immortal

A chaperone is the one which misfolds normal proteins into prions.

Of course there was a point to discuss this and there are other sites and media for promoting things if I want to but I want to discuss with intellectuals and not preach to innocent people who can be easily manipulated. If no one at SFN devalued an important text of late antiquity, an important line of research, a new discovery then yes, there was no point in posting this but on the contrary people born out of ignorance do make errors and it need to be challenged so that the truth of the matter doesn't go unaddressed.

Don't worry, the number of people holding a belief will not change the facts and the truth. What's true will remain as true.

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?

This is abomination before investigation and should not be the attitude of a scientific mind.

"Access to the Vedas is the greatest privilege this century may claim over all previous centuries."

- J. Robert Oppenheimer

The allegory of the cave, the metaphor of the Sun and the platonic realism of Plato are indeed true. An intelligible realm indeed exists and the whole Vedic thought is culminated on knowing the different manifested light rays of this intelligible realm and knowing these light rays individually helps us understand how the cosmos works and gives you freedom from the cave.

The Secret of the Vedas by Aurobindo

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.

I'm not sure what the first half of your post was attempting to answer. The quoted response doesn't directly answer the question I asked you, and it is an unsatisfactory response.

I was attempting to answer that God is not a jerk.

What do you find pleasing about malaria?

Its pleasing to see that patients having sickle cell anaemia are resistant to malaria.

Hello SF,

I have a doubt regarding the sync process of Inventory management in a e-commerce business.

 

Assume, that I run a e-commerce business. I will have an inventory management software to manage my inventory, manage incoming purchase orders, etc. However, my doubt is how will the data from the e-commerce website be sent to the Inventory management software? CAn anyone please explain me or atleast suggest me some good books where I can learn the process?

 

Regards.

The e-commerce website will be connected to a database where all the data which has been entered will be stored there, updated from time to time, generate reports for analysis of your business and users can retrieve the data whenever they want it by sending requests.

Ecommerce Database - The Soul Of Your Ecommerce Website

So, you are saying that I cannot hold an opinion such as the one I would have if the creator was found to have a choice to create or not to create this universe? You think that the creator only created what it saw to be good, and so freedom of choice is nonexistant? That is a little bit hard to prove, no?

Lets think this way, yes actually God is indeed an Evil Demon, he is the deus deceptor (the deceptive God), an evil genius who deceives you in believing that an external world exists when in fact it doesn't.

"The evil demon presents a complete illusion of an external world, including other minds, to Descartes' senses, where in fact there is no such external world in existence. The evil genius also presents to Descartes' senses a complete illusion of his own body, including all bodily sensations, when in fact Descartes has no body. Most Cartesian scholars opine that the evil demon is also omnipotent, and thus capable of altering mathematics and the fundamentals of logic."

People think that this is blasphemous but actually its not, he is indeed deceptive. Descartes thought that the only thing that this evil genius cannot deceive him or make him falsely believe is the fact that he exists and therefore he based his philosophy on "I think, therefore I am".

Later Kant came on and said to know anything that is true of me, I must first know that it is me of whom it is true and he showed that we cannot know that.

… the I that I think is distinct from the I that it, itself, intuits …; I am given to myself beyond that which is given in intuition, and yet know myself, like other phenomena, only as I appear to myself, not as I am …

- Kant

So everything you thought of as true is not at all true. But, hey? Is God really an evil demon? Is he deceptive?

Well, the fact that he has revealed himself to people throughout the history of mankind and has given us the truth which we have as the word of God proves that the God we have is a Good God as David Hume says,

III.X.1

III.X.45

- David Hume, Of the immortality of the Soul

Therefore irrespective of what you do or think or worship, the nature of God and your true nature will not change, the truth is unchangeable.

If you think this then what would you reply to a question such as this. "What good did the creator see in malaria, one of his many creations?"

I'll let the stoics answer you that.

2. We ought to observe also that even the things which follow after the things which are produced according to nature contain something pleasing and attractive. For instance, when bread is baked some parts are split at the surface, and these parts which thus open, and have a certain fashion contrary to the purpose of the baker's art, are beautiful in a manner, and in a peculiar way excite a desire for eating. And again, figs, when they are quite ripe, gape open, and in the ripe olives the very circumstance of their being near to rottenness adds a peculiar beauty to the fruit. And the ears of corn bending down, and the lion's eyebrows, and the foam which flows from the mouth of wild boars, and many other things--though they are far from being beautiful, if a man should examine them severally--still, because they are consequent upon the things which are formed by nature, help to adorn them, and they please the mind; so that if a man should have a feeling and deeper insight with respect to the things which are produced in the universe, there is hardly one of those which follow by way of consequence which will not seem to him to be in a manner disposed so as to give pleasure. And so he will see even the real gaping jaws of wild beasts with no less pleasure than those which painters and sculptors show by imitation; and in an old woman and an old man he will be able to see a certain maturity and comeliness; and the attractive loveliness of young persons he will be able to look on with chaste eyes; and many such things will present themselves, not pleasing to every man, but to him only who has become truly familiar with nature and her works...

- Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

There is goodness in all works of nature.

There is indeed too much confusion as to what is the real model of the evolutionary processes.

CHALLENGES TO THE EVOLUTIONARY SYNTHESIS

Now you are indeed making a fool of yourself.

Click on the Compatibility view button which is on the address bar. It should work now.

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.

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.

So I ask other people (that do genuinely believe in a creator without the hypotheitcal consideration), how can you worship a creator of the universe? Don't any of my points make worshipping a god hard to do? and would any non-believer's respond to the question?

 

discussion of evidence for a creator is off topic.

Hi, I am a theist and I do worship a God but what makes you think that he has given you the freedom to make the choice of whether to worship him or not?

 

21. Of God's eternal and unchangeable knowledge and will, whereby all He has made pleased Him in the eternal design as well as in the actual result.

