Jump to content

Why Scientific Realism might be false?


Recommended Posts

Bohr never used the term wavefunction collapse. Bohr was an instrumentalist. Anyways physicists can never make any claims about the nature of the physical system itself and this point is well emphasized by Stephen Hawking.

 

Bohr was not even mentioned! In any case, the point here is that physicists make claims about the physical nature of physical systems.

 

The same problem persists in cosmology too.

http://en.wikipedia..../Imaginary_time

 

In Cosmoslogy:

"One might think this means that imaginary numbers are just a mathematical game having nothing to do with the real world. From the viewpoint of positivist philosophy, however, one cannot determine what is real. All one can do is find which mathematical models describe the universe we live in. It turns out that a mathematical model involving imaginary time predicts not only effects we have already observed but also effects we have not been able to measure yet nevertheless believe in for other reasons. So what is real and what is imaginary? Is the distinction just in our minds?"—Stephen Hawking

 

Imaginary time is a mathematical trick promoted by Hawking in early work in quantum gravity, but that way of research is abandoned today (and by good reasons [*]). In any case what you reply here has nothing to do with the fact that quarks and electrons existed much before humans were born.

 

Those traditions are not subjectivists, they say an objective world exists, they are not solipsists, they actually know what it "IS" and not how things appear to us, a noumenal objective world does exist and they say it is made up of five elements as described in world religions.

 

'Traditions' can say anything that they want including nonsense. The history of science is the history of the continuous discredit of such ideas, such as the ancient idea that the world "is made up of five elements". Science has shown that the world is made of elementary particles: electrons, quarks,...

 

[*] http://www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/~streater/lostcauses.html#X

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 309
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

One looks to the "experts"... but only find one author. One looks to the html page and finds that the paper has not been published. One looks to the content and one find gems such as:     It is ne

Carl Jung was just as quacky as his teacher Freud.

The only thing close to immortal here, is this thread. I say "close" because somebody refuses to accept that it (the thread) died many pages ago when the initial claims were shown to be lacking in ev

In any case, the point here is that physicists make claims about the physical nature of physical systems.

 

In any case what you reply here has nothing to do with the fact that quarks and electrons existed much before humans were born.

 

'Traditions' can say anything that they want including nonsense. The history of science is the history of the continuous discredit of such ideas, such as the ancient idea that the world "is made up of five elements". Science has shown that the world is made of elementary particles: electrons, quarks,...

 

 

1. What is space-time actually made of?

2. What is the mechanism for quantum entangelemnt? How can one give explanations for the correlations observed?

3. A machine capable of strong AI - Those traditions already seem to know that "intelligence" exists in platonic realms so this is an important test.

4. Cognitive scientists solving the problem of qualia and the problem of universals.

 

The aim of science is only to make predictions about the system and not to make any claims on the nature of the physical system itself and without knowing the answers for the above questions we cannot be sure of the reality which we are living in and the assumptions of science and scientific realism can swing towards either true or false.

 

 

The violation of Bell's inequality means one of the assumptions of science must be wrong as Bernard d'Espagnat explains in his scientific american paper "Quantum theory and Reality"

 

1. The three premises of Scientific Realism

2. The methods of Induction

3. Einstein separability

 

Which is it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The aim of science is only to make predictions about the system and not to make any claims on the nature of the physical system itself

 

Your picture of science is very narrow. For instance, fundamental physics deals with the fundamental nature of physical systems and one of its aims is to ask "why" as Steven Weinberg correctly notices.

 

The violation of Bell's inequality means one of the assumptions of science must be wrong as Bernard d'Espagnat explains in his scientific american paper "Quantum theory and Reality"

 

The violation of the inequalities means that quantum mechanics is correct. In fact the experimental tests of violations are in agreement with quantum mechanical predictions. Saying that the experimental verification of quantum mechanics (which is one of the branches of science) violates "one of the assumptions of science" is another nonsensical claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites


 

This is the second time I have been asked to leave this forum everytime I bring this topic for discussion. I never knew that even some atheists try to suppress information and I very well know what the problem is,

 

[When making parallels] it could be that Western thought is unconsciously or consciously being taken as the supreme standard, with a corresponding lack of sensitivity to other interests: Asian thought must be shown to be positivistic in a time when positivism was in vogue, or existential for those who value existentialism. . .Or it must share our moral values, if not our beliefs. The various traditions cannot stand on their own terms but must be related to a Western standard. The danger here is in distorting the fundamental nature of these traditions in order to fulfill this demand rather than in understanding them in their own milieu.

 

-Richard H. Jones

 

 

It disturbs scientists and the people of orthodox religions. Few scholars, scientists and philosophers are not afraid to state things the way they are. That's what those traditions say, it says

 

1. Scientific Realism is false.

2. Intelligence exists in platonic realms.

3. The world is made of five elements.

4. Gods are anthropomorphic beings pervaded everywhere in all aspects of human existence.

5. A noumenal objective world indeed exists.

 

If you want us to stop doing this then accept the challenges and prove scientific realism or admit there are other traditions out there which gives explanations to the above questions and should be researched and taken seriously and everyone should be made aware of it instead of using silly tactics on forcing me to leave this forum. That doesn't solve anything.

 

Yes, even Valentinus himself said that for people outside the tradition those things indeed look nonsense. That's not surprising at all. Its more likely that gods exist in our unconscious psyche and that they are alive and well and it should be researched.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Few scholars, scientists and philosophers are not afraid to state things the way they are. That's what those traditions say, it says

 

1. Scientific Realism is false.

2. Intelligence exists in platonic realms.

3. The world is made of five elements.

4. Gods are anthropomorphic beings pervaded everywhere in all aspects of human existence.

5. A noumenal objective world indeed exists.

 

1. Wrong. Your claim follows from your misunderstandings of the Bell inequalities. Moreover, you have shown that you do not even know what science is or does.

 

3. Nonsense. Lots of popular books on science explain what the world is made.

 

Rest of points/babble ignored.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Wrong. Your claim follows from your misunderstandings of the Bell inequalities. Moreover, you have shown that you do not even know what science is or does.

