juanrga Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 (edited) That's what I said a quantum system can be prepared in a superposition of states with its properties undefined or unknown. No. You said "the observable [...] can be prepared". That was nonsense. The final state after the measurement is indeed a superposition of states No, the final state is an eigenstate of the measured value. and people working on the foundations of quantum mechanics know that this leads to contradiction to the linear evolution of the Schroedinger equation Any texbook in QM explains that measurements are not described by the Schrödinger law, but by the measurement postulate introduced in the 30s. when an irreversible outcome appears when an observation is made and the measurement problem can only be solved by either finding a sound interpretation or by changing the theory itself. Measurement are described by the measurement postulate introduced in the 30s and dynamical laws for that postulate have been developed since then. Penrose, Bernard and a wide range of experts know that there is a contradiction Both are notoriously wrong and their inconsistent ideas never worked. and the measurement problem still persists As I said it is not completely solved, but we already have dynamical laws that work in many measurement scenarios. E.g. Ghirardi equation. The reason the measurement problem persists up until now is because physicists don't have a model for the conscious observer and the theory demands it. Nonsense. The problem persists because we do not still found a nonlinear dynamical law valid for arbitrarily complex measurement scenarios. No observer is required because is unneeded. "All information is only encoded in joint properties. Thus, an entangled state is a representation of the relations between two possible measurements on the two members of the entangled pair. In the most simple case, the state [math] | \psi^- \rangle [/math] is a representation of the prediction that in any basis whatsoever, the two photons will be found to have orthogonal states with none of the photons having any well-defined state before measurement." Nonsense. A quantum system exists before any measurement (the theory of measurements is firmly rooted in this), the system state is in some pre-measurement state (e.g. in a state given by a state vector or otherwise) and its "attributes" are well defined (e.g, as matrices). In the absence of any measurements the sub systems doesn't exist Nonsense. Subsystems are quantum systems described by quantum theory. Their observables are defined and computed in a analogue way to the treatment of subsystems in classical theory. information is far more superior than matter, mass, spin, position, energy, momentum are not physical properties instead they are just bits of information and they are abstract. Nonsense. Information requires a material substratum (hard disk, piece of paper, rock...). Mass, spin, position, energy, momentum are well-known physical properties. Bohr's complementarity principle is the very foundation of quantum mechanics and it will be taught to students of the future and it will not go away. Don't post your biased wrong views here. Wrong. As Klein reports the rate of appearance of for Bohr's notion of complementarity in scientific works has been decreasing in recent years. The natural tendency is that it would be eliminated from basic textbooks as well (it is already eliminated in many advanced treatises). All evidence is showing that future is fixed and it already exists. Wrong. Universe is stochastic and as stated by Nobel laureate Prigogine "future is not given". I know and I myself stated that physicists working on quantum gravity do not treat space-time as primary concepts Unrelated to what you said and I corrected. but that doesn't mean that the information to construct the block universe Wrong. There is not block universe, because the generator of time translations is not zero. He is not misunderstood, He shows his well-known misunderstandings. Max Born or Bohm? Born. You are right. Any ways Schroedinger initially insisted that the wave is real wave And he was completely wrong and unable to accept that nature was very different than he believed said the famous phrase: I don't like it [quantum mechahics] and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it." Of course nature does not care about Schrödinger beliefs... Brains are part of the observable universe but minds are always part of the realm of numinous. Brains are the 'hardware' and minds the 'software'. Both are in the observable universe. Its a fact that photons separated over large distances instantaneously influence each other There is not superluminal signals between photons. there is evidence that a future choice does affect the results of the past measurements and if the ordering of the events is taken to consideration then the future choice indeed seems to have been fixed or pre-determined All experimental evidence is compatible with ordinary causality and with the stochastic nature of universe, where "future is not given". Determinism is an approximation. Edited October 21, 2012 by juanrga 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortal Posted October 24, 2012 Author Share Posted October 24, 2012 You are attacking both. Why should I need to attack science when science itself is saying that what we call reality is only a state of mind. There is no conflict between religion and science. -3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Banana Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 I'm having fun. Riding the rainbow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randomc Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 immortal, what you are arguing for seems to be a roughly instrumentalist philosophy of science, plus some oriental esoterica. Is that right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortal Posted October 27, 2012 Author Share Posted October 27, 2012 immortal, what you are arguing for seems to be a roughly instrumentalist philosophy of science, Bohr was an instrumentalist and he thought that we can effectively make a distinction between the classical measuring apparatus and the quantum world but even the measuring apparatus should be treated as a quantum system, so no I'm not arguing for the instrumentalist philosophy of science, I'm arguing for a sound idealistic philosophy of science, its the very act of observation that retrospectively creates a reality which wasn't there before, the universe doesn't exist when no one is looking at it and this is the fact