Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,813 Year: 3,070/9,624 Month: 915/1,588 Week: 98/223 Day: 9/17 Hour: 5/1


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


Message 3 of 150 (689699)
02-03-2013 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Spiritual Anarchist
02-02-2013 8:41 PM


Dualism
If I have understood your argument correctly it rests entirely upon the notion that awareness/experience/consciousness exist independently of the physical. Whether we are applying those terms to individual humans or the physical universe in it's entirety (AKA God in your 'hypothesis')
Is this correct?
If so how do you get over the rather significant problem of dualism?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 02-02-2013 8:41 PM Spiritual Anarchist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 02-03-2013 1:09 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 6 of 150 (689702)
02-03-2013 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Spiritual Anarchist
02-03-2013 1:09 PM


Re: Dualism
SA writes:
Are you interested in the problem of Dualism from the Metaphysical questions duality vs nonduality which is itself a form of dualism?
I'm interested in how you deal with the idea that the mind can cause the body to act.
I'm also interested in how you deal with the fact that physical changes can be demonstrated to have significant effects on things like personality and thoughts.
SA writes:
The problem is conceptual thinking itself. Conceptual thinking leads to paradox because paradox is the only way for dualistic mind to escape it's own trap of "the other".
You are advocating non-conceptual thinking? That doesn't sound very helpful....
SA writes:
Or Are you trying to grasp Dualism from a Scientific Investigation into Consciousness (The Hard Problem) which includes the same problem in Quantum Physics also known as the Measurement problem?
So yours is a god of the quantum gap? Why is that gap any more likely to require god as an answer than any of the other gaps humanity has previously seen fit to fill with various forms of teleological thinking?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 02-03-2013 1:09 PM Spiritual Anarchist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 02-03-2013 2:36 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 12 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 02-03-2013 3:42 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 9 of 150 (689705)
02-03-2013 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Spiritual Anarchist
02-03-2013 2:36 PM


Re: Dualism
You claim not to be a dualist whilst simultaneously making a dualistic distinction between aspects of reality that can be examined scientifically and aspects of reality that cannot.
SA writes:
A Quantum Gap?
Quantum theory is frequently used by those of a mystical disposition as a catchall justification for various forms of nonsense. No different in principle from any other god of the gaps position. Take something that is complex and not fully understood and then fill in the gaps we have in our knowledge with whatever unevidenced wishful thinking floats your boat.
It seems that this is what you are doing. But your posts are so long winded and jargonistic that frankly it's difficult to decipher what the key component of your 'god hypothesis' really is here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 02-03-2013 2:36 PM Spiritual Anarchist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Tangle, posted 02-03-2013 3:13 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 13 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 02-03-2013 4:17 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 17 of 150 (689719)
02-03-2013 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Spiritual Anarchist
02-03-2013 3:42 PM


Re: Dualism
Are you insisting that consciousness, awareness etc. are inherently unable to be investigated and explained scientifically - Or not?
If so - Why?
SA writes:
I have established the fact of if I am my brain then I can not be my body.
I think it is pretty much accepted, whatever one's views on freewill or dualism, that when we talk about the body we are including the physical brain. So most of what you wrote in your answer to the mind body problem doesn't make any sense at all because you are treating the physical brain and the body as separate entities in a way that makes no sense whatever one's philosophical disposition might be.
I'll ask the question again - How do you respond to the idea that some ethereal (i.e. inherently immune to scientific investigation) notion of mind can cause the body (including the physical brain) to act?
SA writes:
Buddhist have already made all the observation Quantum Physicist have made about the nature of our Universe.
Really? As far as I have seen this is only true to the extent that Nostradamus's predictions were true. I.e. If you already have the scientifically verifiable facts you can fit the interpretation of some rather vague proclamations to be consistent with those facts and then claim that those facts were known all along. It's no different in vaguety, interpretation and technique to horoscopes as published in newspapers.
This is the same sort of "prediction" that creationists here have previously claimed.
Can you quote where Buddhism actually pre-empts quantum theory?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 02-03-2013 3:42 PM Spiritual Anarchist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 02-04-2013 7:01 PM Straggler has replied

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


(6)
Message 18 of 150 (689720)
02-03-2013 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Spiritual Anarchist
02-03-2013 4:17 PM


