Jump to content

Why Scientific Realism might be false?


Recommended Posts

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....pagetti_monster

 

http://en.wikipedia....le_Pink_Unicorn

 

Those traditions support Bernard's claims and Bernard's claims indicate the validity of those traditions, those traditions have withstood the test of times and science is pointing towards those traditions and telling us to investigate it.

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

Those traditions support Bernard's claims and Bernard's claims indicate the validity of those traditions, those traditions have withstood the test of times and science is pointing towards those traditions and telling us to investigate it.

 

Notice that the Invisible Pink Unicorn is a being of great spiritual power and can do one thing and the contrary (it is both pink and invisible) whereas your traditions cannot.

 

Moreover, the Flying Spagetti Monster is much more powerful because created the whole universe, including also Bernard and the magazine where he made his claims.

 

Both beings "have withstood the test of times" and we would concentrate our efforts on study them instead of those traditions.

Edited by juanrga
Link to post
Share on other sites

Notice that the Invisible Pink Unicorn is a being of great spiritual power and can do one thing and the contrary (it is both pink and invisible) whereas your traditions cannot.

 

Moreover, the Flying Spagetti Monster is much more powerful because created the whole universe, including also Bernard and the magazine where he made his claims.

 

Both beings "have withstood the test of times" and we would concentrate our efforts on study them instead of those traditions.

 

How is this relevant here?

 

That scholar Devudu Narasimha Shastry who is a highly respected scholar who belongs to that tradition indepedently arrived at the conclusion that the empirical reality is only a state of mind based on his knowledge of mandala and that work was done in 1950's and that's a fact because we have his works and Bernard d'espagnat a highly respected quantum physicist, he too independently arrived at the conclusion that the empirical reality is only a state of mind based on his knowledge of quantum physics and this work was done from 2002-2009 and its a fact.

 

This debate of parallels between modern physics especially quantum physics and eastern mysticism is an important study carried out by scholars, philosophers and scientists around the world and there is a wide range of literature available everywhere. What this study has got to do with beliefs?

 

 

It is then interesting to examine what place consciousness has in d’Espagnat’s philosophical considerations. How does it relate to his concept of ontological reality? D’Espagnat develops in several books the idea of a “coemergence” of consciousness and empirical reality from reality-in-itself.94 As far as the origin of consciousness is concerned, he rejects the “identity theory,” which identifies consciousness with some material structure internal to or involving neurons. He also rejects the “efflorescence theory” according to which consciousness is a derived product of neuronal activity.

 

His argument is based on implications of quantum physics: all parts of our bodies, including neurons, are essentially elements of the empirical reality. Since empirical reality, as a representation of reality-in-itself, is a priori relative to consciousness, it is difficult to imagine how it might possibly generate the latter or be identified with it.95 Does it mean that consciousness constitutes some sort of an absolute, as stated in radical versions of idealism?

 

According to d’Espagnat, the answer is no. States of consciousness involved in quantum measurements are also relative in the sense that they refer to “points of view” adopted by different observers in different contexts.96 Neither the things or phenomena observed nor the states of consciousness involved in measurement are absolute. Both seem to exist in relation to each other, or to generate reciprocally one another, and this is why d’Espagnat brings in the notion of a coemergence of consciousness and empirical reality. This coemergence arises — atemporally, because time is part of empirical reality — out of the mind-independent reality that is conceptually prior to both consciousness and empirical reality. What is really “veiled” in d’Espagnat’s conception is not empirical reality but ontological reality, which is identified with Being itself (Fig. 5.1).97

 

The conception of d’Espagnat — that individual consciousness has only access to representations of reality, and is somehow co-equal with things and phenomena — comes close to the views of Advaita Ved¯anta. His concept of reality-in-itself or Being, out of which both thought and phenomena emerge, has clear affinities with

 

Figure 5.1: D’Espagnat’s scheme of (atemporal) coemergence of thought and empirical reality out of ontological reality.

