What defines religion (split from correlation w/poverty)

[John Cuthber]

A religion never stops anyone to get higher education and all, it only stops ones wrong deeds against other.

Absurdly wrong on both counts.

[tar]

Immortal,

 

Answer me this, if you will.

 

Why is your "now", the same as my now?

 

Is this not indication that we belong to the same reality?

 

That we are in sync with the cycles of the same Earth?

 

Your day is my night, if we live on opposite sides of the planet, and we neither see the mars rover do anything until 14 minutes after it does it, but there is only one instance of the Mars rover, and only one instance of you, and only one of me.

 

And we all three belong to the same reality, that has a history, a current arrangement, and a future that has not yet been realized.

 

Don't you think?

 

Regards, TAR2

[immortal]

So my friends who worship the Moon Goddess Adrianna are not part of your set of real religions?

 

 

Pagans are liberal, so liberal that they teach that one should not assume that only the rituals of one's own country works but also the rituals and names of gods of other countries work too, yes they are pluralistic. If you actually study the Indo-Eupropean religion you will realize that same gods exist in different cultures and in some cultures that god is given a minor role and treated as a lower god where as in an another culture the same god is given a major role and treated as the God of the Gods, none the less even religion evolves over time and theists of different religion aren't divided much as atheists happen to think so.

 

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.[3]

 

- Polytheistic myth as Psychology.

 

All Hindus and Buddhists are pagans but all pagans are not Hindus and Buddhists.

 

Hindus and Pagans one billion strong.

 

But I don't agree with the thing said in that link.

 

“Most importantly, we need to work together more closely. Tremendous challenges loom – the decline in pluralism over thousands of years will take decades if not hundreds of years to reverse. However, challenges present opportunities. The Hindu American Foundation has made pluralism part of its motto “promoting understanding, tolerance and pluralism,” and pluralism is one of the defining characteristics of Hindu and Pagan traditions. Hindus and Pagans can make a lasting contribution to the world by once again promoting pluralism as a core value of society and its individuals – something evidently lacking in the world today in which intolerance is so prominent. We need to challenge ourselves to make pluralism a value similar in respect to values such as honesty and charity. People should be proud to proclaim that they are pluralist – that they revel in and respect the diversity around them. Children should be raised with this value. For the survival of not only our traditions but humanity altogether, we must move from the motto of, “I will tolerate you though you are wrong,” to a true commitment to pluralism.”

 

That's not how one ensures the survival of humanity altogether, by blindly accepting even when people are doing wrong in front of your eyes, blindly accepting their ignorance, if its anything that ensures the survival of humanity altogether is education, its the truth which brings humanity together and not tolerance of ignorance. He who worship a deity separate from himself is ignorant, a slave of gods and poor and those who know that the Father and I are one(John:10:30) are truth, rich and immortal.

 

Just because something is supernatural doesn't mean it is holy or religious, evil things do come from the supernatural, there is this thing called Left Hand path tantra and right Hand path tantra. With in Buddhism it is accepted that there exist supernatural beings who not enlightened and there are men who are well versed in the tantras and use that knowledge to make evil things from those unenlightened supernatural beings.

 

One need to differentiate the culture from the supernatural and differentiate the religious from the supernatural, if we let everyone have their own notions of religion the true message of the divine gets distorted and lost in the process and everyone will fall into ignorance and it is this ignorance that people doesn't know that they are contained with in the Father is the root source of all evil and sin of humanity and only by knowing the truth you can obtain freedom from bondage. Pluralism is welcoming but distortion of the true message of the divine in the name of pluralism is not welcoming at all.

 

You can pontificate all you want about true religions and religious traditions, but do you really want to get into a discussion where your first sentence into it is unbelievably incorrect?

 

 

Can you tell me where exactly in the brain the processing of redness or sweetness takes place?

Many of them not only see this as a hard problem but an impossible one and your models of the world and notions of space-time at the most fundamental level is fundamentally flawed and eastern philosophical models of the mind are in a better position to explain the phenomena of nature and account for it. When I discussed this in the very beginning John said the debate won't even begin but experiments in physics has opened up the debate again and it is here our differences starts.

