Topic: "Facts" are relative.

Post #1Randy Dryburgh wroteon January 3, 2010 at 11:38am
I've recently found myself questioning the rules I've held in postulate for so long.

For instance, Hawking and others claim that the universe begin in a big bang, from a singularity of infinite density. When it couldn't hold together any longer, an explosion of infinite magnitude sent an infinite amount of matter and energy into the void we now call space.

Okay. I can accept that the universe may be expanding, but from OUR perspective.

I can also accept that we are able to measure the (apparently) growing distance between star clusters, and even between other stars or celestial bodies and ourselves simply by measuring the radiation we receive (and presume is) from them, from OUR perspective.

However, there's no way to know that there was a singularity. In fact, the presumption of one invalidates any resulting findings, no matter how immense they may be.

We would never accept scientific absolutes from any of the other sciences when there is only one data point, why do we do so from Hawking et al?

IMHO, it's just as plausible that the universe was never a singularity, but is rather more like a Moebius strip, where matter travels along a river of unknown width, and over time comes back together at a pinch point and collides, then separates again.

Not only *could* this cause a recurring "big bang", but it could explain increasing distances between celestial bodies, *and* it would give the appearance of never ending expansion, as we have no markers, no point of reference that we could use to say "Hey, we've been here before."

Oddly enough, in "Masters of the Universe", which was on last night, the depiction of the "known universe", utilizing radioactive back-scatter maps and the less-distant heat maps generated by various solar and extrasolar satellite projects, shows the universe as a sphere.

The odds that the universe is spherical, or that we are anywhere near the origin point are so, pardon the pun, astronomical, that I can't help but laugh when I see such nonsense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jymDn0W6U

Anyone who has seen a spherical object explode knows that the matter is not distributed evenly, as different size "chunks" move at different speeds, depending on the amount of energy transferred to them, the density of the matter between them and the source of the outward force, and the amount of resistance it experiences as it travels.

Assuming that the advisers behind the video "presumed" people would know that it was a time-dilated depiction from our relaltive perspective, and that the "sphere" represented the boundary of our ability to collect information, it provides a poor representation of the way things really are.

Being spoon fed the *fact* that "we know the universe is 13.7 billion years old" in conjunction with that sort of imagery, and without clarifying how "we know" the old maid's age, and by not providing the obvious caveat that this depiction is "subject to what we don't know, and what we don't know we don't know", this type of popular presentation of science is an affront to anyone with even the most rudimentary understanding of the universe.

When I read them or hear these people speak, I feel as though I am standing in front of a 13th century royal cartographer, clad in period dress, what we would now call "clown garb", as he tells me with absolute certainty and abject disdain that the world is indeed flat, and had I the mind of an Ocelot or better, I'd know this.

I have ultimate respect for many members of the RP/QP community, but what happens to the fundamentals of science and the ability of these apostles to convince us they are still correct when one of these absolute certainties becomes a variable certainty?

Cheers
RReport
Post #2Scott Miller wroteon January 3, 2010 at 1:04pm
You're made lots of false assumptions, Randy.

For example, the big bang was NOT an explosion (there was no outward force, as you put it), and any comparison to an explosion will only lead you to false predictions and premises. (The mis-named Big Bang was actually an *expansion*, not an explosion.) Also, I suspect there are numerous aspects of the Big Bang that you need to read more about, like the "inflationary stage". BTW, the distribution of matter within the known universe is anything but even -- it is quite lumpy, which is why we have super-clusters, normal clusters, and even galaxies.

Another rookie assumption you've made is that we are perhaps near the origin point. In fact, there is no single origin point for the Big Bang -- or, more accurately, every single point in the universe IS the origin point. Difficult concept to grasp, I know. But then, so is quantum physics, relatively, dark energy, string theory, and so much more. Our universe is nothing if not cleverly illusionary.

I could point out a few other errors, but I'll leave some for others to pick at.

That video was quite excellent, IMO. It revealed exactly what we currently know of our known universe, in terms of scale and general large scale contents.Report
Post #3Sammuel L Perkins (MIT) wroteon January 3, 2010 at 1:15pm
"For instance, Hawking and others claim that the universe begin in a big bang, from a singularity of infinite density. When it couldn't hold together any longer, an explosion of infinite magnitude sent an infinite amount of matter and energy into the void we now call space."

Umm...No?
If Hawking said that, remind me to bitch slap him next time I'm in Cambridge.

"Okay. I can accept that the universe may be expanding, but from OUR perspective. "

I think that you just realized what many of us scientists realize as kids, that everything is relative. It's a cool realization, but you really didn't need to post about it.

"We would never accept scientific absolutes from any of the other sciences when there is only one data point, why do we do so from Hawking et al?"

Umm...We don't.
First of all, there is no such thing as a scientific absolute.
Second of all, we have many other bodies of evidence to support the BBT:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

"IMHO, it's just as plausible that the universe was never a singularity, but is rather more like a Moebius strip, where matter travels along a river of unknown width, and over time comes back together at a pinch point and collides, then separates again."
Umm... Bad analogy for something that doesn't really make any sense.
Cyclic universes transfer entropy, and are generally not accepted in the scientific community, although a lot of non-scientists think they've come up with this totally original idea, when actually it's been thought of and debunked numerous times.

"Oddly enough, in "Masters of the Universe", which was on last night, the depiction of the "known universe", utilizing radioactive back-scatter maps and the less-distant heat maps generated by various solar and extrasolar satellite projects, shows the universe as a sphere."

Again, this is faulty.
We don't know the shape of the universe.
We don't even know if it has a shape, so saying that we know it to be a sphere is completely wrong.
What you're thinking of is the observable universe, which will obviously appear as a sphere in any mock-up.

"Being spoon fed the *fact* that "we know the universe is 13.7 billion years old" in conjunction with that sort of imagery, and without clarifying how "we know" the old maid's age, and by not providing the obvious caveat that this depiction is "subject to what we don't know, and what we don't know we don't know", this type of popular presentation of science is an affront to anyone with even the most rudimentary understanding of the universe."

So you're saying that you are too smart for the show?
In my opinion you have shown your knowledge to be less than rudimentary, but if you believe it to be light years ahead of the show's intended audience, then don't watch the show. Most people don't know anything about the big bang, so a basic explanation is preferable to a more complex one.

"When I read them or hear these people speak, I feel as though I am standing in front of a 13th century royal cartographer, clad in period dress, what we would now call "clown garb", as he tells me with absolute certainty and abject disdain that the world is indeed flat, and had I the mind of an Ocelot or better, I'd know this."

Again, this shows that you have no understanding of the scientific method. There is no absolute certainty, and if you believe science claims that, you should go back to the basics before learning about Big Bang Cosmology.

I'd suggest reading up on what science actually is before responding.Report
Post #4Jake Murray wroteon January 3, 2010 at 1:34pm
>I think that you just realized what many of us scientists realize as kids, that everything is relative. It's a cool realization, but you really didn't need to post about it.<

This is good to hear, Samm. Not all scientists I have dealt with would agree with you. Someone like Mr Dawkins, for instance, doesn't believe there is anything relative about anything.

Question re Inflation - I have read about this discussed in slightly dismissive, although necessary terms. By this I mean that although Inflation almost certainly happened, we don't understand the physics of it yet (or at all). I have heard it described by some reputable scientists (no, I can't tell you who they were because I am stuck in the country without any of my books) as 'bolted on' to Big Bang Theory so as to account for something which can't be accounted for yet. NB I am not saying Inflation is a load of crap, only that I am interested in what the state of play is with it, what we know about it etc.

Further, as far as I know, there are several theories about the Big Bang (a name coined by someone who hated the idea, Fred Hoyle. He came up with the phrase to mock Gamow's theory and it stuck) and its cause. One theory is it emerged from a black hole in another universe, another that there was a collision of branes or other universes (again, I'm in the country so don't have my references), another that it was caused by the contraction of a previous universe (I think this is the Big Crunch Theory), another that it was one of a series of cyclic universes which come into being, die and then a new one emerges (the Big Bounce Theory I think). A singularity doesn't have to be the starting point, as far as I understand. Can you elaborate?
Report
Post #5Sammuel L Perkins (MIT) wroteon January 3, 2010 at 1:59pm
Dawkins is an agnostic though, and believes that you can't make distinctions 99.9% sure and 100%.

Keep in mind that this is his RELIGIOUS opinion, and not his scientific opinion, by the way.

I've talked to Guth one-on-one, and he admits that if he won the Nobel prize for it, he would feel as if the Nobel commission failed to do their jobs in terms of necessary evidence backing up the theory being provided. I am not a Cosmologist, I must admit, and I am mainly familiar with the mathematical aspects of Inflation; my scientific interpretations are hazy, and causes me to find analogues in QFT to understand his work.

You should check this out, as it's written by smarter people than me.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=261161Report
Post #6Bealachboymamores Mamores wroteon January 3, 2010 at 2:01pm
Some interesting post on this . From what I know , space - time is expanding everywhere and always has been. That is , there was no singularity but space - time was created everywhere simultaneously .To my mind the concept of a singularity at the beginning of time transcends physics . Please commentReport
Post #7Sammuel L Perkins (MIT) wroteon January 3, 2010 at 2:06pm
Don't talk about singularities, and your comment is correct.Report
Post #8Jake Murray wroteon January 3, 2010 at 2:54pm
>Dawkins is an agnostic though, and believes that you can't make distinctions 99.9% sure and 100%.<

Dawkins, in a rare moment of humility, admits that it is impossible to prove or disprove God and, on an Atheism Scale of 1 to 7, describes himself as a 6. This is as far as his Agnosticism goes. Everywhere else he is very clear that he is an Atheist, sponsors buses encouraging people to be so, calling himself an Atheist, deriding anyone who isn't an Atheist as 'logically speaking, a fool' and attacks Agnostics for 'fence sitting'.

On this one, I probably know more than you, Samm, His benign quasi-Agnostic stance doesn't tend to take a front seat in front of his aggressive Atheism. He isn't known as 'Dawkins the fair-minded Agnostic' but 'Dawkins the Atheist, Hero to Many'.

Actually, my intention here was to bring up Dawkins' view on science being the only arbiter of Truth (quote: 'Other than scientific truth, what other truth is there?'), by which he means that classical sciences - biology, classical physics, chemistry, evolutionary theory - are the truth. In THE GOD DELUSION he describes Quantum Science as 'must be true in some sense' because its predictive qualities are second to none, but then goes on to deride all the different interpretations as 'shatteringly paradoxical' (fair enough), 'counter-intuitive' and 'violating common sense'. He refers to Bohr, Everett et al as 'resorting' to various desperate explanations to paper over the cracks and whenever anyone brings up the puzzles of QM, he shoots them down with what he sees as the silver bullet of Feynman: 'If you think you have understood Quantum Mechanicss, you haven't understood Quantum Mechanics.'