 

Those traditions have independently arrived at the conclusion that scientific realism is false, it doesn't require any justification from quantum physics, its eternal wisdom. I said what those traditions say not what modern science says. If its anything it gives more support to Bernard's claims and he surely deserves the Templeton prize.

 

3. Nonsense. Lots of popular books on science explain what the world is made.

 

 

You have failed to define what a quantum particle is. Some say the world is made of fields, some say it is made of particles, some say not quite particles, not quite fields.

 

If science can't answer those questions then there are traditions out there waiting to answer those questions.

 

Your picture of science is very narrow. For instance, fundamental physics deals with the fundamental nature of physical systems and one of its aims is to ask "why" as Steven Weinberg correctly notices.

 

That's the picture held by scientists like Stephen Hawking, its called the positivism of science and that's the picture held by all the quantum physicists i.e The shut up and calculate picture of science.

 

The violation of the inequalities means that quantum mechanics is correct. In fact the experimental tests of violations are in agreement with quantum mechanical predictions. Saying that the experimental verification of quantum mechanics (which is one of the branches of science) violates "one of the assumptions of science" is another nonsensical claim.

 

Locality and counterfactual definiteness are assumed in the derivation of Bell inequality and its violation implies that both of those assumptions are wrong. Non-separability and non-locality are facts of nature.

 

Carl Jung was just as quacky as his teacher Freud.

 

Carl Jung took his neopagan ideas of mandala from the eastern traditions - Mandala. I don't know what he was doing with Active imagination but mandalas have nothing to do with imagination, it is a systematic practical way of knowing the noumenon whose methods are well documented in the scriptures, rituals which can only be carried out by priests who have the necessary practical skills for it.

 

I again see that as a misrepresentation of pagan beliefs and pagan ideas which has led to some kind of new age movement which hijacks terminologies of eastern traditions and greatly misrepresent the true wisdom of these religions.

 

The Germans who got interested into these religions for other reasons instead of knowing the wisdom hidden in these religions hijacked the term "Aryans" which is used for representing eastern traditions and misrepresented that term for some kind of master race and called it the Aryan race.

 

Aryans (or Aryas) means "Venerable and highly civilized and cultured people known for their learning, wisdom and large heartedness". That's what the term Aryans means in the east and not some kind of master race as called by the Nazi Germany.

 

There is an amazing ontological and philosophical similarity between Valentinian Monism and the eastern traditions and both of these traditions have been well studied by scholars such as Elaine Pagels in the west on Valentinian Monism and by traditional scholars of eastern traditions and it is an active topic of discussion.

Edited by immortal
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If science can't answer those questions then there are traditions out there waiting to answer those questions.

 

 

Once again, you are a priori claiming that just because science has not yet found an answer to a particular question, it never will. This stance is absolutely false, as has been proven repeatedly during the history of modern scientific investigation.

 

There is absolutely no reason to assume that science will fail to answer the questions put to it, and no reason at all to turn to religious or philosophical traditions which are incapable of providing them in an accurate and unbiased manner.

 

Your argument amounts to a lot of hand waving, woo, and bunk, and I reject it as such.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Those traditions have independently arrived at the conclusion that scientific realism is false, it doesn't require any justification from quantum physics, its eternal wisdom.

 

A set of traditions have independently arrived to a wrong conclusion; this is not anything new or exciting.

 

Quantum physics does not say what you imagine and, of course, it would not mixed with your "eternal wisdom". Once more: quantum physics is a branch of science.

 

You have failed to define what a quantum particle is. Some say the world is made of fields, some say it is made of particles, some say not quite particles, not quite fields.

 

The definition of quantum particle is well-known. In another thread you were given half dozen of links explaining to you what is the world made of. For instance this one

 

http://public.web.ce...rdModel-en.html

 

The theories and discoveries of thousands of physicists over the past century have resulted in a remarkable insight into the fundamental structure of matter: everything in the Universe is found to be made from twelve basic building blocks called fundamental particles, governed by four fundamental forces.

 

Fields are unobservable by definition.

 

That's the picture held by scientists like Stephen Hawking, its called the positivism of science and that's the picture held by all the quantum physicists i.e The shut up and calculate picture of science.

 

Hawking is not precisely an authority regarding such matters (in fact his position is rather naive and he maintain it in popular books for laymen). Moreover a worldwide search of Hawking plus "positivism of science" returns only two results. And one of them is a speculations thread in SFN where you repeat your beliefs.

 

What you say about "all the quantum physicists" is not true. In the same message that you are replying now, I name a known quantum physicist (Nobel Winner) that says the contrary to what you pretend.

 

Locality and counterfactual definiteness are assumed in the derivation of Bell inequality and its violation implies that both of those assumptions are wrong. Non-separability and non-locality are facts of nature.

 

Separability and locality are two fundamental ingredients of quantum field theory, for instance.

Edited by juanrga
Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, you are a priori claiming that just because science has not yet found an answer to a particular question, it never will. This stance is absolutely false, as has been proven repeatedly during the history of modern scientific investigation.

 

There is absolutely no reason to assume that science will fail to answer the questions put to it, and no reason at all to turn to religious or philosophical traditions which are incapable of providing them in an accurate and unbiased manner.

 

Your argument amounts to a lot of hand waving, woo, and bunk, and I reject it as such.

 

When the founding fathers of science like Newton and Galileo started their empirical investigation they demanded an explicit descriptive account of the phenomena being observed, they demanded explanations, science as a discipline should give us explanations but with the advent of quantum physics science has reduced to a discipline which only makes predictions about the physical system and QM has so far denied us every attempt to have a descriptive explanation of the nature of reality which we are living in.

 

The physics community don't really recognize the problems of this and they are not even concerned about the philosophical implications of this way of thinking as to what they are describing is the Reality itself or is it just a model? This problem has been well explained by the theoretical physicist Bernard d'Espagnat and I did gave a link to his works in my OP. If you have not read it then please read it.

 

On Physics and Philosophy - Bernard d'espagnat

 

He says from the point of view of the physicists those things indeed seem to be real but we should keep emphasizing that those are just abstract concepts used to convey the experiences of the physicists and not reality itself. When my professor explained about the Bohr atomic model by drawing concentric circles to represent the orbitals of electrons or when an organic chemist represent the hybridization of orbitals as a cloud I thought that's how the nature actually "IS" but later I realized that those were mere models and abstract concepts and that quantum physics doesn't really give us any way to picture it at all.