 

For what else is to be understood by that invariable refrain, "And God saw that it was good," than the approval of the work in its design, which is the wisdom of God? For certainly God did not in the actual achievement of the work first learn that it was good, but, on the contrary, nothing would have been made had it not been first known by Him. While, therefore, He sees that that is good which, had He not seen it before it was made, would never have been made, it is plain that He is not discovering, but teaching that it is good.

 

Plato, indeed, was bold enough to say that, when the universe was completed, God was, as it were, elated with joy. And Plato was not so foolish as to mean by this that God was rendered more blessed by the novelty of His creation; but he wished thus to indicate that the work now completed met with its Maker's approval, as it had while yet in design. It is not as if the knowledge of God were of various kinds, knowing in different ways things which as yet are not, things which are, and things which have been.

 

For not in our fashion does He look forward to what is future, nor at what is present, nor back upon what is past; but in a manner quite different and far and profoundly remote from our way of thinking. For He does not pass from this to that by transition of thought, but beholds all things with absolute unchangeableness; so that of those things which emerge in time, the future, indeed, are not yet, and the present are now, and the past no longer are; but all of these are by Him comprehended in His stable and eternal presence. Neither does He see in one fashion by the eye, in another by the mind, for He is not composed of mind and body; nor does His present knowledge differ from that which it ever was or shall be, for those variations of time, past, present, and future, though they alter our knowledge, do not affect His, "with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." Neither is there any growth from thought to thought in the conceptions of Him in whose spiritual vision all things which He knows are at once embraced. For as without any movement that time can measure, He Himself moves all temporal things, so He knows all times with a knowledge that time cannot measure.

 

And therefore He saw that what He had made was good, when He saw that it was good to make it. And when He saw it made, He had not on that account a twofold nor any way increased knowledge of it; as if He had less knowledge before He made what He saw. For certainly He would not be the perfect worker He is, unless His knowledge were so perfect as to receive no addition from His finished works. Wherefore, if the only object had been to inform us who made the light, it had been enough to say, "God made the light"; and if further information regarding the means by which it was made had been intended, it would have sufficed to say, "And God said, Let there be light, and there was light," that we might know not only that God had made the world, but also that He had made it by creature be intimated to us, viz., who made it, by what means, and why, it is written, "God said, Let there be light, and there was light. And God saw the light that it was good." If, then, we ask who made it, it was "God." If, by what means, He said "Let it be," and it was. If we ask, why He made it, "it was good." Neither is there any author more excellent than God, nor any skill more efficacious than the word of God, nor any cause better than that good might be created by the good God.

 

This also Plato has assigned as the most sufficient reason for the creation of the world, that good works might be made by a good God; whether he read this passage, or, perhaps, was informed of these things by those who had read them, or, by his quick-sighted genius, penetrated to things spiritual and invisible through the things that are created, or was instructed regarding them by those who had discerned them....

 

- City of God, Saint Augustine

Its in the nature of things, its God's nature to create and his works are good, we can't do much about it.

The two other theories or hypotheses challenging the so called neo-Darwinism or Modern Synthesis is the Neutral theory and the effect hypothesis. Both of these theories are quite different from the synthetic view and I think there is too much confusion as to which tenets of these two theories are accepted and which views are refuted. For example:- the rate of evolution and the rate of point mutations, the gradual, directional morphological adaptation of the synthetic view vs the sudden abrupt change followed by long period of stasis, is morphological change and reproductive isolation causally linked and follows one after the other or do they occur independently? The problem is there are cases where the morphological change and reproductive isolation is causally linked owing to the support of the punctuated equilibrium theory and there are examples where morphological change and reproductive isolation occur independently and are unrelated to the time of their occurrence.

Neutral Theory: The Null Hypothesis of Molecular Evolution - Kimura.

Macroevolutionary trends: new perspectives on the roles of adaptation and incidental effect. - Vrba.

Hierarchical Approaches to Macroevolution: Recent Work on Species Selection and the "Effect Hypothesis"

May be we should adopt different models depending on the situation and the organisms that we study. On the whole all these sounds too confusing as to what is the real model of the evolutionary processes.

Peter - many thanks will digest at leisure. I have never really immersed in the Enneads - but will have to.

 

immortal - Peter is quite correct, in a discussion of the nature, definition, and concept of god to be so dogmatic and certain is overly preachy and dismissive of others views, beliefs, and arguments. We should be clear there is no single "traditional view" - to raise our own cultural beliefs over those of others is logically and intellectually bankrupt. The multiplicity of deities - even of types of entity considered godlike - increases my scepticism and leads to my conclusion that none of the competing myths have a basis in truth

Would you state that the Sun is the center of our Solar system as an opinion and simultaneously encourage and allow the view that the Earth is at the center of our Solar System? No right. If it is downright insulting for others to accept the fact that the Sun is the center of our Solar system then its not my problem. We are living in the age of reason.

There is one way to eliminate competing myths, its called negative theology.

The first sentence of your post is stated as a fact. Do you not think it should start 'In my opinion'?

Why should I state thousands of years of our Acharyas teachings as my opinion? I go by what tradition says and not by what a 21st century double standard scholar says and anyone disagreeing with that first sentence is obviously deviating from facts and reality. God can be a sandwich or a dimensionless point of consciousness or any damn imaginary thing for others but there is no ambiguity or confusion as to what God is in the traditional view.

"Savithru deva is lord and master of Agnisoma mandala and He is in Samasthi Brahmanda¹. The same presiding deity(Savithrudeva) rules the microcosm Pindanda. 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 indriyas². How can subordinates³ be independent? Imagining that he is independent, the individual attributes his achievement to his own mind and intellect. This amounts to moha⁴ and aham-bhava^5. But those few who are capable of deep reflection realize that there should be one (a power) 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 instill power into the intellect. It is the intellect, which is the center and source of all activity, physical, mental, etc."

