Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The God Hypothesis
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 46 of 150 (689892)
02-05-2013 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by 1.61803
02-05-2013 1:40 PM


Re: Dualism
Numbers writes:
No. I believe they where just very fucking smart.
They may well have been. Which is why this Zen physics bollocks does both them and modern science a disservice.
Numbers writes:
The similarities are well documented and spoke about in just about any physics literature you care to read..
I have a shelf full of undergraduate physics text books here and yet I am struggling to find references to Buddhism. It appears not to be so widespread as you claim....?
Numbers writes:
and I provided two links that show more than just the word illusion.
You provided two links that have a only a tenuous link to each other beyond the recognition that perception of reality is necessarily subjective and limited.
Numbers writes:
But I'll bite and say that the Buddhist and Hindus offered the idea that reality is in constant flux and transient, that nature itself is illusory and can not be pinned down.
Numbers writes:
The Chinese were talking about organic patterns of life for thousands of years. And today it is understood that there is some inherent patterns to how reality manifest itself.
Things change. Things are ordered in recognisable patterns. The conundrum that is life the universe and everything can't be worked out in an afternoon (or even a lifetime).
Is that it? The much cited correlation between modern physics and Eastern philosophy boils down to change, order and non-triviality.
Numbers writes:
These ideas being discussed 1500 BC. Which is astounding considering they are right.
As opposed to what? Concluding that things stay the same, things are random and chaotic with no discernible pattern and that reality can be trivially "pinned down".
Numbers writes:
Some current theories suggest reality arises from a two dimensional matrix. That reality may very well be illusory.
Illusory in the sense of not existing? Or "illusory" in the sense of our perception of reality being a subjective construct that doesn't tell the whole story?
If the latter - I don't find it remarkable that philosophers from yesteryear have proposed this at all. Because it's the sort of profoundity that any reasonably articulate person can come up whilst high on ecstacy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by 1.61803, posted 02-05-2013 1:40 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by 1.61803, posted 02-06-2013 11:07 AM Straggler has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 150 (689907)
02-06-2013 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by AZPaul3
02-05-2013 5:59 PM


Re: Awareness
This is totally off topic, but, hey ...
Well, it does tie into the awareness thing that OP mentioned in Message 16 (that this string stems from). So I'm going with it.
Most of the reflex reactions, like the doctor hitting your knee with that little rubber hatchet of his or accidentally touching a hot stove, are short circuited in the spinal column, if I recall. There is a threshold of signal that just passes up the cord to the brain, but over that threshold the spinal wiring will loop back part of the signal to some muscles to twitch away from the danger. The brain doesn't find out about it till after the fact.
So I've been reading, turns out I'm way out of my league... but that's never stopped me before.
Anyways, before reading, I was under the impression that the brain pretty much controls everything. I'd forgotten that the spinal cord is a pretty big part of the brain-system. I suppose you already know this stuff, but I've still got the tabs open and I think the lurkers can benefit. The old doctor-hitting-your-knee thing, that's the Patellar reflex, and you're right that it all happens in the spinal cord:
click to enlarge
What else that I found particularly interesting, was that the Patellar reflex occurs all the way down in the yellow section, around the L2 - L4 vertebrae. So yeah, its not even really all that close to the brain at all! No wonder the brain finds out later.
Muscle spasms and cramps are not brain directed and are mostly chemical screw-ups in the tissue or nerves from over use, under use or injury.
I can see how that could be more of a chemistry problem than a biological one, so that doesn't really tie into the awareness aspect.
So, yeah, I can see where you would say these things are "body" vs brain controlled.
Ringo said that your body IS you. I tend to think the other way. The "me" that I am is the conscious, sentient, part of the mind. And its begins to look like it has been distanced from the body.
The reason I found this interesting is because a few articles I read some months ago (wish I could find them) covered a number of studies with some strange implications. Some Neurologists and Psyrinks are starting to suggest that the conscious mind is just an input/output interface between the universe and the subconscious mind. The subconscious mind is where all the analysis and the decision-making take place and the conscious mind carries out those commands that require an outside interface. All the senses are wired into the brain and are shared by the subconscious and conscious, but the subconscious decides what to do about it all. They also speculated that the conscious mind’s realization of the actions may precede or lag behind the actual action as well as serving as memory of intent already decided by the subconscious.
That actually adds-up, to me. If we look at some of the "dumber" animals, they seem to be going about just fine despite not having much in the way of sentience and consciousness. The levels of those things that we enjoy are plagued by, is a recent development in evolutionary history. It makes sense that they'd be an additional, or after-the-fact, kind of phenomenon.
Our senetience is an emergent property. The hard problem of consciousness kinda goes away a bit if you look at yourself from the other side. Rather than being the sentient portion of your mind, that happens to have this body that it is controlling, you're just another robot-like animal that has developed a level of sentience that, upon reflection, just seems to be distinct from the rest of the body. But really, the body is what you are, and the mind is something that develops within it. Without the "you-that-is-in-your-mind", you would still function as an ape bumbling around looking for food and mates. Its only after you self-reflect, that there seems to be some problem between the "you-that-is-in-your-mind" and the body that it only superficially seems to be in control of. But really, you are your body, and your mind is only an afterthought.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by AZPaul3, posted 02-05-2013 5:59 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by AZPaul3, posted 02-06-2013 2:12 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 54 by Stile, posted 02-06-2013 2:21 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1503 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 48 of 150 (689908)
02-06-2013 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Straggler
02-05-2013 6:35 PM