Truth be told, he doesn't understand your discipline and he doesn't really rate it. In fact I would go so far as to say he was deeply suspicious of it. As for Relativity & Cosmoloy, if you look at his recent anthology of science writings, he can't help shoving the knife into Einstein either, suggesting that he might have spent more time looking for experimental proof of his theories than just equations.

In fact the thing that annoys me the most about Dawkins is his replacement of what is really going on in scientific circles with what HE thinks science says. The best thing about science are the raging debates, but he presents it as a monothemed, unified centre of orthodoxy with his particular discipline at the centre, and his own interpretation of his particular discipline at that. Religion aside, he essentially rejects anything which challenges his take on Darwinism, including Gould, Margulis and anyone who disagrees.

Again, I refer you to his anthology book. In it he remoulds the history of science and the contributions people have made around him. So Gould is respected for his writing skills but dismissed for his idea of NOMA and his differing view of Evolution. The most important thing he has to say about Fred Hoyle is the pity that such a good scientist should spend the end of his life in a misguided attack on Darwin and Darwinism etc etc.

Sorry, but Dawkins is NOT impartial and rejects or ignores all the questions and viewpoints within the scientific world which are not his own. In terms of religion, he even misrepresents the views of other scientists on this subject from Mendel and Einstein to people like Rees, Dyson et al.

So no, I don't agree with your take on Dawkins and his views on religion OR science. Calling him an Agnostic is like calling Hitler a Multiculturalist because he made an alliance with the Italians and Japanese.

Having said all that, thank you for your help with my other questions.Report
Post #9Sammuel L Perkins (MIT) wroteon January 3, 2010 at 3:44pm
Well, I'm not a complete idiot when it comes to Dawkins- I knew a lot of the stuff in your post.

I do realize fully that he refers to himself as an Atheist almost always. My point was that he was, in the most general sense, an agnostic, whether he admits it or not. The Hitler thing is a great comparison, and I totally agree. The thing is that I didn't fully express my opinions on Dawkins. I know there is a huge difference between him and, say, Sagen (Agnostic).

I think that you're focusing in on what he says, and not his official stance on things. Sometimes when I write I call people idiots, and call them various other mean things, but I still preach that we should all be nice to each other. That is my official stance, although I do deviate from it at times.

Atheists are pretty much the worst group to reason with scientifically, no offense. In general, they are dogmatic, yes. I agree with a lot of what you have said, and believe that I must have represented myself improperly.

Dyson had religious opinions?
Never thought he was a big physicist, actually, he is one of the most obscure ones I can think of.Report
Post #10Jake Murray wroteon January 3, 2010 at 4:18pm
Yes, Dyson is big on the religious thing. In fact he is very critical of Dawkins for doing science a disservice by making it look as if one has to be an atheist if one is interested in it. He argues that by insisting upon a battle line between belief in God and science, he is putting a lot of people off science who would otherwise be interested in it. Here he is in his own words:

"I think it's only a small fraction of people who think that science and religion are at odds. Perhaps they have louder voices than the others. I think Richard Dawkins is doing a lot of damage. I disagree very strongly with the way he's going about it. I don't deny his right to be an atheist, but I think he does a great deal of harm when he publicly says that in order to be a scientist, you have to be an atheist. That simply turns young people away from science. He's convinced a lot of young people not to be scientists because they don't want to be atheists. I'm strongly against him on that question. It's simply not true what he's saying, and it's not only not true but also harmful. The fact is that many of my friends are much more religious than I am and are first-rate scientists. There's absolutely nothing that stops you from being both."

Of course I know you knew more about Dawks. Forgive me if I seemed aggressive. I know a lot about Dawks simply because the guy annoys the hell out of me, although I have to admit that I owe him a fair amount, as all my efforts to understand as much as I can about science (albeit from a layman's POV) has stemmed from a desire to argue with him and his acolytes on their own terms. I am not religious in any conventional way, but I don't like ignorance and intellectual snobbery, which I tend to find marks out Dawkinsians. But you don't beat them by quoting great mystics or philosophers (although the latter tends to make them retreat as they can't deny that philosophers are brainy and are linked with Reason), you beat them by exposing their lack of knowledge about science.

So weirdly, although I can't bear Dawkins, seeking to burst his balloon has made me realise how fascinating science is, which is why I keep showing up here and - admittedly cack-handedly sometimes - trying to enlarge my knowledge.

I am very struck by what you say about atheists being 'pretty much the worst group to reason with scientifically'. That really interests me. Would you expand on this a little? In my experience - and intense frustration - Evolutionary Theory is always forced into the centre point as the main pillar of science with everything else having to fit in around it, which seems to me to be a supreme piece of sleight of hand. More than that, it seems to me that the really exciting stuff is happening in all the fields being discussed here - cosmology, relativity, quantum theory - all of which tend to expand the mind rather than close it down, which so much Evolutionary Theory seems to want to do (don't even get me onto Evolutionary Psychology). I am struck by how many scientists in these fields often talk about the awe and wonder they feel about the astonishing mysteries of the universe they are unravelling while so many Evolutionary Theorists seem intensely cynical and superior to most of the human race. Similarly, while people like Dawkins seem to think that science is pretty close to solving everything and trumping everything else in terms of getting to 'the Truth', cosmologists and quantum theorists tend to speak openly about how the problems of the universe are probably too big for us to understand. As I say, you wouldn't get someone like Dawkins saying anything like what you say Guth told you, or even your own statement about everything being relative. I could quote you a recent article in the Times where he expresses intense irritation with anyone - philosophers of science included - who questions science's ability to get to the truth about things in this way.

Good talking, Samm. Kudos.
Report
Post #11Jake Murray wroteon January 3, 2010 at 4:20pm
Actually, if you want a light-hearted giggle, check out this photo array:

http://www.facebook.com/photo_search.php?oid=94292891808&view=all

Its on an anti-Dawkins site, but in fact the aim of the site is to put all sorts of different perspectives on. Dawkins & Dennett appear sympathetically alongside all sorts of other people arguing from different perspectives. Its quite fun to see what different bigwig scientists say about these issues. Poor Dawks himself might be surprised.Report
Post #12Scott Miller wroteon January 3, 2010 at 4:25pm
Crap. Once religion enters the discussion, might as well pull the ripcord and find another thread to join.Report
Post #13Jake Murray wroteon January 3, 2010 at 4:29pm
Actually Sagan is an interesting comparison. Although I would say he was primarily a sceptic about these things, he was way ahead of Dawkins in the fact that he informed himself about what the different religions said about things (his awareness of the interesting parallels between Hindu scripture and modern science was very intriguing for instance) and was aware that they were an important part of human culture historically and so worthy of that respect, even if they had been superceded. This is a very different perspective to Dawkins who just thinks they were all crap and had no positive contribution to make to anything.

Sagan was also a keen believer in the possibility of other forms of intelligent life in the universe, which is quite interesting considering the Dawkinsian list of irrational beliefs include, alongside God, fairies, unicorns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, belief in UFOs. And Sagan is also in record as believing that ESP and reincarnation were worthy of serious scientific study because of evidence pointing to their existence, even though in almost every other field of the so- called 'paranormal' he was a sceptic. Report
Post #14Jake Murray wroteon January 3, 2010 at 4:30pm
>Crap. Once religion enters the discussion, might as well pull the ripcord and find another thread to join.<

Oops! There we go! Censorship again! Can't people have a discussion in peace?

For your information, Scott, I have no religion, so what's the problem? No-one is pushing religion here, we are just having a discussion about some of things which have come up.Report
Post #15Randy Dryburgh wroteon January 4, 2010 at 7:03am
>>>>>>
"Umm... Bad analogy for something that doesn't really make any sense. Cyclic universes transfer entropy, and are generally not accepted in the scientific community, although a lot of non-scientists think they've come up with this totally original idea, when actually it's been thought of and debunked numerous times."
>>>>>>>

Umm.. WHAT??? Have you been to a cyclical universe with an entropy measurement device? No, you haven't. Just as you may show me math to support your argument, I can show you math to support mine.

You're arguing about facts not in evidence, and that's the whole point behind my post.

The scientific community is becoming less fact based, where the argument here should be "we just have no clue", and more faith based, "We have it reliable sources..."

The problem is that defining the unprovable sells books, and saying "we just don't know" doesn't earn tenure.

Just because Hawking, Green, Feynman, or anybody else from Cambridge says *anything* doesn't make it so. Einstein's ideas weren't accepted by the "scientific community" until years later. To argue against something because the "community" doesn't agree with it is among the least scientific things you could do.

Seriously, anyone with any real experience knows that until you prove or disprove something, you really only have a possibility or probability that it is or isn't true. Math doesn't prove things, it merely confirms the possibility or defines the range of probability.

And Scott, where do you get your information about an "outward expansion"? There's no facts to support this, or any "origin from a singularity", except where science has stated it "must be".

But, okay.. let's run with that. If there was an outward "push" without a catalyst, this disproves the law of inertia. The only argument I've heard that I could believe (and that I could see supported, but still never proven) is that the expansion from a singularity started with the collapse INTO a singularity from a universe (or something) on the other side; along the lines of a supernova type event where the collapse of the entity causes a "bounce" outward of stellar mass.

My position stands, and is just as viable, that any suggestion at this point is possible, and just as probable as the suggestions we have in place, and arguing definitively for a one-shot-solves-all solution is anti-scientific, not just bad science.

Cheers,
R
Report
Post #16Scott Miller wroteon January 4, 2010 at 8:20am
Randy, if you're arguing that the Big Bang Theory may be wrong, that's fine. But right now, ALL the evidence fits this theory.

There are plenty of other suggestions in play, involving quantum gravity, a holographic universe, m-branes, and several others. But, for anything to catch hold, it needs to explain all the current evidence we have.

You really are arguing from a tenth-grader viewpoint, but until you learn more about this subject, it's impossible for you to realize this. Have you ever read any of Feynman's lectures? Or any science book with a little more depth that Greene's or Hawking's?

The Big Bang is pretty darn solid, one of the best proven theories ever created because it models the current universe so well, in the same way that the Standard Model (quantum physics) so perfectly models and predicts atomic-level particles. Both of these theories are still incomplete, but this doesn't invalidate them in any way.

>>> But, okay.. let's run with that. If there was an outward "push" without a catalyst, this disproves the law of inertia.<<<

It's statements like this that reveal just how little you know about this subject. I may have been too generous giving you tenth-grader credit.Report
Post #17Scott Miller wroteon January 4, 2010 at 9:03am
Pretty darn good overview of the Big Bang:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_BangReport
Post #18Randy Dryburgh wroteon January 4, 2010 at 9:14am
I'm not arguing that Big Bang is wrong. Rather, I'm stating that just because the evidence fits that model, doesn't mean it's the right model, or that there aren't two billion other models it also fits, that we just haven't identified.