 

Brahman, the pure Being and fundamental reality underlying both physical and psychical realms in Advaita. The whole world of phenomena is grounded in Brahman and what is regarded as a conscious state is but an expression of Brahman through a certain modification of the mind. However, although both certainly have a lot in common, d’Espagnat’s Being is not as explicitly of the nature of consciousness as Brahman. When d’Espagnat discusses consciousness, he means the individual consciousness facing empirical reality and not the pure and undifferentiated consciousness characterizing Brahman.98 It is worth noting that d’Espagnat himself notices that the similarities between his conception of veiled reality and “the great eastern philosophical systems should be considered. . . ” But because modern science is mostly embedded in the Western tradition, he prefers to confine himself to comparisons with Western philosophical systems like Platonism and Aristotelism.99 Though, like Kant, d’Espagnat believes that there are inherent limits to scientific knowledge, he still leaves room for some form of spirituality in science.100

 

93Quoted from an article by d’Espagnat in Guardian in March 2009, entitled “‘Quantum weirdness: What we call ‘reality’ is just a state of mind.” (Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2009/mar/17/templeton-quantum-entanglement)

 

94D’Espagnat uses interchangeably the terms “thought,” “mind” and “consciousness” to denote the mere fact of “being or becoming aware.”

 

95d’Espagnat, op.cit., 418.

 

96The potential implications of consciousness in quantum physics are complicated and still widely discussed today. For the sake of brevity, we shall only summarize d’Espagnat’s argument here. He asks us to imagine two observers participating in a quantum measurement: Peter who is conducting the measurement, and Paul who is looking at an instrument pointer and registering what information he reads on the dial. When Paul observes the dial, this induces a specific and seemingly “absolute” state of consciousness in him: either the pointer is at place A or not. But for Peter, Paul’s state of consciousness is unknown and undefined. For him, the system is in a state of quantum superposition because it is not yet measured: it is both in the state “at place A” and in the state “not at place A.” Not being measured, the system is in a potentially predictive state. Consequently, Paul’s state of consciousness is also in such a superposed state for Peter, and it will become definite for Peter only after interaction of somekind with Paul. If Paul’s observation creates in his own mind a definite state of consciousness, this is not the case from Peter’s angle so that states of consciousness involved in quantum measurements cannot be considered absolute. See: d’Espagnat, op.cit., 420-21.

 

97d’Espagnat, op.cit., 388.

 

98However, d’Espagnat seems to believe in the unicity of individual consciousnesses. In Mind and Matter and in My View f the World, Schr¨odinger had raised the problem of the existence of a plurality of conscious minds, which he refers to as the arithmetical paradox : how to explain the existence of a plurality of conscious minds while the world described by science is only one? In Schr¨odinger’s view, a consistent solution was to adopt the thesis of the unicity of minds: there is only one mind shining differently in each of us which makes it appear to be many. D’Espagnat faces the same problem as many minds seem to take part in the emergence of the one empirical reality. In many respects, he seems to agree with Schr¨odinger’s thesis. Needless to say, this conception comes close to Ved¯antic-Upanisadic monistic idealism as Schr¨odinger himself noticed. Despite this tendency towards a form of spiritual monism, we might recall that consciousness is in no way transcendental for d’Espagnat but remains co-equal ith empirical reality. This is a major difference with the absolute idealism of Advaita Ved¯anta. See: d’Espagnat, op.cit., 426-27.

 

 

 

The above work was independently done by Jonathon Duqette from the University of Montreal and I have given the links to his works in my OP.

 

I independently argued about this earlier in SFN based on my study of that scholar named Devudu and it supports the work of Jonathon Duqette which is published at Wiley Library and gives some amazing new insights into it. I wasn't aware of the work of Jonathon Duqette at that time and when I searched about this in google scholar I found his papers.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/63509-scientism-and-how-this-worldview-affects-open-discussions-in-the-philosophy-and-religious-forums-threads/page__view__findpost__p__663117

 

 

I think you have misunderstood a lot about the things which is being discussed in this thread. So please read before you make any arguments.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

How is this relevant here?

