I replied to the big bang bit to post an idea how science and spiritual / theistic aspects could be united in an own 'thesis'. The only sense of the post is to inspire others to resolve their own 'gap' to get inner peace. I cannot do that job. As said already, it's nothing to 'know'. Any idea of oneself is actually an unfounded idea. Goal is inner peace. Nobody can 'know' 'what' one is. The approach is a synthesis, though. There is one reality in which all 'ends'. And from all it 'starts'. From the now, or from 'god' or whatever you like. To whom? A few thoughts.... You assume a world independent of yourself. Unfortunately there is no evidence. You frequently want evidence form spiritual ideas, but scientific theories seem excluded....I say an independent world is an illusion. Can you really separate the world from the observer? Has one enough awareness to see through the illusion? Example: One person's world: If the one has fear at night walking through a city, then each walk at night through it will make the one suffering. If the one enjoys the smell of a rose, then one conceives joy when smelling a rose. If the one cannot swim, the one will become scared to death when thrown into the sea. The one's world consists of frighting nights when walking through a city, nice smelling roses and life-threatening seas. The world appears to him as he perceives it (own idea). Means real to him. Real fear at night, real joy at the smell of roses, real fear of death in the sea. The world to you appears ever the way as you perceive it. So when does it end? And how is it 'really'? Will you ever perceive the world burning by a inflating sun? So why is this your idea of reality? ....and not: The (own) world ends when my (own) idea of the world ends? And the really exciting question: What is left then? 'The one who has no more own idea of the world'.... I mean when the idea of the frighting night ends to the one, then the world with frighting nights ends and one without is born. This happens every moment..one idea is born, one idea vanishes. It is perceived as the changing own world. This can be 'applied' to each own idea one has of the (own) world. In the absolute: Without own idea (without own relation) left is 'a world' as it is = reality. That is what I mean with one cannot 'know, think of' the reality. As soon as one does, a relation is made and reality becomes own. Einstein recognized the same saying : "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." Science is based on reason, thoughts. Hence the illusion persists, a relation is made. Result is always the reality of science with the limits of science.
Uhm, what? I mean Earth, the rock we're living on. Are you saying there's no evidence for its existence?
Sure there is evidence. You live it. What you do not understand is that things can be different to my eyes. Yen may be afraid of water and I do not. But the water there and the fear exists only for one.
As stated many times prior the subjective observer and the object observed are one! Despite Buddisms good intentions it is flawed and incomplete given true rememborance would honor god being both what creates and is created thus, again as I've posted many times forgiveness is the only way to remember one's origins as god or creator of all is the inheritor of all karma thus forgiveness of all falling from spiritual realization Hence the universe is of one nature not two thus what creates reality is both the manifestor and manifest not just one or or the other ...lol Not see through but resonate with as the illusion is the mind holding in place what is created from what is pre-created or unmanifest which is part of the whole equaition of how life works Both the unmanifest/manifest are life and what the universe becomes is what is the agreement between the unmanifest/manifest which is spiritual creativity or infinity coming from an eternal present in origins Creation AGAIN is a mixture of both manifest/unmanifest infinately duh uh ...lol From the manifest point of view (The seemingly physical) you have half the equation but only half And due to the misinterpreted concept of the mind, depending on the scope of how life works it's comprehensive nature could indeed be inhibited due the inhibited nature of how the universe is perceived hence if you think the glass is half full it will appear to be half full to those who worship it being half full as such does false religion and "partial current contemporary science" exist to reflect partial thinking and partial understanding of both the manifest/unmanifest parts of life I mean if Jesus raised the dead then he was in touch with how life really works and saw the manifest/unmanfest being an formula that was life in it's totality but life falls from itself and thus it's inner part (humans) think life is just the manifest parts and god is just an idea rather than creation as a whole History totally sicks ..lol
Sorry to say, here arguing with the ignorant is like trying to wrestle with a jellyfish in the ocean. No matter how many tentacles you cut off there are always more, and there isn't even a brain to be stunned.
His ideas get better with time Arguing is good. No one can put an idea in my head without discussion. Stay calm.