of this world. plus some oriental esoterica. Is that right? I'm talking of serious genuine religion here, not some kind of new age thinking, the truth of religion is that gods are real and these gods are everywhere in all aspects of human existence and in all aspects of human life. Every religion has an exoteric version of it and an esoteric version of it and people with in the traditions seriously follow the latter version of it where as the outside masses follow the exoteric version of it. Yes, the writers of the Vedas and the Upanishads knew the truth about this world and these religions will live forever and it will reshape both the orthodox religions as well as science. Physicists and philosophers talk of Neo-platonism but they don't understand that it is a religion, the religion of the Greeks and they worshipped the esoteric Sun-god, the Vedas and the Upanishads worshipped the esoteric Sun-god named Savitur, and we will continue worshipping him because that's the truth of this world as modern science itself is shedding light on the fact that the allegory of the cave is true. Pagan religions will correct both science and orthodox religions. People should give credit to the right religion and the God of these religions when talking about these Neoplatonic and eastern philosophical concepts. Science is idealistic and religion is realistic and this is the kind of open realism that Bernard D'Espagnat is arguing for and the objects like quarks, electrons, protons etc described by science doesn't exist independent of the human mind where as objects described by religion, the five elements which this world is made of i.e earth, fire, water, air and space is what exists independent of the human mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randomc Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 Bohr was an instrumentalist and he thought that we can effectively make a distinction between the classical measuring apparatus and the quantum world but even the measuring apparatus should be treated as a quantum system, so no I'm not arguing for the instrumentalist philosophy of science, I'm arguing for a sound idealistic philosophy of science, its the very act of observation that retrospectively creates a reality which wasn't there before, the universe doesn't exist when no one is looking at it and this is the fact of this world. Aha, so you're saying exactly that an instrumentalist position is precluded. My understanding of QM is very superficial, i just thought maybe you were arguing a straw man to some extent. But i don't know . This paper might be interesting for anyone else trying to follow the discussion... http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0609163 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juanrga Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 (edited) Science is idealistic and religion is realistic It is the other way. Science deals with the measured, the observed...; religion with the imagined, the believed... Science deal with the real. Religion deals with the ideal. Is there something more ideal than that religious belief on the existence of a post-dead 'world' where the bad people will be punished and the good people will be rewarded? Edited October 27, 2012 by juanrga 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortal Posted October 27, 2012 Author Share Posted October 27, 2012 (edited) Aha, so you're saying exactly that an instrumentalist position is precluded. My understanding of QM is very superficial, i just thought maybe you were arguing a straw man to some extent. But i don't know . Many physicists are playing around with public and not going by what evidence is saying and obviously they don't know what to teach to students because of their own personal bias but in science biases have no place, the only thing which should be taught are facts and the fact is that what we call reality is only a state of mind and this is what should be taught and atheistic scientists have under-estimated religion and this is the reason why I insist that this time religion is going to correct science. Its just people haven't realized yet that this universe doesn't exist independent of the human mind. Bernard D'Espagnat is not afraid to state the facts as they are, we don't need to look back and see how many people are behind us because we know we are speaking the truth and facts will always be facts. At a physics conference attended by several hundred physicists (including the two of us), an argument broke out in the discussion period after a talk. (The heated across-the-auditorium debate was reported in the New York Times in December 2005.) One participant argued that because of its weirdness, quantum theory had a problem. Another vigorously denied there was a problem, accusing the first of having "missed the point." A third broke in to say, "We're just too young. We should wait until 2200 when quantum mechanics is taught in kindergarten." A fourth summarized the argument by saying, "The world is not as real as we think." Three of these arguers have Nobel Prizes in Physics, and the fourth is a good candidate for one. This argument recalls an analogy that reflects our own bias. A couple is in marriage counselling. The wife says, "There's a problem in our marriage." Her husband disagrees, saying, "There's no problem in our marriage." The marriage counselor knows who's right. - Quantum Enigma, Physics encounters Consciousness- Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner. This clearly shows that a strong social influence exists in what is accepted and what's not, working scientists should give up realism and this is what should be taught in schools. This paper might be interesting for anyone else trying to follow the discussion... http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0609163 That paper was already cited and discussed. Edited October 27, 2012 by immortal -2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortal Posted November 2, 2012 Author Share Posted November 2, 2012 It is the other way. Science deals with the measured, the observed...; religion with the imagined, the believed... Science deal with the real. Religion deals with the ideal. Is there something more ideal than that religious belief on the existence of a post-dead 'world' where the bad people will be punished and the good people will be rewarded? Well, that's what happens when the history is manipulated and evidence is distorted and suppressed. The orthodox Judeo-Christian-Muslim-Hindu concept of religion are not the only religions of the world, there is a pantheon far