 

In these terms Bernard says,

 

To be sure, scientists and even physicists go on expressing themselves in terms of particles, molecules, and so on, all words calling forth the idea of individual, localized objects depending less on one another as the distances between them grow greater. In short, they go on making use of a multitudinist language. And from their angle they are right for, as we saw, this amounts to referring to a model that is, by far, the most convenient one in an enormous variety of cases. But, by now, it appears more and more clearly that it is merely a model. With due reservations a comparison could be ventured here with Ptolemy's geocentric model, which also works quite well on specific problems. In both cases, to raise the model to the level of a description of "what really is" is scientifically illegitimate.

 

Its quite self-evident that when ever I asked to define what a quantum particle is juanrga dodges the questions and I very well know why because science forces us to abandon the multitudinous nature of our physical reality and we should emphasize that our words should only have meaning in an operational sense and not on holding a dogma that what we are describing is the reality itself rather than nature revealed to us according to our method of questioning.

 

This is about how science should be done and what its limitations are and how much can physicists claim about the nature of the physical world.

 

To sum up, the foregoing quick survey yielded glimpses at three main points. One of them is the necessity not to keep to the set of the old, familiar concepts. Another one is the necessity of going over from multitudinism to a holistic view of whatever is meant by the word Being. And the third, related to the latter, is that trying to go on using a universal objectivist language generates difficulties that, finally, make such attempts artificial. Here the expression "objectivist language" means a language that is descriptive, that is, as already stated, not merely predictive of observational outcomes. In other words, it means a language the grammatical form of which at least makes it possible to think of what it deals with— essentially contingent, space-and time-localized data—as existing quite independently of us. All this, of course, has merely been sketched and will be developed and made precise later on.

 

Its very clear that we can not use classical concepts to describe these phenomena and we need to abandon the multitudinous approach of viewing the nature, nonseparability and nonlocality are well established facts of nature and soon we recognize this its better. The third point is the use of objectivist language and I think the term "physical" no longer belong to the physicists because there is serious doubt on whether what they are describing is the real physical world or not and hence science is only concerned with the "empirical" and not with the objective physical world as it really is.

 

So its very clear that scientific explanations are unsatisfactory as it only deal with the phenomena and not with the noumenon of the world.

 

So based on these reasons the John Templeton foundation recognizes the importance of the work of Bernard D'espagnat.

 

Statement by Professor Bernard d'Espagnat At The Templeton Prize News Conference

 

Speech for the diner in Honor of Bernard d'Espagnat

 

As I witnessed by arguing in the quantum physics forum it is self-evident that I think some physicists are intellectually dishonest and are using science as a dogma when they never really have a complete account of the nature of reality which are living in.

 

Those traditions are not bunk if they did not had any wisdom or great philosophy behind it no scholars and philosophers from the west would have studied it with such seriousness. I have only revealed a small passage from that scholar and it contains so much wisdom in it.

 

There is a common esoteric essence in religious scriptures of Mishnah, Talmud, Zohar, Midrash, Rig Veda, Yajur Veda, Brahmanas, Samhithas, Upanishads, Buddhism, Valentinian tradition etc etc and its highly philosophical and those things are well studied and they are waiting to explain what space is, what time actually is and what exactly is the nature of physical reality and it should be researched and taken seriously.

 

Is teleportation possible? What is the world made up of?

 

 

 

"That's all right", said Koushika. "But please tell me whether you had previously planned to arrive at the site?" "No", asserted Vamadeva. "I" will tell you all about that. This human body drowns if it is thrown into water while alive. But if it is the body of a good swimmer, it can remain afloat. Likewise, there is another principle in respect of the body. The human body is composed of five elements. Now, as we regard this elements combine as separate, they appear to be obstacles in our onward progress. When once we realize that everything around us is composed of the same elements and that they and we are of one and the same flavour, It would be like giving a loan here and retrieving it there; that means you offer that quantity of the elements which compose your body to those around you (nature) here and claim that portion elsewhere you want it. To put it simpler, just as you learn to swim in water, you should learn to swim in the air too".

 

-Devudu

 

Note that this scholar was under the tutelage of the first president of India Dr. Radha Krishnan, an Indian philosopher, who was the first vice president of India and the second President of India, the scholars claims are based on the wisdom that he had gained from the scriptures and that work was done in 1950's so he very well knows as to what those elements are when he says the "body is composed of five elements".

Edited by immortal
Link to post
Share on other sites

with the advent of quantum physics science has reduced to a discipline which only makes predictions about the physical system and QM has so far denied us every attempt to have a descriptive explanation of the nature of reality which we are living in.

 

This is just untrue. QM describes the physical reality and provides a deep understanding.

 

The physics community don't really recognize the problems of this and they are not even concerned about the philosophical implications of this way of thinking as to what they are describing is the Reality itself or is it just a model?

 

Physicists understand very well the difference between physical reality, which exists, and a model of it. Feynman in his famous lectures explains all this very well and remarks also by philosophers are usually wrong about this kind of topics. He chooses a chair as illustration.

 

When my professor explained about the Bohr atomic model by drawing concentric circles to represent the orbitals of electrons or when an organic chemist represent the hybridization of orbitals as a cloud I thought that's how the nature actually "IS"

 

Because you do not understood what your professors said to you!

 

No teacher says that electrons move in circular orbits around nucleus and any chemist know that orbitals are mathematical functions.

 

Its quite self-evident that when ever I asked to define what a quantum particle is juanrga dodges the questions and I very well know why because science forces us to abandon the multitudinous nature of our physical reality

 

The definition of quantum particle can be found in textbooks. In fact, in another thread, you were given a link to a textbook page with the precise definition of quantum particle, but you ignored this both then and now.

 

As I witnessed by arguing in the quantum physics forum it is self-evident that I think some physicists are intellectually dishonest and are using science as a dogma when they never really have a complete account of the nature of reality which are living in.

 

Your repetitive insults against physicists will not change the facts: (i) you do not understand physics and (ii) you are who is being dogmatic about how you want nature to be.

