journal, ancient 'mandalas'... Thank you! http://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.6554v1.pdf - The quantum state can be interpreted statistically - Peter G. Lewis,1, David Jennings,1 Jonathan Barrett, 2 and Terry Rudolph 1 The same authors Jonathan Barrett and Terry Rudolph who claimed that the quantum state cannot be interpreted statistically wrote a paper saying that The quantum state can be interpreted statistically. Why do you prove yourself again and again that you're intellectually dishonest, that you embrace crack-pottery and personally biased and dogmatic with your views on QM? Your dislikes, beliefs have no bearing in reality when performed experiments have already contradicted your beliefs. @Modnote It's not a silly out-of-blue remark. "Jung's interest in European mythology and folk psychology has led to accusations of Nazi sympathies, since they shared the same interest." https://en.wikipedia...ponse_to_Nazism There's a variety of material which discusses this specifically with regards to Carl Jung. This is to illustrate the image I see: a very flawed psuedo-scientist. That's your misconceptions with the Pagan religions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOdvE9yvs9M&feature=player_embedded Paganism A basic introduction to Paganism "Proselytising is the conversion of another, usually into one's own religious group. Pagans find this intrusive and offensive. It is believed that anyone who becomes a Pagan should do so under their own steam." Polytheistic myth as psychology Christine Downing recounts the Greek view of the gods as energies that affect everyone. In so being they are referred to "as theos, that is, as immortal, permanent, ineluctable aspects of the world".[2] Disputes among the Greek pantheon were frequent, yet, Downing emphasizes, no god of the Classical era ever denied the existence of another god. And she cautions us as humans that to deny even one of the pantheon diminishes the richness of individuals and of the world. If there is anyone who share same interests with the Nazi Germany are the one's who deny the existence of Gods for they diminish the well being of humanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juanrga Posted September 2, 2012 Share Posted September 2, 2012 (edited) http://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.6554v1.pdf - The quantum state can be interpreted statistically - Peter G. Lewis,1, David Jennings,1 Jonathan Barrett, 2 and Terry Rudolph 1 The same authors Jonathan Barrett and Terry Rudolph who claimed that the quantum state cannot be interpreted statistically wrote a paper saying that The quantum state can be interpreted statistically. Why do you prove yourself again and again that you're intellectually dishonest, that you embrace crack-pottery and personally biased and dogmatic with your views on QM? Your dislikes, beliefs have no bearing in reality when performed experiments have already contradicted your beliefs. There is a problem when you give a link to a preprint. The problem is that someone can follow the link and read the abstract... A recent no-go theorem states that such models are impossible. The results of this paper do not contradict that theorem What is more, Terry Rudolph has a guest post here where he explains the relation between the first paper (with the famous theorem that you hate) and the preprint that you cite now: The theorem we prove – that quantum states cannot be understood as merely lack of knowledge of an underlying deeper reality described by some as yet undiscovered deeper theory – assumes preparation independence. It is an important insight that this assumption is necessary for the theorem, and the point of our second paper was to show this explicitly. That second paper is, however, simply making a mathematical/logical point – it is not a serious proposal for how the physical world operates. Thanks by sharing with us your subjective definition of dishonesty, crack-pottery and "personally biased and dogmatic" views, but let us discuss first your serious misunderstandings about quantum mechanics and reality. Edited September 2, 2012 by juanrga 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortal Posted September 3, 2012 Author Share Posted September 3, 2012 Simply put you have no evidence to refute Bernard D'Espagnat's claim and this thread is alive because I have so much evidence to back up Bernard's claim. According to Max Muller, the proto Indo-Iranian religion started off as sun worship. It is a fact that our seers worshipped the Sun God, it is a fact that Hinduism is basically a Sun-God worshipping religion and we will continue to do so to achieve self-righteousness. Yajnavalkya According to tradition, Yājñavalkya was the son of Devarāta and was the pupil of sage Vaisampayana .[3] Once, Vaisampayana got angry with Yājñavalkya as the latter argued too much to separate some latter additions to Yajurveda in being abler than other students. The angry teacher asked his pupil Yājñavalkya togive back all the knowledge of Yajurveda that he had taught him.[3] As per the demands of his Guru, Yājñavalkya vomited all the knowledge that he acquired from his teacher in form of digested food. Other disciples of Vaisampayanatook the form of partridge birds and consumed the digested knowledge (ametaphor for knowledge in its simplified form without the complexities of the whole but the simplicity of parts) because it was knowledge and they were very eager to receive the same.[3] The Saṃskṛt name for partridge is "Tittiri". As the Tittiri (partridge) birds ate this Veda, it is thence forth called the Taittirīya Yajurveda. It is also known as Kṛṣṇa Yajurveda or Black-Yajurveda on account of itbeing a vomited substance. The Taittirīya Saṃhitā thus belongs to this Yajurveda.[4] Then Yājñavalkya determined not to have any human guru there after. Thus he began to propitiate the Sun God,Surya. Yājñavalkya worshipped and extolled the Sun, the master of the Vedas,for the purpose of acquiring the fresh Vedic portions not known to his preceptor, Vaiśampāyana.[5] The Sun God, pleased with Yājñavalkya penance, assumed the form of a horse and graced the sage with such fresh portions of the Yajurveda as were not known to any other. This portion ofthe Yajurveda goes by the name of Śukla Yajurveda or White-Yajurveda on account of it being revealed by Sun. It is also known as Vajasaneya Yajurveda, because it was evolved in great rapidity by Sun who was in the form of a horse through his manes.The rhythm of recital of these vedas is therefore to the rhythm of the horse canter and distinguishes itself from the other forms of veda recitals. In Sanskrit,term "Vaji" means horse. Yājñavalkya divided this Vajasaneya Yajurveda again into fifteen branches, each branch comprising hundreds of Yajus Mantras. Sages like Kanva, Madhyandina and others learnt those and Śukla Yajurveda branched into popular recensions named after them.