Could god be dimensionless point of consciousness AND-----------

[PeterJ]

You, me and Schroedinger then. It's a start. I'd attempt to develop this idea into something that makes predictions if I could just check my ideas without always getting bogged down in hopeless arguments about religion. It's a perfectly scientific idea and testable up to point, but I'm unable to find a serious scientist who wants to talk about it. It is assumed that if physics cannot understand the world, the nature of Nature, then nobody else can. But not by my hero Erwin Schroedinger. He saw that the advaita view makes sense in physics, and that it would make sense that it should have been known to the writers of the Upanishads and throughout the wisdom traditions. This is one of the hardest things to explain to someone for whom the world is merely physical, or merely psycho-physical.

 

I expect these writers would have fascinated by quantum mechanics. It is truly amazing that it is possible to come so close to actually seeing with our physical instruments what they were talking about. My guess is that their view would fascinate a lot of scientists despite themselves if they looked into it. The trouble is that there is, as far as I know, not one good book exploring the ramifications of this view for physics. I'm trying to write something modest, but before I go any further I need to find a competent physcist who will help me ensure that I don't make a damn fool of myself in the process. So I keep trying to interest someone. In the war between science and religion Schroedinger's view is the collateral damage, being the reconciliation of the two and thus judged by both sides to be the enemy.

[chandragupta]

1353771444[/url]' post='714915']

You, me and Schroedinger then. It's a start. I'd attempt to develop this idea into something that makes predictions if I could just check my ideas without always getting bogged down in hopeless arguments about religion. It's a perfectly scientific idea and testable up to point, but I'm unable to find a serious scientist who wants to talk about it. It is assumed that if physics cannot understand the world, the nature of Nature, then nobody else can. But not by my hero Erwin Schroedinger. He saw that the advaita view makes sense in physics, and that it would make sense that it should have been known to the writers of the Upanishads and throughout the wisdom traditions. This is one of the hardest things to explain to someone for whom the world is merely physical, or merely psycho-physical.

 

I expect these writers would have fascinated by quantum mechanics. It is truly amazing that it is possible to come so close to actually seeing with our physical instruments what they were talking about. My guess is that their view would fascinate a lot of scientists despite themselves if they looked into it. The trouble is that there is, as far as I know, not one good book exploring the ramifications of this view for physics. I'm trying to write something modest, but before I go any further I need to find a competent physcist who will help me ensure that I don't make a damn fool of myself in the process. So I keep trying to interest someone. In the war between science and religion Schroedinger's view is the collateral damage, being the reconciliation of the two and thus judged by both sides to be the enemy.

Welcome to this extraordinary world of adwaita or non dualism & reconciliation with the extraordinary world of quanta. Now the journey begins to explore the twilight zone where these two worlds will meet one day (as meet they must).

[PeterJ]

Oh dear. It seems we nothing to argue about.

 

Good to meet you though. Not many people delve into these issues.

[immortal]

Yes. Nondualism or adwaita is the thing. Very nice to meet you. Quantum world & the world of nondualism can meet. The meeting ground could be (& here I emphasize 'could be':- I am not saying 'would be' ) the quantum idea of singularity.

 

What the fuck singularity has anything to do with Conscious experiences? Let's confine the idea of singularity while talking about Black holes, shall we? If matter arises out of consciousness then a singularity and a black hole cannot exist out there, they exist only in your mind and hence science and advaita doesn't and cannot meet. Now you are indeed misrepresenting both science and advaita. Don't try to forcibly make them shake hands with each other they doesn't fit so easily.

[PeterJ]

Here we go.

 

 

 

 

[chandragupta]

1353778601[/url]' post='714935']

What the fuck singularity has anything to do with Conscious experiences? Let's confine the idea of singularity while talking about Black holes, shall we? If matter arises out of consciousness then a singularity and a black hole cannot exist out there, they exist only in your mind and hence science and advaita doesn't and cannot meet. Now you are indeed misrepresenting both science and advaita. Don't try to forcibly make them shake hands with each other they doesn't fit so easily.