 

How could you do not see its relevance?

 

That scholar Devudu Narasimha Shastry who is a highly respected scholar who belongs to that tradition indepedently arrived at the conclusion that the empirical reality is only a state of mind based on his knowledge of mandala and that work was done in 1950's and that's a fact because we have his works and Bernard d'espagnat a highly respected quantum physicist, he too independently arrived at the conclusion that the empirical reality is only a state of mind based on his knowledge of quantum physics and this work was done from 2002-2009 and its a fact.

 

This debate of parallels between modern physics especially quantum physics and eastern mysticism is an important study carried out by scholars, philosophers and scientists around the world and there is a wide range of literature available everywhere. What this study has got to do with beliefs?

 

Hundred of highly respected people independently arrived to the conclusion that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the empirical reality and this is a fact. The Invisible Pink Unicorn is both invisible and pink as everyone knows independently. This is a fact too. Your traditions are incorrect because they did not reveal the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster nor the Invisible Pink Unicorn. This debate is very modern, It started about 2005 and it is a fact. It is very important study and there are open letters soliciting to add this facts to ordinary schools as shown in the links given above.

Edited by juanrga
Link to post
Share on other sites

How could you do not see its relevance?

 

 

Its because I'm not a proponent of Intelligent Design or a creationist. This is separate from those movements.

 

 

Hundred of highly respected people independently arrived to the conclusion that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the empirical reality and this is a fact. The Invisible Pink Unicorn is both invisible and pink as everyone knows independently. This is a fact too. Your traditions are incorrect because they did not reveal the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster nor the Invisible Pink Unicorn. This debate is very modern, It started about 2005 and it is a fact. It is very important study and there are open letters soliciting to add this facts to ordinary schools as shown in the links given above.

 

No, our traditions have withstood the test of times and its correct and science itself has revealed the pleroma of God. I said I want to investigate it and I don't want this to be introduced in schools because I'm not a fundamentalist. We in the east don't have any conflicts between Religion and Science. That's mainly because we have preserved the wisdom of our ancients.

 

What is very important here is that Bernard d’Espagnat does not present ideas, but facts he claims to be demonstrated by the knowledge of the Real we get from physics. According to Bernard d’Espagnat, this refutation of the mechanistic vision, this proof of the holistic, the global or non divisible character of the world and this proof of the non-ontological character of the reality level on which we live are provided by science and not philosophy. Thus, science wouldn’t prove a philosophy in particular but refutes a great number of philosophies. Not only those based on a universe of 10 000 years which would be the center of the world, but also all those based on the classical materialistic conceptions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its because I'm not a proponent of Intelligent Design or a creationist. This is separate from those movements.

 

What has that to do with the fact that both the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the empirical reality and the Invisible Pink Unicorn confirms this independently?

 

No, our traditions have withstood the test of times and its correct and science itself has revealed the pleroma of God.

 

You are ignoring the facts: both the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Invisible Pink Unicorn have withstood the test of times and refute your traditions as hundred of people have found independently.

 

I said I want to investigate it and I don't want this to be introduced in schools because I'm not a fundamentalist.

 

No you wrote:

 

We need to extensively investigate on

 

"We" is not "I" unless you are a multiplicity of beings, but this is not allowed by the triple duality of the singularity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What has that to do with the fact that both the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the empirical reality and the Invisible Pink Unicorn confirms this independently?

 

 

You are ignoring the facts: both the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Invisible Pink Unicorn have withstood the test of times and refute your traditions as hundred of people have found independently.

 

You admitted that you don't want to study those traditions so how can you know what's being revealed and what's not. That amounts to ignoring information which has been given to you and arguing from ignorance.