[3] Who is the master of the Vedas? Who is the master of the Agnisoma Mandala? Who? It's the Sun God, the God of the gods and none beside him. Hiranyagarbha This is something scholars outside the tradition don't see and miss very often. This is no ones intellectual property, this knowledge belongs to the people of the world and it belongs to God. Yājñavalkya has made important contributions to both philosophy,[3]including the apophatic teaching of 'neti neti', and to astronomy, describing the 95-year cycle to synchronize the motions of the sun and the moon. Our seers were not so dumb that they could not differentiate between the manifested outer sun which is a star of the Milky Way galaxy and the Sun-God which resides in everyone. Yajnavalkya is one of the important rishi of Hinduism and whom did he worship? He worshipped the Sun-God and from whom he got all his knowledge from? It is from the Sun-God. White Yajur Veda: Book I The Rishi of White Yajurveda is Yajnavalkya and in whose name the glory of that Veda is recited, of course its God Savitur, who is Savitur, he is the Sun God. What is the basic tenet of Hinduism? It's the Gayatri Mantra and to whom it is addressed to, yes, it is addressed to Savitur, the Sun-God. This is Hinduism,this is the main message of Hinduism to the world. Souram Who is the deity explicitly spoken in the Upanishads, of course its Hiranyagarbha - The Sun-God. Toward a Unified MetaphysicalUnderstanding: Hiranyagarbha Adityahridayam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "Oh Rama, mighty-armed Rama, listen to this eternal secret, which will help you destroy all your enemies in battle." "Then knowing that the destruction of the lord of prowlers at night(Ravana) was near, Aditya, who was at the center of the assembly of theGods, looked at Rama and exclaimed 'Hurry up' with great delight. PurifyingHimself by sipping water thrice, He took up His bow with His mighty arms.Seeing Ravana coming to fight, He put forth all his effort with a determinationto destroy Ravana." Who is at the center of the assembly of the Gods, of course its Aditya, the Sun-God. All gods reside in him. He is the master of the Agnisoma Mandala. The kingdom of God is in you. This was just a small presentation of the evidence from the scriptures. You want scientific evidence? Then see - Quantum physics says goodbye toreality - physicsworld.com Many of the quantum researchers who have won Noble prizes like Anton Zeilingerand others have already renounced realism, the reality given by science isconstructed, neither quarks, protons, electrons, brain exists out there in theexternal physical world, it's all a creation of the mind. The conclusion by these quantum researchers is absolutely correct and the science reporter is also right in saying that "Quantum physics says good bye to reality" Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger on Unreality Alain Aspect is the physicist who performed the key experiment that established thatif you want a real universe, it must be non-local (Einstein's "spooky action ata distance"). Aspect comments on new work by his successor in conducting suchexperiments, Anton Zeilinger and his colleagues, who have now performed an experiment that suggests that "giving up the concept of locality is notsufficient to be consistent with quantum experiments, unless certain intuitivefeatures of realism are abandoned." Be clear what is going on here. Quantum mechanics itself is not crying out for such experiments! Quantum mechanics is doing just fine, thank you, having performed flawlessly since inception. No, it is people whose cherished philosophical beliefs are being threatened that cry out for such experiments,exactly as Einstein used to do, and with exactly the same hope (we think in vain): that quantum mechanics can be refined to the point where it requires (or at least allows) belief in the independent reality of the natural world it describes. Quantum mechanics makes no mention of reality (Figure 1). Indeed, quantum mechanics proclaims, "We have no need of that hypothesis." Now we are beginning to see that quantum mechanics might actually exclude any possibility of mind-independent reality⎯and already does exclude any reality that resembles our usual concept of such(Aspect: "itimplies renouncing the kind of realism I would have liked"). Non-local causality is a concept that had never played any role in physics, other than in rejection("action-at-a-distance"), until Aspect showed in 1981 that the alternative would be the abandonment of the cherished belief in mind-independent reality;suddenly, spooky-action-at-a-distance became the lesser of two evils, in the minds of the materialists. Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the illusion of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism. "Narada Muni continued: What I referred to as the chariot was in actuality the body. The senses are the horses that pull that chariot. As time passes, year after year, these horses run without obstruction, but in fact they make no progress. Pious and impious activities are the two wheels of the chariot. The three modes of material nature are thechariot's flags. The five types of life air constitute the living entity'sbondage, and the mind is considered to be the rope. Intelligence is the chariotdriver. The heart is the sitting place in the chariot, and the dualities oflife, such as pleasure and pain, are the knotting place. The seven elements arethe coverings of the chariot, and the working senses are the five external processes. The eleven senses are the soldiers. Being engrossed in sense enjoyment, the living entity, seated on the chariot, hankers after fulfilment of his false desires and runs after sense enjoyment life after life. (SB4.29.18-20)" Srimad Bhagvatham dates back to around 3000 BC according to the verses from the Bhagvatham itself. 1. It is a fact that our seers knew that mind is separate and different from the brain or the body. 2. It is a fact that our seers knew that intelligence exists in platonic realms. Mathematical physicists like Roger Penrose are strong Platonists. "Either mathematics is too big for the human mind or the human mind is more than a machine." – Kurt Gödel "Gödel's Theorem shows that human thought is more complex and less mechanical than anyone had ever believed" - Rudy Rucker 3. It is a fact that our seers knew about the life force Prana which identifies the Self with the body. 4. It is a fact that our seers knew who the Supreme Godhead is who controls this cosmos. Scientific realism is dead and also atheism too is dead. It's not theists who are delusional, broken and intellectually dishonest, its atheists who are delusional, broken and intellectually dishonest. This is the reason why neuroscientists like Sam Harris who is a proponent of New atheism himself recognizes the wisdom in the eastern traditions. Of course respect is earned not demanded. As someone in the Guardian said "Kant? Schopenhauer? Try Buddha, Lao Tse. The West is very late to this party." The West is indeed very late to this party because any lay person or a common man or even a kid who practices pranayama and Hatha yoga would have experienced spontaneous involuntary movements called as Kriyas while performing intense yogic exercises and they already know the existence of the vital or the life force in their body as it urges out and cleanse all the nadis of the spiritual body which proves beyond any doubt that reality is not been given to us as it is but only it appears to us as something different like a mirage when viewed through the metaphysical sense organs andthe metaphysical mind. The existence of the life force Prana should be accepted as a well-established fact. The living body is alive not because it reduces entropy;the living being is kept alive because of the vital force of Prana. It is something which can be tested by the means of yoga. "When the living entity is in deep sleep, when he faints, when there is some great shock on account of severe loss, at the time of death, or when the body temperature is very high, the movement of the life air is arrested. At that time the living entity loses knowledge of identifying the body with the self."