Re: Dualism
E=MC2 or d=m/v
No you will not find Eastern religious thought directly quoted in a physics formulas.
No you will not in any maths gleen the four noble truths.
I get it Straggler.
You see no correlation between Buddhism and Modern physics.
There is nothing left to discuss.
My last post was not meant as a some sort of equivocation or how Buddhism trumps physics. Nor was it a defense that we can rest on religion for how to know things. It was simply a acknowledgement that there are known similarities, some even acknowledged in the science field. Many that I myself have come across when reading. Contrived, coincidence, vague and general? I suppose if that is how one views it. I get the impression that is your basic message, it is trivial and empty. Nothing I post or link will change that opinion.
Edited by 1.61803, : changed of to or.

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Straggler, posted 02-05-2013 6:35 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Straggler, posted 02-06-2013 1:24 PM 1.61803 has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 49 of 150 (689913)
02-06-2013 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Spiritual Anarchist
02-04-2013 5:21 PM


Re: Awareness
Spiritual anarchist writes:
Have you even read about Libets experiment?
How can an experiment detect something "outside" the physical you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 02-04-2013 5:21 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 50 of 150 (689915)
02-06-2013 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by New Cat's Eye
02-04-2013 12:47 PM


Re: Awareness
Catholic Scientist writes:
It makes it feel like there's a seperation between the me that is in my head and the body that its attached to.
Certainly there's a difference between concious and unconcious activities in your brain. That has nothing to do with anything "outside" of you. It's just that the concious part of "you" isn't concious of what the unconcious part is doing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-04-2013 12:47 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 51 of 150 (689929)
02-06-2013 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by 1.61803
02-06-2013 11:07 AM


