The God Hypothesis

As long as you keep alluding to equivalences via the use of buzzwords, jargonistic phrases and meaningless sentences I will keep requesting that you explain yourself. Let’s see if any of your latest claims stand up to scrutiny. I have no idea what this sentence means. What Buddhist concept are you talking about? What concept in modern physics are you equating it to? I’m sorry but that is just bollocks. Firstly can you show me where Buddhism talks about observers? Secondly — Physics certainly doesn’t say that things derive their existence from us observing them. Where are you getting this from? Nothing in quantum mechanics requires human involvement in order for things to exist. This mystical drivel about things not existing until they interact with a mind is the very worst kind of pop-science gone mad.Where exactly are you getting your information from on this? The notion of interconnectedness isn’t specific to Buddhism. The notion of an all pervasive transcendental divinity exists in many religions. ‘God is everywhere and within each of us’ is one sort of example. The sort of all pervading ‘cosmic awareness’ mumbo-jumbo the author of this thread has talked about is another. So what interconnectedness are you talking about exactly?More specifically — Which Buddhist concept are you talking about? Are you talking about dependent origination?And what physics concept of interconnectedness are you talking about? Presumably quantum entanglement (if so I’ll include it in our handy table). But can you really meaningfully equate entangled states of particle pairs with spiritual notions of mystical interconnectedness? Really? What do you mean when you say that reality is illusory? Do you mean reality doesn’t exist? Or do you mean that our perception of objective reality is necessarily subjective and incomplete? If the latter (as I have said previously) I don’t see this as the big wow that you are making it out to be because it is a truism that any thinking person can derive.More specifically when Buddhism talks about reality being illusory what exactly does it say? And what exactly does physics say (if anything) about reality being illusory? Be specific. Really? You keep asserting this but is it true? If it is true why are you so utterly unable to show these comparisons in a head to head table of Buddhist and physics concepts? I put it to you that you can’t because the comparisons don’t stand up beyond wild conflation of terminology. That is rich coming from a man who only a few posts ago equated the Buddhist concept of Sunyata as having something to do with observers and the uncertainty principle. As you have personally demonstrated any notion that Buddhist concepts and and physics concepts are significantly comparable relies on interpretation piled upon interpretation piled upon yet more interpretation until both physics and Buddhism are left utterly diminished. What consensus about what interpretation? So you recognise that equating physics with Buddhism relies on relentless interpretation and a heavy dose of woo but you just can’t help yourself do it anyway? If you look at the post of mine in this thread to which you first responded you will see that it was originally said by the author of this thread. That claim is the fire that lit this damp squib of a conversation between you and I.If you disagree with that statement I am left wondering why you decided to argue with me rather than him?

What are these musings supposed to demonstrate? An equivalence between modern science and Buddhism? If so this would be much clearer if you were to exhibit these equivalences in a head to head table. So far we have: Feel free to add whatever equivalences you are proposing to the head to head table above.It's easy to suggest vague correlations in paragraphs of prose but much more difficult to specify actual one to one comparisons that support this notion that Quantum-Mechanics-as-described-by-physicists and Buddhism are significantly similar.

Excellent. Let's add that to our table. Personally I see little similarity between the Buddhist eightfold path and Gellman's eightfold way beyond both seeking to tell us something about reality and Gellman's playful use of phraseology.But feel free to highlight further similarities if you think there are any.

Really? Was he? Where are you getting that from? I have read that Gell-Man's reference to Buddhism was intended as ironic.

quote:

---

His Eightfold Way, which he named ironically after the Buddhist path to nirvana, draws sub-atomic particles together in a pattern akin to Mendeleev's Periodic Table of Elements.

---

LinkBut let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that Gell-man was doing as you are asserting (namely concluding that "the metaphysical insight of Buddhism referred to the kingdom within, while his own elemental atomism referred to the kingdom external to man, or Reality.")That would make him a substance dualist wouldn't it? Now whether Gell-man is a substance dualist or not is irrelevant to the defensibility of substance duality is a proposition isn't it? So what is your point? The Tao of Physics is exactly the sort of pop-science Cavediver was referring to: Message 14

It's easy to suggest pointlessly vague correlations in paragraphs of prose. But much more difficult to specify actual one to one comparisons between modern physics and Buddhism. Your post seems to be little more than a very long winded way of saying this: That both modern science and Buddhism conclude that things are ordered in recognisable patterns is hardly a great revelation or cause for wonderment at the startling similarities between the two.I mean what is the alternative? To conclude that things are entirely random with no discernible patterns at all? You only have to watch the Sun rise each day to conclude "patterns". You don't need quantum theory.