Differential hypotheses between Indian and Western psychology

"The most important difference between the Indian and the Western approach seems to be about the existence of pure consciousness as postulated by the former. However, as far as “normal life” is concerned, ancient Indian psychology, especially as expressed in the systems of Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika have astonishingly parallel views with modern Western psychology (e.g., Raju, 1983; Sharma, 2003). But there are also some striking differences. For instance, in contemporary Western cognitive psychology, the relationship between brain and mind is seldom explicitly spelled out, but if one would press researchers to make a statement, most would probably resort to the view that cognitive processes co-vary with brain processes, and if pressed still harder, some might say that essentially brain processes produce cognitions and emotions (e.g., Damasio, 1999). The Indian view is just the opposite: the brain is used as an instrument by the mind (e.g., Raju, 1983).

Does the mind use the brain or is the reverse true? This is a very interesting question, which cannot easily be tested. One might, however, try to find evidence for whether mind exists independently from brain. If the brain is the basis for the mind, there should be no mind if the brain is dead. So a good starting point to examine the hypothesis might be to look for evidence on near-death experiences or on reincarnation (for some attempts do to so see Cook, Greyson & Stevenson, 1998; Stevenson, 1987).

Do the senses connect to their “sense-objects”? In Indian psychology, at least in the systems of Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika, Sāṁkhya, and Mīmāṁsā, it is assumed that the senses go out to their objects and contact them or even “become” the objects (e.g., Raju, 1983). Therefore, sense-organs such as the eye or the nose that do not really touch their objects seem to be not the whole story according to the Indian view. So one might, for instance, hypothesize that even if the visual sense in the Western understanding does not work any longer, the remaining part of the visual sense in the Indian understanding might still be functioning and an (incomplete) perception might be the result. This hypothesis might open up some interesting links to phenomena such as “blindsight” (e.g., Cowey, 2004)."

- Peter Sedlmeier,Indian Psychology and the scientific method.

It is our model of the mind which nature agrees with.

[Ringer]

Can you tell me where exactly in the brain the processing of redness or sweetness takes place?

 

Many of them not only see this as a hard problem but an impossible one and your models of the world and notions of space-time at the most fundamental level is fundamentally flawed and eastern philosophical models of the mind are in a better position to explain the phenomena of nature and account for it. When I discussed this in the very beginning John said the debate won't even begin but experiments in physics has opened up the debate again and it is here our differences starts.

[etc.]

Color: http://www.pnas.org/content/106/42/18034.full

Taste: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustatory_cortex

http://www.tastescience.com/abouttaste2.html

 

Care to try again?

Edited February 15, 2013 by Ringer

[tar]

Immortal,

 

Mohammed was rather insistent in the Koran, about straightening out the idol worshippers, and explaning how they were in error.

 

The Koran divides us all very clearly into believers and disbelievers. Does not seem to me that the Muslim religion is very pluralistic. Not so willing at all to accept that Allah has any associates.

 

Since the stories of the old testament are retold "correctly" by Mohammed in the Koran, and the information contained in the Bible, New Testament and the Koran came from the same "human" tradition that you find contains evidence of 33 gods, someone has to be making something up, and not seeing it "correctly".

 

I think the laws of probability and some common sense would say that Immortal is not the first human who "thinks" he has it all figured out correctly. And being as that Immortal is not the first or the last to address the issue, I would say it is rather clear that arriving at a final, correct answer is not very likely. Throw in the wide disagreements in the important details between the plethora of religious beliefs that exist on this planet, and I would say that your thesis about the true nature of reality being found in the teachings of the ancients is highly fragile, and has very little solid evidence behind it.

 

If on the other hand, humans have certain tendencies to think in certain ways, and there is a kind of Universal Grammar underlying language and thought, then the similarities you have noticed between the traditions of separated civilizations, might well have their basis and explanations in how it is we are put together, as humans.

 

Kant's categories are a well thought out breakdown of "how we think". And what we can say/think about anything.

 

I'll wager we can find all 33 gods in the structure of human understanding...if we cared to look for them there.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Iggy]

Immortal,

 

Mohammed was rather insistent in the Koran, about straightening out the idol worshippers, and explaning how they were in error.

 

The Koran divides us all very clearly into believers and disbelievers. Does not seem to me that the Muslim religion is very pluralistic. Not so willing at all to accept that Allah has any associates.

 

Indeed. In the Quran the word pagan meant "polytheist" (as it does now in English, in fact). The position in the Quran (outlined in chapter 9) is that pagans should be converted or killed. That was the tolerance shown to them... "convert or die".

 

Anyone who knows anything about Islam knows the first of the 5 pillars: "there is only one God and Muhammad is his messanger". Anyone saying that this is a message of tolerance or a message of polytheism is diluted beyond plain words. More than diluted... delusional.