Table of Specific Similarities - Quantum Physics and Buddhism Compared
Numbers writes:
My last post was not meant as a some sort of equivocation or how Buddhism trumps physics.
I didn't say it was. I said that the bogus equivalences that are invoked in the name of Zen physics do a disservice both to Buddhism and modern science.
Numbers writes:
It was simply a acknowledgement that there are known similarities, some even acknowledged in the science field.
There are claimed similarities certainly. But when I ask you to be specific I get hand waving generalisations about how everyone is familiar with the similarities and then vague use of terms like "flux" and "duality" and "illusion".
Numbers writes:
Nothing I post or link will change that opinion.
It's got nothing to do with my opinion. If you genuinely have a case stop hand waving and make that case. Stop making vague generalisations and give some specific examples of where modern physics and Buddhism can be shown to correlate with each other in a way that justifies the claims being made in this thread.
Numbers writes:
Contrived, coincidence, vague and general? I suppose if that is how one views it.
Well let's see if you can demonstrate otherwise. Here I'll help you - I'll construct a table where on one side we have the conclusion of modern physics and on the other we have Buddhist wisdom. Please show the equivalences you are claiming side by side in this table.
I've even gone so far as to fill out a couple of initial entries on the physics side for you. Two principles of modern physics regularly cited by those who claim that Buddhism got there first (wave particle duality and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle) as well as your own example of the holographic universe.
Quantum Theory SaysBuddhism Says.
In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle, such as position x and momentum p, can be known simultaneously
The holographic principle suggests that the entire universe can be seen as a two-dimensional information structure "painted" on the cosmological horizon, such that the three dimensions we observe are only an effective description at macroscopic scales and at low energies
Wave—particle duality postulates that all particles exhibit both wave and particle properties. A central concept of quantum mechanics, this duality addresses the inability of classical concepts like "particle" and "wave" to fully describe the behavior of quantum-scale objects
I await to be amazed at the startling and unequivocal similarities you are able to show.
Numbers writes:
E=MC2 or d=m/v
What is that supposed to demonstrate? Whatever it is I suggest you include it in the table of specific comparisons above.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by 1.61803, posted 02-06-2013 11:07 AM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by AZPaul3, posted 02-06-2013 2:18 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 55 by 1.61803, posted 02-06-2013 6:08 PM Straggler has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 52 of 150 (689932)
02-06-2013 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by New Cat's Eye
02-06-2013 11:06 AM


Re: Awareness
Ringo said that your body IS you.
I can agree to that. Your body, your brain, your conscious awareness, your unconscious processing/decision making, your deep animalistic agression, all of Maslow's Hierarchy, etc, is all you.
Sensation, instinct, sentience, awareness, intellect are all emergent properties of complex chemistry in continuous action.
The conscious awareness is just one module, the outward interface to the universe, while the rest of "you" does the heavy lifting in the background.
But, then, to get really dawkinsesque, "you" are just a survival vessel "designed" and built by your genes. And these special emergent properties are just survival strategies to enhance the mission of the vessel. So the real you is your suite of genes. How droll.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-06-2013 11:06 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(4)
Message 53 of 150 (689933)
02-06-2013 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Straggler
02-06-2013 1:24 PM


Re: Table of Specific Similarities - Quantum Physics and Buddhism Compared
Quantum Theory SaysBuddhism Says.
In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle, such as position x and momentum p, can be known simultaneously oohhmmm
The holographic principle suggests that the entire universe can be seen as a two-dimensional information structure "painted" on the cosmological horizon, such that the three dimensions we observe are only an effective description at macroscopic scales and at low energies oohhmmm
Wave—particle duality postulates that all particles exhibit both wave and particle properties. A central concept of quantum mechanics, this duality addresses the inability of classical concepts like "particle" and "wave" to fully describe the behavior of quantum-scale objects oohhmmm

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Straggler, posted 02-06-2013 1:24 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by 1.61803, posted 02-06-2013 7:15 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 54 of 150 (689934)
02-06-2013 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by New Cat's Eye
02-06-2013 11:06 AM