more superior than the gods of these religions and there is a God far more powerful than the Judeo-Christian-Muslim concept of God and he is the holistic Sun-god. There is not only a need to change the way how science and religion is taught but also there is a need to revise how the history of humanity is taught. New research debunks Aryan invasion theory “Solid Evidence Debunking Aryan Invasion” by David Frawley The Aryan-Dravidian Controversy By David Frawley Dravidians as Preservers of Vedic Culture Through the long and cruel Islamic assault on India, south India became the land of refuge for Vedic culture, and to a great extent remains so to the present day. The best Vedic chanting, rituals and other traditions are preser- ved in south India. It is ironic therefore that the best preservers of Aryan culture in India have been branded as non-Aryan. This again was not something part of the Aryan tradition of India, as part of the misinterpretation of the term Aryan fostered by European thought which often had a political or religi- ous bias, and which led to the Nazis. To equate such racism and violence with the Vedic and Hindu religion, the least aggressive of all religions, is a rather sad thing, not to say very questionable scholarship. Dravidians do not have to feel that Vedic culture is any more foreign to them than it is to the people of north India. They need not feel that they are racially different than the people of the north. They need not feel that they are losing their culture by using Sanskrit. Nor need they feel that they have to assert themselves against north India or Vedic culture to protect their real heritage. Vedic and Hindu culture has never suppressed indigenous cultures or been opposed to cultral variations, as have the monolithic conversion religions of Christianity and Islam. The Vedic rishis and yogis encouraged the develop- ment of local traditions. They established sacred places in all the regions in which their culture spread. They did not make everyone have to visit a single holy place like Meca, Rome or Jerusalem. Nor did they find local or tribal deities as something to be eliminated as heathen or pagan. They respected the common human aspiration for the Divine that we find in all cultures and encouraged diversity and uniqueness in our approach to it. Meanwhile the people of north India also need not take this north-south division as something fundamental. It is not a racial difference that makes the skin of south Indians darker but merely the effect of climate. Any Caucasian race group living in the tropics for some centuries or millennia would eventually turn dark. And whatever color a person's skin may be has nothing to do with their true nature according to the Vedas that see the same Self or Atman in all. It is also not necessary to turn various Vedic gods into Dravidian gods to give the Dravidians equality with the so-called Aryans in terms of the numbers or antiquity of their gods. This only gives credence to what is superficial distinction in the first place. What is necessary is to assert what is truly Aryan in the culture of India, north or south, which is high or spiritual values in character and action. These occur not only in the Vedas but also the Agamas and other scriptures within the greater tradition. The Aryans and Dravidians are part of the came culture and we need not speak of them as separate. Dividing them and placing them at odds with each other serves the interests of neither but only serves to damage their common culture (which is what most of those who propound these ideas are often seek- ing). Perhaps the saddest thing is that modern Indian politicians have also used this division to promote their own ambitions, though it is harmful to the unity of the country. In short, the compelling reasons for the Aryan invasion theory were neither literary nor archeological but political and religious - that is to say, not scholarship but prejudice. Such prejudice may not have been intentional but deep-seated political and religious views easily cloud and blur our thinking. It is unfortunate that this approach has not been questioned more, particularly by Hindus. Even though Indian Vedic scholars like Dayananda Saraswati, Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Arobindo rejected it, most Hindus today passively accept it. They allow Western, generally Christian, scholars to interpret their history for them and quite naturally Hinduism is kept in a reduced role. Many Hindus still accept, read or even honor the translations of the 'Vedas' done by such Christian missionary scholars as Max Muller, Griffith, Monier-Williams and H. H. Wilson. Would modern Christians accept an interpretation of the Bible or Biblical history done by Hindus aimed at converting them to Hinduism? Universities in India also use the Western history books and Western Vedic translations that propound such views that denigrate their own culture and country. The modern Western academic world is sensitive to criticisms of cultural and social biases. For scholars to take a stand against this biased interpretation of the 'Vedas' would indeed cause a reexamination of many of these historical ideas that can not stand objective scrutiny. But if Hindu scholars are silent or passively accept the misinterpretation of their own culture, it will undoubtedly continue, but they will have no one to blame but themselves. It is not an issue to be taken lightly, because how a culture is defined historically creates the perspective from which it is viewed in the modern social and intellectual context. Tolerance is not in allowing a false view of one's own culture and religion to be propagated without question. That is merely self-betrayal. - David Frawley As said earlier this part of the region has preserved the purest form of Vedic Aryan religion and its going to correct both the orthodox religions as well as science and prevent a society from producing atheists and fanatics. -2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortal Posted November 3, 2012 Author Share Posted November 3, 2012 The Vedic Aryans were no ordinary people, they got all their knowledge directly from the gods and they knew the truth of this world. The truth that there is a God or Christ residing in every living being and this is true irrespective of the country, caste or creed to which you belong. Secret of "Gayathri Mantra" "Aum Bhur Bhuvah Svah" the Viyahritis shall have to be concerted. The three planes of Bhur Bhuvah Svah that constitute the whole universe shall have to be brought into focus. In other words, it must be