However, not surprisingly, you fell right into the trap I was hoping you would.

You see, instead of explaining your position, you immediately denigrate and attempt to dilute the discussion with name calling.

I know a few other guys that do this too. Jim. George.... less so George...

I understand P-branes and how they relate to M-theory just fine, thanks.

What I don't understand is why guys like you feel a need to call people names to make yourselves look smarter than you might be.

I do, however, remember that you have a tendency to exaggerate... I recall you telling me how badly I was going to get whipped at Texas Hold 'Em once... Seems I also remember taking all of your money that night. You talk a good game, but your cards don't beat mine ;-) That's a whole 'nuther story though.. but the evidence does relate..

As a software developer, you should know that just because you have evidence, and just because it fits, doesn't make it right, and it doesn't prove that the evidence you have actually proves anything more than the fact that you have evidence.

An example:
Last century, we understood the molecule.
Last century, we truly understood the atom.
Last century, we discovered the quark, though we still don't fully grok it.
Last century, we discovered the muon (formerly mesotron), weak and strong forces, and how they work, , though we still don't fully grok them.
Last decade, we discovered that muons live just 2.2 microseconds, unless they are travelling at the speed of light, then they live 700 microseconds.. We have NO clue why this happens. We have a theory, but since we don't understand what "time" is, we can postulate WHY it happens all day long, but not even Hawkins has an idea of how time really works, and at least he's smart enough to say so.

For all time before the discovery of the atom, NOTHING could be that small, and you were ostracized by the scientific community if you suggested otherwise. They have a nasty habit of doing that.

In fact, up until about 10 years ago, string theory was considered pop science, until one day Michael Green told Hawkins, "Hey... string theory can solve this gravitational deficiency you're finding..", and so it was blessed.

Great. A theory supports a theory, and that becomes scientific fact. More textbooks sold!! Cha-Ching!

How is it that, without a clear and fundamental understanding of how things really, REALLY work locally, here on earth, at the subatomic level, YOU are so completely, absolutely certain that we can tell how things worked "13.7 billion years ago", or even today, billions of light years away?

Science has a habit of making bold claims only to undo itself later on with nary a footnote, never mind a post-mortem to find out why the supposition was "generally accepted".

In his book, "The universe in a nutshell", and several times on TV, Hawkins has stated that the universe is 5 billion years old, then 15 billion, now 13 billion, each time as a matter of fact without supporting evidence or data about the correction.

If your mechanic made massive, sweeping changes like that, you'd find a new mechanic pretty quickly. Well, you might not... but I sure would.

Cheers,
RReport
Post #19Scott Miller wroteon January 4, 2010 at 9:49am
Randy, I think there's still a great deal to be discovered, that will rewrite much of what we currently believe to be true. In fact, I predict that time is not a fundamental feature of nature -- merely a human concept but without a physical reality. (What we call time, is actually change, but as far as the universe is concerned, time doesn't exist--only change.)

But,your initial post and follow-up post contained odd statements, like calling the Big Bang an explosion. You painted yourself as someone not very well versed on this topic.

Reciting mistakes throughout history does not strengthen your case. This is merely the process of science, always honing in on the truth given the state of current tools and data. As I said, there's much left to discover about the Big bang, and all reasonable scientists leave open the door for the possibility that the Big Bang will be completely overthrown. But, for now, its the best we've got, and shows no cracks.Report
Post #20Jake Murray wroteon January 4, 2010 at 9:54am
I was going to say, doesn't Stephen Hawking changing his position on the age of the universe stem from new evidence emerging? I don't think he just plucks ideas out of the air.

That's where scientists are lucky. Unlike every other discipline in the world, they are allowed to change their minds, so they can be wrong, admit it and no-one minds. In every other walk of life this is regarded as a weakness or a sign of incompetence, but within science, it is regarded as a strength. Lucky guys!Report
Post #21Jake Murray wroteon January 4, 2010 at 9:54am
Oh and before anyone misconstrues that last post as a criticism of scientists, it wasn't. I was expressing envy.Report
Post #22Randy Dryburgh wroteon January 4, 2010 at 1:09pm
Scott,

Okay, I like where you're going with the time discussion... but wait..

Are you serious? "Reciting mistakes throughout history does not strengthen your case"? Seriously?

My point was exactly that. That we don't really know any of this, that we the "facts" that are constantly be presented, then changed, and presented again, are just different levels of ignorance portrayed as, how did you say it, "honing in on the truth."

But as for "reciting mistakes throughout history"... I presume then, that the next time you endeavor into a game development contract, you'll forget everything you learned during the Duke Nukem decade? I suspect you'll internally "recite mistakes throughout history", planning around them this time, before you sign the contract.

We learn not just by looking ahead, but rather by applying what we already know *from the past* to the reality we perceive as the present, questioning what doesn't make sense, and allowing our minds to extrapolate those unknowns into a future possibility... NOT the other way around.

If you're suggesting that science doesn't or shouldn't consider past errors or misjudgments when creating or investigating new theories, then we are indeed back in the middle ages.

'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.' - Scribners, 1905.

As a developer, I understand that Hawking hasn't been to the origin point of the universe, but for in his mind. I can see how he can move around it, applying the rules we know about, but he's still not going to be able to provide anything more than an incomprehensibly shallow and error-riddled analysis, because he doesn't know what he doesn't know, and he's limited to the tiny bits of information we can glean from our reality.

We assume everything we see or experience is all that happens. What should be being said is, "we're guessing, but here's what we think", not "The universe IS 13.7 billion years old", and yes Hawking "said" that via his speech synthesizer on "Masters of the Universe".

Sure, he can make things up that nobody could prove didn't exist, or that some colleague or TA would spend decades proving or disproving to make a name and tenure for themselves, but in reality, what's the point?

Will knowing that the universe is 13.6527628 billion years old make your car safer? Your kids smarter? Your spouse happier?

No. It won't.

Will it then matter if 100 years from now, someone "proves" that a rock they found in their back yard is 15.2 billion years old through some arcane form of then-present testing?

No. It won't. Someone will simply say that Hawking forgot to take "the then current item we know about and he didn't" into account, but he was basically correct.

Not that it matters, right?Report
Post #23Scott Miller wroteon January 4, 2010 at 2:15pm
A very similar discussion:
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=12269&post=52579&uid=2208782959#/topic.php?uid=2208782959&topic=11988

My major point, Randy, is that if you're going to make statements that are meant to get people thinking, you become too easily dismissed when you make grade school level mistakes, like the Big Bang is an explosion. You made several such mistakes in your original, and first follow-up post.

My comment about history is that at any time, we go by the best evidence we have, and model the best theory we can to fit the data. Currently, that's the Big Bang.

I strongly suspect the Big Bang is essentially correct, but there's so much more to learn within the scope of this massive theory. I think we'll have all the answers this century, likely within 50 years.

The issue, IMO, is that we exist within a facet of a much greater reality, and like images within a picture, we cannot see or properly imagine the reality outside of that picture. The picture-verse is all we know.Report
Post #24John Johnson wroteon January 4, 2010 at 7:52pm
Randy, one thing to avoid is discussing the Big Bang as an explosion "in" space. There is no "origin point", all of space-time was compact and underwent rapid inflation and that set the stage for much of why the universe is the way it is today. Everyplace in the universe WAS at the origin, at the Planck Time. There is some good evidence that backs up the Big Bang theory, which is covered pretty well in Intro astronomy books (I just mention that because I teach the subject.)

Theories are the best we can do at the time, as Scott points out. Often times, a very good approximation of nature, which explains our observations and makes testable predictions. In any scientific endeavor, there are error bars, and we shouldn't feel negative about science because we don't know it all. Knowing that we can improve our understanding of nature, and seeing how much we HAVE improved it in recent years, motivates and excites the scientist.

Anyhow, without absolute knowledge, we will never know something 100%. The general public seems to think that theories are just guesses and not very meaningful. They are wrong. The scientific method is beautiful, because it allows us to develop theories, and compare them to evidence, and they can quickly be disproven if contrary evidence arises. Over time, our knowledge of how things work improves. Right now, we have a pretty good idea how the universe developed over the past 13.7 billion years. These theories or models will stand, until someone proposes a theory that better fits the facts, but even so, all signs point to the Big Bang theory being correct.

Confirmation of the Big Bang model, or finding a consistent well-defined age of the universe DOES help us, because it means that our understanding of how nature behaves is improving. We cannot know what advances will come from our knowing better how nature works, even though this fact may seem esoteric to most at present.

I'm not trying to be negative at all here. Just add some of my perspective. It is great to see that people are trying to make sense of all these concepts, which under the hood are pretty complex. We shouldn't feel bad that science can't prove things perfectly or that we don't understand everything. Like QM, which we know very well but still don't rationally understand. QM makes excellent predictions. It works all the time. We will probably understand the "why" better in the future, but we shouldn't get hung up on not being there yet.Report
Post #25Randy Dryburgh wroteon January 5, 2010 at 10:44am
Scott,

We are in basic agreement.

John,

Thanks for chiming in!

You make my point better than Scott did. We should stop using factual statements like "All of space-time was compact and underwent..."

"Confirmation of the big bang model..." It can't be confirmed. Only evidence supporting the model can be confirmed, unless you can somehow travel back in time and record the occurrence.

Why is this such a hard thing for you guys to understand? It's a theory, it's not fact.
Report
Post #26Jake Murray wroteon January 5, 2010 at 10:59am
@Randy

>Why is this such a hard thing for you guys to understand? It's a theory, it's not fact.<

It may soon not be. If I am right, a telescope even stronger than the Hubble is soon to be deployed which should enable us to see almost as far the Bang itself.

I also don't think anyone presents the Big Bang as fact yet. Its still very much spoken of as unproven, although all the evidence we have points towards it having happened.

@ John

> Everyplace in the universe WAS at the origin, at the Planck Time.<

Excuse me for being stupid here, John, but is there an argument to be made that the Big Bang never really 'happened' in the sense that we mean. By this I mean that, in a sense, viewed from the impersonal perspective of the Universe, nothing has changed - there is still the same amount of energy as there was at the start. All that has happened is that it appears to have become more differentiated - ie energy has formed into different kinds of matter.

If every point in the Universe was the Big Bang, the 'point of origin' as it were, does this not mean that, conceptually at least, in one sense it never happened as we talk about it?

I know this sounds ridiculous, but think about it for a second from a shift in perspective.

Report
Post #27Scott Miller wroteon January 5, 2010 at 11:39am
Jake, I originally made the comment in my first post that "every single point in the universe IS the origin point [of the Big Bang]". What is meant by this is that all points in the universe where essentially at the same point when the Big Bang (hate that phrase) happened. So, there is no magical single origin point within the universe where the Big Bang took place. If we could instantly move Earth 10 billion light years to the left of us, we'd still see the universe in much the same way as the video in Randy's initial post.