 

One wonders why orthodox Muslims today believe that non-Muslim lands should be converted and apostates should be killed. Actually, one doesn't have to wonder -- it's because they take the word of an epileptic schizophrenic madman seriously.

Edited February 16, 2013 by Iggy

[immortal]

Immortal,

 

Answer me this, if you will.

 

Why is your "now", the same as my now?

 

Is this not indication that we belong to the same reality?

 

That we are in sync with the cycles of the same Earth?

 

Your day is my night, if we live on opposite sides of the planet, and we neither see the mars rover do anything until 14 minutes after it does it, but there is only one instance of the Mars rover, and only one instance of you, and only one of me.

 

And we all three belong to the same reality, that has a history, a current arrangement, and a future that has not yet been realized.

 

Don't you think?

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Just because two people share the same dream doesn't mean that the dream is real and when you come out of your dream you'll surely know it was all a dream and was only a state of mind. People who have visited the numinous and came back claim that living just for a couple of minutes in the numinous implies that 15 days have been passed on this empirical reality.

 

 

“For a thousand years in your sight are but like yesterday when it is past” (Psalm 90:4)

 

Similarly those who have made an ascent to heaven knows that this empirical reality is a dream and its only a state of mind and its not out there in the physical world independent of us.

 

Even science says the same thing and this is an established fact.

 

For his part, Wheeler has focused on the delayed-choice phenomenon that may be explored in double-slit experiments. He has proposed a variety of arrangements allowing the experimenter to decide what he will observe while a photon or electron is in mid flight, but after it has.passed through either a single or a double-slit aperture, and therefore after it is presumably committed to exhibit either its particle like or wavelike property. The outcome of such experiments bears significantly upon notions of time, causality, and a reality independent of .the observer.

 

Says Wheeler:

 

"After the quantum of energy has already gone through the doubly split screen, a last-instant free choice on our part...gives at will a double-slit interference record or a one-slit beam count. Does this result mean that present choice influences past dynamics, in contravention of every formulation of causality? Or does it mean [us to] calculate pedantically and not ask questions? Neither; the lesson presents itself rather as this, that the past has no existence except as it is recorded in the present. It has no sense to speak of what the quantum of electromagnetic energy was doing except as it is observed or calculable from what is observed. More generally, we would seem forced to say that no phenomenon is a phenomenon until, by observation, or some proper combination of theory and observation, it is an observed phenomenon. The universe does not 'exist out there/ independent of all acts of observation. Instead, it is in some strange sense a participatory universe."

 

No matter how many times you insist that this empirical reality has an objective existence out there in physical world it has no bearing in reality what so ever, it is simply your belief, a belief which is fundamentally flawed, devoid of any evidence or merit. Start accepting facts of nature first or admit you don't have self respect and that you want to go on and believe in any damn thing you want irrespective of what the evidence says, don't display your double standards with me.

 

Color: http://www.pnas.org/content/106/42/18034.full

Taste: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustatory_cortex

http://www.tastescience.com/abouttaste2.html

 

Care to try again?

 

I don't want a philosophical zombie, remember redness and sweetness doesn't exist in the physical world and if you insist that they are just patterns of the brain then you should be able to replicate it or reproduce it and make us realize what it is like to be to experience an artificially created qualia and only then your assumption that qualia are just patterns of the brain stand or else they are non-physical.

 

Cognitive science has definitely sidelined that issue and many cognitive scientists with in the community insist that qualia should be taken seriously and investigated.

 

Immortal,

 

I think the laws of probability and some common sense would say that Immortal is not the first human who "thinks" he has it all figured out correctly. And being as that Immortal is not the first or the last to address the issue, I would say it is rather clear that arriving at a final, correct answer is not very likely. Throw in the wide disagreements in the important details between the plethora of religious beliefs that exist on this planet, and I would say that your thesis about the true nature of reality being found in the teachings of the ancients is highly fragile, and has very little solid evidence behind it.

 

Differences exist only in the outer branches but as you move towards the root the differences dilute and become non-existent.

 

According to Max-Muller the proto Indo-Iranian religion started off as sun worship.

 

 

The present day Indians and Iranians might have forgotten their origins but I have not.

[tar]

Immortal,

 

"The universe does not 'exist out there/ independent of all acts of observation. Instead, it is in some strange sense a participatory universe."

 

Well perhaps I already believe myself to be participating. How many times have I used the phrase "a reality we are in and of"?

 

And a while back, in my muses on consciousness I developed a definition of love "love is when you include another entity in your feeling of self".

