Then partial and temporary are his findings for linear physics does not approach including "time" in it's findings or variables to define a real unified field theory Just cause someone is in "charge" of what is to be considered real or measurable doesn't mean we give our soul and mind to that partial temporary "findings" "Hard to see the dark side is" For it leaves out the beginnings and ends of life and feeds of the contemporary process of how life works which is not process at all if it leaves out a beginning and end to an comprehensive analysis of the universe Funny what is left out of non-partial, non-pre-dispoposed point of view when trying to define how the cosmos works ...lol And what is left out is the present!
Hmm, timesurfer, I let your posts build up on me so I felt more secure in pinpointing what you were trying to say When discussing the dark side, I would say that it is dark because it does not see everything. It may see anything at any given time, but not all at once. Rather, it sees what it wants. The original rebellion, picturesque Biblical things, Lucifer, etc. I just mean that if you suppose someone limits themselves to the findings of a Susskind, when they are actually not, you may consider asking yourself if you indeed did not detect the darkness in you considering me But maybe there is more 'trust' involved, in that you imagine how you would be, saying the things I say. Perhaps I am idle to discuss points with debate-like purpose whilst not revealing my total intention, and you are less complicatedly 'you' than I am 'me' Omniscience/Omnipotence/Godhead means to see everything, but to have no particular will in it. To 'have no horse in the race'. Or perhaps rather, to have all horses in the race. As the Upanishad says, "Standing still, he outruns all the runners." At that point you would have to concede that all humans, unperfected, have a measure of said darkness. So any finding, theory, or experience shared by anyone would participate, at least equally, in the darkness you bear within. So with that awareness you consider their findings, not with an attempt to supplant your own consciousness and life with someone else's, or make your mind submissive to their perceived authority. But by my own definition of 'mystical' (it is what touches everything, yet is untouched by anything) it would mean it also manifests in time. So any 'temporary' or 'partial' findings, as you call them, would also bear the mystical. So when the mode of perception that sees the partial/temporary is staunchly maintained, a consciousness might be limited to their relative natures only (well, at least in the waking/sober hours ). But nothing could be outside the omnipotence/omniscience, so everything also bears/manifests it. It would not be a matter if it is there, but rather if you could see it. It would make sense that the only way you could know it is if you are not essentially different than it. And then how could you be, as you are an expression of it? This is why it's a bit funny when expanding awareness and the notion of universal transcendence is viewed as 'arrogant' as some have said, while the very thought of claiming objective independence (rather than realizing you are part of the universe --universe is existing as you) would seem much more arrogant. Of course it is not arrogant either way, as for it to be arrogant, one would truly have to know the realities involved, and then willfully misrepresent something or further it. Your idea of 'partial' and 'temporary' seems to be linked to the notions of self-will (and by extension universal will). The impetus of action, and the extent/parameter of your action, will be relative to your perceived 'environment' or 'field of action'. When that environment is truly non-local or universal, it has to mean you both not-exist particularly and also exist everywhere non-particularly. Consciousness would be non-local, and inherently 'omniscience' implies consciousness. Even as a non-particular (or perhaps 'ultra-particular') totality can manifest as/through the particular, so human consciousness would be the particularization/individualization of consciousness. It is individual because it is manifesting as a relative form among other forms (host and environment). Omniscience would imply any rock is also known. As a black hole may devour form, it is now widely agreed that information cannot be lost/escape/cease. How could any rock, element, planet, galaxy be known and there be an absolute division between things? When considering omniscience, can omnipresence be not considered? So then you keep finding that this one essence, the mystical principle, the absolute is like 'brimming nothing' or a 'formless everything' and a description could include many things. I like the Vedic description Sat-Chit-Ananda, which means Existence-Consciousness-Bliss. It exists, but it is conscious(ness), but the consciousness is in its own state of abundance/fullness/fulfillment/ecstasy. It is full because it is not relative to anything, it is absolute, independent. But it can be independent, yet involved. Does involvement imply 'need' or 'lack'? Can something be given without desire for return? Hence the persistence by the saints and shamans to be selfless. Is it really to please a moralistic godhead, or rather the way you invoke non-local/non-ego consciousness?
It's actually an extension of the holographic principle that was developed to explain the behavior of black holes. Some physicists had a really hard time coming to grips with the apparent notion that information is destroyed when matter crosses the event horizon. Using a modification of Hawking's idea of black hole radiation, the idea was developed that all the information about the contents of a black hole is stored on its surface. So the term hologram here refers to the fact that the information about a 3-dimensional object is essentially stored in a roughly 2-dimensional medium. It's actually way more complicated than that since this is an application of string theory. So, the idea of the holographic universe extends the black hole idea to our entire universe, namely that the information about our 3- dimensional universe is encoded in a lower dimensional object. What this tells us about reality is anyone's guess (much like most things in quantum mechanics). You see, this subject goes way over my head, but it appears to be another case of a popularization of scientists' fanciful use of words to describe a phenomenon that has little to do with the word's common meaning.