At the moment of the Big Bang, all points in the universe were compressed together. After the Big Bang, all points expanded away from every other existing point. No single point expanded faster than the speed of light -- in fact, from any single point's perspective, it was not moving, and if it could think, it would have considered itself at that magical origin.Report
Post #28John Johnson wroteon January 5, 2010 at 11:42am
Randy, you are correct, and I tried to acknowledge that. Theories are never 100% proveable. They are in many cases very close to what we feel very sure happened, but that's it. It's an approximation that agrees with other models/approximations, with error bars. So, anytime a scientists says that QM or the Big Bang or Evolution is "proven" they are saying that the confidence is getting close to 100%, and so far there are no counterdictions that we find with other theories. Typically, these models end up being a very good approximation of nature. No, they will never explain exactly what happened, we will never have that complete knowledge (even if we could travel back to "near" the Big Bang" event.)

Even a larger telescope would be limited to seeing no further back than we see now with probes like WMAP, to the point 380,000 years after the Big Bang when the universe became transparent. Before that, light could not travel great distances without being scattered, as it was too hot for electrons to be bound to atoms. We have seen back to early galaxies/quasars, at about 600,000,000 years after the Big Bang. There are many things that can be inferred from WMAP results, etc. Some scientists even feel that the shape of the universe, what was "before" the Big Bang and evidence of other dimensions could be inferred from various observations (where the direct evidence wouldn't be available).

There is a competing theory that claims the Big Bang didn't occur, and perhaps it just appears that way due to variation in basic constants over time. Some of these theories will be disproven in time, and we'll have to see what remains. From a larger POV, it is very likely some sort of multiverse, or meta-universe exists and has always existed, that is, if time is not unique to our universe. ;) With accelerating expansion of space-time in our observable universe, the cosmological horizon shrinks every year, and we may eventually see a mostly empty universe before things get to a Big Rip. We are still very uncertain of the eventual fate of the universe, but it seems we are heading that way.

The universe could have always existed. Sure. Or, broken off as a bubble in a multiverse. In any case, the Big Bang describes that point at which the universe underwent rapid expansion and got very large. It is difficult to imagine that it could have remained compact very long before undergoing some phase change and "doing something" however. I think it's useful to think about these possibilities, and as in a recent Scientific American, you end up with several likely alternatives, and may be able to eliminate the less likely ones over time.Report
Post #29Sammuel L Perkins (MIT) wroteon January 5, 2010 at 2:28pm
Jesus, Randy, this is such a childish argument.

First of all, you're not even epistemologically right, which you could be at least if you were attacking the scientific method.

Second of all, you show that you comprehend neither the method nor the theories of science.

Come back when you go to high school.

Report
Post #30Randy Dryburgh wroteon January 5, 2010 at 5:18pm
MIT.. Impressive. I know *I* am impressed. Scott? You?

Well, then Sammuel, how about you grace us with some of your evidently higher intellect and 'splain us' your position, rather than stomping off in a huff without adding anything useful to the discussion.

How interesting though... To get a better idea of your background, I checked the student and (just in case) faculty rosters. I didn't see your name on them. This year, or last...

Hmm.. Could '13 be 1913? Darn. Those records aren't online. That would make you some kind of ol' timer indeed!!

Very Odd. Probably a clerical oversight.

Cheers,
EventsNotesLinksPop In ChatPop Out ChatNotificationsNotifications
See All
Chat (0)Chat
Friend Lists
Options

0
0 0
0
HomeProfileFriendsRecently Added
All Friends
Invite Friends
Find FriendsInbox 2 View Message Inbox (2)
Compose New Message LogoutSettings Account Settings
Privacy Settings
Application Settings
HelpVladimir Shelkoper
"Facts" are relative.Back to Quantum Physics
Discussion BoardTopic ViewTopic: "Facts" are relative.
Displaying posts 31 - 60 out of 72.Prev123Next

EventsNotesLinksPop In ChatPop Out ChatNotificationsNotifications
See All
Chat (0)Chat
Friend Lists
Options

0
0 0
0
HomeProfileFriendsRecently Added
All Friends
Invite Friends
Find FriendsInbox 2 View Message Inbox (2)
Compose New Message LogoutSettings Account Settings
Privacy Settings
Application Settings
HelpVladimir Shelkoper
"Facts" are relative.Back to Quantum Physics
Discussion BoardTopic ViewTopic: "Facts" are relative.

Topic: Equation of God

Post #1Timothy Morrison wroteon December 11, 2009 at 10:29am
What really would it mean to find an equation of God?Report
Post #2Ahmed Samir wroteon December 11, 2009 at 12:55pm
why everybody talk about "god" Report
Post #3James Maxwell wroteon December 12, 2009 at 8:40am
It would mean that God (and all of creation) is completely logical.

But I'm afraid this would be like thinking that having the correct equations of physics would help us make correct social decisions.Report
Post #4Ahmed Samir wroteon December 13, 2009 at 12:29pm
i think that talking about god will not lead us to any thing , god is a big secret and we will not solve it , we cant include god in equations how?..............Report
Post #5Robin Young wroteon December 14, 2009 at 6:53am
equations can only help explain physical existence. the spiritual existence has infinite factors so it is imposable to developer a definite equation.Report
Post #6Ahmed Samir wroteon December 14, 2009 at 7:43am
god is not a physical matter like gravityReport
Post #7Maşuk Taylan wroteon December 14, 2009 at 8:35am
KORAN SAY(İN RAHMAN SURAH):
In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

The sun and the moon follow courses (exactly) computed
And the herbs and the trees - both (alike) prostrate in adoration
And the Firmament has He raised high, and He has set up the Balance

(SO I THİNK;EQUATİON İS SETUP THE BALANCE OFF EVERYTHİNG İN UNİVERSE WHİCH CREATED BY GOD)Report
Post #8Robin Young wroteon December 14, 2009 at 9:09am
yes, an equation could be developed to explain the process of the creation of the universe(which i personally believe wasn't actually created), but such an equation could never be developed to explain the existence of God. God, if he dose exist, is a divine being, and divinity can never be calculated.Report
Post #9Maşuk Taylan wroteon December 14, 2009 at 10:13am
ALLRİGHT...
YOU ARE RIGHT..DIVINITY CAN NEVER BE CALCULATED..BUT I CAN SAY( OR CAN BLİEVE THAT);
-WE CAN NOT CALCULATE DİVİNİTY BUT WE CAN SEE GOD'S FİNGERPRİNT İN CREATİON OF THE UNİVERSE, İN ALL EQUATİONS,İN FİNE TUNİNGS..SO ...AND SO..Report
Post #10James Maxwell wroteon December 14, 2009 at 11:18pm
I think we've got a long long way to go before we could have an equation of God. We have enough trouble making gravity and quantum mechanics fit together.

... still, in the long run, I don't think we can have an equation of God, even if God is pure logic.Report
Post #11Maşuk Taylan wroteon December 15, 2009 at 9:35am
I HOPE YOU DONT MEAN Dr. Stephen Unwin EQUATİON .WHİCH İS COMES FROM BAYES THEORY
PROBABİLİTY FOUNCTİON: PROBABİLİTY OF EXİSTANCE OF GOD ;P(GE) = A xP(G)xP(EG) (%66.666...)
200 YEARS AGO ..TOTALLY ABSURD HA HA HA::)))Report
Post #12Maşuk Taylan wroteon December 15, 2009 at 11:01am
H.L/Q=C The equation, which looks like this:
shows a constant, unchanging relationship between the speed of light, the ratio between the circumference and diameter of a circle, and the radio frequency of hydrogen in space. Artificial intelligence engineer David Cumming, CEO of the Edinburgh-based company Intelligent Earth, recently discovered the equation, and said: "I am a scientist and as such I didn't at first really believe it myself. But physics is physics, and maths is maths, and you can't argue with it."
The discovery of the equation began with research by engineer Professor Alexander Thom (1894-1985) of Oxford University, into the properties of megalithic constructions such as Stonehenge. He found that their construction did not follow existing measurement systems, but did fit in to a pattern of specific lengths which he called megalithic yards. Two independent researchers Christopher Knight and Alan Butler, based in York, then showed that the megalithic system of measurement was directly derived from characteristics of the Earth's movements through space.

Linking this system of measurements with known constants such as π (pi, the relationship between the circumference and diameter of a circle), Hl, the radio frequency of the hydrogen fine transition in space, Ω (0.0123456789 representing all the characters of the base 10 number system), and the speed of light in a vacuum C0 (C0 = 299,792.458km/sec), and building on research by Knight and Butler, and the work of Professor Alexander Thom, former Reading University doctoral researcher Cumming followed a research programme that resulted in his discovery of the God Equation. The God Equation shows a direct link between the speed of light, the radio frequency of hydrogen in space, pi, and earth's orbit, rotation and weight. As the possibility of the Earth having the exact required characteristics to fit the equation by chance is remote, and the equation has, in theory, been in existence since the beginning of the Universe, this means that the Earth's orbit, rotation and weight must have been engineered to fit this equation.
Report
Post #13Robin Young wroteon December 16, 2009 at 5:29pm
yes, this equation dose explain the engineering of the planet, but not if that engineering was by divine will, or by the natural process of the universes. why is it so hard for some to see the universe being as it is through it's oun nature? must there be a divine engineer?Report
Post #14Maşuk Taylan wroteon December 17, 2009 at 8:45am
Yes.İts strongly look like the creation is engineered.Human existence is possible because the constants of physics and the parameters for the universe and for planet Earth lie within certain highly restricted ranges. John Wheeler and others interpret these amazing "coincidences" as proof that human existence somehow determines the design of the universe. Drawing an illogical parallel with delayed-choice experiments in quantum mechanics, they say that observations by humans influence the design of the universe, not only now, but back to the beginning. Such versions of what is called the "anthropic principle" reflect current philosophical and religious leanings towards the deification of man. They produce no evidence to support the notion that man's present acts can influence past events. Furthermore, their analogies with quantum mechanics break down on this point. The "coincidental" values of the constants of physics and the parameters of the universe point, rather, to a designer who transcends the dimensions and limits of the physical universe
some people may blieve and some may not blieve.this is a choice..
ı beg your pardon if ı irritated my brother..:))Report
Post #15Dave Kiehl wroteon December 17, 2009 at 1:49pm
Masuk, Would you please share the God equation developed by Thom and Cumming?Report
Post #16Maşuk Taylan wroteon December 17, 2009 at 2:30pm
"David R. S. Cumming" Report
Post #17Graham Smith wroteon December 20, 2009 at 3:27am
You are on the wrong fb site...GO join the Nihilist group and post these questions about God on there...There is no room for God in Science..just facts that can be seen to exist...not some mumbojumbo about a God.
We are living in a holorgraphic universe and if so "God is a machine"..
LMFAO....Ho Ho Ho merry crimbo...
Report
Post #18Sammuel L Perkins (MIT) wroteon December 20, 2009 at 9:16am
Masuk,
what are you talking about?
You need to speak with proper English; people cannot understand you.
If you would like to find a Facebook site in your language about QM, I'd be happy to show you how.Report
Post #19Sammuel L Perkins (MIT) wroteon December 20, 2009 at 9:18am
To the topic:

This issue of god on a scientific forum is a bit inappropriate.
I'd suggest going to a religious forum if you would like to debate it there.