 

And, when considering the genesis of life on this planet I often refer in my muses to an "epiphany" I had on a mountaintop overlooking the Rhine valley, where I "understood" treeness, and how life on Earth had grabbed organisation from a universe tending toward entropy, and a species of tree represented an enduring victory, that from inception til now, was just an instant, a momentary flash in the overall scheme of things.

 

And I have recognized that the model of the universe I hold in my brain is only an analog, detailed model of "actual" reality. A representation of the "thing as it is", that I am in and of.

 

All these things speak to an objective reality that is "out there", operating in sync with me, but independent of my "observation". I am informed of it, but not informed of all of it, at once. I only possess "here and now". And I must figure how that adds back to the real entities that are informing me of their existence and arrangement and history, characteristics and capabilities. And I must figure how my human self, my body/brain/heart group, that exists at a particular place and time (here and now), relates and positions itself in amoungst all the "other" real entities that exist.

 

It is not me that is being hypocritical and ignoring the truth. I am looking for the real things that we both are in and of. And I know the difference between imagination and reality. I know when you are talking about the real world that we all experience, and when you are talking about some ideal or pattern that a human mind has dreamed up in a cave, or noticed while musing on a mountaintop.

 

Besides, if your thesis is that reality does not exist "out there", then the gods you speak of, cannot exist either.

 

And as such, if I would define religion, it would be "the belief that the priests and sages and wisemen of your religion know how to escape here and now". (and as such, would suggest that this is not a real possibility).

 

Regards, TAR

[Ringer]

I don't want a philosophical zombie, remember redness and sweetness doesn't exist in the physical world and if you insist that they are just patterns of the brain then you should be able to replicate it or reproduce it and make us realize what it is like to be to experience an artificially created qualia and only then your assumption that qualia are just patterns of the brain stand or else they are non-physical.

 

Cognitive science has definitely sidelined that issue and many cognitive scientists with in the community insist that qualia should be taken seriously and investigated.

And I find it pointless to discuss anything with someone who asks me to identify something and when I do acts like they asked a completely different question. We can replicate those things (mix different pigments to make a red color and artificial sweeteners) and we can reproduce it (Push your eyes with your hands and you can make yourself see colors and give small shocks to sweetness tastebuds and you will taste sweetness). You stating otherwise doesn't mean anything other than you don't seem to take the time to read about the things your making statements about. Saying the brain isn't the source of consciousness isn't a philosophical question, it's a scientific one. Meaning any statement you make about it doesn't mean anything without evidence.

[iNow]

I found it pointless to discuss anything whatsoever with immortal long ago. That's just me, though. I've never been accused of being a very patient man.

[John Cuthber]

Still waiting for Immortal to explain his experiments that prove that the experimental equipment doesn't exist.

Or, if you prefer, waiting for him to realise that his position is not just wrong, but absurd.

 

I predict that, rather than doing either of those things, he will try to support his bizarre beliefs with an appeal to authority because he doesn't understand that such an appeal is a logical fallacy.

[Iggy]

 

An another way is by the exact physical sciences, just because the equipment doesn't exist prior to our observations doesn't mean we cannot draw reasonable conclusions from the results of the experiment...

If the equipment is observed then it exists, but reality doesn't? You'll have to explain how reality contains no equipment. By the way, we cannot draw reasonable conclusions from non-existent equipment.

[immortal]

Still waiting for Immortal to explain his experiments that prove that the experimental equipment doesn't exist.

Or, if you prefer, waiting for him to realise that his position is not just wrong, but absurd.

 

 

Asking the same question again and again will not change the answer which has been given to you because a fact is a fact and facts don't change. There is nothing special about the equipment.

 

Radioactive element--->Detector(your equipment)-->Trigger's Poison-->Schroedinger's Cat(neither Dead nor Alive)-->Wigner's friend.

 

The entire room is treated as a quantum system and it exists in a superposition of states and it is a well established fact that the properties of a system doesn't exist until a measurement is made on the quantum system and therefore its the very act of observation by Wigner is when nature decides which possibility to realize, the poor cat inside the box doesn't exist independent of Wigner's friend and Wigner's friend inside the room doesn't exist independent of Wigner. Kant argued that the mind is not passive but instead it participates in the retrospective creation of reality, in other words this empirical reality is merely a phenomena which mind makes a form of from the real noumenon. There is something real that exists out there but its definitely not this empirical reality, this reality is only a state of our mind.

 

Vladko Vedral, quantum physicist - "Rather than passively observing it, we in fact create reality" or in other words your mind which is nature is what creates reality.