 

No you wrote:

 

"We" is not "I" unless you are a multiplicity of beings, but this is not allowed by the triple duality of the singularity.

 

There are a wide range of scholars, philosophers, psychologists and scientists investigating it.

Link to post
Share on other sites


 

I want to make this very clear. Physicists don't have an objective account of reality. Its a consensus which Physicists have not won. I have mutual respect for physicists, scholars and philosophers working in their own fields but not for those who want to use science as a dogma.

 

 

According to Einstein, the whole purpose of science is to get behind the phenomena of experimental data and their mathematical description to the real world that underlies them. As he put it, "Reality is the business of physics". He believed, to the end, that the goal of science was to discover the way the world really is as opposed to our perceptions and conceptions of it, and that orthodox quantum theory had not only failed to achieve such a goal but had prematurely abandoned any such quest.

 

As Einstein said the goal of science was to discover the way the world really is and not how it appears to us. If physicists can't give an objective account of reality then they no longer deserve to be called as physicists because it will be an insult to the term "physicist". A better term to assign to them would be empiricists because there are competing philosophers out there who want to take over that term as "true physicists" because they are discovering the world as it really is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You admitted that you don't want to study those traditions so how can you know what's being revealed and what's not. That amounts to ignoring information which has been given to you and arguing from ignorance.

 

You were said that those traditions have been refuted as hundred of people have found independently. Ignoring this fact will not help you.

 

There are a wide range of scholars, philosophers, psychologists and scientists investigating it.

 

And the triple duality of the singularity reveals that they are not you.

 

I want to make this very clear. Physicists don't have an objective account of reality. Its a consensus which Physicists have not won. I have mutual respect for physicists, scholars and philosophers working in their own fields but not for those who want to use science as a dogma.

 

As Einstein said the goal of science was to discover the way the world really is and not how it appears to us. If physicists can't give an objective account of reality then they no longer deserve to be called as physicists because it will be an insult to the term "physicist". A better term to assign to them would be empiricists because there are competing philosophers out there who want to take over that term as "true physicists" because they are discovering the world as it really is.

 

Your points are very clear. You dislike both modern physics and physicists and you argue dogmatically that philosophers are "true physicists" whereas physicists do not deserve such label.

 

You also confound your desires with reality when you write phrases as "the world as it really is", but then fail to show familiarity even with basic aspects of modern physics (e.g., you do not even know what a quantum particle is).

Link to post
Share on other sites

You were said that those traditions have been refuted as hundred of people have found independently. Ignoring this fact will not help you.

 

I told you already this is different from intelligent design don't compare this with them.

 

Your points are very clear. You dislike both modern physics and physicists and you argue dogmatically that philosophers are "true physicists" whereas physicists do not deserve such label.

 

You also confound your desires with reality when you write phrases as "the world as it really is", but then fail to show familiarity even with basic aspects of modern physics (e.g., you do not even know what a quantum particle is).

 

Its not personal insults that will decide as to who deserves the term true physicists. Its the evidence, the one's who give answers to those questions which I had outlined earlier in the thread are the one's who deserves to be called as true physicists until then physicists are just empiricists.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

 

But these philosophical doctrines are not proof.

 

Think of it this way. If I accept for a moment, that this "veiled reality" exists, and that quantum mechanics supports the notion of a "veiled reality". Its still leaves a question of which is more "real". The truth is that reality "inside the veil" is far more real, than anything "outside the veil". In fact, I will argue that "inside the veil" is the only thing that is "real"! There is the totality of empirical science, of scientific realism, to support this. As time goes on, scientific realism discovers more things inside the veil. At the same time, there is nothing tangible that represents anything outside the veil. You (only) have quantum mechanics suggesting that it is there. I don't care what Plato or Advaita say, you still only have quantum mechanics suggesting.