Side note:

I believe that many refer to the "god equation" when speaking about a final equation, of which all known equations can be derived.Report
Post #20Maşuk Taylan wroteon December 20, 2009 at 9:46am
ı am scienstific and the same time bliever,if you want,you can go there..there is no only theistic but also atheistic forums on the net....
people can easly understand me, but ı thınk you can't understand(or dont want to understand) me..
You can say Sciense is neutr for theism or atheism,
but you cant say' There is no room for God in Science'Report
Post #21Sammuel L Perkins (MIT) wroteon December 20, 2009 at 9:56am
No, I can't understand you easily.

I believe that you should either have your posts translated by a translation service (Babblefish), or work on your English somewhere else. In the mean time, I believe that your posts are too hard for someone fluent in English to understand, and I'd advise you to refrain from posting long messages, for the sake of clarity.

I don't really understand what you're saying below, but I don't really care much for discussing god in a scientific forum.Report
Post #22Tina Richards wroteon December 20, 2009 at 10:50am
No, you can't be easily understood Masuk. It's not that I don't want to understand you... Your english is just really super bad.Report
Post #23Maşuk Taylan wroteon December 20, 2009 at 10:55am
ı understand...my english is really super bad..like someones faith..:)))
ı will work on my english.. thank you ..:))Report
Post #24Shaun Young wroteon December 20, 2009 at 2:42pm
Correct me if i am wrong , but if the Higgs boson is to be found , would that not open the door for an equation for everything? (in theory... its too large to be practical)Report
Post #25Sammuel L Perkins (MIT) wroteon December 20, 2009 at 4:01pm
No, not really.
It would experimentally verify GWS theory.

So, have you come back with the knowledge to "Wow" us, Shaun?Report
Post #26Shaun Young wroteon December 20, 2009 at 7:43pm
Actually ,no . My knowledge has greatly increased , but i significantly underestimated the complexity of diff. equations. Im learning it much slower than i had origionally anticipated. So to answer you question , i suppose you can say i came back with an aura of humility. Good to see your still the same though. Anytime u wanna debate just let me know :oPReport
Post #27Don Martinez wroteon December 20, 2009 at 9:09pm
To put limitations on the pursuit of knowledge only reduces the amount of understanding that can be gained. I believe Mr. Einstein would agree with me.Report
Post #28Shaun Young wroteon December 21, 2009 at 12:26pm
Believe me , limitations is not something i bestow upon myself. I just wish to learn differential equations with not even a high school education... and i am... just slower than anticipated.Report
Post #29Samarth Bansal wroteon December 24, 2009 at 5:26am
Thinking of God as a divine power(which I also believe!!) will actually not help us to find eqn of God.

Keeping our religious beliefs aside, we can assume God to be some different kind of energy.... one, which is unknown to physicists. And for it is energy, physics must explain it..... and may be there could be some eqn!!!Report
Post #30Sara Čufer (Gimnazija Šentvid) wroteon December 26, 2009 at 12:22pm
"god is not a physical matter like gravity"

How is gravity matter... Report12Next

Don Martinez wroteon December 26, 2009 at 12:44pm
One theological thought describes god as 'all there is and more' this would place god outside of the realm of physics, thus not to be able to described in symbols neither equations nor words. The god equation indicates mathematical connections between unlike factors. Nature and cosmology are full of such connections these do not indicate god, or not, just common traits of existence.Report
Post #32Derek Schrock wroteon December 27, 2009 at 3:46am
Maşuk Taylan and anyone else who takes the "God equation" seriously, go back to your chem 101 textbook or algebra and look at the equation.

(Hl x π) / Ω = c

c = the speed of light in km/sec
Hl = radio frequency of hydrοgen in MHz
Ω = 0.0123456789 all of the digits in the base ten system
π = ratio of the circumference and radius of a circle

If Cummings is a good scientist then I'm Einstein.
First of all, Ω repeats zero so it's actually all the numbers in the base ten system + 1. Unjustified. In dimensional analysis, your units have to match up, you can't get the speed of light which is a relation of distance/ time from a measurement in megahertz (the Hl variable). Oh yeah, he managed to get a rational answer from an irrational expression, that's magic if I ever saw it and no rounding doesn't change anything. Anyway, there's more problems with it, I've read a bit of Cummings commentary and he says the speed of light has to be in megalithic yards or something. It's just a bunch of random numbers that happen to have a relationship, these sorts of things are known aka probabilities. Everyone, I beg you, read books, do math, think!Report
Post #33Sammuel L Perkins (MIT) wroteon December 27, 2009 at 6:13am
He might be using natural units.
Let me check...

No, even if he was taking a cross product in the numerator it wouldn't work out; it would work out being inverse seconds are equal to something unitless.Report
Post #34Bruce Clark wroteon January 7, 2010 at 11:08pm
But I'm afraid this would be like thinking that having the correct equations of physics would help us make correct social decisions.

Yes they should if they where true and sound,for instance if e=mc2 does this means actions are as important as things.Report
Post #35Matthew Clark wrote21 hours ago
who or what put the math into nature so that we can make equations?
What do numbers symbolize?
Isn't e=mc2 a function of life?
What is energy? (energy is the movement of an unknown substance, of unknown origin)

Isn't quantum mathematics showing us the process of making the non-local, local, of bringing abstract quality into concrete quantity & form, thus creating manifest particles out of waves of possibility?

If God is Creativity, a verb, rather than the Creator, a noun, then surely quantum mathematics is showing us how to connect with our own creativity, which is One & the same (as Plank, Schroedinger, Heisenberg et al told us).

Doesn't it show us the dynamic process of Life, of - as in the Big Bang, & all of what is a discontinuous existence, - the function of making something from nothing?

These quantum & relative equations are as psychological as they are material, showing the sacred nature of number, geometry & mathematics, the sacred conscious nature of life, including humanities subtle inner world of emotion, mind & soul.Report
Post #36Don Martinez wrote13 hours ago
Amit Goswami, PhD, is a theoretical nuclear physicist and professor emeritus of The University of Oregon Institute for Theoretical Physics.
This gentleman has not found an equation for god, but puts forth a good case for the existence of intelligent design using as substantiation the phenomenon of non locality.
Report
Post #37Derek Schrock wrote10 hours ago
Few people take Goswami's ideas on " quantum consciousness" seriously. He participated in one of the most widley known pseudoscientific documentaries out there "What the bleep do we know?" which has been debunked a hundred fold. Just do a little background research on him and the film and you will see what's really going on. Pure nonsense.Report
Post #38Don Martinez wrote10 hours ago
Then what would be a practical explanation on non locality.Report
Post #39Bruce Clark wrote9 hours ago
Correct me if i am wrong , but if the Higgs boson is to be found , would that not open the door for an equation for everything? (in theory... its too large to be practical)

No,because explaing the fundamental forces does not really explain everything.Report
Post #40Derek Schrock wrote8 hours ago
" Then what would be a practical explanation on non locality." I'm not sure exactly what you are asking me to do here, do you want to know why non locality occurs at quantum scales/ how it is possible?

As for what Goswami has suggested we haven't observed non-locality occuring beyond plank scales so to say that our consciousness interacts with the rest of the universe that way is unsupported. It very well may turn out to be true if new evidence is brought forth, but that evidence isn't here yet, only pseudoscientific interpretations.

That Quantum Connection

Post #1Matthew Clark wroteon December 28, 2009 at 12:48am
Quantum Theory, for those who have ears to hear, is a theory of Consciousness and how That One Consciousness creates out of Itself ... creating the spectrum of life, from higher forms of mind to matter itself. Initially QT was conceived to explain the inner workings of the atom and the formation of matter. In 1900 Max Plank postulated that energy is quantized, existing in discrete discontinuous units named “quantum” and thus QT was truly born. Twenty years later Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrödinger & his cat discovered the mathematics of QT.

The seeming duality of life, between Spirit & matter, between mind & body, between subject & object, between the non-tangible & the tangible has always been the bane of scientific thought. So much so that material scientists banished the very existence of Spirit & consciousness, of subjectivity & the non-tangible. Saying that consciousness must inexplicably arise out of matter. Yet it is just this dynamic, this connection, this communication which Quantum Mechanics is trying to explain.

Life & consciousness are not just a physical processes of chemistry, biology & neurology, they are multidimensional quantum processes allowing for creativity, subjectivity & free-will.

Max Plank told us all those years ago: “… there is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."

And Schrödinger told us: “Quantum Physics thus reveals a basic Oneness of the Universe.”

Materialistic science seems to have tuned off the light within matter, the intelligence within life, but QT is pointing the way back, enabling us to find our own “Inner Light” & turn it on, to connect with That Intelligence which lies in the heart of all life. It is giving us the mystical key to the science of creativity, to Creation itself.

Mathematically a masterpiece, QT tells us of a non-local wave-world of possibility, a non-existent realm of Pure Potential, standing outside of Time & Space, out of which we multidimensionally create both our inner & outer worlds. Out of That One Consciousness we create our subjective personal consciousness & our objective material reality, both of which are just different vibrations of That One Consciousness perceived/collapsed into separation/existence by That same One Consciousness.

Once we realize the dynamic quantum process in all aspects of our life: sensation, emotion, thought & intuition, of how we are conditioned through experience into probabilistic responses, we can disidentify from our habitual reactions and identify with That Soul Awareness, That Quantum Consciousness which is our True Inner Nature.

Carl Jung told us: “All science however is a function of the soul, in which all knowledge is rooted."

Quantum Consciousness is both the ground of being & the Being who sees through each & everyone of us. Spirit is the non-local 'Beingness' which is "immortal, invisible, god-only-wise," the Conscious Intelligent Light at the heart of everything, & the everything into & out of which That Light creates, moment by moment, the illusion of subject & object separation.

The Mystic Sri Aurobindo told us: "Behind the appearance of the universe there is the reality of a being & consciousness, a self of all things, one & eternal. All beings are united in that one self & spirit but divide by a certain separation of consciousness, an ignorance of their true self & reality in the mind, life & body. It is possible by a certain psychological discipline to remove this veil of separative consciousness & become aware of the true Self, the divinity within us all.”