 

Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger on unreality

 

Alain Aspect is the physicist who performed the key experiment that established that if you want a real universe, it must be non-local (Einstein’s “spooky action at a distance”). Aspect comments on new work by his successor in conducting such experiments, Anton Zeilinger and his colleagues, who have now performed an experiment that suggests that “giving up the concept of locality is not sufficient to be consistent with quantum experiments, unless certain intuitive features 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: “it implies 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.

 

RICHARD CONN HENRY

henry@jhu.edu

 

STEPHEN R. PALMQUIST

stevepq@hkbu.edu.hk

 

My studies of religion very early proved me that the atheistic position is fundamentally flawed, atheism is dead and its theistic scientists who are unbiased and are being honest with themselves.

 

I predict that, rather than doing either of those things, he will try to support his bizarre beliefs with an appeal to authority because he doesn't understand that such an appeal is a logical fallacy.

 

The other sources are posted to rightly convey my position, it doesn't mean just because some X person says it is true it must be true, experiments are unbiased and independent of authorities and anyone can repeat the experiments and testify the truth for themselves whether its me, you or a 8 year old. I don't do science or religion based on authority, I test them for myself whether it agrees with nature or not and hence the reason why I hold such a radical position, I really don't care how many degrees he or she has or the kind of reputation that they have, even Einstein was wrong in his analysis.

 

I can single handedly defend my position I don't need anyone, before I used to argue alone but now I have a fringe scientific consensus along side with me.

[immortal]

 

immortal, on 14 Feb 2013 - 20:29, said:

 

I didn't defined religion, traditions defined it and I just accepted their definition.

Are you sure about that?

 

Yes, when you apply negative theology based on the available empirical evidence and ask what god cannot be you'll get that god cannot be anything else other than a hypercosmic being and only a few religions who taught the existence of a hypercosmic God survive and other religions are falsified.

 

And you can go and study those traditions which I have mentioned there and they all teach that one need to become the 'Father(God)' to be religious and it is the heart of their doctrine.

 

I want two things:

 

1. I want working scientists to use weak objective statements while publishing their results or when they write text books.

 

2. a) I want those who use Pagan ideas to not discredit the religious elements associated with such ideas, if you're a platonist then accept Plato's Gods or else don't interfere with such ideas, its better to keep yourself away rather than distorting and misinterpreting pagan doctrines and beliefs.

 

b) When I say your understanding of pagan doctrines are wrong they say what authority do you have to speak on such matters and when I cite that the scholars who study those doctrines are themselves saying that your understanding are wrong you guys say you're making an appeal to authority since there seems to be no end for your arrogance and ignorance such lack of understanding is inexcusable in a world where three out of four people can read and write.

 

 

"Question: You talked about the peaceful and wrathful deities. Most Westerners don’t know they exist. Is it possible to recognize fear, anger and wrathful things in bardo?

Rinpoche: This is the reason Trungpa Rinpoche had the Tibetan Book of the Dead translated, printed, and distributed everywhere. It is very beneficial in introducing people to the bardo."

People in the academics have to learn a lot from pagan religions and their ignorance on such matters is inexcusable.

 

If there weren't any problems then obviously my reasons for arguing would have been pointless.

[tar]

Immortal,

 

If the history of the universe is to be considered, we must agree that there is a universe, with a history, to consider.

If the current state of the universe is to be considered, we must agree that the universe has a current state, observable in two manners. Once from a local, here and now, point of view, and once from a godlike hypothetical view, where a zillion observers stationed everywhere there currently is a station, report their here and now observations to us instantaneously and we add back the distance between the observers, and the time lag from the speed of light and such, and we build a mental model of how immense and longlived the reality we inhabit, really is.

 

There is a built in error that we can easily make when making our assessment of Alpha Centuri. Is it the star we see that is real, or the star we imagine currently shining that is real? There are not two instances of Alpha Centuri, one real, and one imagined. There is, in reality, only one instance, and no observer in the universe actually is informed of Alpha's presence, immediately, it take years for Alpha's current state to reach us, and hundreds of thousands of years to reach other Milky Way observers.

 

But we can add back, and figure the whole situation, hypothetically, in order to understand how it really is. With easy errors built in, because we see it now, as it was before, and depending on which and what you are calling the real current state of Alpha, you can easily imagine someone being in error if they say Alpha just pulsed based on observations of Alpha.

 

I have a theory, that such descrepencies between what the current state of Alpha Centuri is, are also possible when considering the current state of a quantum particle. Where are we placing the hypothetical observer? Is it real when we see the state, or when we add back to figure what it must have been, or when we add back and figure what it could not have been?