 

1353778601[/url]' post='714935']

What the fuck singularity has anything to do with Conscious experiences? Let's confine the idea of singularity while talking about Black holes, shall we? If matter arises out of consciousness then a singularity and a black hole cannot exist out there, they exist only in your mind and hence science and advaita doesn't and cannot meet. Now you are indeed misrepresenting both science and advaita. Don't try to forcibly make them shake hands with each other they doesn't fit so easily.

 

Immortal :- I whole heartedly agree with the very last bit of your statement 'they don't fit so easily'. Very very difficult indeed would be this journey. May even be impossible. But try we must even if we fail. We all live or die with our dreams & hopes. Thanks for your your wonderful input. I shall always remember constructive criticism of your's .

[Ben Banana]

Common guys, let's get back on topic:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URRiBWd6Ax4

[chandragupta]

1353771444[/url]' post='714915']

You, me and Schroedinger then. It's a start. I'd attempt to develop this idea into something that makes predictions if I could just check my ideas without always getting bogged down in hopeless arguments about religion. It's a perfectly scientific idea and testable up to point, but I'm unable to find a serious scientist who wants to talk about it. It is assumed that if physics cannot understand the world, the nature of Nature, then nobody else can. But not by my hero Erwin Schroedinger. He saw that the advaita view makes sense in physics, and that it would make sense that it should have been known to the writers of the Upanishads and throughout the wisdom traditions. This is one of the hardest things to explain to someone for whom the world is merely physical, or merely psycho-physical.

 

I expect these writers would have fascinated by quantum mechanics. It is truly amazing that it is possible to come so close to actually seeing with our physical instruments what they were talking about. My guess is that their view would fascinate a lot of scientists despite themselves if they looked into it. The trouble is that there is, as far as I know, not one good book exploring the ramifications of this view for physics. I'm trying to write something modest, but before I go any further I need to find a competent physcist who will help me ensure that I don't make a damn fool of myself in the process. So I keep trying to interest someone. In the war between science and religion Schroedinger's view is the collateral damage, being the reconciliation of the two and thus judged by both sides to be the enemy.

 

PeterJ. : You stated:- " The trouble is that there is, as far as I know, not one good book exploring the ramifications of this view for physics. I am trying to write something modest, but before I go any further I need to find a competent physicist, who will help me insure that I don't make a dammed fool of myself in the process". Peter , I request you very very strongly to go ahead with your above mentioned plan. Meanwhile , we shall keep our dialogue continuing & hopefully some more people who are viewing this site & feel connected with the idea of non dualism & of quantum world, will gather courage & join us in a constructive way to lend support & also root out extraneous elements.

[immortal]

Immortal :- I whole heartedly agree with the very last bit of your statement 'they don't fit so easily'. Very very difficult indeed would be this journey. May even be impossible. But try we must even if we fail. We all live or die with our dreams & hopes. Thanks for your your wonderful input. I shall always remember constructive criticism of your's .

 

Yeah WTF, I am not afraid of atheists at least they don't interfere into these issues but I am more concerned of half-baked philosophers who try to misrepresent both science and religion. It seems Sam Harris, an atheist shows more wisdom and knowledge about the wisdom traditions than the other two elites when he says that mystics try to understand their relationship with the world by sitting inside a cave for weeks and they are searching for completely different things and this has nothing to do with the world of quantum physics.

 

 

This is a hymn where they praise the feminine Goddess, describing her in every detail and their epistemology is inherently different.

 

http://dc217.4shared.com/img/313472087/c52fcff0/dlink__2Fdownload_2F313472087_2Fc52fcff0_3Ftsid_3D00000000-000000-00000000/preview.mp3

 

 

Ajakshaya vinirmukta mugdha kshipra prasadini

Antarmukha samaradhya bahirmukha sudurlabha .. 162

 

- Lalitha Sahasranamam

 

Ajaya: For whom there is no birth.