Re: Dualism
SA writes:
Do people posting to this thread think I am attempting to "Prove" God exist?
I think you are throwing the word "quantum" around in a way which you think sounds mystical and impressive, I think you are invoking gaps in present knowledge as needing to be filled by something you refer to as "god", I think you are dividing the world into that which can be empirically investigated and that which cannot whilst contradicting yourself by insisting that your position isn't substance dualist in nature, I think you are essentially applying the very human trait of incredulity to things like consciousness and awareness because you subjectively feel that these things are so wondrous that they must be mystical rather than mechanistic despite all the evidence to the contrary.
In short I think you are doing to consciousness what our distant ancestors did to things like thunder and lightning. Namely seeing a physical phenomenon which requires explanation and leaping to the teleological conclusion because anything worthy of 'awe and wonder' must be the result of some sort of conscious intent.
Humans have evolved to understand the world in terms of conscious intent because we are social creatures and a large part of our environment is made up of the conscious intent of others. As a result we are prone (desperate even) to see agency when there is in fact none.
The villager whose entire village has been swept away by a volcano asks - Why? Telling him it is mindless natural processes, pressure, heat, thermodynamics and geology in action provides no satisfaction. Tell him that the god Vulcan was angry and that he needs to be appeased however......
You are invoking teleology with regard to the origins/nature of consciousness on essentially the same basis. But that's OK. It's what humans do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 02-03-2013 4:17 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not replied

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


(1)
Message 22 of 150 (689776)
02-04-2013 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Spiritual Anarchist
02-03-2013 7:13 PM


Dr A's Invisible Man Hypothesis
SA writes:
There has been no discussion about the hard problem of consciousness.
Unsurprisingly this topic has been raised before. I'd like to alert you to Dr A's invisible man hypothesis:
quote:
Got something that you can't explain? Then hypothesize the existence of an invisible man having the property of explaining it.
Can't explain the lightning? We've got you covered. There's an invisible man having the property of explaining the lightning. Hoorah!
Why are species well-adapted to their environment? There's an invisible man having the property of adapting them to their environment. So we're done here.
(You will note that this has never been right so far.)
And so we come on to consciousness. Can't solve the Hard Problem Of Consciousness? Well, in that case I myself am an invisible man having the property of solving the Hard Problem Of Consciousness.
Now this is even worse than the usual application of the Invisible Man Hypothesis. Because I am, verifiably, a visible man. And the Invisible Man shares nearly every property with the visible man (i.e. my brain). It would be silly, for example, to suppose that this Invisible Man is left-handed when my brain is right-handed, or that it's a Republican while my brain is a Democrat. The Invisible Man shares every property with the visible man except two: first, it is invisible, intangible, and unevidenced, and second, it has the property of solving the Hard Problem Of Consciousness.
How does it do that? Well, it just has that property. 'Cos we defined it that way. And of course the hypothesis fits the facts perfectly, because, hypothetically, an Invisible Man having the property of solving the Hard Problem Of Consciousness would, if he existed, solve the Hard Problem Of Consciousness. Who can deny that?
Well I'm glad we sorted that out.
Message 52
As Dr A notes - The invisible man hypothesis has never yet fared very well....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 02-03-2013 7:13 PM Spiritual Anarchist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 02-04-2013 5:33 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 33 of 150 (689834)
02-05-2013 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Spiritual Anarchist
02-04-2013 7:01 PM


Re: Dualism
Are you insisting that consciousness, awareness etc. are inherently unable to be investigated and explained scientifically - Or not?
If so - Why?
SA writes:
I still want to point out that no one here has explained to me why QM can not be relevant to discussion of Metaphysics or Pantheism in general or even the mind as a soul.
Are the mind and the soul ultimately physical in nature? Is the mind a by-product of brain activity in your little hypothesis - Or not?
SA writes:
I never used the word "prediction" or "prophecy" so to bring up Nostradamus or Biblical Prophecy is completely irrelevant as is Astrology.
I didn't say that were predicting anything. I said that the links you are making between Buddhism and Quantum theory rely on the same sort of "ooh if you interpret it in this way it all makes sense" thinking that things like astrology rely upon.
SA writes:
What I said was that Buddhist Metaphysics describe the underlying Quantum Nature of all matter.
If that is the case then, rather than long winded assertions and relentlessly declaring what you don't mean, why not clearly and concisely state what it is about reality that Buddhists observed and quantum theory has since confirmed. Be specific.
SA writes:
Buddhist have already made all the observation Quantum Physicist have made about the nature of our Universe.
If you interpret an astrologists vague musings to be in accordance with the facst as they later become known you will convince yourself that he can tell the future. It's all in the interpretation after the facts are known isn't it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 02-04-2013 7:01 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by 1.61803, posted 02-05-2013 11:21 AM Straggler has replied