Edited by juanrga
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree to disagree now. You do realize that I'm not the only one who is arguing this way, even the quantum theoretical physicist Bernard D'espagnat is along with me, he has worked under the architects of modern physics like Bohr, Pauli and De Broglie and at the age of 87, I better take the advice and insights of that old man.

 

What we learn from science is one thing and what we learn from religion is another. When we view from the point of science which basically deals with phenomena it indeed appears that the world is made of molecules, atoms, neurons etc and when we view from the point of religion which basically deals with the noumenon the world seems to be composed of five elements.

 

World religions are still a possible road to reality as long as science doesn't give a complete account of the nature of reality which we are living in. Its very much possible that we are living in a Veiled Reality and other traditions are open for speculation.

 

The onus is on both scientists as well as on traditions to give answers to those questions and no one can hide anything anywhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites

World religions are still a possible road to reality as long as science doesn't give a complete account of the nature of reality which we are living in. Its very much possible that we are living in a Veiled Reality and other traditions are open for speculation.

 

 

 

This is the apex of your view and is the oldest and most tread upon disposition in the guise of an intellectual argument. The discussion should not focus on what science cannot explain, but should instead focus on the lack of evidence for "something else". That is where in onus lies. If not, the argument is strictly a belief based emotional endeavor, and as such does not have merit.

Edited by akh
Link to post
Share on other sites

What we learn from science is one thing and what we learn from religion is another. When we view from the point of science which basically deals with phenomena it indeed appears that the world is made of molecules, atoms, neurons etc and when we view from the point of religion which basically deals with the noumenon the world seems to be composed of five elements.

 

You miss the main difference. Science tests its hypothesis in the real world using scientific methods. Religion does not. This is the reason why science has corrected religious claims since Galileo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the apex of your view and is the oldest and most tread upon disposition in the guise of an intellectual argument. The discussion should not focus on what science cannot explain, but should instead focus on the lack of evidence for "something else". That is where in onus lies. If not, the argument is strictly a belief based emotional endeavor, and as such does not have merit.

 

Why not? Science is a branch of philosophy and even its assumptions, its foundations can be questioned.

 

Science Cannot Fully Describe Reality, Says Templeton Prize Winner

 

The scientist who leaves room for spirituality

 

My argument is not based on belief since I am not forcing you to accept anything, I am just showing what is the need and importance of Religion and why it should be investigated.

 

"Our spiritual traditions suggest that we have considerable room here to change our relationship to the contents of consciousness, and thereby to transform our experience of the world. Indeed, a vast literature on human spirituality attests to this. It is also clear that nothing need be believed on insufficient evidence for us to look into this possibility with an open mind."

 

"It must also be conceded that Asia has always had its fair share of false prophets and charlatan saints, while the West has not been entirely bereft of wisdom. Nevertheless, when the great philosopher mystics of the East are weighed against the patriarchs of the Western philosophical and theological traditions, the difference is unmistakable: Buddha, Shankara, Padmasambhava, Nagarjuna, Longchenpa, and countless others down to the present have no equivalents in the West. In spiritual terms, we appear to have been standing on the shoulders of dwarfs. It is little wonder, therefore, that many Western scholars have found the view within rather unremarkable."

 

- Sam Harris, The End of Faith - The wisdom of the East.

 

Its an argument which I had arrived independently from reading the wisdom literatures of the east and which I have developed it over the years and with even Bernard d'espagnat, a scientist who arrived at it from a different approach it gives more support to this idea and as you can see even he is arguing in the same way.

 

Is it impossible to know the noumenon - I don't think so

 

http://rationalwiki....wiki/Sam_Harris

He also argues that this spirituality or mysticism does not need to be attached to a single dogma and can be experienced and experimented with in a scientific manner.[8]p. 217 This is part of a larger argument he makes in the book: it needs to be acknowledged that spiritual experiences can be experience regardless of religious belief, and they are not evidence of any claims other than the experiences themselves. This makes mysticism a rational enterprise that can make claims about experiences and consciousness without attempting to attach them to claims about the universe as a whole

 

Mysticism is a rational enterprise, have you ventured into the unknown and experimented with those methods? Mystics have compelling reasons to investigate the esoteric essence hidden in all the religions of the world.

 

Apply occam's razor,

 

What is the explanation as to why Bell's inequality which applies to our universe is violated?

 

1. Science has no explanation yet and Bernard argues that non-separability and non-locality are facts of nature no matter what further discoveries will be made in physics.

 

2. Esoteric religions gives an explanation as to why counterfactual definiteness or in other words scientific realism is false or wrong. That explains the above question.

 

Scientists reject that explanation not becuase its false because they don't have the tools to test such a hypothesis where as esotericism as a discipline can test it with its tools. So either accept, admit and allow that there are other competing alternative explanations which can be tested by a different method or come up with an explanation to those previously mentioned questions using the scientific method and disprove those philosophical disciplines.

 

So religions does add knowledge to our database and gives explanations for the phenomena observed and it should be investigated. You should admit that there is lack of evidence on both sides and not on one only and people should be made aware of it.

 

 

 

 

You miss the main difference. Science tests its hypothesis in the real world using scientific methods. Religion does not. This is the reason why science has corrected religious claims since Galileo.

 

That's an old assumption. Methods on how to access the noumenon where given in the beginning of the thread. Esotericists existed prior from the time of Galileo or science and have been saying that scientific realism is false. This time its the evidence which speaks as to who corrects whom.

Edited by immortal
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not? Science is a branch of philosophy and even its assumptions, its foundations can be questioned.

 

Science Cannot Fully Describe Reality, Says Templeton Prize Winner

 

The scientist who leaves room for spirituality

 

 

 

What I get from this; my thoughts are italicized.

 

a)There are somethings science has not yet explained.

This is true

 

b)There is the possibility that humans can not use science to describe everything due to fundamental nature.

This may very well be the situation, but not an absolute. It also does not mean that something else can.

 

c)intuition.

Humans act on it all the time with "beneficial" results. In fact scientists rely on it at some levels, they have "hunches". However, these "hunches" are still rooted on previous empirical knowledge, and they still must be tested!