 

If you are going to get into discussions about how everything is a illusion, you might as well stop. This what you are saying, isn't it? There is no point to it, there is no outcome, nothing constructive will ever come from it. Its a circular argument. You don't have to have any knowledge of quantum mechanics or the mystics to propose that everything is an illusion. I came to this conclusion when having an argument with my brother, when I was 10 years old. It was a child's game to say "how do you know". And with every answer to the how, the question was repeated "how do you know that" .... and so on.

 

And before we go further into this, if you conclude that the circular nature of the argument, which is the issue that quantum mechanics presents, is proof that there is "something else" I will enlighten you to the fact that this is also a circular discussion of the same nature, value and weight as the original argument. As such, it does nothing to provide proof, is not constructive, and has no value.

 

 

Edited by akh
Link to post
Share on other sites

But these philosophical doctrines are not proof.

 

Think of it this way. If I accept for a moment, that this "veiled reality" exists, and that quantum mechanics supports the notion of a "veiled reality". Its still leaves a question of which is more "real". The truth is that reality "inside the veil" is far more real, than anything "outside the veil". In fact, I will argue that "inside the veil" is the only thing that is "real"! There is the totality of empirical science, of scientific realism, to support this. As time goes on, scientific realism discovers more things inside the veil. At the same time, there is nothing tangible that represents anything outside the veil. You (only) have quantum mechanics suggesting that it is there. I don't care what Plato or Advaita say, you still only have quantum mechanics suggesting.

 

The main compelling reasons for investigating those traditions are that they indeed give explanations as to how the real reality is Veiled and that's what this thread is about. It was answered in this post http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/67990-why-scientific-realism-might-be-false/page__view__findpost__p__693738

 

That traditional scholar based on his knowledge of the mandala which he had studied it for 20 years has shown in his works as to how the ultimate reality is Veiled and this work was done in 1950's way before Bernard d'espagnat came up with the idea that the empirical reality is only a state of mind. That scholar doesn't talk about quantum physics in his works and nor he talks about science, his worldview is solely based on the mandalas and based on that knowledge he explains what mind is, something which modern science doesn't have an answer to the question if what we call empirical reality is only a state of mind then what is mind?

 

If you are going to get into discussions about how everything is a illusion, you might as well stop. This what you are saying, isn't it? There is no point to it, there is no outcome, nothing constructive will ever come from it. Its a circular argument. You don't have to have any knowledge of quantum mechanics or the mystics to propose that everything is an illusion. I came to this conclusion when having an argument with my brother, when I was 10 years old. It was a child's game to say "how do you know". And with every answer to the how, the question was repeated "how do you know that" .... and so on.

 

 

What we need to stop discussing is about the unity but we can discuss about the pleroma of God and individual mandalas. The way it goes for philosophers who study these traditions is that they never really talk about the pleroma of God instead they logically try to understand unity and its pointless to do that. The pleroma of god can be known by different methods and constructive things will come out of it when philosophers practically investigate it and not just keep on thinking about it.

 

 

And before we go further into this, if you conclude that the circular nature of the argument, which is the issue that quantum mechanics presents, is proof that there is "something else" I will enlighten you to the fact that this is also a circular discussion of the same nature, value and weight as the original argument. As such, it does nothing to provide proof, is not constructive, and has no value.

 

I gave you specific claims which if proved will falsify those traditions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its amazing how... I can't comprehend this... you're... what kind of divine psychology needs to be imagined to describe the state of your... whatever its called? Your idiocy is undefinable.

 

A new field of psychology is indeed emerging.

Hell yes! We've got our first subject right here! :)

Edited by Ben Bowen
Link to post
Share on other sites

The main compelling reasons for investigating those traditions are that they indeed give explanations as to how the real reality

 

Those traditions give explanations for the unreal reality, but cannot explain the very important facts. For instance the "canonical beliefs" reveal us that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe "after drinking heavily" [1]. But what was he/she/it drinking? We need to study this!!