Whilst Quantum Physicist D Bohm told us: "Particles (& the universes built of them) being essentially light & variations on light, are subject to the speed of light as their ultimate limit of movement. On the other hand, the wave-field from which they manifest are of a different state entirely, not ‘movement' or light but the frequency from which light itself springs, not in time-space, but the source of time-space. They are, in a word non-localized, whereas the particles they display are localized.”

The wonder of Quantum Theory is that it gives us a 21st Century scientific understanding of the Dynamic Process which is Life and we are That Process becoming aware of Itself. Yet as the mystics told us, to enter it we must construct a perceptual vehicle for that kind of awareness and as Gurdjieff told us, “not everyone is capable of this type of awareness, only those who really want.”

Do you want That Quantum Connection?Report
Post #2Shaun Young wroteon December 28, 2009 at 7:40pm
Do i want the Quantum Connection? No. But i want 3 of whatever you took before writing this.Report
Post #3Michael Johnson wroteon December 28, 2009 at 7:53pm
No you don't! Those mushrooms are fucking dangerous!Report
Post #4Matthew Clark wroteon December 28, 2009 at 11:44pm
You guys are so ... one dimensional in your arguments (maybe that is the answer to the first question on the wall MJ), so ... classical in your consciousness & in your perspectives. Clearly you wish to stay with your one sided, one dimensional beliefs. No discussion really necessary or warranted for you. Have a happy new year! mc xReport
Post #5Victor Laszlo wroteon December 29, 2009 at 2:40pm
Yes, i do. Happy New Year Matthew! And thanks for your post!!!Report
Post #6Michael Johnson wroteon December 29, 2009 at 6:35pm
Hang on Matt, some guy asked something like: 'What has one dimension?' and I replied 'A one-dimensional object.'
How exactly did you deduce from that answer that my beliefs are one-dimensional?

Scientific theories should be simple, explain what we observe in the universe, and testable by repeated experimentation.

Your theory made absolutely no fucking sense. All I could understand was the odd phrase from Heisenberg here and there.Report
Post #7Matthew Clark wroteon December 30, 2009 at 8:54am
Hey MJ, no worries, sorry if I was offensive. I try to follow the deductions of the likes of Shroedinger, Heisenberg, Oppenheimer, Plank, Pauli, Plato, Pythagorus, Jesus, Bhudda, Hermes, da Vinci, Jung etc in my understanding of life, QT & consciousness, & explain them as simply as I can. I was just playing with our two discussions, & being a little truculent, not really meaning to cause offense but trying to get further insight rather than a dogmatic belief (opps! more playful truculence).

But what exactly is a one dimensional object? Can you show me one? Or are they purely idealistic & mental? Which doesn't mean they aren't real, just subjective not objective, & do you believe in subjectivity, in consciousness?

Do you guys thinks those mentioned were also on hallucinogenic drugs too? & do scientific observations only work for exterior observations & not inner ones (serious question)? & if so, how will science be able to study consciousness then? & if they can't, surely they should let others use QT to understand subjectivity, consciousness & the dynamic process which creates it, or is that outlawed by material scientists?

Personally I feel that QT is a theory of how we create, as explained above. Not only how we create matter (which isn't really physical as Einstein's 'Relativitys' & QT show) but also how we create our own subjectivity out of the Matrix of Life, out of That One Consciousness, as both Plank & Shroedinger talk about above.

Just humble ideas which I like to discuss, rather than just have them dogmatically denied.

as always with interest
mc xReport
Post #8Shawn Man wroteon December 30, 2009 at 4:09pm
i agreeReport
Post #9Shaun Young wroteon December 30, 2009 at 5:11pm
"out of one consciousness" This is a eastern philosophical concept derived some 5000 thousand years ago. It is hardly new and cutting edge keeping pace with advances in quantum physics. For all of history consciousness has been untouchable by science , and as of yet there is no reason or evidence to believe that will change any time in the near future.Report
Post #10Michael Johnson wroteon December 30, 2009 at 7:39pm
Okay Shaun. I was a little out of line.
It's good that you're not following the dogma, and that you're also interested in Pythagoras' teachings.

I also agree to a point that our consciousness plays an important part in how reality is manifested, but I use quantum mechanics as a starting point, and ask how we can build from that an explanation, not trying to shape it to fit ancient teachings.Report
Post #11Matthew Clark wroteon December 30, 2009 at 10:31pm
not wishing to be pugnacious but ...

So you ignore ancient teaching, perennial philosophy, mystical wisdom, how far back do you ignore? why not correspond what we know today with those greats of the past? why not see how QT corresponds to thoughts & emotions? why not see how QT correspond to biology & neurology, to psychology & philosophy, to consciousness & evolution?

Still ... good luck with your quest. As a layman I very much like Quantum, String & Holographic Theories, & how they relate to ancient wisdom. They very much help me with my own inner conscious practice.

Have a Great 2010
mcxReport
Post #12Matthew Clark wroteon December 30, 2009 at 10:32pm
with whom do you agree Shawn Man, with whom & what do you agree?Report
Post #13Matthew Clark wroteon December 31, 2009 at 12:29am
& one more thing ...

It is only an interaction that is required, not a measurement or observation of any kind. WFCIII

I also agree to a point that our consciousness plays an important part in how reality is manifested MJ

What is it that cause collapse? What is interacting?
Is conscious now agreed not to play a part? Agreed by whom?
What happened to the observer effect? Report
Post #14Michael Johnson wroteon December 31, 2009 at 4:51am
The fact is we don't know what causes a wave function to collapse. It just happens when it's observed/measured. It's something I find mystying.

However, I do have a theory - that there is no objective observer. The person observing the experiment IS a part of the experiment. Perhaps there is no separation between the wave function and the observer.Report
Post #15Matthew Clark wroteon December 31, 2009 at 4:52am
ah! now you are getting it ... where did you find the mushrooms?Report
Post #16Matthew Clark wroteon December 31, 2009 at 4:53am
& who or what is doing the observing/measuring?Report
Post #17Michael Johnson wroteon December 31, 2009 at 4:56am
I had a few left over from the mushroo-picking season.

Now, we get to the really mysterious shit - what is THE objective observer? My only answer would be some form of universal consciousness existing outside space/time, or perhaps the universe itself is conscious in some way. But that's my personal belief, and beyond the realm of evidence.Report
Post #18Matthew Clark wroteon December 31, 2009 at 4:59am
mmm ... That Quantum Connection ... That One Consciousness which sees through us all, making us all, & everything else, out of Itself, collapsing an apparent material world in a quantum process of creativity ... enjoy the trip! ... Happy New Year! mc xReport
Post #19Michael Johnson wroteon December 31, 2009 at 5:11am
Have a happy one as well. xxxReport
Post #20Shawn Man wroteon December 31, 2009 at 9:59am
i agree that we create our own subjectivityReport
Post #21Matthew Clark wroteon December 31, 2009 at 12:12pm
but is there actually an objective reality at all?Report
Post #22Ken Halton wroteon December 31, 2009 at 1:45pm
I enjoyed reading your post. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Happy New Year to you all.Report
Post #23Michael Johnson wroteon December 31, 2009 at 6:22pm
Is there an objective reality at all? Many people have asked this over thousands of years.Report
Post #24James Maxwell wroteon January 1, 2010 at 12:21am
Well, to me it is so amazing that logic and mathematics can be applied to the world, to understand it and predict what parts of it will do. Even if quantum mechanics only allows us to calculate the probabilities of different outcomes it still allows us to calculate that with great precision.

So it seems to me that there is a reality out there. The old Rene Descartes quote "I think; therefore I exist."Report
Post #25Matthew Clark wroteon January 1, 2010 at 12:34am
Happy New Year James, but when Rene said this, didn't he actually mean that the only reality he could be sure of was his/our subjective reality? That the only proof & evidence about any objective reality came through our subjectivity, & thus couldn't be fully trusted to be real as such.

·

As Stephen Hawkin's says: 'There is a difficulty of being a realist in the philosophy of science, for what we regard as reality is conditioned by the theory to which we subscribe.

'Newtonian notions of space time seemed to correspond to common sense & reality. Yet nowadays those who are familiar with the theory of relativity, still a disturbing minority, have a rather different view.

'If what we regard as real depends on our theory, how can we make reality the basis of our philosophy? We cannot distinguish what is real about the universe without a theory. It makes no sense to ask if it corresponds to reality, because we don’t know what reality is independent of a theory (a theory of physics is just a mathematical model that we can use to describe results of observations).'

The unspoken belief in “a model independent reality” is the underlying reason for the difficulties philosophers of science have with quantum mechanics & the uncertainty principle.'

·

& what I also like to ask is who/what put the math/geometry into the relative world? Surely this, as Plank posited, means: 'We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.' or as Hermes posited: 'The Underlying Reality of the Universe is Mind; and the Universe itself is Mental' & 'THE ALL, in which Mind we "live and move and have our being."':

I hope everyone has a wondrous 2010
mc xReport
Post #26Gethyn Dylan Jones wroteon January 1, 2010 at 5:27am
I think we all accept a "model independent reality" to a greater or lesser degree.

As has been noted before (I think by Richard Dawkins, amongst others), even those individuals who claim that physical reality is an illusion usually take sufficient care to leave by the stairs, rather than the 5th floor window. If reality is truly model independent, why do this?

The only reason for introducing mathematics into the study of what used to be called "natural philosophy" is its effectiveness. This stunning and undeniable effectiveness is both unreasonable and inexplicable in terms of most philosophical systems - it is, I would suggest, the recently discovered (in the last four centuries or so) equivalent of an 'opposable thumb' in humanity's attempt to manipulate and control the universe...and one which most of us (including myself) are still running to catch up with.Report
Post #27Matthew Clark wroteon January 1, 2010 at 6:04am
Yes Gethyn, but Richard Dawkins is being particularly flippant with such a comment. To say &/or believe that there isn't a 'model independent reality' doesn't mean that you won't get run over by a bus if you step in front of one. You have to think quite a lot deeper than deterministic material superficiality to understand what Relativity & Quantum are really saying. Something which RD isn't prepared to do, especially as his income depends on his present opinions & beliefs, which are particularly dogmatic & not very scientific, yet seemingly impossible to change due to his conditioning. As with most people, our opinion & beliefs are more important than peace or truth.

Unfortunately common sense is more about conditioning than actuality, reality or science, & materialists, like Dawkins, are stuck within reason & thus will never get past their egoic beliefs, whilst fiercely trying to outlaw any other ideas. A shame for he was such a bright young man.Report
Post #28Gethyn Dylan Jones wroteon January 1, 2010 at 8:08am
Hi Matthew - Happy New Year! I hope 2010 sees you happy, healthy and prosperous.