 

Such a quandry might be understood if you would attempt to make a model of the state of every quark in a sugar cube. What instant would you use to "freeze" the sugar cube in a particular state? Would it be from the vantage point of the upper back left hand corner, or from the center, or what? The speed of light separates one corner from the other, in a manner that creates the same dual considerations of what is real, that we have with our consideration of Alpha.

 

When you talk of mind, and god, and reality, and empircal evidence and such, I parse it through the above screening process.

I give a human both the capability to see a real thing, and to know what seeing it might mean about reality. We have the capability to "add back" and say something, and know something about reality, based on our observations of it.

 

We see the entire visible universe, instantly, when we peer up at it. And none of what we see is representative of the "current" state of the universe. Which are you calling real? Our guess at the current state, or what we see? Or both, put together?

 

I still think you are mistaken if you think you can parse reality into its proper real and imaginary components, and the rest of us cannot. And am rather sure, that in anycase we have to both be trying to say something about the same real Alpha, which there is, in reality, only one instance of.

 

Regards, TAR2

[John Cuthber]

Immortal, are you deliberately missing the point?

re "There is nothing special about the equipment.

Radioactive element--->Detector(your equipment)-->Trigger's Poison-->Schroedinger's Cat(neither Dead nor Alive)-->Wigner's friend.

The entire room is treated as a quantum system and it exists in a superposition of states and it is a well established fact that the properties of a system doesn't exist until a measurement is made..."

 

But, if reality doesn't exist then the room and its contents don't exist because they are part of reality.

So you are left trying to do an experiment with equipment that doesn't exists.

When you say "There is nothing special about the equipment."

You are quite right.

One of the things about it which is not "special" is that the equipment is real.

But you also say that nothing is real.

Do yo not see the contradiction there?

You say the equipment is real and you say that nothing is real.

 

 

 

And re "I didn't defined religion, traditions defined it and I just accepted their definition."

you are simply wrong.

You said "Only those who are in the right process of Henosis are religious"

 

And you go on "Only those who are divinized means only those who are united with the One can know or knows what the will of the divine is, not some Islamic fundamentalists or Heinrich Himmler or not even those who blindly believe in their scriptures, religion has got nothing to do with belief, religion is about doing not believing, even they are not religious, this concept of henosis exists in all the religions of the world and hence my definition is universal whether you or any mods accept or reject it will not change the facts." (my emphasis).

 

So, you plainly did define religion in a way that's at odds with everyone else's definition and you keep ignoring the fact that you contradict yourself when you say that nothing exists but we can do experiments with things (which do exist).

 

Are you delusional or are you trolling?

[tar]

Immortal,

 

But consider this question. If you were to reach a perfect state of henosis, at one with the Godhead, what would you do next? Would there be a more perfect state to achieve? And more importantly, what good would that do me, and what would you then eat for dinner?

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Or assuming you are fasting to reach such a state, what would you have for breakfast?

[immortal]

Immortal, are you deliberately missing the point?

re "There is nothing special about the equipment.

 

Radioactive element--->Detector(your equipment)-->Trigger's Poison-->Schroedinger's Cat(neither Dead nor Alive)-->Wigner's friend.

 

The entire room is treated as a quantum system and it exists in a superposition of states and it is a well established fact that the properties of a system doesn't exist until a measurement is made..."

 

But, if reality doesn't exist then the room and its contents don't exist because they are part of reality.

So you are left trying to do an experiment with equipment that doesn't exists.

When you say "There is nothing special about the equipment."

You are quite right.

One of the things about it which is not "special" is that the equipment is real.

But you also say that nothing is real.

Do yo not see the contradiction there?

You say the equipment is real and you say that nothing is real.

 

I didn't said the equipment is real, you have misunderstood, when I said there is nothing special about the equipment I meant that even the equipment can be treated as a quantum system and that's when the measurement problem actually arises.

 

And re "I didn't defined religion, traditions defined it and I just accepted their definition."

you are simply wrong.

You said "Only those who are in the right process of Henosis are religious"

 

And you go on "Only those who are divinized means only those who are united with the One can know or knows what the will of the divine is, not some Islamic fundamentalists or Heinrich Himmler or not even those who blindly believe in their scriptures, religion has got nothing to do with belief, religion is about doing not believing, even they are not religious, this concept of henosis exists in all the religions of the world and hence my definition is universal whether you or any mods accept or reject it will not change the facts." (my emphasis).