 

That traditional scholar based on his knowledge of the mandala which he had studied it for 20 years has shown in his works as to how the ultimate reality is Veiled and this work was done in 1950's way before Bernard d'espagnat came up with the idea that the empirical reality is only a state of mind.

 

Those traditional scholars are wrong [2]. Empirical reality was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster as modern scholars have shown.

 

What we need to stop discussing is about the unity but we can discuss about the pleroma of God and individual mandalas.

 

What we need to discuss is the inherent duality of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, which can be both Pink and Invisible [3]. This duality is very fundamental and reflects the ultimate real reality of the real beings.

 

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_spagetti_monster

[2] According to a previous suggestion your scholars are not real scholars.

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn

Link to post
Share on other sites

Those traditions give explanations for the unreal reality, but cannot explain the very important facts. For instance the "canonical beliefs" reveal us that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe "after drinking heavily" [1]. But what was he/she/it drinking? We need to study this!!

 

No, it gives explanations and answers to questions for which even modern science doesn't have an answer. If this is true physicists will never know the real reality and hence they don't deserve to be called as physicists anymore because the science of physics deals with real as it is and not with abstract models.

 

Those traditional scholars are wrong [2]. Empirical reality was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster as modern scholars have shown.

 

No, our traditional scholars arrived at the results way before top quantum physicists concluded about the nature of physical reality and they are way ahead of everyone.

 

What we need to discuss is the inherent duality of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, which can be both Pink and Invisible [3]. This duality is very fundamental and reflects the ultimate real reality of the real beings.

 

[1] http://en.wikipedia....pagetti_monster

[2] According to a previous suggestion your scholars are not real scholars.

[3] http://en.wikipedia....le_Pink_Unicorn

 

This kind of stupid arguments won't give you the label as true physicists.

 

Its amazing how... I can't comprehend this... you're... what kind of divine psychology needs to be imagined to describe the state of your... whatever its called? Your idiocy is undefinable.

 

If you were wise you would have figured it out.

 

Hell yes! We've got our first subject right here! :)

 

The pleroma of God is considered to be the normal state of humanity so everyone needs a diagnosis and some need a hell more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it gives explanations and answers to questions for which even modern science doesn't have an answer.

 

The canonical belief can give explanations and answers to questions for which even modern science doesn't have an answer. For instance it can explain how the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the Universe "after drinking heavily".

 

No, our traditional scholars arrived at the results way before top quantum physicists concluded about the nature of physical reality and they are way ahead of everyone.

 

Before? Do you know that the Schrödinger equation of quantum mechanics is time-symmetric? t --> -t.

 

Your "traditional scholars" arrived at results for the unreal classical reality of the quantum, but cannot explain the very important ultimate facts such as the triple duality of the singularity. Can you explain the triple duality of the singularity without the great spiritual power of the Invisible Pink Unicorn? No you cannot.

 

:doh:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The canonical belief can give explanations and answers to questions for which even modern science doesn't have an answer. For instance it can explain how the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the Universe "after drinking heavily".

 

 

 

Before? Do you know that the Schrödinger equation of quantum mechanics is time-symmetric? t --> -t.

 

Your "traditional scholars" arrived at results for the unreal classical reality of the quantum, but cannot explain the very important ultimate facts such as the triple duality of the singularity. Can you explain the triple duality of the singularity without the great spiritual power of the Invisible Pink Unicorn? No you cannot.

 

:doh:

 

According to the Copenhagen interpretation, the Schrodinger equation doesn't represent anything physical and hence that equation cannot be used to deduce anything about the nature of the physical system itself. I do know about the arrow of time and CPT Invariance.

 

Penrose says Consciousness has non-computable ingredients and Bernard says Consciousness cannot arise out of ordinary matter since matter cannot exist independent of Consciousness. This implies that physicists are missing a key puzzle of nature which involves non-computable physics and it cannot be explained in any way with in the empirical sciences.