According to this theory, the human brain re-creates the world (subjective reality), but in doing so, the "world" re-created for a person, is never the same to the outside world. Jacques Lacan put it in terms that "reality" and "the real" are not the same. Reality is imaginary (an image) and we really don't have an immediate relation with the real. This mediate relationship with the real is full of distortions personally and collectively. And it boils down to the imperfect and abbreviated transmission of information by the senses, and their unexpanded representation inside the brain. Parapher wrote; I like the quote from Richard Feynman (one of the leaders in the field of Quantum Studies): What you have to realize before even looking at the field of Quantum Mechanics is that everything in the field is inferred rather than observed. In other words, nothing is ever proven, it's merely shown to be consistent. That's why there are conflicting theories in QM that are partially or completely mutually exclusive such as Loop Quantum Gravity and String Theory. On top of that, much of the newer theories in QM are considered "sloppy science" by physicists because of a lack of testable predictions. One noteworthy physicists even went so far as to state, "Quantum Mechanics is the only field of science where experiments result in excuses rather than results." So where science is failed or say- unable to explain 'something' due to lack of knowledge, there seems mysticism tried to prove the unprovable?
I respect your words, and think your assessment of what the holographic principle is thought to be is correct. What I don't understand is why you typify such description as 'fanciful', when the reality of a hologram is so much more simple and mundane that a 3d projection on a universal scale of a 2d reality. I was not aware science was barred from using analogies Would you like all spiritually inclined people of the earth to excuse themselves before you, because their experiences seem somewhat congruent with some findings in quantum mechanics?
Or maybe we should examine if there is just a fine line between spirituality and madness or no line at all.
Maybe we should. Let's start with you. I think we should use the Flatliners method and you go first. Or, take LSD or mushrooms and report back. I'm afraid methods that involve expanding your awareness from your own volition and discipline won't work Just do anything to contribute, really! Otherwise, you're just nipping at people's heels. What good is that? You constantly interject yourself in the dance, but you don't want to dance at all. The first thing in realizing what madness is, is knowing we are all a bit crazy. To think you are somehow above it, well, it speaks for itself. But your actual behavior (snark, pretend, cowardly remarks, etc.) would indicate you are not above madness at all. If you are so down to earth and practical, you should at least know love and respect is central to humans among each other. It would A.B.C. But you can't seem to manage even that here. Again, just keep out if you have nothing to say or contribute. Thanks!
It would require a certain depth of perception which seems to be absent/escape some in this thread at times .. A journey some are unwilling or ill prepared to take .. "A bridge to far"
I met a "normal" person once...many years ago. Stuffed shirt, Missionary only, wet blanket type. My BFF turned him into a gay cross-dresser. Well...He already was that and probably more...She just dragged Him out of the closet. The moral of this story: I wonder how many closet spiritualists are in this thread? Are We "kicking them out of the closet"? @R29K: Have at it.
"Because life is easier and a much happier place when your dumb" "The world is a much brighter place when your not too bright for it" p.s. Trying to stop something to measure it as bogus quantum mechanics can only do is supremely and infinitely stupid What if what your measuring is eternity or infinity and you try to stop it. How would you get an accurate measurement? For eternity actually is the measure for which all life is based and in relation to all life not the other way around time governs space space does not govern time time is a frequency or set of frequencies space is the product of those frequencies Hence space is always time based or eternity based Hence all life is based on the present moment All true science is applied cosmology
If we define mystical experiences or mysticism as "direct experience of the supernatural/God or whatever, intuition, instinct or insight," I'm sorry to say, I don't think they have much value as scientific evidence. Just for a query.. are mystical experiences falsifiable? Or peer-reviewable? Comparable against other, more established evidence? Can we control them for human bias?
Something to consider in the pursuit of Scientific evidence using a model of scientific methodology of which linear thought is a pretext where communicating findings/evidence/results Science has found itself in a dimensional quandary as of late .. Where scientific vocabulary/methodology are strained to a place beyond where it can describe/communicate it's evidence .. That being said don't you think age old prejudices backed by stale/outdated scientific evidence steeped in linear thought deserves a new look ? This age old debate can be viewed in many instances like the book " The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature is a book by Harvard University psychologist and philosopher William James. " where James believed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Varieties_of_Religious_Experience The questions that Yen proposed in post #631 are more tuned to getting past what is only rehashing an age old scientific posture .. "Is it comprehensible that there is a way of cognition at which one has total awareness of the present where 'things' can be perceived before they become a 'name' an idea? And if yes how could 'that' be communicated without to get in an conflict of scientific methodology? And which aspect has such a cognition concerning the reality? ..to consider...." Consider what Zalinger said when speaking with the Dalai Lama .. When speaking about the "Quantum computer" 'when we tried to look inside it crashes' .. My point being Science needs a revelation or it will cease to be relevant when mapping human/universal consciousness ..