 

So, you plainly did define religion in a way that's at odds with everyone else's definition and you keep ignoring the fact that you contradict yourself when you say that nothing exists but we can do experiments with things (which do exist).

 

Are you delusional or are you trolling?

 

And you go on "Only those who are divinized means only those who are united with the One can know or knows what the will of the divine is, not some Islamic fundamentalists or Heinrich Himmler or not even those who blindly believe in their scriptures, religion has got nothing to do with belief, religion is about doing not believing, even they are not religious, this concept of henosis exists in all the religions of the world and hence my definition is universal whether you or any mods accept or reject it will not change the facts."

 

You have emphasized the later part but not the part which I said before which I have corrected for you, I have no freedom to define religion, traditions places constraints as to what constitutes religion and I just went by them, I didn't made up this definition on my own which is what you're implying which is very wrong.

 

Immortal,

 

But consider this question. If you were to reach a perfect state of henosis, at one with the Godhead, what would you do next? Would there be a more perfect state to achieve? And more importantly, what good would that do me, and what would you then eat for dinner?

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Or assuming you are fasting to reach such a state, what would you have for breakfast?

 

This passage is very much relevant to your question and it answers it perfectly.

 

12. "As a lump of salt dropped into water becomes dissolved in water and cannot be taken out again, but wherever we taste the water it tastes salt, even so, my dear, this great, endless, infinite Reality is Pure Intelligence alone. This self comes out as a separate entity from these elements and with their destruction this separate existence also is destroyed. After attaining oneness it has no more consciousness. This is what I say, my dear." So said Yajnavalkya.

 

13. Then Maitreyi said: "Just here you have bewildered me, venerable Sir, by saying that after attaining oneness the self has no more consciousness." Yajnavalkya replied: "Certainly I am not saying anything bewildering, my dear. This Reality is enough for knowledge, O Maitreyi."

 

14. "For when there is duality, as it were, then one smells another, one sees another, one hears another, one speaks to another, one thinks of another, one knows another. But when everything has become the Self, then what should one smell and through what, what should one see and through what, what should one hear and through what, what should one speak and through what, what should one think and through what, what should one know and through what? Through what should One know That owing to which all this is known—through what, my dear, should one know the Knower?"

 

- Brihadaranyaka Upanishad

 

In the west this is called as realized eschatology.

 

 

"Unlike most religious movements, the Valentinian eschatological myth does not present events that are postponed until the afterlife or the end of the world. They believed that those who had gnosis experienced the restoration to Fullness (pleroma) here and now through visionary experiences and ritual. The orthodox teacher Irenaeus reports with some bewilderment that Valentinians claimed that they were "in the heights beyond every power" (Irenaeus Against Heresies 1:13:6) and that they were "neither in heaven nor on earth but have passed within the Fullness and have already embraced their angel" (Irenaeus Against Heresies 3:15:2). They described the experience of gnosis itself in terms of the eschatological myth."

[John Cuthber]

If the equipment is not real then you can't do experiments with it because it doesn't exist

 

Still, I was right about the illogical appeals to authority..

[immortal]

If the equipment is not real then you can't do experiments with it because it doesn't exist

 

Still, I was right about the illogical appeals to authority..

 

Do you know that in principle I can strip off all the properties of that equipment and transfer it to the other side of the universe instantaneously and obtain a duplicate, there by destroying the original equipment? What does it say about the nature of reality? It says reality is abstract. Just because something isn't objectively real doesn't mean it is not virtually real either. The properties of the system exist virtually and we can do experiments with it and make rational conclusions from the results obtained from it.

 

Physical world as virtual reality

 

The emergence of physical world from information processing

[John Cuthber]

"Do you know that in principle I can strip off all the properties of that equipment and transfer it to the other side of the universe instantaneously and obtain a duplicate, there by destroying the original equipment?"

No, because that would need travel faster than light.

However if you drop the "instantaneously" bit then yes, You can do it.

That's because the effect is real.

The far end of the universe exists in the same reality as this end- so the outcome of similar experiments will be the same.

 

And you are still ignoring the point that you need real equipment to do experiments so any experiment you cite is evidence against you idea that reality does not exist.

 

BTW, do you realise that citing papers is still an appeal to authority?

(even more so when they are both by the same author)

[swansont]

Do you know that in principle I can strip off all the properties of that equipment and transfer it to the other side of the universe instantaneously and obtain a duplicate, there by destroying the original equipment?

 

Not outside of a science fiction novel you can't.