But to continue with the discussion: I would say that if you take reasonable care to avoid (say) getting run over by a bus, then you are giving the deterministic material model more importance than some alternative non-materialistic models. In other words, your day to day actions illustrate that you accept the independent reality model to a greater degree than many of the alternatives.

I remember that as a child, I used to avoid walking on the cracks in the pavement in case some disaster should befall me. By careful empirical trial and error testing of this hypothesis, I discovered that this model did not accord with reality and discarded it (in truth, I probably got bored and forgot to avoid the cracks - with no deleterious effects). Therefore, if I now put forward the Avoid-Cracks-in-Pavement-For-Good-Luck Model, my day to day actions would clearly illustrate that I no longer accept it (at least, in its orginal form...)

Joking and argumentative point scoring aside, I think there is a valid criticism of non-independent reality models here.

As for RD, I think that he is more open minded and considerate of other viewpoints in his written work than he is when interviewed on television. He just seems to get cross quite quickly when talking about some subjects that are near to his heart. I think that "The God Delusion" is actually quite a fair-minded, persuasive book rather than an athieist materialist rant (cf Christopher Hitchens "God is Not Great" - a hugely enjoyable book is its own right, but not as fair minded). Report
Post #29Matthew Clark wroteon January 1, 2010 at 9:40am
The problem arises when we use a model for one thing, getting run over by a bus, & thus presume that it works for all other things, explaining everything with deterministic certainty. Isn't this why QT arose, because the material deterministic view couldn't account for everything.

A non-objective reality isn't saying that there isn't a reality there, just that it is a multidimensional subjective reality, which will run you over just as a 3 dimensional determinist one will. Only the cause behind the effect is very different.

Just as RD tries to deny spirit, as he equates it only with certain types of religion, so if you take a 'non-model independent reality' to mean that material reality is an illusion you will get the wrong end of the stick. The illusion about matter is not that it exists (& will run you over given the chance), only that it exists much more like the 'holodeck' in Star Trek, a creation/projection from an Absolute Realm through a subtle realm of perception creating what appears to be matter, but which is actually more an energetic/light forcefields working in a quantum dynamic process.

It still appears that the sun goes around the earth, this model in fact serves our daily life well. Whereas in fact the earth doesn't even go around the sun, but chases it in a spiral vortex as the solar system charges through space at great speed. If we could change our perspective to a more 'relative' & 'quantum' model we could start to manage our health, psychology & life with greater skill & awareness as to what is important.

Let us see how 2010 treats us & how we treat Her.
mc xReport
Post #30Gethyn Dylan Jones wroteon January 3, 2010 at 3:31am
Hi Matthew - thanks for the thought provoking reply.

"A non-objective reality isn't saying that there isn't a reality there, just that it is a multidimensional subjective reality"

If I understand you correctly here, you seem to be saying that people will have very different perspectives on a single underlying reality - I agree with you in that respect, but cannot see the value of calling this idea a non-objective reality.

"The illusion about matter is not that it exists (& will run you over given the chance), only that it exists much more like the 'holodeck' in Star Trek, a creation/projection from an Absolute Realm through a subtle realm of perception "

Again, to my mind you seem to be arguing that there is an underlying, objective reality that you call the Absolute Realm which is filtered through our perceptions, and that people can perceive this reality in very different ways.

I think we disagree on what constitutes the underlying reality: my own opinion is that in accordance with Occam's Razor we should assume that what we perceive for the most part roughly corresponds with whatever entities are 'really' there - this seems to make sound evolutionary sense as well.

Matthew Clark wroteon January 3, 2010 at 3:57am
hey Gethyn, mmm ... yes thought provoking ... occasionally to much for me, but fun to try ...

okay, what I am getting at is that the apparent objective reality isn't as fixed as we have been led to believe, yes there is an objective reality but it is much more flexible & manageable, especially regarding our own physical health, & is created our of our collective subjectivity. We are not going to start manifesting things out of nothing, yet our perception plays a big part in genetic, biological & neurological health & development, & when we can see this we can take better control of ourselves physical & psychologically.

The Absolute Realm is something our personal consciousness, & all of life, shares at its depth, the laser beam in the holographic model, a realm beyond the quantum wave-realm. And is just a deeper reality, but not objective as such, standing outside of time & space in non-local, non existent (unified) subjectivity.

It isn't so much as there isn't an objective reality, only it is created through this subjectivity. A real understanding of this is very tricky, mostly because we have been conditioned to see the universe as material, yet it is being posited that the universe is multidimensional, quantum, holographic & Conscious/Intelligent, & this is such a wondrous theory/map/philosophy for a saner & more healthy world. That Consciousness lies at the heart of life (as discussed above). Once we can take back this sort of perspective/perception, & not just regarding matter, but even more so regarding emotions & thoughts, we will start to be able to manage ourselves, our health & all of life much better. Losing our narcissistic, egotistical perspective for a flowing of Life, of That One Consciousness, through us all individually (we won't lose our individuality, it will just expand, giving everyone a deeper knowing of everything).

mmm ... let me try to work on a way to explain it better ... it isn't counter logical or anti-evolutionary, but gives us a deeper knowledge & knowing of our own consciousness & life ...

I will be back!
mc xReport
Post #32Matthew Clark wroteon January 3, 2010 at 7:09am
Einstein told us about relativity, not quantum, that: "physics is not events but observations, relativity is the understanding of the world not as events but as relations."Report
Post #33Jake Murray wroteon January 3, 2010 at 12:17pm
>As has been noted before (I think by Richard Dawkins, amongst others), even those individuals who claim that physical reality is an illusion usually take sufficient care to leave by the stairs, rather than the 5th floor window. If reality is truly model independent, why do this?<

I would just like to point that this isn't for one second what those who said that 'physical reality is an illusion' meant and, while I am sure you don't mean it Gethyn, this is a typically bone-headed example of Dawkins doing one of his deliberate knee-jerk reactions to a subtle idea in order not to have to engage with it.

When Hindus, Buddhists etc talk about 'Maya' or 'Illusion', they don't mean that physical matter is 'not there' but that it isn't all there is. 'Maya' by the Hindu definition is 'the Play of God', in other words, the flow of physical matter which is constantly changing and transient but appears to us to be all that there is. Behind that flow of physical matter is energy which eventually becomes pure consciousness, which is eternal and changeless. Eastern Philosophy regards physical matter as an 'illusion' insofar as it veils a different reality, which is one of complete unity. The Eastern view is that one should avoid being seduced by the appearance of Maya, to enjoy it but not to be enslaved to it, because if one does so one becomes bogged down in misery and strife, because Maya is transitory. We see this everywhere around us - in the pursuit of money, instant gratification, instant sensation, power, eternal youth, freedom from anxiety through externals, all of which are transient and over which we constantly fight each other. All these things come and go, they are Maya, Illusions. If we stopped prioritising them and focussed on things that were more important, we might start to enjoy being here. In one of their most beautiful metaphors, Matter, our physical Universe, is characterised as Prakriti, the Divine Feminine, dancing in unison with her consort and lover, Purisha, the Divine Masculine, who represents Consciousness and Energy. Purusha is often known as 'the Enjoyer' with Prakriti as 'the Enjoyed'. In their union, often described in terms of love making, everything in the Cosmos comes into being. So while the physical Universe is still referred to as Maya, Illusion, it is supposed to be a beautiful one, not one which is to be ignored or passed over, as Dawkins so often thinks. It is when we only see Matter as reality that we grasp at it, consume it, try to bend it to our will, fear that it will pass, fight over it etc. By seeing it as part of a greater dance, the thinking goes, we will find a greater kind of harmony with ourselves and each other.

Further, behind all this is what the East calls Brahman - Eternity, Boundless Pure Consciousness etc. Brahman is everything that we see and experience in the physical world but so much more besides. One could argue that scientific pursuits such as String Theory, Relativity, Cosmology, are all pursuits which involve seeking out the nature of Brahman, the level of reality which is beyond the immediately experiential, the area where Newtonian physics still applies. This is why figures like Einstein, Schroedinger, Wigner, Heisenberg et al all felt deeply sympathetic to these ways of thinking from 5000 years ago. They saw no contradiction at all between their pursuit of science and these spiritual ways of understanding the Cosmos. I should add that Brahman is in no way anything like the 'God' that we think we are referring to when we usually use the word in a Christian, Jewish or Muslim context. Brahman is NAGUNA, or has 'no characteristics'. In other words, it is All That Is rather than any given thing. Pure Thought is the nearest we get. In no way like any lawgiving, tribal, moral, nationalistic or gender-specific God we are familiar with. In fact the Western Traditions speak of the same thing, but not in their commonly experienced forms. Brahman is much closer to what Einstein said was his conception of God - a 'Will' or 'Intelligence' or 'Reason' which reveals itself in the workings and harmonies of the Cosmos.

Indeed, everything about so much modern science points towards the fact that our macrocosmic Universe of physical Matter IS an illusion - not in the sense that it is 'not there', but in the sense that it is not all there is, that it is relative, that it emerges from a mysterious level of reality we don't understand, that Matter is just a temporary form of Energy and so on, that Matter accounts for only 5% of the Universe etc etc. This, again, is why Einstein said that 'Indian spirituality begins where science ends'.

So Dawkins is being deliberately stupid. Not walking into a bus or being eaten by a tiger has nothing to do with the Indian concept of Maya, although their view of reincarnation also meant that, at their best, they lost all fear of death, so perhaps its not so simple.Report
Post #34Jake Murray wroteon January 3, 2010 at 1:23pm
NB I am not saying that this vision of things is 'right', nor am I attacking you, Gethyn. All I am doing is clarifying what is meant by these 5000 year old (and thus clearly crap, because anything old must be) ways of thinking. Dawkins always gets my goat when he comes up with supposedly clever, bullet-headed 'common sense' comments like that while clearly showing that he has not tried to engage with or inform himself about the ideas he is slagging. Shit on an ancient culture still pursued by 650 million people by all means, but least find out what it is first!Report
Post #35Gethyn Dylan Jones wroteon January 9, 2010 at 3:18pm
Jake, I have some sympathy with your suggestion that "physical reality...emerges from a mysterious level...that we don't understand". However, I find the word "illusion" confusing in this context. After all, an illusion is a false belief or a misleading appearance, is it not?

To clarify: I would describe a mirage of a city in the desert as an illusion because when you walk over that sand dune, the city isn't really there. On the other hand, I wouldn't describe the tip of an iceberg as an illusion, simply because nine tenths of the iceberg is invisible.

I would say that our situation resembles the iceberg more than the mirage: there is definitely more going on than meets the eye, but the tip is not an illusion. In fact, it's close observation of the tip that gives the best clues as to what is going on underneath the waterline...

If you haven't done so already, I would recommend that you read the closing section (with the title 'The Mother of All Burkas') of 'The God Delusion' to see Dawkins at his open-minded best.