- Devudu, Traditional Scholar

1. Brahmanda is called Macrocosm and Pindanda (the human body) is called the microcosm.

2. The ten sensory organs, five Jnana indriyas (eyes, ears, nose, tongue and skin) and five organs of action (hands, feet, tongue, arms and pudendum).

3. The mind, the intellect and the indriyas.

4. Attachment or the state of being enamored.

5. Ego-feeling leading to arrogance and conceit.

"...that sun in the divine realm is Intellect-- let this serve as an example for our discourse-- and next after it is soul, dependent upon it and abiding while Intellect abides. This soul gives the edge of itself which borders on this [visible] sun to this sun, and makes a connection of it to the divine realm through the medium of itself, and acts as an interpreter of what comes from this sun to the intelligible sun and from the intelligible sun to this sun..." [8]<br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(243, 249, 246);">

- Plotinus

*null*

God is anthropomorphic, he is personal and he exists behind the Intellect and what exists behind him is the Soul.

Hyper-cosmic Sun-god

In addition, as has often been noted, there seems to have been a connection in Plato's imagination between his allegory in Book VII of the Republic of the ascent of the cave dweller to the sunlit world outside the cave and his myth in the Phaedrus of the ascent of the soul to the realm outside of the cosmos where "True Being" dwells. The account in the Phaedrus reads:

 

For the souls that are called immortal, so soon as they are at the summit [of the heavens], come forth and stand upon the back of the world: and straightway the revolving heaven carries them round, and they look upon the regions without. Of that place beyond the heavens none of our earthly poets has yet sung, and none shall sing worthily. But this is the manner of it, for assuredly we must be bold to speak what is true, above all when our discourse is upon truth. It is there that true being dwells, without colour or shape, that cannot be touched; reason alone, the soul's pilot, can behold it, and all true knowledge is knowledge thereof.

 

As R. Hackforth says,

 

No earlier myth has told of a

hyperouranios topos

[place beyond the heavens], but this is not the first occasion on which true Being, the

ousia ontos ousa

, has been given a local habitation. In the passage of

Rep.

VI which introduces the famous comparison of the Form of the Good to the sun we have a

noetos topos

contrasted with a

horatos

(508C): but a spatial metaphor is hardly felt there.... A truer approximation to the

hyperouranios topos

occurs in the simile of the cave in Rep. VII, where we are plainly told that the prisoners' ascent into the light of day symbolises

ten eis ton noeton tes psyches anodon

(517B); in fact, the

noetos topos

of the first simile has in the second developed into a real spatial symbol. [3]

 

Paul Friedländer agrees with Hackforth completely in seeing a connection in Plato's mind between the ascent from the cave in the Republic and the ascent to the "hypercosmic place" in the Phaedrus:

 

The movement "upward"... had found its fullest expression in the allegory of the cave in the

Republic

. [Now in the

Phaedrus

]... the dimension of the "above" is stated according to the new cosmic co-ordinates. For the "intelligible place" (

topos noetos

) in the Republic (509D, 517B) now becomes "the place beyond the heavens" (

topos hyperouranios

)...

 

The trajectory we have been tracing from Plato through Middle Platonism to the Chaldaean Oracles continues beyond the time of the Chaldaean Oracles into early Neoplatonism, for we find the concept of the existence of two suns clearly spelled out in the writings of Plotinus, in a context that makes it clear that for Plotinus one of these suns was "hypercosmic." In chapter 2, paragraph 11 of his fourth Ennead, Plotinus speaks of two suns, one being the normal visible sun and the other being an "intelligible sun." According to Plotinus,

 

...that sun in the divine realm is Intellect-- let this serve as an example for our discourse-- and next after it is soul, dependent upon it and abiding while Intellect abides. This soul gives the edge of itself which borders on this [visible] sun to this sun, and makes a connection of it to the divine realm through the medium of itself, and acts as an interpreter of what comes from this sun to the intelligible sun and from the intelligible sun to this sun... [8]

 

What is especially interesting for us is that in the same third chapter of the fourth Ennead, a mere six paragraphs after the passage just quoted, Plotinus explicitly locates the intelligible realm-- which he has just told us is the location of a second sun-- in the space beyond the heavens. The passage reads:

 

One could deduce from considerations like the following that the souls when they leave the intelligible first enter the space of heaven. For if heaven is the better part of the region perceived by the senses, it borders on the last and lowest parts of the intelligible. [9]

 

As A.H. Armstong says of this passage, "There is here a certain 'creeping spatiality'... [Plotinus'] language is influenced, perhaps not only by the 'cosmic religiosity' of his time, but by his favorite myth in Plato'sPhaedrus (246D6-247E6)."[10] In any event, we here find Plotinus in the third chapter of the fourth Ennead first positing the existence of an "intelligible sun" besides the normal visible sun, and then locating the intelligible realm spatially in the region beyond the outermost boundary of the heavens.

 

Yep.

I know atheists don't have self-respect. You don't have to prove that for me.

"In a recent video interview ( http://www.closertotruth.com/videoprofile/Why-Explore-Consciousness-and-Cosmos-Andrei-Linde-/874 ) Linde tells that his editor suggested he remove the reference to consciousness in his book because he “might lose the respect of his friends.” Linde told her that if he removed it, “I would lose my own self-respect.”"

Then you have another serious problem here, because you write below:

 

 

"A new Scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die."

 

- Max Planck

 

We are all immortals, my nick too was from the wisdom of the east.

Both of the above statements are idioms. I don't have any problems.

I read a similar thread on 'rationalskepticism' long time back and this idea was strongly criticized by atheists themselves.

Atheist Temple

False. You're annoying. Go away.

Oh yes so that you can preach your flawed atheistic position. This is not your personal preaching forum, this is a discussion forum. Don't like your position being challenged by someone? This is not the right place for you. Please go away.