Yes, Paiva is right. Each individual has its own world. One can only have fear, when the idea of fear is already in oneself. The one perceives the fear from outside (night at the city), but it really comes from inside. If it would come from outside, everybody must have fear when walking at night through a city. Sure the world exists. The point is in what way. Is it the world or your world? I mean one cannot prove a world's separate existence. The event of perception assumes 2, not one. The world and the observer. As said there are flaws / illusions in everybody's way to think. To most they remain undiscovered, though. Evaluate yourself if you like.........try to prove yourself the existence of a independent world, which is your reality. Hint: 2 major events feed the illusion...the birth / death of others and your sleep. (Whilst you sleep the world seem exist to you and people are coming and leaving an seemingly independent existing world. But you cannot perceive the other's world. They take theirs with them...and tell you about their world, that's all.) A remark concerning to discover illusions. Most are not ready to go for it. They stick to their illusions, because they are identified with them. If they would they get the feeling to give up something from themselves. But that is an illusion also. One cannot give up what one really is. One cannot give up reality. So ask yourself IF you are ready and curious enough to discover illusions, or if you don't want! I mean one must be ready to get involved with it. It is about to lose own 'values'. And if they are no illusions to you, and the others are wrong, then nothing is to lose. The reality cannot be lost, illusions can. @TS: I know. But resolution of somebody's illusion has different stages and one must argue there where one is stuck. You are confronting people with your final personal insight. But all you harvest is mocking because of the resistance in their minds.
So 10 different people looking through a microscope and seeing the same thing still means each one has their own world and nothing really exists in a fixed state to be observed? An electron microscope is just a magic machine that shows you pretty pictures with no basis in reality? The apple falls on some heads faster than on others? What did we see when Baumgartner jumped off of his balloon? It wasn't Earth? Oh and we saw it through our magic machines that transport electrons all around that same Earth in a way that light shines out of your monitor into your eyes. It's still not "real"? I can only be glad that science requires for theories to be tested objectively, instead of listening to the first crackhead that comes along and taking his words for granted. If a certain reality wasn't the same for everyone, you couldn't invent anything beyond a rock on a stick. Yen, you seem to be lost in a huge, huge mental masturbation job, when according to your own theory, it's all just your perception alone and not shared by anyone. It's so far-fetched that it's disproved just by looking around you and the technology humans have come up with. And yet you spout the same nonsense over and over. What for? I can only repeat my mantra: "Be cautious of people who claim to know stuff they can't prove, for they want to control the weak-minded or be something more that they aren't." Edit: And to repeat another thing: I find it completely absurd to publish such ideas over a medium that in itself completely counters these ideas, down to the plastic case your computer is housed in and its molecular structure. I'm not even talking about the computer chips that serve and process this very website, just the other materials your computer is made of and the ideas behind them - capacitors, metal traces transporting electricity, alloys that exist nowhere in nature. Just look at anything around you and try to think about how it came into existence.
That's the biggest flaw in the whole idea, if each person has their own reality then we couldn't take tests etc. There is a whole argument on it in the "If a tree falls does it make a noise" thread.
Brian Greene's introduction to The Fabric of the Cosmos is quite helpful in dealing with that 'what is reality' question. It's not really that complicated. I mean, even if I understand a little bit of it. So there's no need for another 100-posts-thread, in my opinion. Unless someone is bored, of course. Or craves attention. Or needs their homework written.
For what? Where else than IN your mind appears the world? Outside of it? I have posted already. To evaluate an independent existence of the world. "And if they are no illusions to you, and the others are wrong, then nothing is to lose. The reality cannot be lost, illusions can." No issues here. You don't have to be worried about me, thanks. I am fine. You are not curious enough. Even science recognized that there is no subject / object barrier....
Remember they also have the mind floating in space too. Apparently we are surrogates. I think the simple answer is that we don't know.