 

d)music, art, poetry create a strong emotional response.

Can't argue against that, but it does not mean that there is "something else" that is responsible.

 

 

 

 

 

My argument is not based on belief since I am not forcing you to accept anything, I am just showing what is the need and importance of Religion and why it should be investigated.

 

You are not forcing me, but you are asking me to accept through a self-supporting argument... that is belief, a problem of induction. With what tools should Religion be investigated?

Edited by akh
Link to post
Share on other sites

Science is a branch of philosophy

 

No it is not.

 

Methods on how to access the noumenon where given in the beginning of the thread. Esotericists existed prior from the time of Galileo or science and have been saying that scientific realism is false. This time its the evidence which speaks as to who corrects whom.

 

You are not giving any valid method neither "evidence".

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I get from this; my thoughts are italicized.

 

a)There are somethings science not yet explain.

This is true

 

b)There is the possibility that humans can not use science to describe everything due to fundamental nature.

This may very well be the situation, but not an absolute. It also does not mean that something else can.

 

c)intuition.

Humans act on it all the time with "beneficial" results. In fact scientists rely on it at some levels, they have "hunches". However, these "hunches" are still rooted on previous empirical knowledge, and they still must be tested!

 

d)music, art, poetry create a strong emotional response.

Can't argue against that, but it does not mean that there is "something else" that is responsible.

 

 

c) mathematical insight (intuition) - Penrose is a strong Platonist and he makes mathematical arguments to show that mathematicians gain insights in a non-algorithmic way and he is convinced that strong AI is impossible and we know that Plato had argued that these "mathematical truths" exist physically in its own realm and these traditions know that intelligence exists in platonic realms.

 

Bernard philosophically arrives at the conclusion that "what we call empirical reality is only a state of mind" and this is the same view of reality which those traditions have arrived independently and this is the reason western scholars from various universities like Jonathon Duqette from the University of Montreal and others in the past study those traditions(as given in my OP) but the problem is they are not understanding them in their own milieu as to how those traditions actually saw the world and are not choosing the right scholars for their study, this is leading to confusion.

 

If you study those traditions from the view point of traditional scholars you will realize why that statement of Bernard d'Espagnat who said, "What we call empirical reality is only a state of mind" is actually true. This is the wisdom those traditions have to offer us. Its just that Bernard as well as those traditions have independently arrived at that conclusion about the nature of our reality.

 

If there is ever a law of Religion and Science then that should be it.

 

You are not forcing me, but you are asking me to accept through a self-supporting argument... that is belief, a problem of induction. With what tools should Religion be investigated?

 

I guess you're not seeing the importance of this, Sam Harris who is a propenent of New Atheism himself admits that he has no idea from where the people from the east got the non-dual philosophical doctrines from. The John Templeton foundation recognizes the importance of this. Jonathon Duqette from the University of Montreal recognizes this,

 

Consequently, there has been an enormous interest in what might be called the dialogue between science and religion. How should we view science, religion and their relationship in modern society? What is the place of religion in an age of science? Such and similar questions have been debated by scientists, philosophers, theologians and scholars of all cultures and denominations particularly in the last decades. For historical reasons, however, most scholarly discussions on this topic have been focusing on themes pertaining to Western religious traditions (especially Christian) such as world creation, faith, theism and divine agency. Less studied in academic circles has been the encounter between modern science and Eastern spiritual traditions. It is with a segment of this particular encounter that this dissertation is concerned.

 

PeterJ, a member of sfn, he himself independently said this,

 

S. Radhkrishnan - The Philosophy of the Upanishads, (George Allen & Unwin, London, 1924)

 

This gives a clear and authoritative explanation of the philosophical view held by Erwin Schroedinger. Professor Radhakrishnan decribes 'nondualism', the 'perennial philosophy', or 'mysticism', as expounded in the late Hindu Vedas. This is the doctrine that must be refuted for the final defeat of religion, and it is difficult to overstress the importance of such a clear exposition.

 

He said that this is the doctrine that must be refuted for the final defeat of religion but the problem is not many of them know as to what the implications of that doctrine are. As I said earlier, the scholar which I have chosen for this study was under the tutelage of S. Radhakrishnan and he has studied extensively about this for 20 years and he is a traditional scholar and not someone from outside the tradition. So this thread focuses on what these traditions exactly say and that's what I have been outlining here and I have already given enough information on how those traditions view the world and what's its implications are for us if taken in their own context.

 

It inevitably leads to an esoteric worldview as I have outlined in this thread. In other words science cannot give an objective account of reality without bringing "Gods" into the picture.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are not giving any valid method neither "evidence".

 

We need to extensively investigate on this Mandala and they say it exists in every living thing and is the soul of the universe from which the universe originated and it exists solely on the basis of this mandala. This is from where our ancients got there knowledge from. Also from where that traditional scholar got this knowledge.

 

That's a rejected knowledge in western academy because its not based on the scientific method.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment."

 

I believe that the above statement is overly simplistic. It does not take into account the process known as "Quantum Decoherence".

"Decoherence occurs when a system interacts with its environment in a thermodynamically irreversible  way. This prevents different elements in the quantum superposition  of the system+environment's wavefunction  from interfering  with each other. Decoherence has been a subject of active research since the 1980s."

 

Take the example of "Schrodinger's Cat". That poor cat is most likely DEAD because it has interacted with its environment in a thermodynamic irreversible way. It does not continue to exist as a superposition of wave functions whose state is neither alive nor dead until someone opens its box and checks on its condition.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess you're not seeing the importance of this, Sam Harris who is a propenent of New Atheism himself admits that he has no idea from where the people from the east got the non-dual philosophical doctrines from. The John Templeton foundation recognizes the importance of this. Jonathon Duqette from the University of Montreal recognizes this,

 

I do see the importance of this, the importance is that you are asking for acceptance of a non-empirical construct. Sorry, I am not that easy.

 

This unity you speak of is the result of inward perception. The entire premise of this discussion is that outward perception is inherently flawed. How then can this inward perception be less flawed than outward perception? The truth is that this inward perception must be inherently more flawed, because it is an entirely subjective experience. The experience can not be proven to be universal, and is arguably not universal because it is subjective and therefor unique to each individual. There is absolutely no possible way to measure or weigh one individuals experience to the next. Even if ones description is similar or perceived to be identical, it does not prove that it is in fact identical.