Awareness Rambling
Catholic Scientist writes:
But really, the body is what you are, and the mind is something that develops within it. Without the "you-that-is-in-your-mind", you would still function as an ape bumbling around looking for food and mates. Its only after you self-reflect, that there seems to be some problem between the "you-that-is-in-your-mind" and the body that it only superficially seems to be in control of.
That's pretty much how I've always thought about it.
Sometimes I call the "ape bumbling around looking for food and mates" to be our base intincts... things that are there, and have been there in many of our ancestors for millions of years.
Then the "you-that-is-in-your-mind" is more our intelligence. The part of us that allows reflection, and can also allow us to override our instincts (as defined above), if we are fast enough (quick minded-enough) in order to reflect upon the instinct and "catch it" before it's fully processed and the action is completed.
Perhaps there's room for some future evolution here, even.
Maybe one day, people will have a conscious mind that is actually on the same level, or even replacing their sub-conscious instinctual brain-area. This would greatly help in the control of things like fear and acting in anger/passion.
Likely, some people's consciousness is stronger/faster at controlling these instinctual abilities right now. Not only does it seem somewhat genetic, but it's also an ability that can be improved upon and we can learn to be better at it with training. Can we be taught it completely if it wasn't there in the first place? I don't know...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-06-2013 11:06 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by 1.61803, posted 02-07-2013 11:59 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1503 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 55 of 150 (689954)
02-06-2013 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Straggler
02-06-2013 1:24 PM


Re: Table of Specific Similarities - Quantum Physics and Buddhism Compared
Strag writes:
I said that the bogus equivalences that are invoked in the name of Zen physics do a disservice both to Buddhism and modern science.
Like what? I made no bogus equivalences.
Strag writes:
There are claimed similarities certainly. But when I ask you to be specific I get hand waving generalisations about how everyone is familiar with the similarities and then vague use of terms like "flux" and "duality" and "illusion".
Because dude that is what terms are used.
Things like quantum entanglement are not used. And you do not think things like quantum entanglement, spooky action at a distance and the like don't sound vague and ridiculous? Give me a break.
Strag writes:
It's got nothing to do with my opinion. If you genuinely have a case stop hand waving and make that case. Stop making vague generalisations and give some specific examples of where modern physics and Buddhism can be shown to correlate with each other in a way that justifies the claims being made in this thread.
The term Sunyata in Madhyamaka Buddhism is a description of emptiness. That things don't really exist in of themselves but are dependent on things in relation to them and also upon the observation of them. This sort of relates to the Uncertainty principal. That would be an example.

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Straggler, posted 02-06-2013 1:24 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Straggler, posted 02-07-2013 7:40 AM 1.61803 has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1503 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 56 of 150 (689963)
02-06-2013 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by AZPaul3
02-06-2013 2:18 PM


Re: Table of Specific Similarities - Quantum Physics and Buddhism Compared
That's hilarious lol.

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by AZPaul3, posted 02-06-2013 2:18 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 57 of 150 (689983)
02-07-2013 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by 1.61803
02-06-2013 6:08 PM