Kshaya vinirmukta: Whom there is no decay also.

Mugdha: Who is attractive by her artless beauty and innocence.

Kshipra prasadini: Who is easily pleased.

Antarmukha samaradhya: Whose worship is easy for those whose, mental gaze is turned inward.

Bahirmukha sudurlabha: Whose worship difficult for those whose mental gaze goes outwards.

 

Bahirmukha means knowing the world through the sense organs and Antarmukha means knowing the world without the sense organs. In fact there are no words in English to describe this and western philosophers don't know about this. Kant thought that all our knowledge has to come from the sense organs and hence he thought that it is forever impossible to know the noumenon but eastern religions state that there is an another way of knowing the world and that is by gaining knowledge without the sense organs or through a form of intuitive access to the numinous and this is what all wisdom traditions try to know and therefore religion doesn't really deal with the empirical world and the only message that advaita or any other wisdom traditions give to physicists is that physicists are basically asking the wrong questions and must take the human mind far more seriously. There are a few physicists like Penrose, Bernard and others who argue that a final theory of everything must include a model of the human mind in it and that's when non-dualistic Advaita will be really tested and that's where the pantheon of the Vedic gods come into the picture.

 

So science deals with one thing and advaita deals with another, science deals with the phenomenon and advaita deals with the noumenon.

[chandragupta]

1353849984[/url]' post='715043']

Yeah WTF, I am not afraid of atheists at least they don't interfere into these issues but I am more concerned of half-baked philosophers who try to misrepresent both science and religion. It seems Sam Harris, an atheist shows more wisdom and knowledge about the wisdom traditions than the other two elites when he says that mystics try to understand their relationship with the world by sitting inside a cave for weeks and they are searching for completely different things and this has nothing to do with the world of quantum physics.

 

 

This is a hymn where they praise the feminine Goddess, describing her in every detail and their epistemology is inherently different.

 

http://dc217.4shared.com/img/313472087/c52fcff0/dlink__2Fdownload_2F313472087_2Fc52fcff0_3Ftsid_3D00000000-000000-00000000/preview.mp3

 

 

Ajakshaya vinirmukta mugdha kshipra prasadini

Antarmukha samaradhya bahirmukha sudurlabha .. 162

 

- Lalitha Sahasranamam

 

Ajaya: For whom there is no birth.

Kshaya vinirmukta: Whom there is no decay also.

Mugdha: Who is attractive by her artless beauty and innocence.

Kshipra prasadini: Who is easily pleased.

Antarmukha samaradhya: Whose worship is easy for those whose, mental gaze is turned inward.

Bahirmukha sudurlabha: Whose worship difficult for those whose mental gaze goes outwards.

 

Bahirmukha means knowing the world through the sense organs and Antarmukha means knowing the world without the sense organs. In fact there are no words in English to describe this and western philosophers don't know about this. Kant thought that all our knowledge has to come from the sense organs and hence he thought that it is forever impossible to know the noumenon but eastern religions state that there is an another way of knowing the world and that is by gaining knowledge without the sense organs or through a form of intuitive access to the numinous and this is what all wisdom traditions try to know and therefore religion doesn't really deal with the empirical world and the only message that advaita or any other wisdom traditions give to physicists is that physicists are basically asking the wrong questions and must take the human mind far more seriously. There are a few physicists like Penrose, Bernard and others who argue that a final theory of everything must include a model of the human mind in it and that's when non-dualistic Advaita will be really tested and that's where the pantheon of the Vedic gods come into the picture.

 

So science deals with one thing and advaita deals with another, science deals with the phenomenon and advaita deals with the noumenon.

Immortal :- I am so pleased to have met you through this cyber space. Lots of things you have stated, strike a chord. The issue of quantum singularity & its infinities joining up with adwatic ' one & only formless', this you found extremely controversial & I respect that. As I said in earlier post, the meeting of the two will be very very difficult & will probably be impossible. The point here I shall like to emphasize is that great bulk of my thoughts re. Adwaita are in complete resonance with your posting above.