 

The simple fact that Bernard and other mystics came to a universal conclusion is a moot point, because no one can say with certainty that the experience/experiences that brought about the conclusion was/were in fact identical. Prove to me that the experiences are identical! If you can not, then your argument is invalid.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do see the importance of this, the importance is that you are asking for acceptance of a non-empirical construct. Sorry, I am not that easy.

 

This unity you speak of is the result of inward perception. The entire premise of this discussion is that outward perception is inherently flawed. How then can this inward perception be less flawed than outward perception? The truth is that this inward perception must be inherently more flawed, because it is an entirely subjective experience. The experience can not be proven to be universal, and is arguably not universal because it is subjective and therefor unique to each individual. There is absolutely no possible way to measure or weigh one individuals experience to the next. Even if ones description is similar or perceived to be identical, it does not prove that it is in fact identical.

 

The simple fact that Bernard and other mystics came to a universal conclusion is a moot point, because no one can say with certainty that the experience/experiences that brought about the conclusion was/were in fact identical. Prove to me that the experiences are identical! If you can not, then your argument is invalid.

 

I'm not speaking of the unity yet and its pointless to speak about the unity because its beyond the intellect. There is much to know about before knowing the unity. Its something which most scholars and philosophers don't know and keep talking about "unity" and "Brahman" when no one knows what it is. They are using broken forms of reasoning because no one can speak about unity and nor should anyone speak about it.

 

I have indeed addressed your points.

 

Similarities between Valentinian Monism and Advaita Vedanta

 

When Gnostic scholars began to see monistic expressions in the gnostic tradition of Valentinianism and the frequent assertions of this school of thought that the multiplicity of the world vanishes once one knows the fullness of the father through gnosis just as the Advaita Vedanta says that the multiplicity of the world vanishes once one knows the Brahman they started to hypothesize that there might be a connection between these two ancient monistic systems but they never took such a hypothesis too seriously. The following section shows why such a hypothesis is undeniable without giving reasonable explanations for the astonishing similarities seen between these two ancient monistic systems.

 

Summary

It is the Aryans (or Aryas – Venerable and highly civilized and cultured people known for their learning, wisdom and large heartedness) who discovered this esoteric secret. All those who are now let into this secret can be called Aryas. The obligatory duty of every such Arya is to discover the secrets of Nature and impart those secrets to worthy and deserving people. This is otherwise called the recital of Vedic texts which ought to be pursued through study of the Vedas and teaching of the Vedas.The Aryas were those who eschewed Paratantra (subject to or dependent onanother) and won Swantantra (freedom or independence). Such Aryas can Aryanise the whole Universe.

 

Every living being in this world is verily a Sun worshipper. Some know it, but a large number of beings are unaware of it. Being aware of what one is doing, systematizing it and doing it fully and consciously through Sankalpa is called yoga. Progress is nothing but turning the mind from ayoga to yoga. Vedas declare Surya atmajagataha tasthushascha. It means that the sun is very soul of both the immobile and mobile beings. Since the universe came into existence through the Sun, he is called Aditya. Since all the luster in this universe is his he is called Bhaskara. He is the leading light of the planetary system and fruits such as health, well-being, heartiness and wholeness are due to him are well-known. He is the giver of life and light. The evolution of all created things in the world of human beings is entirely due to the sun. Aryas worshipped him as Savithru because every being needs his permission to issue out of the mother's womb. Once upon a time the worship of Savithru deva was in vogue in every nook and corner of the world. As divine law declined this Savithru worship decreased. Now it is being performed here and there. In another sense, this Savithru-worship has not been given up at all, and cannot be given up either! For, the support for the breathing process which, takes place every moment is Prana. It is this Agnishoma mandala's (pleroma of gods) grace and flavour that every living being is kept alive. This is a matter, which can be tested by means of yoga. Agnishoma mandala (pleroma of Gods) is the place of origin or principal place of Purusha (The soul of the Universe, the masculine principle) and Prakrithi (The passive power of creating namely, Nature, the feminine principle).

 

-Devudu

 

 

This is in so much similarity with the Gnostic view of the world which says that everything comes in dyads i.e. with male and female forms.

 

 

Valentinians believed that God is androgynous and frequently depicted him as a male-female dyad. This is related to the notion that God provides the universe with both form and substance. The feminine aspect of the deity is called Silence, Grace and Thought. Silence is God's primordial state of tranquillity and self-awareness She is also the active creative Thought that makes all subsequent states of being (or "Aeons") substantial. The masculine aspect of God is Depth, also called Ineffable and First Father. Depth is the profoundly incomprehensible, all-encompassing aspect of the deity. He is essentially passive, yet when moved to action by his feminine Thought, he gives the universe form.

 

-The Gnostic society Library, David Brons

 

Savithru deva is lord and master of Agnishoma mandala (pleroma of gods) and He is in the macrocosm as well in the microcosm. Human beings who are not aware of this imagine that it is they and their own mind and intellect that get things to be done through their ten sense organs. How can subordinates (the mind, intellect and sense organs) be independent? Imagining that he is independent, the individual attributes his achievement to his own mind and intellect. This amounts to the state of being enamoured and conceit. But those few who are capable of deep reflection realize that there should be one who inspires or activates the mind and intellect further reflection and contemplation leads such individuals to realize that the Inspirer or Activator is Savithrudeva. It is He and He alone who instil power into the intellect. It is the intellect, which is the centre and source of all activity, physical and mental, etc.

 

-Devudu

 

This shows that human beings don't have free-will which is similar to the stoic view

of providence and the Gnostic view of predestination as argued by Elaine

Pagels.