 

http://www.edge.org/...re/v-Ch.14.html

 

 

Veiled.png

Bernard himself notices and suggests that the great eastern philosophical systems should be considered and just as he suggested it is indeed true that those traditions have answers to the existence of the plurality of conscious minds even though we all see the empirical reality as one by showing that each one of us have our own metaphysical mind and metaphysical sense organs. This is not a god of the gaps arguments, it is an argument which fills a gap in our knowledge. You don't even want to acknowledge this.

 

Without realizing this you're repeating the same arguments again and again which is quite boring and insulting to the suggestion of Bernard d'espagnat and others.

Edited by immortal
Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the Copenhagen interpretation, the Schrodinger equation doesn't represent anything physical and hence that equation cannot be used to deduce anything about the nature of the physical system itself.

 

The time-symmetry of the Schrödinger equation is independent of the interpretation that you chose. The equation is time-symmetric in all of them.

 

Penrose says Consciousness has non-computable ingredients and Bernard says Consciousness cannot arise out of ordinary matter since matter cannot exist independent of Consciousness.

 

But neither one nor the other can explain the very important ultimate facts such as the triple duality of the singularity. I will try again: Can you (or your "traditional scholars") explain the triple duality of the singularity without the great spiritual power of the Invisible Pink Unicorn?

Link to post
Share on other sites

But neither one nor the other can explain the very important ultimate facts such as the triple duality of the singularity. I will try again: Can you (or your "traditional scholars") explain the triple duality of the singularity without the great spiritual power of the Invisible Pink Unicorn?

 

This paper doesn't claim to solve a problem in quantum physics. Our ancients neither knew about quantum physicis nor did they knew about modern science and hence its unwise of you to demand them to solve a problem on singularities but they did have much to say about the human mind and about the non-computable physics which you physicists don't have access to.

 

This paper claims to explain the results of quantum experiments which violate Bell's Inequality and forces us to give up our beliefs on locality and counterfactual definiteness and explains why there is no element of physical reality corresponding to a physical quantity and since there is no consensus in the physics community on how to interpret these results this hypothesis from the religion side should be considered and its an alternative competing hypothesis which gives explanations for a physical phenomena.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is much evidence to state that "what we call empirical reality is only a state of mind".

 

<link removed, copyright violation>

Edited by Phi for All
removal of link
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is much evidence to state that "what we call empirical reality is only a state of mind".

 

<link removed, copyright violation>

 

You have not provided any evidence in your posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

... but they did have much to say about the human mind and about the non-computable physics which you physicists don't have access to.

 

 

I think this is the issue I have, and it is a stance that has been repeated over and over.

 

I will go back to your initial statements.

 

Both scientific objects and God cannot exist in the external physical world. Either scientific objects exist and disproves God or God exists and disproves our notion that scientific objects exist independent of the mind.

 

Eastern religions says that Scientific realism is false and when one sees the common esoteric essence in all the religions of the world one can say from a highly religious perspective and not by mere speculation that if God has to exist then Scientific Realism must be false. Its a necessary requirement. Prove Scientific Realism then we can abandon this form of religious thinking and move forward.

 

Its a sophisticated argument. I will not attack your intelligence, but I will attack your disposition and conclusion. I don't think that anybody will deny that quantum mechanics poses some real challenges. I am not going to pretend that I am anywhere near as well versed as Bernard d'Espagnat or especially Roger Penrose, but I think I have a good mind for things. And the fact that I don't have the physicists approach; by your own words weighs in my favor. For you to make a demand, "Prove Scientific Realism then we can abandon this form of religious thinking and move forward" you are setting up a loaded argument. The argument should be; Prove that God exists then we can abandon scientific realism. But there is no proof of God, no matter how you view God. Scientific realism has not failed us, it has done remarkable things, and has brought us great understanding. There is not one physicist out there who does not want to fill the gap that quantum mechanics presents. But you can't fill the gap with a non provable approach, you can't fill the void with God.