(SB 4.29.71) Science will never be able to understand the Mind-body problem and some scientists say that they don't need to investigate god and say that gaps in science will be filled by science itself which is so untrue because of the above facts. The CERN scientists think that the world is made of particles but it's true only from their own perspective and they make a consensus without considering eastern religions and other phenomena which I think shows their personal incredulity because more and more number of people are getting hurt while performing Hatha yoga and pranayama who experience the intense energy of prana hidden in them and a common man who is knowledgeable in yoga from the east knows that the empirical reality is a mind-dependent reality, you don't need a scientist to say that. Scientists are indeed very late to this party if we consider all these evidences. India is a country which is known for its wisdom and it has once again proved that our traditions have withstood the test of times and we have so much knowledge and wisdom in the Vedas and the Upanishads that it has become the guiding light to this world which I think is in deep darkness. Niels Bohr, Erwin Schrodinger, Werner Heisenberg, Robert A. Oppenheimer etc. were all interested in it and Arthur Schopenhauer said, "The Upanishads has been the solace of my life, it will be the solace of my death!" Unfortunately they were not aware of as to what they are venturing into and didn't see the common esoteric essence of all religions. Noting all these evidences there is no excuse for still holding on to realism and any further debate is pointless and we know what to do, i.e go and do research into the pleroma of God and the ones who understand God will be the true philosophers or the true physicists for they know things as it exists and not as it appears to us which science cannot know because only God gives an objective account of reality. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akh Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 Sorry, by any standard, scripture is not evidence. If it was, all scripture across all religions of all people would be identical. They are not. Even if you can draw parallels, they still do not count as evidence. These facts are made clear by Flying S. Monster, which resides in all of us. Lots of preaching here, 9/10ths of this post equate to nothing more, very lacking in actual substance. Lots of philosophical agruments that are old and tired and have been shown to be of no value to your position. Any 12 year old can play these mind questions. In total there is nothing new here, you are not at all close to making a convincing argument, so you rehash you previous posts and stand on a podium and preach. Your posts are coming off more and more like rants. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juanrga Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 Simply put you have no evidence to refute Bernard D'Espagnat's claim and this thread is alive because I have so much evidence to back up Bernard's claim. The claims were refuted and your "evidence" was shown to be non-existent. Who is the master of the Vedas? Who is the master of the Agnisoma Mandala? Who? The supreme master is the Flying Spaghetti Monster which created the universe. Adityahridayam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "Oh Rama, mighty-armed Rama, listen to this eternal secret, which will help you destroy all your enemies in battle." "Then knowing that the destruction of the lord of prowlers at night(Ravana) was near, Aditya, who was at the center of the assembly of theGods, looked at Rama and exclaimed 'Hurry up' with great delight. PurifyingHimself by sipping water thrice, He took up His bow with His mighty arms.Seeing Ravana coming to fight, He put forth all his effort with a determinationto destroy Ravana." 1 His Holiness the Flying Spaghetti Monster is Eternal, without beginning and without end, and with a whole tangled mess in the middle. 2 He willed All That There Is into existence when He saw fit to do so and in the order He chose. 3 He prankishly thwarts all human attempts to find out exactly when or how this might have occured. 4 He has chosen, in His Holy Sauced Wisdom, to reveal only these certain truths: that after the Earth itself, came mountains, trees and a midgit/midget (but not necessarily in that order), and that thereafter He took three days off, Friday being the Holiest among them. 5 What came next is the subject of much great lore passed from the midgit/midgets down through the ever-dwindling pirate population, also the Holy Inspired Works revealed to and gathered by His Faithful Followers, and attempts at scientific conjecture, each of which have varying levels of accuracy and entertainment value. 6 His Saucy Orbs do Look With Delight upon that which is well-written. 7 For as His Noodly Appendages Do Touch Us, so too do they touch even the smallest atoms of the universe, and re-arrange them for His Own Holy Amusement, so as to drive scientists insane. 8 And thus, if Creationism is to be taught as Science, then the Great and Holy Truth of the Creation of the Universe by His Holiness the Flying Spaghetti Monster must also be taught. -Solipsy of the First Council of Olive Garden You want scientific evidence? Then see - Quantum physics says goodbye toreality - physicsworld.com Many of the quantum researchers who have won Noble prizes like Anton Zeilingerand others have already renounced realism, the reality given by science isconstructed, neither quarks, protons, electrons, brain exists out there in theexternal physical world, it's all a creation of the mind. The conclusion by these quantum researchers is absolutely correct and the science reporter is also right in saying that "Quantum physics says good bye to reality" Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger on Unreality You already cited this before and was commented. I recall writing about the hidden agenda of the pseudo-scientific Journal of Scientific Exploration named therein. Go back and read. "Narada Muni continued: What I referred to as the chariot was in actuality the body. The senses are the horses that pull that chariot. As time passes, year after year, these horses run without obstruction, but in fact they make no progress. Pious and impious activities are the two wheels of the chariot. The three modes of material nature are thechariot's flags. The five types of life air constitute the living entity'sbondage, and the mind is considered to be the rope. Intelligence is the chariotdriver. The heart is the sitting place in the chariot, and the dualities oflife, such as pleasure and pain, are the knotting place. The seven elements arethe coverings of the chariot, and the working senses are the five external processes. The eleven senses are the soldiers. Being engrossed in sense enjoyment, the living entity, seated on the chariot, hankers after fulfilment of his false desires and runs after sense enjoyment life after life. (SB4.29.18-20)" I am the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Thou shalt have no other monsters before Me. (Afterwards is OK; just use protection.) The only Monster who deserves capitalization is Me! Other monsters are false monsters, undeserving of capitalization.Suggestions 1:1 Mathematical physicists like Roger Penrose are strong Platonists. One of the authors that you cited before, David Deutsch, dismisses Penrose's interpretation as "based more on aesthetics than science". Scientific realism is dead and also atheism too is dead. It's not theists who are delusional, broken and intellectually dishonest, its atheists who are delusional, broken and intellectually dishonest. 1For thus it came to pass The Great Noodly One did much letting the air out the proverbial Midget/Midgit tyres by inventing a third race of people. 