If I were to provide you with a bar graph of Manchester United's year on year goal tally and a another bar graph showing monthly rainfall in Berlin do you think we could conclude that these two thing share deep metaphysical underpinnings because they look pictorially similar?Taking disparate things and representing them in a pictorially similar fashion demonstrates nothing but a human tendency to exhibit data pictorially. Ah. So it is Judaism rather than Buddhism whose prescience and equivalence to modern physics we should be marveling at?I guess everyone wants their preferred brand of mysticism to be the one that is most in line with scientific findings. But why are advocates of mysticism so eager to have their beliefs validated in this way? Can you reveal to the rest of us what this special pattern is?

There are many things which wouldn't get a single point on an IQ test but which manage to survive just fine.......But what does any of this have to do with the topic of there being some sort of startling equivalence between concepts in Buddhism and those of modern physics?

What connection with religion are you suggesting? Be specific. Do you have anything beyond vague hand waving to support these assertions of yours?Anyway for what little it matters I'm pretty sure that Gell-Mann was an atheist.

quote:

---

"So we don’t have to assume these principles as separate metaphysical postulates. They follow from the fundamental theory. They are what we call emergent properties. You don’t need something more to get something more. That’s what emergence means. Life can emerge from physics and chemistry, plus a lot of accidents. The human mind can arise from neurobiology, and a lot of accidents. The way the chemical bond arises from physics and certain accidents. Doesn’t diminish the importance of these subjects, to know that they follow from more fundamental things, plus accidents. That’s a general rule, and it’s critically important to realize that. You don’t need something more in order to get something more. People keep asking that when they read my book, The Quark and the Jaguar, and they say ‘isn’t there something more beyond what you have there?’ Presumably they mean something supernatural. Anyway, there isn’t. (laughs) You don’t need something more to explain something more."

---

Murray Gell-Mann, Beauty and truth in physics: Murray Gell-Mann on TED.com (2007), Ted.com.

That is amazing. Let's sum up your latest findings in our handy comparison table: The comparison is startling isn't it?

The number 8?

Are you serious......?According to this guy the divine number is 7 LinkWhy is your nonsense any more worthy of any credence than his nonsense?Anyway I would have thought God's number would be 333......

So one of the 4 physical forces (i.e. the strong force) has exchange particles (i.e. gluons) that come in 8 varieties (i.e. the colour octet). And if you add up the Hebrew letters YHVH these sum up to 8.And this you think is indicative of some deep metaphysical relationship between quantum theory and Judaism?

Yet again you display your penchant for invoking relationships between disparate things on the basis that you can make them look pictorially similar. But drawing triangles and squares around things really isn't the path to profundity that you seem to think it is. It's easy to suggest pointlessly vague correlations in paragraphs of prose. But much more difficult to specify actual one to one comparisons between modern physics and whatever form of mysticism you are now touting. Once again your post seems to be little more than a very long winded way of saying this: That both modern science and religion conclude that things are ordered in recognisable patterns is hardly a great revelation or cause for wonderment.I mean what is the alternative? To conclude that things are entirely random with no discernible patterns at all? You only have to watch the Sun rise each day to conclude "patterns". You don't need quantum theory. OK. What pattern?Can you answer this without drawing lots of triangles and boxes around things?Because whilst I am sure that in your own head it all makes perfect sense the fact of the matter is that if others can't come to the same conclusion, if others cannot discern this pattern that you find so obvious, then it may be that your conclusions tell us more about the internal workings of your mind than anything about physical reality.Describe the pattern you see.

The triangles and squares pattern?Did you construct those pictures yourself or source them from somewhere else?Has this connection between science and Judaism been put forward by others or is it your own pet theory?