[PeterJ]

So science deals with one thing and advaita deals with another, science deals with the phenomenon and advaita deals with the noumenon.

 

In his unfinished book A Guess at the Riddle C.S. Peirce notes, 'We can easily recognize the man whose thought is mainly in the dual stage by his unmeasured use of language.'

 

It is a very obvious misunderstanding of the advaita doctrine to state that it deals with the noumenon where science deals withe phenomenon. It is a wildly incorrect statement that should be struck from the records in case anyone imagines it is true. It is utterly misleading and bordering on meaningless.

 

This is not a matter of opinion.

 

For the sake of my sanity I will not be taking part in any discussions that include Immortal. From experience I know they would be a waste of time. He is altready omniscient. So I will take my bat home for now.

 

I'd like to start a dedicated thread on these topics but it seem pointlesss under the circumstances.

[immortal]

Now you are indeed making a fool of yourself.

[chandragupta]

1353777646[/url]' post='714933']

Oh dear. It seems we nothing to argue about.

 

Good to meet you though. Not many people delve into these issues.

 

Peter: To take our adwaitic dialogue further from the stage where we left it earlier :- I considered your view re. the word 'point' & the word 'consciousness'. I now reconfigure the idea & pose the question :- Before the beginning of time & at the end of time god becomes "dimensionless awareness" AND after the beginning of time & before the end of time god becomes " four dimensional space time".

[Dekan]

Peter: To take our adwaitic dialogue further from the stage where we left it earlier :- I considered your view re. the word 'point' & the word 'consciousness'. I now reconfigure the idea & pose the question :- Before the beginning of time & at the end of time god becomes "dimensionless awareness" AND after the beginning of time & before the end of time god becomes " four dimensional space time".

 

Chandragupta's posts are admirably courteous. They're a lesson in how to be polite.

 

And they attempt, eloquently, to convey Indian mystical thoughts - the "Wisdom of the East". Such "wisdom" may look impressive at first sight. But it falls down when analysed linguistically. For example, every word in the "Vedas" seems to carry about ten different possible meanings. Can such vagueness convey precision of thought? Surely not - English is needed to clarify and pin down the meanings.

 

Also, the question arises: has Eastern mysticism ever brought any tangible benefits - like inventing steam-engines and railways. India owes its railways to 19th-Century Westerners, who came in and built them - using Western Science and Engineering. No Eastern gods or demi-gods helped in the construction.

 

So unless Eastern mysticism can demonstrate some practical results, shouldn't it be thrown into the dustbin of history?

[iNow]

So unless Eastern mysticism can demonstrate some practical results, shouldn't it be thrown into the dustbin of history?

How is eastern mysticism any different from western mysticism like christianity? Should not all of these human invented mythologies equally be discarded for the fiction that they are?

[immortal]

Peter: To take our adwaitic dialogue further from the stage where we left it earlier :- I considered your view re. the word 'point' & the word 'consciousness'. I now reconfigure the idea & pose the question :- Before the beginning of time & at the end of time god becomes "dimensionless awareness" AND after the beginning of time & before the end of time god becomes " four dimensional space time".

 

Can you cite the passage where they state that "Before the beginning of time & at the end of time god becomes "dimensionless awareness" AND after the beginning of time & before the end of time god becomes " four dimensional space time""? Don't try to put forward your personal speculation or pet theories as the views of Advaita.

[chandragupta]

1353948663[/url]' post='715222']

Can you cite the passage where they state that "Before the beginning of time & at the end of time god becomes "dimensionless awareness" AND after the beginning of time & before the end of time god becomes " four dimensional space time""? Don't try to put forward your personal speculation or pet theories as the views of Advaita.

 

Thanks. This has not come out from any external source. This has come out from my own inner self. I hope you would accept this.