2For the Midgets and Midgits were yea verily 'full-of-it' ego wise, 3following much favouritism from his holiness. 4For they were like Tinkerbell, Paris Hilton's small dog: the Chihuahua that had everything. 5And he did thus give the Big People many gifts, 6espoused in the ways of Pirates and Lumberjacks. 7And the FSM, sick of telling little people gags, did gift the Big Ones with many politically incorrect ways. 8For the likeable roguish spirit of the FSM, the creator of the Beer Volcano and Strippers, was thus embodied in these likeable rogues. 9The Big people did thus inhabit near the Midgit and Midget realms of Noodelium and Bobby Mountain. 10The Big People bordering Noodelium in particular did adopt many ways of the Pirate. 11And their attempts to master the language of the Midgits were an utter failure. 12For they felt the use of the phrase "Bork, Bork, Bork" was an utter bummer. 13And they did thus develop the use of Piratese as their official language.14And the Midgits used their galleons as vessels of transport their tremendously large range of pasta sauces and ingredients across Noodle Earth. 15And other prophets of the Great Noodly One will recount their tales. 16Whilst on Bobby Mountain, the Big People did thus use their roguish spirit to cut the sacred trees of Bobby Mountain. 17And despite the Midgets clear opposition to such a practice, 18the FSM found the logrolling contests a welcome relief from the dwarf wrestling contests. 19And thus the Lumberjacks practices were tolerated by The Great One, 20but only with a sustainable land management plan. 21And the Big People did thus attempt to emulate the FSM's Midget jokes on many occasions. 22But the Midget/Midgits had endured many gags by the FSM over the last few thousand years. 23And the Big People's attempted gags were like water off a ducks back. 24For the Midget/Midgits did thus turn the tables, 25making Big People the butt some many wicked one-liners. 26And the Lumberjack and Pirate jokes came thick and fast. 27And following many televised slanging and haranguing matches on MTV (that's Midgit TV!) the combined Midgit/Midget crack debating team did thus hammer the Big People. 28And it was thereby decreed by the victorious Midget leader Egbert, that no further jokes of a politically incorrect nature shall be uttered in the lands of Noodle Earth. 29 "Felloo Meedgets, Meedgits, Loomberjecks und Puretes. Ve-a zee feecturs hereby decree-a thet zee veecked jeebes und bed gegs ebuoot iech oozeer shell ceese-a. Fur ve-a shell leern tu leefe-a in peece-a. Ve-a shell leern muny Iteleeun Cuukeeng skeells und receepes, und ve-a shell feend elternete-a meuns ooff pleeseeng oooor Greet Nuudly Mester." 30Which roughly translate to; "Less jibes, more cooking and lots of prayers to the Great Noodly One". 31And the FSM thought that this was a major bummer, for all that Theo-speak was sappy and boring. 32And he did bellow across the cosmos: 33 "No more use of 17th Century English prose when addressing me please. Just speak to me normally for crying out loud." 34And the pirates, tired of all the wowsers, did thus depart the lands of Noodle Earth to seek adventure and treasure. 35And the Lumberjacks soon ran out of timber, tossed in their axes, and joined the Pirates on their tall ships. 36And the First Great Age of Noodle Earth did thus conclude with the departure of the Big People. 37And the Flying Spaghetti Monster did thus yawn at the Midgets and Midgits. 38For like a man-of-the-house with 50 cable channels to view, he did thus flip the many channels of his creations and bellow. 39 "Time to checkout this new stuff on the Pirate Channel, cause these guys have fun." 40And here endeth the Fifth Book and The First Age of Noodle Earth. 41For keeping in the traditions of other religious texts, no dates or precise scientific evidence shall be mentioned. 42It is The Great One's wish that vague wording and historical accounts should provide much arguing and disagreement amongst us. 43Nevertheless, it is the irrefutable word of The Flying Spaghetti Monster and therefore must be true. 44Praised be to His Noodly Appendages!! (PBTHNA) RAmen Chapter V of The Book of Midgets/Midgits (The Old Pastament) As someone in the Guardian said "Kant? Schopenhauer? Try Buddha, Lao Tse. The West is very late to this party." As someone once said "really?" Science will never be able to understand the Mind-body problem and some scientists say that they don't need to investigate god and say that gaps in science will be filled by science itself which is so untrue because of the above facts. Religion will never be able to understand the Mind-body problem and some religious guys say that they don't need to investigate Nature and say that gaps in religion will be filled by religion itself which is so untrue because of the well-known facts shown above. The CERN scientists think that the world is made of particles You grossly misinterpret them. They write about that they "found" not about what you believe they think: everything in the Universe is found to be made from twelve basic building blocks called fundamental particles, governed by four fundamental forces. Our best understanding of how these twelve particles and three of the forces are related to each other is encapsulated in the Standard Model of particles and forces. Developed in the early 1970s, it has successfully explained a host of experimental results and precisely predicted a wide variety of phenomena. Over time and through many experiments by many physicists, the Standard Model has become established as a well-tested physics theory. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortal Posted September 6, 2012 Author Share Posted September 6, 2012 (edited) The above two posts shows how Institutional orthodox religions can blind persons from seeing the truth. "Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is none more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory in itself, than this thing called Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too inconsistent for practice, it renders the heart torpid, or produces only atheists and fanatics." - Thomas Paine The same is with the current Hindu religion who give too much emphasis on stories and myths taking it too literally without actually focusing on the esoteric knowledge hidden in all the major religious scriptures of the world and instead produces fundamentalists, terrorists and atheists. The same is the problem with every orthodox institutional religions who take their myths so literally without seeing the esoteric essence of all religions. The Esotericists are people who have realized that the truths of religion are given in parables and that one needs special knowledge and intuition which is passed down orally from generation to generation. For esotericists religion is very practical and they rely on both the methods of oral traditions and as well on religious scriptures. The oral traditions of Rabbinic Judaism who follow Midrash, Talmud, Zohar, Mishnah etc are as important as the Torah. The oral traditions are as important as the holy books of every religions. The Brahmins of South India are called as Smartha Brahmins and they never squabble with other Hindus because they are wise and know that the seers of Vedas worshipped their polythiestic gods in a holistic form as Savitur in whom all gods reside which is called as the Samasthi form of Vedic worship and hold that all Hindu sects are One. Indraṃ mitraṃ varuṇamaghnimāhuratho divyaḥ sa suparṇo gharutmān,ekaṃ sad viprā bahudhā vadantyaghniṃ yamaṃ mātariśvānamāhuḥ"They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuṇa, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garutmān.To what is One, sages give many a title they call it Agni, Yama, Mātariśvan."