established in mind that I belong to no particular country but am a dweller of the whole universe. In this way those who are Aryans, find themselves established in the Sun, the Moon, the Planets, and the stars at least once a day, and thus renew their unbreakable ties with the manifest universe. "Tat saviturvareniam bhargo devasia dhimahi: We meditate on the adorable and ever pure effulgence of the resplendent Vivifier of the Universe. But by what formula can he maintain his link with this boundless Power that manifests itself? The formula is: Dhyiyo yo na prachodayat. There is no doubt that God may stimulate our mental faculties and direct us to do noble deeds. By what power do we see the light of the sun? The rays that the sun sheds on us make us see the light. Similarly, the Vivifier of the Universe, directs our intellect to know ourselves and the universe,., we gain nearness to God" - Gurudev Rabindranath Tagore Proff Datta also quotes Italian Indologist Professor Marts Vanucci: "In very ancient times, the best way was through metrical poetry more easily memorised than prose and liable to be crystallised as mantras. It seems to me that under this perspective the Gayatri is undoubtedly the synthetic expression of the knowledge acquired by the ancient sages of the Vedic Period. The knowledge expressed by the Gayatri mantra became one of the basic religious beliefs of Vedic Man which has survived the test of time" Modern science is slowly beginning to shed more light on this concept of ultimate reality now. “Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe?: Three Far-reaching, Visionary Questions from John Archibald Wheeler and How They Inspired a Quantum Experimentalist” In conclusion it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Then the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word". Gospel of John is indeed highly mystical and no wonder why the Valentinians loved both the Gospel of John and the Pauline Epistles so much. There is no conflict between religion and science, all the squabble is just because of mere ignorance and a denial of evidence and facts. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juanrga Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 (edited) Modern science is slowly beginning to shed more light on this concept of ultimate reality now. "Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe?: Three Far-reaching, Visionary Questions from John Archibald Wheeler and How They Inspired a Quantum Experimentalist" 404 error, but http://www.metanexus...titute/projects shows that this is another American non-profit institute associated to Templeton, just as the Discovery Institute Edited November 3, 2012 by juanrga Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Banana Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 (edited) Modern science is now realizing that it might be getting extremely sick of pseudo-science. This facinating spectacle is just like the event when gravity's well deserved world-abroad recognition and fame was returned by a gracious enabling of more sports than just basketball. Oh, it was a marvelous day. Edited November 3, 2012 by Ben Bowen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortal Posted November 4, 2012 Author Share Posted November 4, 2012 404 error, but http://www.metanexus...titute/projects shows that this is another American non-profit institute associated to Templeton, just as the Discovery Institute Its not a paper written by some crackpot, its a very good paper written by a quantum physicist and these are facts established from experiments and irrespective of who wrote it or where it is published one has to accept it. "Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe?: Three Far-reaching, Visionary Questions from John Archibald Wheeler and How They Inspired a Quantum Experimentalist" The earlier quote can be found from this link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Banana Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 (edited) I guess discussions on the internet could be a bit more civil & sane if someone like Albert Einstein was known to abuse crack. 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.. Edited November 5, 2012 by Ben Bowen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortal Posted November 5, 2012 Author Share Posted November 5, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juanrga Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 (edited) 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. 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 Your tactics and goals are pretty similar although your religions are different. Edited November 5, 2012 by juanrga 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Banana Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 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. *Gooey waffle flops off of my face.* ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortal Posted November 6, 2012 Author Share Posted November 6, 2012 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. -2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akh Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juanrga Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 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. No they/you don't. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Banana Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Awe... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortal Posted November 7, 2012 Author Share Posted November 7, 2012 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. -2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juanrga Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 (edited) 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." Before we had zombies, now angels and phantasms. What will be your next 'empirical evidence'? Elfs? Edited November 7, 2012 by juanrga 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akh Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Before we had zombies, now angels and phantasms. What will be your next 'empirical evidence'? Elfs? Yep.... and still no zombies. I would have thought that would be easy enough to put up as proof. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juanrga Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Yep.... and still no zombies. I would have thought that would be easy enough to put up as proof. Yes, I hear rumours that some zombies are 'living' in Dead Walley, but it is not confirmed at the time of writing this . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now