Re: Table of Specific Similarities - Quantum Physics and Buddhism Compared
Numbers writes:
And you do not think things like quantum entanglement, spooky action at a distance and the like don't sound vague and ridiculous?
They sound like things which require research and explanation. They sound like the sort of gaps in our knowledge that proponents of mysticism love because they can be filled with bullshit.
Straggler writes:
I said that the bogus equivalences that are invoked in the name of Zen physics do a disservice both to Buddhism and modern science.
Numbers writes:
I made no bogus equivalences.
You seem to be having a great deal of trouble actually explicitly and specifically citing these much proclaimed equivalences. That much is true. This is why I have supplied you with a handy table in which to make the necessary head to head comparisons so that you can clearly and concisely demonstrate the similarities you claim exist.
Numbers writes:
Like what?
Like what indeed. Rather than actually provide head to head comparison of what physics says with what Buddhism says you have instead just asserted that the similarities between modern physics and Buddhism are so numerous, well known and established that they require no further explanation. However you have alluded to equivalences such as wave-particle duality being somehow equivalent to Buddhist notions of duality and quantum fluctuations as being equivalent to Buddhist notions of impremanence or flux.
Numbers on Sunyata writes:
This sort of relates to the Uncertainty principal. That would be an example.
Yes that would be another example of the sort of bogus equivalence I am referring to.
Numbers writes:
Because dude that is what terms are used.
Ah. I see. So if we take what physics says, reduce it down to an ill-defined buzz-word with only vague conceptual meaning and then we take Buddhism and we interpret it such that the same buzzword is used then lo-and-behold-buggermesidewayswithachainsaw-its-a-miracle we find that Buddhism is entirely consistent with modern physics. Amazing.
Numbers writes:
Because dude that is what terms are used.
Well that is an interesting point — How much of the terminology used by both physics and Buddhism is the result of genuine translation of Buddhist concepts and how much of it is due to shoe-horning by those who want to make bogus comparisons between the two? For example consider the use of observation below:
Numbers writes:
The term Sunyata in Madhyamaka Buddhism is a description of emptiness. That things don't really exist in of themselves but are dependent on things in relation to them and also upon the observation of them. This sort of relates to the Uncertainty principal.
I have looked at the Wiki page on Sunyata and it doesn’t even include the words ‘observer’ or ‘observation’. I then followed the link to ‘dependent origination’ which you are presumably alluding to and that doesn’t contain the words ‘observer’ or ‘observation’ either. So even this tenuous link seems to rely on some rather subjective interpretation on your part. However I’ll include your stated notion that the Madhyamaka version of Sunyata is a Buddhist equivalent to the uncertainty principle in our handy table:
Quantum Theory SaysBuddhism Says.
In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle, such as position x and momentum p, can be known simultaneously The term Sunyata in Madhyamaka Buddhism is a description of emptiness. That things don't really exist in of themselves but are dependent on things in relation to them and also upon the observation of them. ("observation" explicitly included as per 1.61803 unsourced assertion)
The holographic principle suggests that the entire universe can be seen as a two-dimensional information structure "painted" on the cosmological horizon, such that the three dimensions we observe are only an effective description at macroscopic scales and at low energies
Wave—particle duality postulates that all particles exhibit both wave and particle properties. A central concept of quantum mechanics, this duality addresses the inability of classical concepts like "particle" and "wave" to fully describe the behaviour of quantum-scale objects
Happy so far? Any others you want to add?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by 1.61803, posted 02-06-2013 6:08 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by 1.61803, posted 02-07-2013 12:06 PM Straggler has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1503 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 58 of 150 (689991)
02-07-2013 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Stile
02-06-2013 2:21 PM


Re: Awareness Rambling
sorry.
Edited by 1.61803, : wrong poster

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Stile, posted 02-06-2013 2:21 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1503 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 59 of 150 (689992)
02-07-2013 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Straggler
02-07-2013 7:40 AM


Re: Table of Specific Similarities - Quantum Physics and Buddhism Compared
Straggler writes:
They sound like things which require research and explanation. They sound like the sort of gaps in our knowledge that proponents of mysticism love because they can be filled with bullshit.
Sure if one interprets it as such.
But I will still play.
btw I am not a practicing Buddhist.
The Four Foundations of Buddhism
There are many different schools of Buddhism, but all are built upon the foundations of the Four Seals of Dharma.
The four seals are
(i) Lack of inherent existence
(ii) Impermanence
(iii) Unsatisfactoriness
(iv) Liberation of the mind
First Seal - Lack of inherent existence (emptiness)
(a) Causality: Phenomena exist dependent upon causes and conditions.
(b) Structure: Phenomena depend upon the relationship of whole to parts.
(c) phenomena depend upon imputation, attribution, or designation by the mind.
Second Seal - Impermanence
The impermanence of all functioning phenomena is an inevitable logical consequence of their emptiness of inherent existence.
No functioning phenomenon can be static, because to function it must change and be changed, it must give something of itself or receive something into itself. Existence is just the interplay of ever changing phenomenon from one form to the other.
Third Seal - The Unsatisfactoriness of Material Existence
All materialistic cravings eventually and inevitably lead to disappointment and worse. They cannot provide any ultimate satisfaction.
Fourth Seal - The Ultimate Liberation of the Mind
Through meditation and acceptance one can trancend suffering.
I know what your thinking. It does not say anywhere in there anything about Heisenberg's uncertainty principal, or Bells Theorem.
But if you look at one of the basic tenants of Buddhism that all things are illusory, that things are dependent on that which interacts with it. That for things to exist they must be perceived by the mind and assigned. Then surely this is reminiscent of those early QM phenomenon. Take into account that these ideas where being thought about, discussed and interpreted for centuries before Einstein wrote his first paper.
These ideas where counter intuitive, and bizarre. Just like some of the early scientist like Niels Bohr, Heisenberg, Oppenheimer where thinking during the 30's and 40's.
Is it any wonder Buddhism was being alluded to as being reminiscent of those experiments being made?
Coincidence? Could be.
So in conclusion I will just say you have a point, it could all be so much bull shit. But I for one find it interesting and intriguing.