It is far simpler. One day in the past I started to think about if obvious appearing things are really the way we think about....that started from curiosity of a child and went further to my study.... Actually it is silly to discover illusions, you have to resolve them later.... Generally spoken....to me incomprehensible are scientific orientated persons who are only pick up what they are willing to understand. The resistance of mind, which wants to keep up illusionary ideas, because to lose them would be equal to lose a part of one's identity, is not scientific at all. @TCM TBH you are fooling yourself with the science bit. I can understand that people have problems with spiritual ideas. But if science as counterpart, then please right! I am sorry you request science here is it....directly from my desk in my lab right after the end of lessons I gave...... When everything is relative how can one perceive or measure the reality? It is 'YOUR' reality, relative to your idea of existence! Is Einstein wrong and Newton right? Then it would be another meaning...say that please. Then you refer to old Physics. When one observes, the one takes influence as observer on the observation....the reality eludes to the observer when measured! Reality is not determinable! Newton is disproved already. You are confusing the reality with the observation. The observation is influenced by the observer. We can talk about, because we have the same relativity. But that is not the reality! It is the reality of science the scientists have in common. Science has laws and definitions. Laws: together they belong to a theory which describe an observable phenomenon or relations to other phenomena. Theories are not the phenomenon itself and the phenomenon is influenced by the observer/observation. This influence is all the time there and hence not to 'isolate' as separate phenomenon, because the or a barrier of observer and observation is not determinable. And definitions.... When two scientists measure the temperature of coffee. And one has the result 67.76 degrees Celsius and the other 67.78 degrees Celsius then we relate to the same definition of temperature. So an illusion of reality comes up. Both results are relative to Celsius. Celsius said: Ice to water (melting) is zero °C, water to steam (boiling) 100°C. Pressure must be defined also. 1013.25 mbar. But the values are completely random! Is the value real? No, but it is scientifically correct and established! When now both scientists taste the coffee (no definition for taste available in science)...then no possibility to relate to something which is unified established!!! No scale of taste!! So one says coffee tastes good and the other says coffee tastes bad. This is not scientific!! But not because it is just an opinion or not real. It is not scientific because there is no defined established scale for taste of coffee and no (random) unit for taste. One cannot relate it to a scientifically founded and validated definition of taste. And that is for you where you draw your line: Temperature is a scientific statement (with evidence)..and taste is just an opinion..... But in its meaning both have the same value. Personal taste and personal measurement. No statement about reality. Temperature is an unified 'event', a relation to something that is established and defined by science!!! And we have 3 different definitions..at least..lol... And taste has no unified scale and is not related to a validated system. That is the only difference. But both are nothing about reality! No proof......you are here completely off the track... Do you think we measure absolute or even the real value? What is one meter? What is one kilogram? One meter is a particular length. To determine length one takes a ruler which has an image of the length one meter and its sub divisions. When you measure you compare 'relative' to the ruler and determine how many units are equal to the length to be measured. The measurement depends on the ruler, the ruler depends on the manufacturer, the manufacturer has to get the image of an meter. The image has to have reference to the definition of one meter. But one meter is a random piece of length. And so 1 kilogram is a random piece of mass which has been determined. What have these to do with reality? They're founded by humans! Randomly! And this applies to any seemingly absolute unit in science! How does a scientist determine the concentration of a solution? He relates it to a master standard!! And what is a master standard? A human defined piece of matter!!! You think because different scientists are coming to a similar result it must be real? -They do never have exactly the same result! Maths show that one needs an infinite amount of measures to obtain the real value. -They are able to relate the same way and that creates the illusion of reality. I am not shy to invalidate the concept of an independent existing world. When one dies one takes the own world with oneself! You request for science then please get busy with it. Else it is rather a sort of frustrating.... Please don't get me wrong. I actually do not write to convince here or to post own ideas as proved theories. But you have started with the science bit and now you should go on with the game. I can assure you one thing. Your independently existing world has no existence in science, not anymore. Ask your Physicist of your choice, don't believe me........