There are still people who preach that the earth is flat you are worse than them.

Impressive ludicrosity. I think you beat my 'Twin Rabbits in Two Cups' video there. Nice job.

What's impressive is the demonstrations of mystics of their mastery over the different states of consciousness.

Well, you lost and you're proving to be seriously insane.

Nope, this is what they call the New Copernican Revolution, the new paradigm shift and more and more intellectual people are starting to question the existence of the universe independent of us.

"A new Scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die."

- Max Planck

Too late for me, Halloween was about a week ago. I was neither a zombie, ghost, angel, vampire Lord Dracula or the Pope. Perhaps I shall declare a new holiday derived from Paganistic religions for the sake of wearing a weird hat, like the things the Pope does and also like the stupid hat the Pope wears.<br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); "><br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); ">I assure you however, I am trying very hard! I WILL BECOME THE POPE!

I was talking about the history of science and religion. Galileo's trial.

Butt squeaks?

Speaks volumes of our current education system. Isn't it?

No zombies huh.

Its because you said mysticism deals with entirely subjective things and I gave you examples contrary to your claim about these rituals on zombies to show you that mysticism actually deals with the real noumenon world and has many empirical consequences which can be tested.

I think maybe you will have better luck finding a troll. You seem to have similar traits, they would take to you easily.

Sorry even I can't let you get away by making a series of group thinking posts.

Don't try to become a modern immortal denying the basic facts of the world.

 

Yes, I will heed this wisdom.

We are all immortals, my nick too was from the wisdom of the east.

Mandukya Upanishad, Chapter II — Vaitathya Prakarana (The Chapter on Illusion)

1 Harih Aum. The wise declare the unreality of all entities seen in dreams, because they are located within the body and the space therein is confined.

2 The dreamer, on account of the shortness of the time involved, cannot go out of the body and see the dream objects. Nor does he, when awakened, find himself in the places seen in the dream.

3 Scripture, on rational grounds, declares the non—existence of the chariots etc. perceived in dreams. Therefore the wise say that the unreality established by reason is proclaimed by scripture.

4 The different objects seen in the confined space of dreams are unreal on account of their being perceived. For the same reason i.e. on account of their being perceived, the objects seen in the waking state are also unreal. The same condition i.e. the state of being perceived exists in both waking and dreaming. The only difference is the limitation of space associated with dream objects.

5 Thoughtful persons speak of the sameness of the waking and dream states on account of the similarity of the objects perceived in both states on the grounds already mentioned.

6 If a thing is non—existent both in the beginning and in the end, it is necessarily non—existent in the present. The objects that we see are really like illusions; still they are regarded as real.

7 The utility of the objects of waking experience is contradicted in dreams; therefore they are certainly unreal. Thus both experiences, having a beginning and an end, are unreal.

8 The objects perceived by the dreamer, not usually seen in the waking state, owe their existence to the peculiar conditions under which the cognizer i.e. the mind functions for the time being, as with those residing in heaven. The dreamer, associating himself with the dream conditions, perceives those objects, even as a man, well instructed here, goes from one place to another and sees the peculiar objects belonging to those places.

9—10 In dreams, what is imagined within the mind is illusory and what is cognized outside by the mind, real; but truly, both are known to be unreal. Similarly, in the waking state, what is imagined within by the mind is illusory and what is cognized outside by the mind, real; but both should be held, on rational grounds, to be unreal.

11 If the objects perceived in both waking and dreaming are illusory, who perceives all these objects and who, again, imagines them?

12 It is the self—luminous Atman who, through the power of Its own maya, imagines in Itself by Itself all the objects that the subject experiences within and without. It alone is the cognizer of objects. This is the decision of Vedanta.

13 The Lord (Atman), with His mind turned outward, imagines in diverse forms various objects either permanent, such as the earth, or impermanent, such as lightning, which are already in His mind in the form of vasanas, or desires. Again, He turns His mind within and imagines various ideas.

14 Those that are cognized internally only as long as the thought of them lasts and those that are perceived outside and relate to two points in time, are all mere objects of the imagination. There is no ground for differentiating the one from the other.

15 Those that exist within the mind as subjective ideas and are known as unmanifested and those that are perceived to exist outside in a manifested form, both are mere objects of the imagination. Their difference lies only in the difference of the organs by means of which they are perceived.

16 First of all is imagined the jiva, the embodied individual and then are imagined the various entities, both external such as sounds, forms, etc. and internal such as the pranas, sense— organs, etc., that are perceived to exist. As is one's knowledge so is one's memory.

17 As a rope lying in darkness, about whose nature one remains uncertain, is imagined to be a snake or a line of water, so Atman is imagined in various ways.

18 When the real nature of the rope is ascertained, all misconceptions about it disappear and there arises the conviction that it is nothing but a rope. Even so is the true nature of Atman determined.

19 Atman is imagined as prana and other numberless ideas. All this is due to maya, belonging to the effulgent Atman, by which It appears, Itself, to be deluded.

20 Those conversant with prana describe Atman as prana; those conversant with the elements, as the elements; those conversant with the gunas, as the gunas; and those conversant with the tattvas, as the tattvas.

21 Those acquainted with the padas call It the padas; those acquainted with objects, the objects; those acquainted with the lokas, the lokas; those acquainted with the gods, the gods.

22 Those conversant with the Vedas describe Atman as the Vedas; those conversant with the sacrifices, as the sacrifices; those conversant with the enjoyer, as the enjoyer; and those conversant with the objects of enjoyment call It the objects of enjoyment.

23 The knowers of the subtle call It the subtle and the knowers of the gross, the gross. Those that are familiar with the Personal Deity call It the Personal Deity and those that are familiar with the void, the void.

24 Those that know time call Atman time and those that know space call It space. Those versed in the art of disputation call It the object of dispute; and those knowing the worlds call It the worlds.