 

31ak1.png

 

 

He that is Savithru, has to accord permission for anything born, or anything to be born and issue out of the mother's womb.This is the law of Nature. All those who are aware of this law should worship Savithru; or rather, have been worshipping Savithru. This worship is ceaselessly going on in the form of breathing. When this "Worship" is going on in the right way the physical body will be in good health. But if anything goes wrong in that worship, disease attacks the physical body. Ayurveda which recognizes this principle calls him who prevents disease or restores good health, Pranacharya(one who is learned in the science of prana). By this Ayurveda has cognised the original form of this worship. This Savithru deva isnone other than Aditya. He protects the World in his various forms ormanifestations. He is a mass of brilliant luster. Veda looks at Him in twoways. They are Visthrutha (Diffused or spread out form) and Samasthi (total orwhole form). This luster of Savithrudeva, which Veda calls Samasthi swaroopa (total or whole form), is there in every living being and provokes the activity of the mind and intellect.

 

-Devudu

 

 

This is the ontological view or the ontological reality of Advaita Vedanta i.e. the pleroma of (Aeons) gods (fullness) exist in every living being which is amazingly similar to the Gnostic view.

 

 

"Christ has each within him, whether human being or angel or mystery" (Gospel of Philip 56:14-15).

 

 

Advaita Vedanta is an ancient doctrine which existed prior to Gnostic Christians and therefore either there was a cultural diffusion at some point of time between these two traditions or they arrived about the nature of reality independently without any transfusion of ideas between each other. Whatever may be the answer, this hypothesis should be taken seriously and by testing such a hypothesis can reveal many things and have a wide range of implications.

 

 

 

Hiranmayena patrena satyasyapihitam mukham

tat tvam pushannya apavrino satya-dharmaya drishtaye

 

(Isopanishad, Verse 15)

 

 

Here, the seer Yajnavalkya implicitly implies that He and Pushan will become One when one sees Pushan(the master of Pleroma).

 

"People cannot see anything in the real realm unless they become it...if you have seen the spirit, you have become the spirit; if you have seen Christ, you have become Christ; if you have seen the Father, you will become the Father" (Gospel of Philip 61:20-32 cf. 67:26-27)

 

 

This is the highest form of philosophical thought expressed in all religions.

 

It is reasonable to agree that when there is a core agreement in the religious experiences of people in different times, places,and traditions, and when they have the same rational interpretations of the experiences; it makes sense to conclude that they are all in contact with some objective aspect of reality, unless there is positive evidence otherwise.

 

- C.D. Broad, Argument from Religious experiences

 

This is the noumenon of the world and different traditions have identical ontological and philosophical aspects of this noumenal reality, this is the real objective physical world out there. This is what should be researched and we should talk more about this because we can reach up to here through our intellect and we should not speak about the unity which most scholars and philosophers often emphasize more on instead of the noumenal reality as espoused above. This is what interests scientists because through this knowledge we can become masters of nature and not its slaves.

 

This demands explanation for anyone who is a rational minded person and their explicit claims on what mind is, what intelligence is, what space is, what time is, what the world is actually made of baffles me and it should be investigated. I don't know whether in the west you have preserved any kind of knowledge of that sort but in the east we have well preserved methods on how to access the noumenon but not many people in the east know about this either.

 

This is something which most scholars and philosophers outside the tradition don't see.

 


 

Mandala Carved by Jung

 

rb0018_standard.jpgAt Bolligen Jung created a monument out of stone to express what the Tower means to me. On one side, Jung carved in Latin In remembrance of his seventy-fifth birthday, C. G. Jung made and placed this here as a thanks offering in the year 1950. On the side shown in this photograph, Jung created a mandala centered on Telesphorus, the Greek demi-god of healing, surrounded by a Greek inscription, part of which says, This is Telesphorus, who roams through the dark regions of this cosmos and glows like a star out of the depths. He points the way to the gates of the sun and to the land of dreams.

 

A new field of psychology is indeed emerging.

 

 

THE SEVEN SERMONS TO THE DEAD WRITTEN BY BASILIDES IN ALEXANDRIA, THE CITY WHERE THE EAST TOUCHETH THE WEST.

Edited by immortal
Link to post
Share on other sites

We need to extensively investigate on this Mandala and they say it exists in every living thing and is the soul of the universe from which the universe originated and it exists solely on the basis of this mandala. This is from where our ancients got there knowledge from. Also from where that traditional scholar got this knowledge.

 

That's a rejected knowledge in western academy because its not based on the scientific method.

 

What we need extensively investigate is how the Flying Spagetti Monster created the universe "after drinking heavily" and also the Invisible Pink Unicorn, because as everyone knows they "are beings of great spiritual power"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_spagetti_monster

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn

Link to post
Share on other sites

"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment."

 

I believe that the above statement is overly simplistic. It does not take into account the process known as "Quantum Decoherence".

"Decoherence occurs when a system interacts with its environment in a thermodynamically irreversible way. This prevents different elements in the quantum superposition of the system+environment's wavefunction from interfering with each other. Decoherence has been a subject of active research since the 1980s."

 

Take the example of "Schrodinger's Cat". That poor cat is most likely DEAD because it has interacted with its environment in a thermodynamic irreversible way. It does not continue to exist as a superposition of wave functions whose state is neither alive nor dead until someone opens its box and checks on its condition.

 

Bernard does address that.

 

As a consequence of all this, it becomes clearer and clearer that our senses do not reveal the “real stuff,” as it truly is. Indeed, let us consider an object that is more or less on the human scale, say a stone or a speck of dust. That it is not what it looks like has been known for quite a long time. Classical physics taught us already that, while we tend to take a stone to symbolize the very notion of “fullness,” it is, in fact, mainly composed of vacuum (the space between the nucleus and the electrons). But nonseparability suggests that, strictly speaking, it does not even exist as a distinct object! That its “quantum state” is “entangled” (this is the technical word) with the state of the whole Universe. How does it then come that, to us, it seems localized? Recently, a very general argument— called “decoherence theory”—was found that partly accounts for this fact. But its nature is disconcerting enough, for, as we shall see, it amounts to proving that, for all practical purposes, we are unable to measure any one of the quantities the measurement of which would show that the stone is not localized. It makes it clear that all such measurements are far too complex to be performed (they would necessitate inconceivable instruments, perhaps composed of more nuclei than there are in the Universe, or, alternatively, performing times longer than the life of the latter, or other, similarly unthinkable conditions). Obviously, this view is quite the opposite of the classical, commonsense one that objects truly have the shapes and positions we see, and that they have them “by themselves,” quite independently of the limitations of our own aptitudes, as well as of the size of the Universe or anything else. Were some simile requested, the best one would probably consist in comparing the quantum objects to rainbows. If you are driving, you see the rainbow moving. If you stop it stops. If you start again, so does the rainbow. In other words, its properties partly depend on you. Taken literally, quantum physics, when thought of as universal, imparts to all objects such a status relative to the sentient beings that we are. It is true that some physicists strove to revert to a more classically objective standpoint but they had such serious obstacles to circumvent that, as we shall see, the outcome of their quest has finally to be considered unsatisfactory.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not speaking of the unity yet and its pointless to speak about the unity because its beyond the intellect. There is much to know about before knowing the unity. Its something which most scholars and philosophers don't know and keep talking about "unity" and "Brahman" when no one knows what it is. They are using broken forms of reasoning because no one can speak about unity and nor should anyone speak about it.