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Straggler, posted 02-07-2013 7:40 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Straggler, posted 02-07-2013 1:00 PM 1.61803 has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 60 of 150 (690004)
02-07-2013 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by 1.61803
02-07-2013 12:06 PM


Re: Table of Specific Similarities - Quantum Physics and Buddhism Compared
Once again you fail to provide the head to head comparisons requested.
It's easy to suggest vague correlations in paragraphs of prose isn't it? But much more difficult to specify actual one to one comparisons that support your flaky position.
Numbers writes:
Is it any wonder Buddhism was being alluded to as being reminiscent of those experiments being made?
Alluded to? Reminiscient. You seem to be rapidly backtracking from the original assertion made in this thread that started all this Buddhist have already made all the observation Quantum Physicist have made about the nature of our Universe.
Just how much (or little) of a correlation are you now claiming that there is? (and why can’t you demonstrate it in my little head to head concept comparison table?)
Numbers writes:
But if you look at one of the basic tenants of Buddhism that all things are illusory, that things are dependent on that which interacts with it. That for things to exist they must be perceived by the mind and assigned. Then surely this is reminiscent of those early QM phenomenon. Take into account that these ideas where being thought about, discussed and interpreted for centuries before Einstein wrote his first paper.
In the case of Buddhism we can look at what is meant by the terms used in the context of that religion specifically. And here we see that it’s all about life, birth, death, conflict, the negation of suffering and the nature of an impermanent self — All in the context of reincarnation.
So firstly - You are taking the Buddhist notions of dependency and interaction etc. etc. etc. completely out of context. Secondly - As with many forms of mysticism terms like energy and flux and field and duality can be thrown around in ways that superficially sound like they bear some relation to concepts in modern physics. But if you look in detail at the way in which physics actually uses these terms they are rigorously defined and bear little conceptual similarity at all to any mystical or religious proclamations.
To take the highly defined terminology of physics as applied to subatomic particles et al, run it through the vaguefier of popular misunderstanding and then equate it to religious concepts originally invoked to describe the processes and nature of bodily reincarnation is utterly unjustified.
Numbers writes:
Coincidence?
One of the core concepts of QM is the inherently probabalistic nature of reality. This runs counter to Buddhism. So I would suggest that not only are the "coincidences" that you are citing unjustified out-of-context-vagueties I would also point out that you are being very selective as to which aspects of QM you choose to consider.
Numbers writes:
So in conclusion I will just say you have a point, it could all be so much bull shit. But I for one find it interesting and intriguing.
You are welcome to find it intriguing and to pursue it to your heart’s content. But if there was anything concrete to this proclaimed equivalence you would be able to demonstrate it by lining up the detailed concepts side by side and making clear their correlation. That you are unable to do this should cause you to question the ideas you are espousing.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by 1.61803, posted 02-07-2013 12:06 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by 1.61803, posted 02-07-2013 1:25 PM Straggler has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024