25 The knowers of the mind call Atman the mind; the knowers of the buddhi, the buddhi. The knowers of the chitta call It the chitta; and the knowers of righteousness and unrighteousness call It righteousness and unrighteousness.

26 Some say that Atman consists of twenty—five cosmic principles; some, of twenty—six principles; some, again, of thirty—one principles; while there are yet others who describe It as consisting of an infinite number of principles.

27 Those who know how to gratify others call Atman gratification; those who are conversant with the asramas call It the asramas. The grammarians call It the masculine, feminine and neuter genders; and still others, the Higher Brahman and the Lower Brahman.

28 The knowers of creation call It creation; the knowers of dissolution, dissolution; and the knowers of preservation, preservation. In truth, all such ideas are always imagined in Atman.

29 The disciple grasps only that idea which is presented to him by his teacher. Atman assumes the form of what is taught and thus protects the disciple. Absorbed in that idea, he realizes it as Atman.

30 Atman, though non—separate from all these ideas, appears to he separate. He who truly knows this interprets, without any fear, the meaning of the Vedas.

31 As dreams, illusions and castles in the air are viewed, so is the tangible universe viewed by the wise, well versed in Vedanta.

32 There is neither dissolution nor creation, none in bondage and none practicing disciplines. There is none seeking Liberation and none liberated. This is the absolute truth.

33 Atman is imagined as the unreal objects that are perceived to exist and as Non—duality as well. The objects, too, are imagined in the non—dual Atman. Therefore Non—duality is Bliss.

34 The diversity in the universe does not exist as an entity identical With Atman, nor does it exist by itself. Neither is it separate from Brahman nor is it non—separate. This is the statement of the wise.

35 The wise, who are free from attachment, fear and anger and are well versed in the Vedas, have realized Atman as devoid of all phantasms and free from the illusion of the manifold and as non—dual.

36 Therefore, knowing Atman as such, fix your attention on Non—duality. Having realized Non—duality, behave in the world like an inert object.

37 The illumined sannyasin does not praise any deity, does not salute any superior and does not perform rites to propitiate departed ancestors. Regarding both body and Atman as his abode, he remains satisfied with what comes by chance.

38 Having known the truth regarding what exists internally as also the truth regarding what exists externally, he becomes one with Reality, he exults in Reality and never deviates from Reality.

Before we had zombies, now angels and phantasms. What will be your next 'empirical evidence'? Elfs?

I am afraid, yes all empirical evidence i.e. facts established from experiments have shown us that what we call reality is only a state of mind and the next question to ask is if what we call reality is only a state of mind then what is mind? and yoga and consciousness studies show that the mind is the product of a divine god. This is what I am arguing from the beginning of this thread. There is no conflict between science and religion. Don't try to become a modern Pope denying the basic facts of the world. You better change your perception of the world like this.

Yep.... and still no zombies. I would have thought that would be easy enough to put up as proof.

Actually its easy enough to find the Lord residing in you than finding a zombie.

îsHâ vâsyamidaM sarvaM yat kiñca jagatyâM jagat,

tena tyaktena bhuñjîthâ mâ gRidhaH kasya sviddhanam. 1.

ॐ ईशा वास्यमिदँ सर्वं यत्किञ्च जगत्यां जगत् ।

तेन त्यक्तेन भुञ्जीथा मा गृधः कस्यस्विद्धनम् ।। १ ।।

The Lord is enshrined in the hearts of all.

The Lord is the supreme Reality.

Rejoice in him through renunciation.

Covet nothing. All belongs to the Lord.

- Isha Upanishad (Yajnavalkya), verse 1

So, then immortal. What exactly are the test methods? I want to try them at home. What exactly are the results? I want to see the results for myself. Why is that over thousands of years of "eastern" religious thought, you have yet to come up with anything that compares to the discoveries of science? Why?

 

Why is that the young disciplines of physics have so much more to offer? Why, is it that over the months of this thread you yet can't provide any real evidence for your beliefs?

Its not just in eastern religious thought, it also exists in the western religious thought. If you need the fruits you need to strike them at the right place similarly if you want to see some results one needs to worship the right God.

Tertullian in Against All Heresies also discusses Abraxas in the account of Basilides' system as a higher aeon:

"Basilides affirms that there is a supreme Deity, by name Abraxas, by whom was created Mind, which in Greek he calls Nous; that thence sprang the Word; that of Him issued Providence, Virtue, and Wisdom; that out of these subsequently were made Principalities, powers, and Angels; that there ensued infinite issues and processions of angels; that by these angels 365 heavens were formed, and the world, in honour of Abraxas, whose name, if computed, has in itself this number. Now, among the last of the angels, those who made this world, he places the God of the Jews latest, that is, the God of the Law and of the Prophets, whom he denies to be a God, but affirms to be an angel. To him, he says, was allotted the seed of Abraham, and accordingly he it was who transferred the sons of Israel from the land of Egypt into the land of Canaan; affirming him to be turbulent above the other angels, and accordingly given to the frequent arousing of seditions and wars, yes, and the shedding of human blood.

Christ, moreover, he affirms to have been sent, not by this maker of the world, but by the above-named Abraxas; and to have come in a phantasm, and been destitute of the substance of flesh: that it was not He who suffered among the Jews, but that Simon was crucified in His stead: whence, again, there must be no believing on him who was crucified, lest one confess to having believed on Simon. Martyrdoms, he says, are not to be endured. The resurrection of the flesh he strenuously impugns, affirming that salvation has not been promised to bodies."

Philosophers like Basilides of the west and Yajnavalkya of the east did figured out that there is metaphysical mind and a metaphysical intellect and its just that eastern religious systems systematized and developed methodologies to access this knowledge or the noumenal world and knew about other ways of knowing and used different epistemological models.