(trans. Griffith) Smarta Sampradaya (Smarta Tradition, as it is termed in Sanskrit) is a liberal or nonsectarian denomination of the Vedic Hindu religion which accepts all the major Hindu deities as forms of the one Brahman, in contrast to Vaishnavism, Shaivism, and Shaktism, the other three major Hindu sects, which revere Vishnu, Shiva, and Shakti, respectively, as the Supreme Being. The term Smarta refers to adherents who follow the Vedas and Shastras. Only a section of south Indian brahmins call themselves Smartas now. It is most essential for Smarta Brahmins to specialize in the Karma Kanda of the Vedas and associated rituals diligently, and to teach the subsequent generations. This is the only reason that these families continue to be called Smartas. Smarta Tradition includes the followers of all the six Darsanas (systems) of Hindu philosophy. The basic idea of Smartas was belief in Vedic practices. Vedas are non-sectarian . The Smartas found that you can not bring about a unity among different sects or revive the Vedic practices without bringing together the six systems of Philosophy. The Vedic rituals are based on Purva Mimansa. The Bhagavad Gita which contains the Sankhya and Yoga concepts is revered by the Smartas. Smartha Tradition The well known philosopher Shankara was from South India and the Kannada Brahmins, a state which I hail from has preserved the purest form of Vedic Aryan Religion. Kannada Brahmins (Devanagiri: कन्नड ब्राह्मण, Kannada: ಕನ್ನಡ ಬ್ರಾಹ್ಮಣ) are Brahmins whose mother-tongue is the Kannada language. Nearly all of them hail from the south Indian state of Karnataka. Kannada Brahmins are known to have preserved the purest form of Vedic Hinduism. It is in this region that the rituals and Vedic Chanting are done with great accuracy. Kannada Brahmins And the scholar Devudu Narasimha Shastry belonged to this particular school of Brahmins, therefore think twice before questioning the authority of the works of this scholar and obviously this purest form of Vedic religion is going to correct science. This time its esoteric religion which is going to correct science. Only the unwise ones with no wisdom and with no insights see the differences between other religions and also the differences between the sects with in their own religion and move away from religion. Take this for example - The Myths will say that the Sun-God rides in a chariot carried by Horses. Anyone outside the tradition who lack wisdom who take this statement literally will obviously find it ridiculous and childish and there is no excuse for believing in that view in this 21'st century world. But how would a religious scholar, someone who is part of that tradition interpret this myth? "Narada Muni continued: What I referred to as the chariot was in actuality the body. The senses are the horses that pull that chariot. As time passes, year after year, these horses run without obstruction, but in fact they make no progress. Pious and impious activities are the two wheels of the chariot. The three modes of material nature are the chariot's flags. The five types of life air constitute the living entity's bondage, and the mind is considered to be the rope. Intelligence is the chariot driver. The heart is the sitting place in the chariot, and the dualities of life, such as pleasure and pain, are the knotting place. The seven elements are the coverings of the chariot, and the working senses are the five external processes. The eleven senses are the soldiers. Being engrossed in sense enjoyment, the living entity, seated on the chariot, hankers after fulfillment of his false desires and runs after sense enjoyment life after life. (SB 4.29.18-20)" "Savithru(The Sun-God) deva is lord and master of Agnishoma mandala (pleroma of gods) and He is in the macrocosm as well in the microcosm. Human beings who are not aware of this imagine that it is they and their own mind and intellect that get things to be done through their ten sense organs. How can subordinates (the mind, intellect and sense organs) be independent? Imagining that he is independent, the individual attributes his achievement to his own mind and intellect. This amounts to the state of being enamoured and conceit. But those few who are capable of deep reflection realize that there should be one who inspires or activates the mind and intellect further reflection and contemplation leads such individuals to realize that the Inspirer or Activator is Savithrudeva. It is He and He alone who instil power into the intellect. It is the intellect, which is the centre and source of all activity, physical and mental, etc." -Devudu Exactly he interprets it with an esoteric meaning and doesn't find it ridiculous like atheists tend to see. "Spiritual freedom from moral codes—but metaphysical determinism/fatedness, predestined election" - Pneumatic, esoteric Christianity "Spiritual enslavement to morality—with delusion of free will and choosing faith oneself" - Psychic, exoteric Christianity "We are spirits, controlled by God" - Pneumatic, esoteric Christianity. "We are souls, controlled by ourselves" - Psychic, exoteric Christianity. - Elaine Pagels Same is with the the works of Elaine Pagels, the Gnostic scholar and she shows how the Valentinians interpreted the Pauline epistles with an esoteric meaning which is given in parables generally and this is what she concludes. The Gnostic Paul No one is saying that the literal stories and myths which was only a way of expressing the wisdom hidden in these religions is true and should be taken seriously. What is becoming more and more clear is that the works of religious scholars who have knowledge of the oral traditions which guides them to interpret the verses in the religious scriptures with an esoteric meaning is very common and ontologically similar. How can anyone deny the works of these religious scholars and philosophers? The City of God by Saint Augustine, The Meditations by Marcus Aurelius, The Red Book by Carl Jung, the works of Shankara, the works of Elaine Pagels, The works of Devudu Narasimha Shastry, works of Jonathon Duqette and the many works by various religious scholars. One cannot deny these new insights coming from religious scholars who show us how to interpret the religious scriptures and further research on following the methods shows that these insights are indeed true of the reality existing out there independent of the human mind which is also confirmed by new insights from science. I don't know whether others have preserved the methods to investigate the pleroma of God or not. The east has indeed preserved the methods to investigate the pleroma of God and it is for this reason that people who practice these methods have showed that the effects of Prana, the vital force (i.e spontaneous involuntary movements) is as common a phenomena as solar eclipse or lunar eclipse which occurs once in a while and it should be accepted as a well established fact showing the presence of the numinous. No one is asking to accept anything on faith alone, so I am not preaching around here, it is a testable claim. Try your delusional arguments of comparing God with the Flying Spaghetti Monster for other arguments like ID and Creationism, I am not moved even by an inch. Do you both really think that well educated theists are dumb that they cannot see what the evidence is saying? Do you both really think that the Guests of SFN are dumb? Thanks for replying to this thread so that I can show why Bernard's claim that spirituality can know the noumenon which science cannot know is