[immortal]

"Do you know that in principle I can strip off all the properties of that equipment and transfer it to the other side of the universe instantaneously and obtain a duplicate, there by destroying the original equipment?"

No, because that would need travel faster than light.

However if you drop the "instantaneously" bit then yes, You can do it.

That's because the effect is real.

The far end of the universe exists in the same reality as this end- so the outcome of similar experiments will be the same.

 

And you are still ignoring the point that you need real equipment to do experiments so any experiment you cite is evidence against you idea that reality does not exist.

 

Of course Bob at the other side of the universe need to receive information classically in order to make the necessary unitary transformations. What I was trying to say is that entanglement is still instantaneous, the fact that you cannot send meaningful information through entanglement doesn't change the fact that the two entangled objects are correlated instantaneously.

 

You take one entangled subsystem at one side of the universe and an another entangled subsystem at the other side of the universe and according to quantum mechanics no matter how far apart they are they need to be treated as a single quantum system which defines the states of the subsystems.

 

This says something profound about the nature of reality, it says that information is a far more fundamental concept of the universe. In philosophical circles an object's properties is what defines an object and if the properties of the two subsystems are undefined prior to measurements it doesn't make any sense to assume that the subsystems as an independent reality.

 

 

 

 

 

Bell state measurements.

 

 

"If I get the impression that nature itself makes the decisive choice what possibility to realise, where quantum theory says that more than one outcome is possible, then I am ascribing personality to nature, that is to something that is always everywhere. Omnipresent eternal personality, which is omnipotent in taking the decisions that are left undetermined by physical law, is exactly what in the language of religion is called God."

- F. J. Belinfante Measurements and Time Reversal in Objective Quantum Theory,1975.

 

Science has found God and I don't need to redefine anything, the evidence is out there for everyone to see, science and religion are converging.

 

BTW, do you realise that citing papers is still an appeal to authority?

(even more so when they are both by the same author)

 

Entanglement is a fact and we know it happens outside of space-time irrespective of what X or Y says. As per your request I have shown you that reality isn't real. Don't tell me that I shouldn't tell you that the real world isn't here.

 

Bernard is right.

 

 

"In an article in the Guardian titled Quantum weirdness: What we call 'reality' is just a state of mind d'Espagnat wrote that:

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

[John Cuthber]

If reality doesn't exists then the equipment doesn't really exist.

So you can't use it to prove anything.

[tar]

Immortal,

 

The passage you quoted did not answer the question I had. My question was not "can you imagine god?". My question was "what do you do after imagining god?". That is, how do you apply it to reality? What is your next move? If you can not associate it to the rest of us, then you are doing it alone, and as such you are ignoring every single "other" real component of reality. In which case, you have not really become one with everything, but had fooled yourself into believing you have.

 

What defines religion?

 

I am thinking, from the thrust of this thread, that is has something to do with one holding on to a thought, so tightly, that you figure the thought itself, trumps reality. I see it strongly in the passage you quoted, where the "teacher" has reached a height, higher than the student, and is operating on a plane only possible in the teacher's imagination. The student knows already the feeling, the connection he/she has with reality, that can not possibly come from anywhere but reality. The student already knows reality, and is already in it, and of it. But the teacher claims you can know reality better, by not knowing it at all, and this is not realistic. It has no bearing on reality, or anything that the student can realistically acheive. All that the student can do, is self hypnotise him/herself into the same state of euphoria, and "believe" the merging with reality, is better when you ignore it completely and wallow in your own internal short circuit.

 

Proof of this, is the constant claim in just about every religion I can think of, that the "believer" knowns more about reality, by associating with the "supernatural", which by defintion is by associating with what is not real, but imaginary.

 

My contention is that we all, already are solidly associated with reality. Any claim of yours, that this link can be "improved", by linking with a "higher" power, that does not really exist, but in yourself, and your own belief, is somewhat an inside/out way of dealing with reality.

 

Think if you will, about a hundred thousand Muslims, circling the stone, in Mecca, reciting over and over and over again, verses from the Koran. They are together in a state of union with their creator...or so they imagine. But it does nothing for me. I cannot join their particular ritual. I do not have the belief they have.

 

Reminds me in a way, of the invincable, euphoric guy, on top of the world, reaching the highest heights, high on drugs, and lying in the gutter.

 

The question remains, what bearing, does reaching nirvana have, on reality and the rest of us? How would you define the difference between understanding ultimate reality, by taking LSD, or learning the secret of the Vedas?

 

Regards, TAR2