 

I am not undermining the power of the mind or consciousness. There may indeed be a quantum aspect to the mind, I am willing to accept that. But as of yet, there has been nothing to prove that either. Its just speculation at best, and even if found true, it does nothing to advance you disposition.

Edited by akh
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is indeed much scientific evidence to state that "What we call empirical reality is only a state of mind".

 

The New Scientist- Reality Check - Michael Brooks (Cover story) - The End of Reality

 

"To track down a theory of everything, we might have to accept that the universe only exists when we're looking at it" says Michael Brooks.

 

"Rather than passively observing it, we in fact create reality".

 

"The researchers take this to mean we have to abandon the idea of an objective reality. “Maybe Bohr and Heisenberg were right after all,” Aspelmeyer says."

“Physics doesn’t tell us how nature is, it only tells us what we can say about nature.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is not one physicist out there who does not want to fill the gap that quantum mechanics presents. But you can't fill the gap with a non provable approach, you can't fill the void with God.

 

That's where the main argument lies, physicists inevitably have to explain "If what we call empirical reality is only a state of mind then what is mind?" as asked by someone in Guardian and I think it was a very good question and my argument is that religion does provide an answer to it

 

I am not undermining the power of the mind or consciousness. There may indeed be a quantum aspect to the mind, I am willing to accept that. But as of yet, there has been nothing to prove that either. Its just speculation at best, and even if found true, it does nothing to advance you disposition.

 

When I refer to Penrose I am only referring to his mathematical arguments and I don't accept his theory on quantum consciousness because that is considered to be peusdoscientific by the scientific community and according to Bernard even neurons fall under empiricism. We knew from Bohr-Einstein debates that there were epistemological, ontological, philosophical and theological problems in the correct formalism of quantum mechanics and very few physicists actually talk about the philosophical implications of all this.

 

As I said my main concern was the repeated misrepresentation of these traditions by different scholars and scientists turned philosophers both in the west as well in the east and which led to terrible confusion and too much misinformation everywhere. Those traditions should be understood in its own milieu and modern physics doesn't have anything to do with them. If its anything it might give possible explanations in its own milieu and its implications are quite disturbing too when you understand them in their own milieu. You won't find this information anywhere where the pleroma of God of the Gnostics is identified with the mandala of the eastern traditions which most scholars never take it seriously for their investigation of those traditions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's where the main argument lies, physicists inevitably have to explain "If what we call empirical reality is only a state of mind then what is mind?" as asked by someone in Guardian and I think it was a very good question and my argument is that religion does provide an answer to it

 

 

 

I will go back to my main position, in simple terms. That religion, is wholly subjective and is just as, and logically more so, prostrate to misrepresentation of reality as "scientific realism". Can you not at least recognize the fallacy of your own argument? The scientific method has served us very well and has told us a lot about the world.

Edited by akh
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is indeed much scientific evidence to state that "What we call empirical reality is only a state of mind".

 

The New Scientist- Reality Check - Michael Brooks (Cover story) - The End of Reality

 

"To track down a theory of everything, we might have to accept that the universe only exists when we're looking at it" says Michael Brooks.

 

"Rather than passively observing it, we in fact create reality".

 

"The researchers take this to mean we have to abandon the idea of an objective reality. "Maybe Bohr and Heisenberg were right after all," Aspelmeyer says."

"Physics doesn't tell us how nature is, it only tells us what we can say about nature."

 

This is a repetition of the same flawed argument that you presented to us earlier. The correction is the same now. Universe existed before the first human was born here at Earth. This is a scientific fact.

 

P.S.: What says an author whose main award is a prize given by an critiziced pseudo-religious foundation or what says a polemic author in a sensationalist magazine with a record of many mistaken covers does not qualify as evidence. Specially when corrections to 'arguments' are found in basic textbooks.

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.