Yoga_Yajnavalkya

 

saṁyogo yoga ityukto jīvātma-paramātmanoḥ॥

Union of the self (jivātma) with the Divine (paramātma) is said to be yoga.

 

—Yoga Yajnavalkya I.43

The method of yoga described in the Yoga Yajnavalkya is both comprehensive and universally applicable—open to both women and men.[4] Yajnavalkya explains the principles and practice of yoga, the path to freedom, to Gargi, his wife. The Yoga Yajnavalkya demonstrates that Vedic culture provided women with equal opportunities and encouragement for their spiritual pursuits to attain freedom.

One can imagine the freedom of expression, religious ideas and the freedom given to women and how they were treated equally among men by the Vedic people.

There is a history and theory behind it and there is a Supreme God, a god which humanity has forgotten, therefore this is serious religion.

Wolfgang Pauli investigated about these archetypes and concluded as to what they are.

The archetypes provide a creative source of fundamental conceptual building blocks that is ultimately grounded in the unconscious mind. Pauli regards them as

 

(1) entirely unquantifiable (does this mean that they are not subject to standard scientific investigation, contra modern cognitive science-oriented research ?),

 

(2) completely mysterious in their origin (particularly and explicitly with regard to their putative emergence via biological natural selection – about which Pauli seemed to have general reservations), and

 

(3) possibly essentially linked to various paranormal or parapsychological phenomena, towards which Pauli seems to have had an unfortunately rather uncritical attitude

Therefore these archetypes can only be studied by adopting non-positivist methodologies which enable us to access the noumenon of the world. Rather than creating virtual environments what we need to understand is that the so called real objective world is itself a virtual immersive reality. See Immersion (Virtual reality)

There is indeed actual scientific evidence and many laboratory experiments have confirmed this and as far the uses of eastern religions are concerned those who have adopted the methodology of yoga have gained mastery over nature and finding it useful every day. Mystics too generate empirical data and the presence of the numinous can be tested empirically.

Some aspects of electroencephalographic studies in Yogis ☆ - Sciencedirect

An electroencephalographic study on the zen meditation (Zazen). - NCBI and related papers.

Bio-feedback research and Yoga

The results of scientific research on the subject of meditation are accumulating now, forming a publicly accessible body of empirical data that can serve generations to come. Unfortunately, however, these data are derived mainly from beginning practitioners of meditation, and taken as a whole do not reflect the richness of experience described in traditional contemplative teachings. They are also limited by the conventional scientific insistence that results be repeatable. Certain important experiences occur only rarely in meditation, and a science that disregards them loses important empirical results. For these reasons, contemporary research does not illumine the full range of experience described in the contemplative scriptures and the oral traditions from which they come. Modern studies give us only a first picture of the foothills, with a few glimpses of the peaks. Still, what they give us corresponds in several ways with traditional accounts.

Psychotic and Mystical states of being.

Yoga-nidra: Scientific evaluation

Experimental evidence of the existence of a fourth state of unified, transcendental consciousness, which lies in the yoga-nidra state at the transition between sensory and sleep consciousness, was first recorded at the Menninger Foundation in Kansas, USA in 1971.^[6] Under the direction of Dr. Elmer Green, researchers used an electroencephalograph to record the brainwave activity of an Indian yogi, Swami Rama, while he progressively relaxed his entire physical, mental and emotional structure through the practice of Yoga Nidra.

 

What they recorded was a revelation to the scientific community. The swami demonstrated the capacity to enter the various states of consciousness at will, as evidenced by remarkable changes in the electrical activity of his brain. Upon relaxing himself in the laboratory, he first entered the yoga nidra state, producing 70% alpha wave discharge for a predetermined 5 minute period, simply by imagining an empty blue sky with occasional drifting clouds.

 

Next, Swami Rama entered a state of dreaming sleep which was accompanied by slower theta waves for 75% of the subsequent 5 minute test period. This state, which he later described as being 'noisy and unpleasant', was attained by 'stilling the conscious mind and bringing forth the subconscious'. In this state he had the internal experience of desires, ambitions, memories and past images in archetypal form rising sequentially from the subconscious and unconscious with a rush, each archetype occupying his whole awareness.

 

Finally, the swami entered the state of (unconscious) deep sleep, as verified by the emergence of the characteristic pattern of slow rhythm delta waves. However, he remained perfectly aware throughout the entire experimental period. He later recalled the various events which had occurred in the laboratory during the experiment, including all the questions that one of the scientists had asked him during the period of deep delta wave sleep, while his body lay snoring quietly.

 

Such remarkable mastery over the fluctuating patterns of consciousness had not previously been demonstrated under strict laboratory conditions. The capacity to remain consciously aware while producing delta waves and experiencing deep sleep is one of the indications of the superconscious state (turiya). This is the ultimate state of yoga nidra in which the conventional barriers between waking, dreaming and deep sleep are lifted, revealing the simultaneous operation of the conscious, subconscious and unconscious mind. The result is a single, enlightened state of consciousness and a perfectly integrated and relaxed personality.

 

Dr. Kamakhya Kumar in 2006 awarded by Ph. D. degree by Dr. A. P J Abdul Kalam (President of India) for his work "Psycho-physiological Changes as Related to Yoga Nidra". He observed six months effects of yoga nidra on some Physiological, hematological and some Psychological parameters on the practitioners and he found a significant change on above mentioned parameters. One of the research published entitled "A study on the impact on stress and anxiety through Yoga nidra; Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge, Vol. 7 No 3".(Published through NISCAIR)

 

Indian clinical psychologist Sachin Kumar Dwivedi (2009) found in his research that Yoga Nidra decreases levels of anxiety. Dwivedi, S., Awasthi, S.& Pandey,B.B.(2011) found in " Yoga Nidra increased the α-eeg on α-eeg biofeedback. That is open scrate [secret?] that Yoga Nidra is a type of deep meditation. Nikhra,M & Dwivedi,S.K.(2010) found in a study "Yoga nidra reduces the level of Stress."