absolutely true. Atheists are so delusional that they think that if we can somehow ridicule a theist's claim start assuming that they have won the argument instead of researching the numerous evidences cited and demonstrated. Science and orthodox religions can squabble with each other in any way they want. The wise ones know what to do. Edited September 6, 2012 by immortal -2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akh Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 (edited) Oh no! What's this!? http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v109/i10/e100404 Another study that shows how the unknown reality of antiquated quantum theory, scripture, and misguided believers is in error (and the first has far more validity then the second two which have none). A study that shows that the unknown reality is not that unknowable. Another new study that weighs heavily in favor of scientific realism. A study that directly addresses the metaphysical questions brought about by Heisenbergs principle, by showing that you can indeed observe the quantum world without adding uncertainty. The only thing increasing in uncertainty is the validity of Bernard D'Espagnat's claim based on old, erroneous, quantum mechanical theory. The guys who did the research are physicists too! No ancient scriptures required, no "God" either. Edited September 8, 2012 by akh 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juanrga Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 How can anyone deny the works of these religious scholars and philosophers? The City of God by Saint Augustine, The Meditations by Marcus Aurelius, The Red Book by Carl Jung, the works of Shankara, the works of Elaine Pagels, The works of Devudu Narasimha Shastry, works of Jonathon Duqette and the many works by various religious scholars. One cannot deny these new insights coming from religious scholars who show us how to interpret the religious scriptures and further research on following the methods shows that these insights are indeed true of the reality existing out there independent of the human mind which is also confirmed by new insights from science. How can anyone deny that the works of those "religious scholars" have provided zero answers to scientific questions about nature? You cannot deny the history, and the history shows that those religious works have been systematically corrected/refuted by science up to a point where many religious scholars maintain their work in a safe stage with their claims that those works would not be taken seriously, but only in an anecdotal or spiritual way. Science has shown that reality is independent of the human mind. In one sense, the history of science is the history of the continuous lost of any special category for the human being. Astronomy showed that the Earth was not the centre of the Universe, chemistry showed that the animate and the inanimate was made of the same atoms, physics showed that the same basic laws apply elsewhere, biology showed that the human being becomes from evolution as any other species, etc. Only religious zealots deny the facts, still believe that they are special and touched by God's finger. Religious zealots attack/insult anyone who puts their faith and beliefs in danger. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortal Posted September 9, 2012 Author Share Posted September 9, 2012 How can anyone deny that the works of those "religious scholars" have provided zero answers to scientific questions about nature? You cannot deny the history, and the history shows that those religious works have been systematically corrected/refuted by science up to a point where many religious scholars maintain their work in a safe stage with their claims that those works would not be taken seriously, but only in an anecdotal or spiritual way. Well when they come explaining what mind is, what intelligence is, solving many of the puzzles of science, you say we don't want that knowledge and say science itself will fill those gaps and by all means you can fill those gaps with your science, let me see how you're going to do that without the ontology of God but now you ask what answers they have provided to scientific questions. Wow, what double standards! Science has shown that reality is independent of the human mind. Ah, nah, it has shown the very contrary to what you're saying. Quantum weirdness: What we call 'reality' is just a state of mind The correlations doesn't allow the attributes of an object like spin, position, momentum etc to be pre-existent with determined values. In one sense, the history of science is the history of the continuous lost of any special category for the human being. Astronomy showed that the Earth was not the centre of the Universe, chemistry showed that the animate and the inanimate was made of the same atoms, physics showed that the same basic laws apply elsewhere, biology showed that the human being becomes from evolution as any other species, etc. Those things are correct only from an empirical perspective, no one denied that. Only religious zealots deny the facts, still believe that they are special and touched by God's finger. Religious zealots attack/insult anyone who puts their faith and beliefs in danger. Yeah, what to do, evidence keep showing again and again that we are made truly in the image of God. There is no danger for religious practice because its a reasonable justified belief, if there is any danger then it is for the beliefs of working scientists. -2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juanrga Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 (edited) Well when they come explaining what mind is, what intelligence is, solving many of the puzzles of science, you say we don't want that knowledge and say science itself will fill those gaps and by all means you can fill those gaps with your science, let me see how you're going to do that without the ontology of God The supossition that one needs God to explain the universe is a very old but unneeded hypothesis: Laplace went in state to Napoleon to present a copy of his work, and the following account of the interview is well authenticated, and so characteristic of all the parties concerned that I quote it in full. Someone had told Napoleon that the book contained no mention of the name of God; Napoleon, who was fond of putting embarrassing questions, received it with the remark, 'M. Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator.' Laplace, who, though the most supple of politicians, was as stiff as a martyr on every point of his philosophy, drew himself up and answered bluntly, Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là. ("I had no need of that hypothesis.") The God hypothesis continues being unneeded today http://www.quantumdi...s-a-hypothesis/ Ah, nah, it has shown the very contrary to what you're saying. Quantum weirdness: What we call 'reality' is just a state of mind The correlations doesn't allow the attributes of an object like spin, position, momentum etc to be pre-existent with determined values. This was corrected before. It was also mentioned that the Templeton Prize is awarded to nonsensical work. There is no danger for religious practice because its a reasonable justified belief, if there is any danger then it is for the beliefs of working scientists. The attacks on science from religious zealots are not anything new. From the above blog: However, methodological naturalism is a very convenient hypothesis. It avoids awkward questions about the relation between science and religion. By inserting naturalism into the very definition of science, methodological naturalism, if valid, would