 

 

 

Lol, your criticism of scientific realism and of empirical rational is what? Hold that criticism against what you just said, and any logical examination would again reveal that this approach is inherently more flawed at all levels than scientific realism.

 

When you bring in concepts of non dualism, you are inferring the concept of unity.

 

 

This is in so much similarity with the Gnostic view of the world which says that everything comes in dyads i.e. with male and female forms.

 

 

 

 

Similarity does not make sameness, and you still have not proven sameness, or non dualism.

 

 

This is the ontological view or the ontological reality of Advaita Vedanta i.e. the pleroma of (Aeons) gods (fullness) exist in every living being which is amazingly similar to the Gnostic view.

 

So what, being "amazingly similar" is not sameness. It still lies in the subjective realm, an experience that is unique to each individual. I don't care if they got together and compared notes. You can't prove that the experience is identical. I ask you again, prove that the experiences are identical...not similar...identical.

 

 

knowledge of that sort but in the east we have well preserved methods on how to access the noumenon but not many people in the east know about this either.

 

This is something which most scholars and philosophers outside the tradition don't see.

 

Exclusivity? You must be in the circle to know the circle, but you as an outsider you can't get in the circle? Classic non response circular garbage, an argument older than the written language itself. Also the above two statements automatically introduces hierarchy. Hierarchy is not non dualism is it?

 

I would argue that the objective world, the world of empirical science is far closer to any notion of non dualism than any mystical endevour. We have empirical proof of the sameness of experience. There are endless multitudes of facts brought to bare by empirical science that proves sameness of experience. In fact, humans don't even need to be involved, and this sameness still exists. This base of knowledge is constantly growing through empirical science, through scientific realism. Compare that to all the knowledge of the collective mystics, and the absolute lack of proof of sameness in non dualism because it lies entirely in a subjective realm. Make a comparison chart. Any logical, thinking, rational person would see that the evidence weighs heavily in favor of a reality as described by scientific realism.

Edited by akh
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol, your criticism of scientific realism and of empirical rational is what? Hold that criticism against what you just said, and any logical examination would again reveal that this approach is inherently more flawed at all levels than scientific realism.

 

When you bring in concepts of non dualism, you are inferring the concept of unity.

 

Non-dualism doesn't mean sameness, you make a strawman argument and laugh out loud against it.

 

Nou-duality is the place where the law of opposites or the law of contradiction breaks down. Its the place where good and evil, Multitudinous and oneness, fullness and nothing exists.

 

I have that from two important authorities one is the seer Yajnavalkya who is the author of one of the most important Upanishads i.e Isha Upanishad and the other one is Basilides, the founder of Gnosticism. The former is from the far-east and prior to the gnostic christians and the latter is from the near-east.

 

 

Similarity does not make sameness, and you still have not proven sameness, or non dualism.

 

The strawman goes on and on ..

 

So what, being "amazingly similar" is not sameness. It still lies in the subjective realm, an experience that is unique to each individual. I don't care if they got together and compared notes. You can't prove that the experience is identical. I ask you again, prove that the experiences are identical...not similar...identical.

 

 

They don't have any differences among them, they all are speaking in one voice and that includes the traditions from the east as well as the west.

 

It was already addressed in this post.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/67990-why-scientific-realism-might-be-false/page__view__findpost__p__693837

 

Irrespective of what you care and don't care, they all are speaking the same thing and their ontological experiences are identical. Ignoring them without giving rational explanations is a display of intellectual dishonesty.

 

Exclusivity? You must be in the circle to know the circle, but you as an outsider you can't get in the circle? Classic non response circular garbage, an argument older than the written language itself. Also the above two statements automatically introduces hierarchy. Hierarchy is not non dualism is it?

 

I said that to scholars and philosophers who study these philosophical doctrines but you don't have to be a part of any tradition to know the truth, the pleroma of God or mandala exists in everyone and you can experiment yourself and know the truth yourself.

 

I would argue that the objective world, the world of empirical science is far closer to any notion of non dualism than any mystical endevour. We have empirical proof of the sameness of experience. There are endless multitudes of facts brought to bare by empirical science that proves sameness of experience. In fact, humans don't even need to be involved, and this sameness still exists. This base of knowledge is constantly growing through empirical science, through scientific realism. Compare that to all the knowledge of the collective mystics, and the absolute lack of proof of sameness in non dualism because it lies entirely in a subjective realm. Make a comparison chart. Any logical, thinking, rational person would see that the evidence weighs heavily in favor of a reality as described by scientific realism.

 

You have misunderstood non-dualism. Its a place where both sameness and difference exists.

 

And yet the positivism of science can not distinguish the real from the unreal, they are not even sure whether an external physical world exists independent of the mind, so what proof do you have, you have nothing. Top quantum physicists themselves state that what we call empirical reality is only a state of mind and it falsifies a 100 more other philosophies and science is not about how logical your theory is, its more about whether your theory describes the nature the way it is.

 

Now I want you to answer those above questions and prove scientific realism if not accept that physicists don't have an objective account of reality.

 

Where as the theory of forms of Plato and the philsophical doctrines of Advaita describe eternal unchanging realities and it exists the same whether you see it around 2500 B.C or in the 21st century or in the future. Which is real now?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.