 

 

Most people have not realized how esoteric this world-view can get, Carl Jung was also good at painting and art and he documented what he saw, there is growing evidence that these archetypes or gods indeed exist and they do influence us in every way. (Additional note: its quite wrong to conceptualize the ontology of the archetypes using empirical concepts, their ontology seems to be completely different)

All this shows how less we understand about our place in the cosmos and how relevant religion is for our present age and time.

They are known for their attempt to blur the sharp distinction between science and religion as a first step for pursuing their hidden (or not to hidden) religious agendas. Discovery is well-known for intellectual dishonesty, rhetoric, intentional ambiguity, and misrepresented evidence, and for repetitive misquoting of scientists and other experts, ad hominem of critics, blatant lying...

 

The governing goals of Discovery are:

 

• To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies
• To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God
• To reverse the materialistic worldview and replace it with a science connosant with Christian and theistic convictions

Assuming the people in Discovery Institute are proponents of Intelligent Design I wouldn't call ID a religion.

A new look at Intelligent Design

Their hypothesis is not useful and has no bearing in reality unless they explain who the Intelligent designers are and how do they do it and these Intelligent Designers could be gods, aliens or anything who knows. Therefore I wouldn't call ID a religion.

I think Hubert Yockey has already answered to the Intelligent Design community quite well and I am definitely not a proponent of Intelligent Design.

Dr. Hubert Yockey's answer to FTE amicus brief

 

Point Five: Modern science shows that the genome is the answer to all objections based on gaps in morphology or the fossil record at any level of life—past, present and yet-to-evolve. Therefore there is no need for a theory of "Intelligent Design" to explain any gaps.

 

As I show in my book, Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life (Cambridge University Press, 2005), Darwin's theory of evolution is one of the most well-established theories in science. There is no need of an "Intelligent Designer" in evolution for the following reasons:

 

1. The genome is the engine of evolution. The genome evolves through a random walk and therefore has no need of an Intelligent Designer.

 

2. There are no gaps in the genome from the origin of life to the present and for all life yet-to-evolve. Therefore there is no need for an ad hoc Intelligent Designer to explain gaps in the fossil record or morphology.

 

3. Dr. Yockey defines the distinction between living and non-living matter as follows: "There is nothing in the physico-chemical world [apart from life] that remotely resembles reactions being determined by a sequence [the genome] and codes between sequences [the genetic code]. The existence of a genome and the genetic code divides living organisms from non-living matter." (Computers and Chemistry, 24 (2000) 105-123).

 

4. All the Intelligent Design scenarios comparing living matter to machines are specious because they posit that machines exist, function and evolve due to the agency of an unspecified "Intelligent Designer" and claim that since living matter exists, functions and evolves this also must be due to an "Intelligent Designer." The fatal flaw in this assertion is that life is not comparable to machines because machines have no genome. The place that they assert that "Intelligent Design" holds in machines is held in living matter by the genome. Since living matter DOES have a genome programming its existence, functioning and evolution—from the origin of life to the present and for all life yet-toevolve—it does not need an Intelligent Designer.

 

5. In addition, life is not "irreducibly complex" because the term was coined and defined by Alan Turing as a calculation that continues indefinitely. Michael Behe cannot hijack it and steal its identity. The genome, which is the non-material information programmed into DNA, has definite starting and stopping points the information transcribed from it. For example, the genome for making a mouse does not run forever—it stops when it has made a mouse.

 

The five points above are what should be taught in schools when objections to evolution based on gaps are raised. The next point is what should be taught in schools about the origin of life.

 

Point Six: Evolution and the origin of life are two separate problems. Darwin's theory of evolution is among the most well-established in science. However, information theory shows that the origin of life is unknowable by scientific methods and must be accepted as an axiom of biology.

 

As I showed in my book, Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life (Cambridge University Press, 2005), there is no need for an ad hoc "Intelligent Designer" in the origin of life because the origin of life is unknowable through scientific methods and must therefore be accepted as an axiom of biology. (An axiom is an elementary fact that cannot be proved or derived from any other facts and therefore must be taken as a starting point.)

First of all we should understand what religion is. As Eugenie Scott says religion is not about explaining how Grand Canyon was formed, very few people are interested in using religion to explain how the grand canyon was formed. I think this form of thought is quite common among young-earth creationists who take the bible too literally word to word and associate the concept of seed with DNA and of the same kind with species and argue that God is the first cause of Big Bang. I think this is silly, these all are broken forms of reasoning, our ancients didn't knew molecular biology and DNA or about the Big Bang and the bible is not really concerned with these things.

Religion is more about understanding our relationship with god and as the eastern thinker said "We should try to understand our relationship with the esoteric Sun-god" This is what religion basically deals with, it doesn't deal with evolution by natural selection or the first cause of big bang.

Your tactics and goals are pretty similar although your religions are different.

Jesus Christ! Its quite easy to make allegations like that. Can you show which works of scientist's I have misquoted or misrepresented?

Bernard? David Mermin? Penrose? Anton Zeilinger et al and their foundational principles of QM? Carl Jung? Jonathon Duqette? Tell me which works of scientists I have misquoted? That's the reason I have posted their video interviews so that you can clearly hear what claims they have made. I hope you can read basic English.