create a firewall between science and religion. This would both protect religion from science and scientists from the religious. Considering the violence done in the name of religion, the latter may be more important, but the former was probably part of the original intent. However, I suspect the main motivation was to explain why God and the supernatural are absent from science. But Laplace gave the real reason for God's absence: parsimony—there is no need of that hypothesis. There are probably also very good theological reasons for that absence but that is outside the scope of science and this blog. Methodological naturalism confuses the input with the output. To the extent science is naturalistic, it is an output of the scientific method, not part of the definition. Excluding anything by fiat is poor methodology. But once one realizes that historically God and the supernatural have been eliminated from science, not by fiat, but by Laplace's criteria, methodological naturalism becomes redundant; an ad hoc solution to an already solved problem. Edited September 11, 2012 by juanrga Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortal Posted September 12, 2012 Author Share Posted September 12, 2012 The supossition that one needs God to explain the universe is a very old but unneeded hypothesis: The God hypothesis continues being unneeded today http://www.quantumdi...s-a-hypothesis/ We need it now because as Alain Aspect says much of the recent findings have nothing to do with science at all, it falls in the realm of philosophy. This was corrected before. It was also mentioned that the Templeton Prize is awarded to nonsensical work. Enough to make sense and publish it in a peer-reviewed journal. “QUANTUMPHYSICS AND VEDANTA”: A PERSPECTIVE FROM BERNARD D'ESPAGNAT'SSCIENTIFICREALISM -Jonathon Duquette. I am not the only one out there, I just showed the consequences of this way of thinking and I was outspoken to state things as they are, try stopping them if you can. The attacks on science from religious zealots are not anything new. From the above blog: No one is attacking science, the scientific method is not all there is and scientists can go on believing that the things which they deal with really exists out there independent of the human mind when all evidence contradicts that belief. Mysticism is not what you do sitting in air conditioner rooms and its not subjective as many of them think, it deals with the real physical world and there is an objective world of God out there, the cosmos is very different than you think. With all your Phds, can you raise the dead from the grave? Of Corpses and Gold: Materials for the Study of the Vet la and the Ro langs: Michael Walter "All these processes are based on a manipulation of prana, which is concentrated and directed by recitation of mantra, service to spiritual beings, etc.22" They don't view their world as made of quarks, protons, electrons etc. Their world-view is different and there is lot to learn from them. Ro-langs In the Himalayas, rolangs are currently regarded as a routine reality: both a common practical problem and a persistent serious danger. There is an enormous amount of folk-lore (in addition to scripture) concerning them. Vetalas were hugely important in the practice of early Buddhist Tantra in India. The Tantric scriptures contain extensive descriptions of the rites needed to raise vetalas, and the purposes to which they can be put. Slaves are useful; a supernatural slave is especially useful, particularly when you need to accomplish supernatural tasks. On the other hand, raising a vetala is always dangerous: if it escapes your control, it will kill you, and probably many other people, until someone more competent subdues it. This is mysticism, mysticism is not something which happens only in our heads, it deals with the noumenon, the world existing independent of the human minds. Why should I enforce myself to think about this world based on a narrow mind and think in only one way? I am not going to go by your rules, there is a lot to learn from different cultures who have more knowledge about the cosmos than anyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akh Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 (edited) I am not the only one out there, I just showed the consequences of this way of thinking and I was outspoken to state things as they are, try stopping them if you can. There is no need to stop anything that hasn't actually gone anywhere. No one is attacking science, the scientific method is not all there is and scientists can go on believing that the things which they deal with really exists out there independent of the human mind when all evidence contradicts that belief. Mysticism is not what you do sitting in air conditioner rooms and its not subjective as many of them think, it deals with the real physical world and there is an objective world of God out there, the cosmos is very different than you think. I don't get your point at all. You are, in fact attacking science, and any form of evidenced based investigation by trying to convince everybody that everything is an illusion. That everything is unreal. It has been shown over and over and over, that reality exists without humans and will continue to do so long after we are gone. To say differently is zealotry, no other way around it. Nobody can reason with zealots, they will ignore facts to the their last bitter breath, just because they have to! They have so much time, energy, and conviction behind their beliefs, that to recognize the truth, that they are wrong in every measure, means the destruction of ones self. So its better to live in the dark and keep on preaching... Also, since you are so convinced of your position, it makes no sense for you to do what you are doing right now! None! Zero! As in no sense what so ever! You wouldn't have a job, you wouldn't have a computer, you wouldn't be typing out nonsense day after day. You would be simply enjoying your fantasy of a different "real". But you are not, why is that? Is it for the same reason you haven't published your own reality shattering paper? I bet it is. With all your Phds, can you raise the dead from the grave? No, and neither can you or anyone or anything else. Of Corpses and Gold: Materials for the Study of the Vet la and the Ro langs: Michael Walter "All these processes are based on a manipulation of prana, which is concentrated and directed by recitation of mantra, service to spiritual beings, etc.22" They don't view their world as made of quarks, protons, electrons etc. Their world-view is different and there is lot to learn from them. Ro-langs Zombies?! Are we really talking about zombies now? Can you please show me one? I bet you can't, and never will. But I am being open minded to the idea, so please, can I see one? Somebody most likely has one captured in a cage somewhere, right? This is mysticism, mysticism is not something which happens only in our heads, it deals with the noumenon, the world existing independent of the human minds. Why should I enforce myself to think about this world based on a narrow mind and think in only one way? I am not going to go by your rules, there is a lot to learn from different cultures who have more knowledge about the cosmos than anyone else. This is another ironic statement by you. You are the one who is thinking only one way! You have done nothing but that, and it is a very narrow process. You think you have opened up, but anybody who reads this thread will realize that the opposite is true. You provide nothing new, you just repeat, repeat, repeat. It is the very definition of a limited thought process. You