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


Message 34 of 150 (689835)
02-05-2013 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Spiritual Anarchist
02-04-2013 5:33 PM


Re: Dr A's Invisible Man Hypothesis
SA writes:
Not sure what you mean about an invisible man here? Are you talking about a white man with a beard sitting in the sky throwing lightning? In otherwords an "personal" God ? Not sure why people can not get it through their thick skulls that I am not a Christian or Jew for that matter. I am not a Monotheist in any sense of the word.
I didn't suggest you were. But the 'invisible man' hypothesis comes in many guises.
SA writes:
I would still think the Soul existed even if there is no God. The only reason I use the term "God" is to differentiate my soul Incarnated in my body from my soul discarnated after I die. In one case I am separate from other souls because I am caught up in the illusion of mind located in a body. Once the body dies so does the illusion. Though I do not need life after death to be a soul I find that paradigm more consistent.
Here your 'soul' acts as the seat of your unbodied consciousness. The ghost in the machine. The invisible man that is you. As Dr A put it:
quote:
And so we come on to consciousness. Can't solve the Hard Problem Of Consciousness? Well, in that case I myself am an invisible man having the property of solving the Hard Problem Of Consciousness.
I suggest you re-read Dr A's invisible man analysis again because it obviously applies to your position here (whether you realise it or not)
SA writes:
This is the problem inherent in Pantheism. The whole discussion of the nature of the soul and dualism is completely separate from my God Hypothesis. That is my arguments for the Soul have nothing to do with Pantheism.
Except that the entire basis of your 'god hypothesis' relates to consciousness/awareness and you are citing the 'soul' as the seat of one's conscious mind. So the two things are very much entwined.
Your whole god hypothesis is blatantly substance dualist in nature. Whether you realise it or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 02-04-2013 5:33 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not replied

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


Message 38 of 150 (689864)
02-05-2013 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by 1.61803
02-05-2013 11:21 AM


Re: Dualism
But I've just used a spoon to eat some birthday cake.
How did I do that if the spoon doesn't exist?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by 1.61803, posted 02-05-2013 11:21 AM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Panda, posted 02-05-2013 11:41 AM Straggler has not replied
 Message 40 by 1.61803, posted 02-05-2013 11:42 AM Straggler has replied

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


(1)
Message 41 of 150 (689870)
02-05-2013 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by 1.61803
02-05-2013 11:42 AM


Re: Dualism
The "illusion" of reality seems to be referring to the fact that any perception of reality is necessarily subjective. This is essentially inarguable.
But recognsing that perception of reality is subjective is very different to claiming that things don't exist or that reality isn't real. If that is the case what is it that we are perceiving?
Anything beyond this recognition that our perception of reality is subjective probably reduces to solipsism. And that is an ontological rabbit hole that has little to reccommend it.
Numbers writes:
I for one am a empiricist/pragmatist and am content to sleep better knowing things like spoons do exist enough to eat cake with, even if I can not say how or why.
I would argue that the methods of science are as they are because our perception of reality is necessarily subjective. Science provides the means and methods, checks and balances to reach the most objective conclusions about reality that we can in recognition of the fact that without such rigour we are prone to highly dubious interpretations of reality as we individually perceive it to be.
Dubious interpretations such as universes that are alive and aware. Dubious interpretations such as inappropriate links between ancient mysticisms and modern physics. For example.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by 1.61803, posted 02-05-2013 11:42 AM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by 1.61803, posted 02-05-2013 12:48 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 43 of 150 (689875)
02-05-2013 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by 1.61803
02-05-2013 12:48 PM


Re: Dualism
Numbers writes:
It is not dubious to recognize the simularities between one religious frame of thought and a scientific one.
What "similarities" are you talking about - be specific?
The fact that two wiki articles both contain the word "illusion" doesn't mean that an ancient mysticism has in some way pre-empted quantum theory in the way that SA is claiming does it?
Numbers writes:
Wisdom and knowledge can come in many forms. Not just the Straggler approved variety.
"No one saves us but ourselves. No one can and no one may. We ourselves must walk the path." - Buddha (allegedly)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by 1.61803, posted 02-05-2013 12:48 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by 1.61803, posted 02-05-2013 1:40 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 72 by mrnobody42, posted 02-18-2013 11:13 PM Straggler has replied

  
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

  
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

  
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

  
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