First of all, I don't need any justification from any scientists I can argue independently and I have argued for myself in the past.

http://blogs.science...s.net/immortal/

The interference pattern is destroyed by the very act of observation this implies that the observer, the measuring device and the quantum system are entangled in some way and this entanglement which can be non-local is disturbed resulting in a specific state for the quantum system during the process of measurement. This is the reason why many physicists like Roger Penrose argue that an unified theory of everything must include consciousness at its most fundamental level. Roger penrose's non-computability may be one of the ways the physical world might operate. John Wheeler uses the word participator for the observer in a quantum regime as the observer can not be isolated and thought as a different system. We must also describe the states of the observer along with the quantum system to fully understand the evolution of the wave and its further collapse. Both the choice of the observer as well as the observed system are responsible for the results that are observed. The measurement problem is at the heart of quantum physics and it is one of the cornerstone of QM even though it has with stood the test of times, accurately predicting the possible outcomes of the system but science is more than just finding probabilities physicists like John Bell, Einstein, Penrose will not be satisfied by the positivist approach and one has to make deep in routes into its philosophical implications and look for an alternative world view and move forward.

immortal on 19 November 2011 said:

But the picture given by quantum physics is something else it forces us to model ourselves (i.e the state of the observer) in order to model the objective world. We need a way to predict the next firing in the neuron of the brain or the next choice of the observer, we're an integral part of the system and to model the universe from the beginning till the end we need to model ourselves.

Its just that too many scientists and philosophers started to question the existence of the external world independent of us, one might have expected a thread like this coming from me. I just happen to share the same beliefs on science and religion as held by Bernard D'Espagnat and he has got it absolutely right. Bernard said "I claim that the higher forms of spirituality are compatible with facts established from experiments". Perhaps you didn't read what I wrote in my abstract.

"A growing number of scholars, scientists and philosophers are leading us to an esoteric world-view without themselves being aware of this"

and this is true and I don't speak lies.

An Interview with Bruce Rosenblum

Bruce: When I was a graduate student my thesis advisor, Charles Townes, was religious in an active sense—I think he was a deacon of the Riverside Church in New York. He once talked with me about what he believed. It seemed vague. I remember saying that I believed, more or less, the same thing, but the difference was I didn't feel I had to do anything about it—beyond the normal intuitive moral injunctions. Would one test anything beyond that feeling?

Tom: For the mystics, the whole point is to actively test the beliefs. The doctrines are not so much beliefs as hypotheses for testing.

Bruce: Sounds blasphemous.

Tom: Yes, well, some of the mystics were burnt at the stake just because of that! Fortunately, these days mystics are treated much better. But they can still upset some religious believers because they question accepted beliefs and emphasize the mystery beneath them. Maybe the mystics are similar in this respect to the physicists who question the Copenhagen Interpretation and turn to face the mystery of the quantum enigma.

We mystics are as practical as experimental physicists, Asian thought can stand on its own, eastern philosophers don't just babble like meta-physicians, we test our claims and see whether Nature agrees with us or not. I am sorry I don't take your advice, you better take this advice from Bernard. If there weren't some political, religious and cultural barriers this would have been made compulsory in schools way long back. Its not that atheists are laughing at theists, its the other way round. Please stop making a straw-man of my position and stop questioning my credibility.

I guess discussions on the internet could be a bit more civil & sane if someone like Albert Einstein was known to abuse crack.

Criticizing someone's position should never be taken as something personal and now a days people often don't understand as to what the gravity of the situation is if we don't use harsh words.

Regardless, juanrga's point is actually quite valid. Even if I agreed with an "institute" like this (and I know there are plenty of "institutes" out there that I agree with), I would still value it the same as juanrga is doing with your material. I'm sorry to ask, but can you find better sources than this, please?

 

Also, remember to Think BIG like Metanexus Institute. Remember BIG History, BIG Problems and BIG Questions..

First of all, I really don't know what kind of beliefs that these institutes like the Templeton foundation, Henry foundation, Metanexus and the Discovery institute hold. There is no official here claiming to be their spokesperson and they have not come here openly stating their beliefs like I have done here and I don't associate myself with anyone, for me the correct representation of both science and religion is far more important than the agendas of these institutes and if someone has some radical beliefs and if there is sufficient evidence for it then one is free to post it and everyone should accept it.

Secondly, I am not pushing this as science so the point of pseudo-science doesn't come into the picture, working scientists will not realize that this empirical universe doesn't exist independent of the human mind until and unless they adopt non-positivist methodologies and only basic observation will not suffice, the point is that the methodology of yoga indeed works and anyone can truly testify that they are truly made in the image of god by adopting it.

The measurement problem has continued to persist for more than half a century and if I don't speak, physicists will continue holding their biased positions without arriving at a common consensus and scientists turned philosophers and scholars will continue misrepresenting eastern religions twisting their doctrines in order to make them to be compatible with modern science. Yes, one needs light when there is darkness, when there is a problem and if there weren't any big problems and big issues I wouldn't have started this thread in the first place. I very well know what kind of service I am making for humanity.

You want a more genuine paper? Here you have it.

Experiment and the foundations of quantum physics

 

I hope that the reader can sympathize now with my viewpoint that quantum physics goes beyond Wittgenstein, who starts his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus with the sentence, ‘‘The world is everything that is the case.’’ This is a classical viewpoint, a quantum state goes beyond. It represents all possibilities of everything that could be the case. In any case, it will be interesting in the future to see more and more quantum experiments realized with increasingly larger objects. Another very promising future avenue of development is to realize entanglements of increasing complexity, either by entangling more and more systems with each other, or by entangling systems with a larger number of degrees of freedom. Eventually, all these developments will push the realm of quantum physics well into the macroscopic world. I expect that they will further elucidate Bohr’s viewpoint that over a very large range the classical-quantum boundary is at the whim of the experimenter. Which parts we can talk about using our classical language and which parts are the quantum system depends on the specific experimental setup.

 

In the present brief overview I avoided all discussion of various alternative interpretations of quantum physics. I also did not venture into analyzing possible suggested alternatives to quantum mechanics. All these topics are quite important, interesting and in lively development. I hope my omissions are justified by the lack of space. It is my personal expectation that new insight and any progress in the interpretive discussion of quantum mechanics will bring along fundamentally new assessment of our humble role in the Universe.

We are indeed living in a participatory universe and everything which I am arguing here is logically connected.