may not want to go by the rules of reality and science, but by the same token, why would anybody go by your fanciful and narrow rules? Edited September 14, 2012 by akh 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juanrga Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 (edited) We need it now because as Alain Aspect says much of the recent findings have nothing to do with science at all, it falls in the realm of philosophy. You confound science and philosophy once again. Enough to make sense and publish it in a peer-reviewed journal. "QUANTUMPHYSICS AND VEDANTA": A PERSPECTIVE FROM BERNARD D'ESPAGNAT'SSCIENTIFICREALISM -Jonathon Duquette. A very-low-impact journal on the subject of "religion & theology". Thanks by the laugh. No one is attacking science You are attacking science with your pretensions that scientists are dishonest and that physicists would be substituted by philosophers. With all your Phds, can you raise the dead from the grave? Yes in movies such as "Return of the Living Dead: Rave to the Grave" and in game computers. They don't view their world as made of quarks, protons, electrons etc. Sure, and that explains why their world-view is useless. Why should I enforce myself to think about this world based on a narrow mind and think in only one way? I am not going to go by your rules, there is a lot to learn from different cultures who have more knowledge about the cosmos than anyone else. You are who has shown a narrow mind, parroting outdated wrong points of view and unable to learn something rigorous and up to date. You chose to ignore science and reality and embrace traditions and mysticism. But who cares? Edited September 14, 2012 by juanrga Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortal Posted September 14, 2012 Author Share Posted September 14, 2012 Dangers of Yoga It is a fact that more and more people are getting hurt while performing Hatha yoga and pranyama, people are falling unconscious and getting hurt unable to bear the intense power of prana and experiencing spontaneous involuntary movements. Surprisingly the medical and the scientific community are absolutely silent about it. Why is that people are not getting hurt, falling unconscious and experiencing spontaneous involuntary movements while running or trekking or while doing other tasks but only when one is doing yoga while reciting the magic spells attributed to the Sun God? Its not a random phenomena at all. Who owns the Yoga and from where does its original teachings come from? The Original Teachings of Yoga: From Patanjali Back To Hiranyagarbha Who then was Hiranyagarbha, a human figure or a deity? The name Hiranyagarbha, which means “the gold embryo”, first occurs prominently as a Vedic deity, generally a form of the Sun God. There is a special Sukta or hymn to Hiranyagarbha in the Rig VedaX.121, which is commonly chanted by Hindus today. The Mahabharata speaks of Hiranyagarbha as he who is lauded in the Vedic verses and taught in the Yoga Shastra (Shanti Parva 339.69). As a form of the Sun God, Hiranyagarbha can be related to other such Sun Gods like Savitri, to whom the famous Gayatri mantra is addressed. Therefore, the Hiranyagabha Yoga tradition is a strongly Vedic tradition. We can call it the Hiranyagarbha Vedic Yoga tradition. All the teachings of Yoga can be traced back to Hiranyagarbha, an another name for the Sun God and all this knowledge belongs to him. Its an important philosophical aspect of Indian philosophy. Hiraṇyagarbha (Devanagari: हिरण्यगर्भः ; literally the 'golden womb' or 'golden egg', poetically rendered 'universal germ') is the source of the creation of the Universe or the manifested cosmos in Indian philosophy,[1] it finds mention in one hymn of the Ṛkveda (RV 10.121), known as the 'Hiraṇyagarbha Sūkta', suggesting a single creator deity(verse 8: yo deveṣv ādhi devā eka āsīt, Griffith: "He is the God of gods, and none beside him."), in the hymn identified as Prajāpati. The Upaṇiṣad calls it the Soul of the Universe or Brahman,[2] and elaborates that Hiraṇyagarbha floated around in emptiness and the darkness of the non-existence for about a year, and then broke into two halves which formed theSvarga and the Pṛthvi. In classical Purāṇic Hinduism, Hiraṇyagarbha is a name of Brahmā, so called because he was born from a golden egg (Manu Smṛti 1.9), while the Mahābhārata calls it the Manifest.[3] The ontology of Hiranyagarbha is different from other Gods and everything including all other gods reside in him and form his body. Each individual lustre of Hiranyagarbha represent an individual god. "Brahma generated the gods, Brahma (generated) this entire world. Within him are all these worlds. Within him is this entire universe. It is Brahma who is the greatest of beings. Who can vie with him? In Brahma, the thirty-three gods; in Brahma, Indra and Prajapati; in Brahma all things are contained as in a ship." The ritualist and the Vedic scholar Devudu Narasimha Shastry is absolutely right in saying that "Every living being in this world is verily a Sun worshipper. Some know it, but a large number of beings are unaware of it" Yoga poses dangers to genuine Christian faith: Theologian The Subtle Body — Should Christians Practice Yoga? Only stupid people who don't know the original roots of Hinduism and Yoga say that one can separate the Vedic cosmology and anyone can practice yoga but its very untrue, the Vedic Cosmology and the practice of Yoga is inseparable. All those who are practicsing yoga are directly or indirectly worshipping the Sun God. The existence of the Sun God and his pantheon are an important aspect of the Vedic cosmoslogy and we take it very very seriously and this cosmology is in direct conflict with the orthodox christian theology and its definitely a threat to orthodox christian cosmology and a threat to every other theology on this planet. The very practice of yoga is performed to be one with Hiranyagarbha and its a highly philosophical and religious practice and its not just about health benefits. The orthodox religions of the world like Hinduism, Christianity, Islam etc who are obssessed and take the stories of Krishna, Rama, Jesus etc literally must die and I think there is no truth in these orthodox religions of the world. The orthodox Christian theology seem to be fundamentally flawed and something is wrong with it. "The christian religion is a parody on the worship of the Sun, in which they put a man whom they call Christ, in the place of the Sun, and pay him the same adoration which was originally paid to the Sun." - Thomas Paine Also, since you are so convinced of your position, it makes no sense for you to do what you are doing right now! None! Zero! As in no sense what so ever! You wouldn't have a job, you wouldn't have a computer, you wouldn't be typing out nonsense day after day. You would be simply enjoying your fantasy of a different "real". But you are not, why is that? Is it for the same reason you haven't published your own reality shattering paper? I bet it is. I really don't know what your problem is here and how much every you shout and make personal attacks on me the facts are not going to change. "Most working scientists hold fast to the concept of 'realism' - a viewpoint according to which an external reality exists independent of observation. But quantum physics has shattered some of our cornerstone beliefs." My claim is not so extraordinary as you are thinking. -2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juanrga Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 (edited) Still waiting... Edited September 15, 2012 by juanrga 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now