But look at the human bias in science today! It is filled with human bias, cultural conditioning, and tradition. The very findings coming out of science today would be vastly differently interpreted if people had not come from the cultural and historical conditioning from which they stem. And that has been shown over and over and over again. When we look back at Newton's day, we now easily see the limitations. When people look back at us 200 years from now, this will be considered an important time but I would bet they would consider science in the dark ages where it comes to consciousness and how mechanistically we still perceive the universe, even while knowing there is nothing solid or mechanical about it! Everything stands and falls by the power of consciousness, yet people relegate it (WITH THAT CONSCIOUSNESS!) to some secondary space, in submission to their own subjective idea of objective reality! That's what's so crazy about it. The very doubt or bashing concerning consciousness' role is being done by (albeit a very limited expression of) consciousness! And if you talk about that, people will be quick to bring up 'solipsism' as an explanation of that, forgetting that the very nature of the solipsism thought is already being developed under the false notion of objective (and most often mechanistic) reality, as entertained by the consciousness. It's like people are doing nullification experiments with their minds, and at a certain stage in their conceptualizations they find the mind 'satisfied' that 'objective reality' is more real than their own minds, with which they are thinking that in the first place!
I think scientists do not accept something unless they have satisfactory evidence for that thing. Satisfaction comes from degrees of probability. Scientist propose a theory, if that can be falsified it's rejected or modified, if it can't be falsified then it stands... i.e, consider the invariance of the speed of light, that wasn't obvious and yet Einstein proposed it. It was later proven and it hasn't yet been falsified so today, thus it stands.... In the real world of doing science about 99%, most variables are removed from social,cultural, political influence. Science is usually focused on minutia and larger questions may not often be addressed. However, science isn't concerned with a question such as 'Evolution / Creationism' or 'Let's disprove there is a god'. Science is usually incorrectly evoked in these types of discussion/debate(s). Or do you think we can believe in anything until evidence proves us false?
The question you ask "Or do you think we can believe in anything until evidence proves us false?" is one that is the backbone of the U.S. "criminal law" judicial system .. Where a defendant is presumed innocent until beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant's guilt is evident .. The pretext in the case of a jury trial is that the defendant is presumed innocent where every jurist is required by law to have that mind set .. There is Scientific evidence as well as witness testimony presented on either side (defense/prosecution) ..The point is that in our daily lives a overwhelming majority approach their lives with beliefs that are not scientifically proven or if they are that overwhelming majority is ignorant to those scientific findings and the education required to interpret those findings .. Given that a majority approach our lives in that manner words/phrases like correct and incorrect perception and interconnectedness have individually more practical resonant qualities regardless of Science's ability to bring supporting evidence .. Not to say that Science is not needed but considerations where scientific methodologies and study stray from/neglect peoples individual and or collective beliefs as part of the equation will give only inconclusive results ..
@sid: Well, but you were asking about spiritual/mystical experiences in relation to scientific evidence, but then you say can we believe in anything... so the matter gets cloudy. The definition of mystical experience is that one can directly experience a reality -- that the consciousness in humans is somehow able to do this (because consciousness is integral to the universe). So the idea is that direct experience is not believing. So it is not about building a belief system with the symbolic mind, which can only build representative models of perceived and deducted reality. It is about experiencing/knowing that reality directly with the deeper faculties of consciousness we are all endowed with. So the mystical method is knowing something from within, whereas the intellectual method is knowing something from without or indirectly. Now it may be that certain people are not interested in experiencing things in a manner where their intellect doesn't feel in control. It can indeed be scary to realize your intellectual overlay on reality is, indeed, paper-thin and, well, utterly inadequate. But like it is in the courts, 'word of mouth' can only offer you ideas interpretable by the symbolic/representative mind, it won't convey the actual experience to you. Just like when you mention some of the sacraments used by shamanic peoples (people call them 'drugs' today); when you read the words about it you think one thing, but when you are in the middle of the experience itself, you realize it is entirely different and goes much, much deeper. In fact, you will see the paper-thin mental idea dissolve -- you realize mind is rice paper The direct experience of things vs the mental representation of those things living in artificial models in the mind that is limited to symbolic reasoning is truly a matter of oranges and apples. But that orange is in living 3D whilst the apple is a 2D drawing on rice paper. Now, if you believe what I am saying, that belief would be in the realm of symbolic mind, and in kind would not be different than believing in religion or even science (although science is rigorous about presenting symbolic ideas/models). So the differences are a matter of gradation, not of kind. You are still functioning in the realm of symbolic mind. But it would not convey the actual experiences I have to you. So if you are going to stick to the symbolic/representative mind where it comes to determining what reality is, you will be functioning on the level of belief systems. As such, the scientific belief systems are much more rigorous and tested with physical equipment, hence many people are now using it to provide them with their world views. Again, that is belief. And all the more so when people think they understand modern scientific findings, while in fact they haven't understood maybe 10% of it. So again, that is the belief system of science, or the belief in the scientific man (and those who believe in him are usually not him). Anyway, what people have been trying to convey about mystical experience is not about providing you with another or augmented belief system, but rather to inspire to experience things for yourself and then juxtapose that with your current belief models and re-interpret things. In other words, because experiences cannot be conveyed, you're merely invited to try for yourself. Those who have had such experiences and are thinking human beings have consistently realized the artificiality of building representative models in the symbolic mind where direct experiences of those realities referred to are possible. 'Intuition' is another word, it doesn't have to be 'mystical'. But there is nothing vague about it when it occurs. So to apply 'scientific method' when the science is a subjective one, it would mean you should be experimenting