Your description of Indian philosophy shows a great knowledge and love of its subtleties, and you are of course correct in pointing out that many physicists have found inspiration in its ideas and have commented on resemblances between some concepts of QM and Eastern philosophies. However, for my own part, I think these resemblances are mainly superficial. The ideas and techniques of QM have been formed by a "bullet-headed" insistence on the primacy of observational data and experiment.

I hope that you do not think that I am slagging off an ancient culture that has much to teach us on a cultural or aesthetic level if nothing else, but my own view can probably be summed up best by paraphrasing Winston Churcill: "The scientific method is probably the worst way of finding anything out - except for all the others."

With respect,

Gethyn Report
Post #36Matthew Clark wroteon January 10, 2010 at 12:16am
I agree, the word 'illusion' can be confusing. Maya, physical life, has always being said to be an illusion, but as Gethyn points out with his iceberg analogy, isn't it really just a 'delusion' by thinking that physical reality (the 10%) is all there is? Yet even Einstein said: "reality is an illusion, even if it is a persistent one."

Or is life an illusion because it appears to be physical? Yet what it really is, is the play of light/consciousness/energy giving the illusion of physical reality?

Is a dream an illusion, or the mind or consciousness an illusion just because they aren't physical?

Are abstractions, like 'number' real or illusory. You can't hold the number One in your hand. Isn't this what QT is giving us, the dynamic process of making the abstract concrete, & not just for matter but for mind too. Isn't it giving us the function of Life, of Creation. Bringing quantity from quality.

Shroedinger & Heisenberg gave us the marvelous mathematics with QT. Their equations gave us the relationship between abstract & concrete, between quality & quantity, between wave & particle, but it is through number that their equations have meaning, because number is the source & quality of the equation, the source of every function of the natural world.

"In nature number is function & any calculative approach to number, whatever that approach may be, ceases to be a function & becomes a description. In functional thinking, number is active. In rationalistic, calculative thinking number is the halting of activity & finality. ... When viewing nature for what it really is, number ceases to be notation specifying quantity & becomes the expression of life itself."

"With the application of Quantum physics - the fundamental principles of nature - we have created an abstracted extension of reality & mind through the technology of cyberspace. Where we make the abstract computer software, concrete through the graphic user interface."

both quotes & many ideas taken from Edward F Malkowski & his book "The Spiritual Technology of Ancient Egypt ... sacred science & the mystery of consciousness"Report
Post #37Jake Murray wrote8 hours ago
> I find the word "illusion" confusing in this context. After all, an illusion is a false belief or a misleading appearance, is it not?<

I agree that the word 'illusion' is deeply unhelpful in this context. Its a problem with translation and its lead to a lot of stupid misunderstandings with New Age people over here. As you say, wandering around going 'all this is an illusion' doesn't stop you banging your head on the door if you don't bend down. If anything it isn't 'false belief or a misleading appearance' that is the problem here but the stupid idea that nothing actually exists.

As I think I said above, Maya actually means 'Play of God' and not 'Illusion'. The Gurus use the phrase 'Illusion' to try and encourage people not to be excessively materialistic. Part of the use of the word is to do with impermanence. The illusion is that physical things - money, wealth, riches, resources etc - are permanent and valuable in themselves and thus worth becoming obsessed with and fighting over. Vedanta and Buddhism - the two religions which use the term the most - try to encourage people to let go of the physical and turn to the spiritual, the inner, rather than continue existing in a state of conflict with oneself and the world.

Having said that, the second half of your definition: 'a misleading appearance' isn't so far wrong as we might think, as according to QM and Relativity, what appears to our eyes is not necessarily the way things are. I think your analogy of the iceberg and the mirage is bang on. That's exactly what they mean by Maya. If you refer back to the image of Purusha and Prakriti, Prakriti is that bit of the iceberg we can see - the Dance of Matter - while Purusha is everything underneath. You are more of a Guru than you know!

>If you haven't done so already, I would recommend that you read the closing section (with the title 'The Mother of All Burkas') of 'The God Delusion' to see Dawkins at his open-minded best.<

I have read it & although I know what you mean, I would compare his open-minded best as a narrow slit in a burka to the open-minded best of a lot of other people! I am not just referring to Schroedinger, Einstein etc but a lot of Dawkins' contemporaries, from Gould onwards! LoL!

>Your description of Indian philosophy shows a great knowledge and love of its subtleties,<

Thank you Gethyn. I appreciate this. Usually when such things are brought up here they are shat on!

>However, for my own part, I think these resemblances are mainly superficial. The ideas and techniques of QM have been formed by a "bullet-headed" insistence on the primacy of observational data and experiment.<

I would agree and disagree. The focus of Mysticism and Science is obviously different, as the Mystic seeks to penetrate the nature of 'reality' to understand its deeper, spiritual meaning while the Scientist is seeking to understand how the physical processes of 'reality' work with no reference to meaning. Plus, as you say, the techniques employed are entirely different. Science tends also to take things apart and break them down to see how they work (QM's incredible genius).

Having said that, for the Mystic, the reality behind the reality is, for them, utterly observable and within all the different traditions, techniques have been developed to enable this experience. The fascinating difference is that the Mystic does not mistrust consciousness as a means to understand things. Just as the Scientific Method seeks to escape subjective consciousness, the Mystic seeks to discover objective truth THROUGH subjective consciousness. This may seem ridiculous, but the idea is nevertheless there, as I am sure you know. Mystical systems, from Kabbalah to Vedanta to Buddhism etc have very complex frameworks attached to them which have evolved through the centuries. These frameworks provide an objective reference point for what these Mystics do. The attempt is to get at 'truth' from a different angle. For them, this 'truth' is as experiencable as the 'truth' a scientist encounters in the lab.

The other big tool that Mystics use which is entirely in common with Scientists is mathematics. Pythagoras, who laid down the foundations of mathematics, first pushed forward the idea that mathematics could unlock the fundamental reality of things. I could post some very interesting quotes from past masters on this, but I won't bore you! Needless to say, Heisenberg was fully aware of this when he was tackling the early discoveries of QM.

I would say, moreover, that where the Mystics are NOT superficial in their relationship to Science in is their concepts of the 'bigger picture' for want of a better word. A Mystic could not predict how a wave function will collapse or tell you how superconductivity operates or assemble a Hadron Collider, but he can probably be incredibly helpful in giving you a conceptual framework around which you might be able to grapple with the Theories of Everything we are bouncing around. Not one Big Interpretation put forward about Quantum Theory - Copenhagen, Many Worlds, Implicate Orders, even the many different aspects of String Theory - does not have its counterpart somewhere in Mysticism, from Plato and Neo-Platonism to Vedanta. To my mind, on this level, the line between Philosophy, Mysticism and Science is as it was right at the beginning of civilisation - non-existent, or at least very blurry.

As an example of this 'conceptual framework' of Mysticism/ Philosophy thing being able to help Science I would cite the theory of Atoms put forward by Democritus. Democritus arrived at the idea of Atoms by logical deduction, but no-one took it up until John Dalton thought it might be a useful idea for trying to understand how Matter worked. Democritus had the original brainwave, but Dalton used it to help him actually DISCOVER Atoms.

What is doubly interesting about this is that when Epicureans took up Democritus' idea of the Atom, he was opposed by the Pythagoreans who insisted that there was no ultimate, irreducible building block like an Atom, that there could not be. For the Pythagoreans, mathematics was the basis of the universe, so Atoms could not exist. Here is 15th C Mystic Nicholas De Cusa on this:

"And if you would wish me to be more concise, did not the mathematical demonstration of the Pythagoreans and the Peripatetics refute the opinion of the Epicureans about atoms and the void, an opinion which denies God and dashes against truth? For the Pythagoreans and the Peripatetics showed that it is not possible to arrive at indivisible and simple atoms, which destroyed the principle that Epicurus had assumed.

Proceeding in this way of the ancients, we agree with them in saying that since our only approach to divine things is through symbols, we can appropriately use mathematical signs because of their incorruptible nature."

Compare this with Heisenberg:

"...we are going to a world of very remote phenomena. Either we go to the distant stars ot to very small atomic particles. In these new fields our language ceases to act as a reasonable tool. We will have to rely on mathematics as the only language that remains. I really feel that it is better not to say that the elementary particles are small bits of matter; it is better to say that they are just representations of symmetries... The mathematical structures are actually deeper than the existence of mind or matter. Mind or matter is a consequence of mathematical structure. That of course is a very Platonic idea."

What is interesting is that the Pythagoreans appear to have been right (Plato was a student of the Pythagoreans BTW). The Atom was NOT the indivisible thing and mathematics and geometries do seem to be at the basis of reality. The issue of the Void, by the way, refers to the idea that there is Empty Space vs the idea that 'Empty Space' is a plenum. When Cusa refers to the Void denying the existence of God, he means that the plenum is filled with the presence of God. Here is where the conceptual framework comes in handy, as regardless of God, we know that there is no Empty Space but that what we thought of as 'Empty Space' is the Zero Point Field ie a plenum of Quantum Processes creating Energy.

Getting back to Heisenberg for a moment, its worth noting that he pointed out that the only difference between Science and Mysticism/Philosophy was not the conclusions that they drew but the fact that the Scientist stood on firmer ground because he was able to demonstrate his or her discoveries by experiment while the Mystic/Philosopher could only intuit them. Although even then he may be wrong, as String Theory etc are undemonstrated and possibly undemonstrable, making them as possible and impossible as anything Mysticism or Philosophy have brought forth. Is Theoretical Physics therefore more akin to these older disciplines than we thought? LoL!

>I hope that you do not think that I am slagging off an ancient culture that has much to teach us on a cultural or aesthetic level if nothing else,<

Not in the slightest! I thank you for your respect and return it accordingly.

>but my own view can probably be summed up best by paraphrasing Winston Churcill: "The scientific method is probably the worst way of finding anything out - except for all the others."<

I would agree - in some instances! The Scientific Method is unsurpassed for finding out about physical processes, but how to live? How the psyche works? What this life is? I would have to say not! Its one of the tools we can use but, as with Mysticism, Philosophy, Logic, Instinct, Imagination, it can only yield up a partial view by itself. Besides which, we use all these tools in different ways during the Scientific Method. Dawkins is a case in point. Evolutionary Theory does not per se lead to the metaphysical, moral or spiritual conclusions he makes, none of which have anything to do with the Scientific Method and are as much dependent upon Philosophical & Moral thought processes as anything else. This does't invalidate them. All I am saying is that wherever the Mind is involved, the lines will always be blurred.Report
Post #38Shaun Young wrote2 hours ago
Lets sum this up in a few words. Are there objective realities? More than likely. Can a being through whom objective realities are seen through the lens of consciousness see objective realities as anything other than subjective when consciousness is always his medium? I think no. Report