[chandragupta]

1353943631[/url]' post='715206']

Chandragupta's posts are admirably courteous. They're a lesson in how to be polite.

 

And they attempt, eloquently, to convey Indian mystical thoughts - the "Wisdom of the East". Such "wisdom" may look impressive at first sight. But it falls down when analysed linguistically. For example, every word in the "Vedas" seems to carry about ten different possible meanings. Can such vagueness convey precision of thought? Surely not - English is needed to clarify and pin down the meanings.

 

Also, the question arises: has Eastern mysticism ever brought any tangible benefits - like inventing steam-engines and railways. India owes its railways to 19th-Century Westerners, who came in and built them - using Western Sciencee and Engineering. No Eastern gods or demi-gods helped in the construction.

 

So unless Eastern mysticism can demonstrate some practical results, shouldn't it be thrown into the dustbin of history?

Dekan: Thanks. I have myself wondered many times on your lines. Impossible at present is to include awareness into any form of extreme mathematics available to date. Till Einsteins of the present & the future invent another kind of Mathematical model which could enable awareness to take part into the " theory of every thing", god model of humanity will only be a theory.

 

1353777646[/url]' post='714933']

Oh dear. It seems we nothing to argue about.

 

Good to meet you though. Not many people delve into these issues.

 

Peter: I could not retrieve your your message because of my computer - illiteracy. Don't mind the flake. Let us move the adwaitic dialogue forward together. We owe it to this thread. Also remember, it is is you who brought me back into this thread when onslaught from all sides had forced me to retreat.

[chandragupta]

I invite all adwaitic thinkers or nondualist thinkers to come forward & join in the following reconfigured idea of formless god & formation & dissolution of space time:- BEFORE THE BEGINNING OF TIME & AFTER THE END OF TIME GOD BECOMES DIMENSIONLESS AWARENESS AND AFTER THE BEGINNING OF TIME & BEFORE THE END OF TIME GOD BECOMES FOUR DIMENSIONAL SPACE TIME.

[chandragupta]

Adwaitic idea or nondualistic idea that before the beginning of time & after the end of time god becomes dimensionless awareness AND after the beginning of time & before the end of time god becomes four dimensional space time can be expressed as a formula which,with due debt to Einstein, is represented as follows:- A = e = mc2 where A represents dimensionless awareness of god , e represents energy & m represents mass ( i.e. matter). This formula expresses the adwaitic or nondualistic idea of equivalence or interchangeability of dimensionless awareness on one hand & that of energy-matter duo on the other.

[chandragupta]

In adwaitic or nondualistic idea the process by which the dimensionless awareness becomes energy- matter duo is awarenessball self- willed dreaming process.

[chandragupta]

1354182243[/url]' post='715718']

In adwaitic or nondualistic idea the process by which the dimensionless awareness becomes energy- matter duo is awarenessball self- willed dreaming process.

 

In other words, according to adwaitic or nondualistic idea, universe is a dream of god.

[PeterJ]

Had to comment on this Chandra. Would it not be more rigorous to say that it is as if the universe were a dream of God, or that this would be a way of putting it? We should be careful not to encourage literal interpretations end up in a pointless battle with the atheists.

[chandragupta]

1354211908[/url]' post='715833']

Had to comment on this Chandra. Would it not be more rigorous to say that it is as if the universe were a dream of God, or that this would be a way of putting it? We should be careful not to encourage literal interpretations end up in a pointless battle with the atheists.

 

Thanks Peter: you are absolutely right. I now correct myself & put the idea in the manner you have suggested that the universe is as if it were a dream of god.

[chandragupta]

Peter : What do you think of expressing the same idea which we discussed together a short while earlier, in another way which also does not seem to be dogmatic so as not to draw the ire of atheists. This is as follows :- In adwaitic or nondualistic hypothesis the process by which the dimensionless awareness I.e. god becomes energy- matter duo can be described as a kind of self- willed dreaming process on the part of this dimensionless awareness.