|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3574 days) Posts: 70 From: Raleigh NC Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The God Hypothesis | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
Numbers writes: That things that we think are things are actually dependent on components of them. 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?
Numbers writes: That they derive they're existence from our observing them. 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?
Numbers writes: Interconnectedness 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?
Numbers writes: Reality is illusory 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.
Numbers writes: Which has been shown to coincide and compared to modern scientific models. 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.
Numbers writes: Well you derive that from one internet search my hats off to you. 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.
Numbers writes: As there are so many schools and interpretations I find it difficult to track it all down. Not to mention every school having they're own interpretations of those interpretations. 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.
Numbers writes: But I will say there seems to be a consensus on my initial interpretations and understanding (however slight). What consensus about what interpretation?
Numbers writes: There seems to be far to much woo to this subject to warrant any concrete side by side comparisons as obviously indicated. 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?
Straggler writes: 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. Numbers writes: Where the hell did I say that? Please provide a link. 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
MrN writes: How about these three just for starters. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Kof writes: But Gellman was saying "as above, so below," sensing 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. Really? Was he? Where are you getting that from? I have read that Gell-Man's reference to Buddhism was intended as ironic.
quote: Link But 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?
Kof writes: Hence we see other physicists linking Human Consciousness to Quantum effects, and expanding upon Gellman with books like "The Tao of Physics," etc. The Tao of Physics is exactly the sort of pop-science Cavediver was referring to:
SA writes: Buddhist have already made all the observation Quantum Physicist have made about the nature of our Universe. Cavediver writes: No, I can assure you that they have not. However, I will agree that pop-science accounts of the quantum nature of the Universe have more in common with Buddism that they do any particular quantum theory, and there-in probably lies your confusion. Message 14
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
Kof writes: And, it would be equally important is Gellman had given Buddhism too much credit for the pattern he saw emerging, and Judaism too little: 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?
Kof writes: Unless Religion was actually telling us that only one special kind of Pattern exists by which man recognizes what is True about the Reality he inquires about. Can you reveal to the rest of us what this special pattern is?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Kof writes: The argument that Gell-mann suggested a connection with religion...... 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: Murray Gell-Mann, Beauty and truth in physics: Murray Gell-Mann on TED.com (2007), Ted.com.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
That is amazing. Let's sum up your latest findings in our handy comparison table:
The comparison is startling isn't it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
The number 8?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Are you serious......?
According to this guy the divine number is 7 Link Why is your nonsense any more worthy of any credence than his nonsense? Anyway I would have thought God's number would be 333......
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Kof writes: Hence the Great Monogram, YHVH, for god would ultimately sum to 8. 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
Kof writes: The idea that a fixed repetitious pattern exists, concerning the way we figure things out, is as important if not more so that the Quantum Theories that are demonstrating this pattern. 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.
Kof writes: I believe there is a deep (actual) relationship between our Group Theory, concerning QM, and the subtle description in Judaism, of a pattern to the way we think, in general. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Kof writes: That pattern I illustrated back a few pages in this thread. 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?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024