You take one theory and wrongly apply it to a global scale. I suppose you are talking about Heisenberg's uncertainty principle which applies to particles. The idea there is that to observe the particle, you must get an effect from it by shooting it with another particle and then observe its reaction, thereby changing the original particle's properties How you can apply this to the global scale is beyond me. What we see has already been "shot" by photons and everyone observes the same effect. You don't shoot rays out of your eyes that affect your surroundings. The light you see of stars at night has been traveling for so long that most of the stars don't even exist anymore. How can an observation of the past be changing anything? Science is not about what coffee tastes like. Science is finding that you have receptors on your tongue that can "taste" bitter, sweet, salty etc. What do you think most of the modern chemically engineered food consists of? Real aroma? It's replacement chemicals that trigger your tongue receptors in just the right way to give you an illusion of a certain taste. That's science (although not a field I'm particularly proud of). Science even deals with subjective perceptions in a scientific manner. How do you think the MP3 algorithm works? It eliminates frequencies based on a psycho-acoustic model that says you are unable to hear certain frequencies if other frequencies at a certain loudness are playing. You couldn't hear music on your portable player if that wasn't a correct model. I don't even know what the drivel about the kilogram and meter is about. Are you saying the because no two persons can come up with exactly one kilogram of something that their realities are completely different because everything they come up with differs in miniscule amounts and is only human-made anyway? If all those units seem arbitrary to you, try reading a physics book. If those units weren't what they are, you couldn't calculate anything, let alone how to shoot a rocket into space or land a probe on Mars. But let me guess, Mars isn't really there and we're all just fooled by all this technology we invented into thinking it exists. If you don't accept reason, how can you be reasoned with? You can't. Edit: If you know so much about science, how's that experiement of yours coming along? http://forums.mydigitallife.net/thr...an-is-not-free?p=751610&viewfull=1#post751610
Correct me if I'm wrong, here I can imagine of a pre-Newtonian universe (before the discovery of universal gravitation) in which two objects are separated by some distance in space and have absolutely no affect on each other. Now it may be counterfactual to say this can really happen, but seeing as one can imagine it and have no problem with the concept of both objects existing, therefore, one must conclude that affect need not be involved in the meaning of "existence". Then, this gets into the very most fundamental division in thought, "subjectivity vs objectivity" .Verification confines subjectivity without removing it and thereby puts the Devil in a cage. Verification is the only function of Science, "demon-stratification" (removing the demon of doubt via empirically verified demonstration). Can you think of anything that you know to exist yet has absolutely no affect upon anything? I think, here we must conclude that without the property of affect, nothing can be rationally said to exist.
TCM, you put your head above the parapet! You recommend to read a Physics book to a M. Sc. with 27 years of professional experience and you yourself have nothing ever studied about? Isn't that a bit embarrassing? The inconsistencies of science and spirituality you seem to see at my posts are yours, not mine. Both successfully coexist in my life without. My scientific work is very appreciated and I am quite satisfied with my career and my life, lol. (You do not want me to post details, do you?) It is no problem. You can have your world view based on your Newtonian 'science' or not....that what is real of it will persist, anything else will vanish....and do not forget the independent existing world. If you are interested in what I wrote evaluate it making own efforts... if not, let it go. I am master of science already... Read: Determinism of Newton, general and special theory of relativity of Einstein. Schrödinger's subject / object idea. Then you are able to separate reality from scientific reality, the absolute from relative idea...and a probability of reality from reality The thread title requires science beyond Newton. BTW: Next time when you use a ruler to determine the length of something, do not forget: If the ruler has a wrong scale, then anything you measure will become wrong...you actually must demand for 'proof' (which is actually a proper calibration / validation of the measuring device) that it is right here as well.....it is also the issue 'probability' in statistics.
The fact that you feel the need to fluff yourself up with 27 years of experience and question my education without knowing anything about me is embarassing. It's even sadder that with 27 years of experience, you try to validate your nonsense with the authority card and at the same time with childish "lol" and "rofl". To me you rather look like you belong in the "wants to be something more than he isn't" category. Have a good day.
Haven't you noticed that you are always trying to defend your own bias? First against spirituality, then 'with' science. You could only judge about what I know if you would know it by yourself. You actually don't have the will to question your world view, you rather create your illusions by making an old hand scientist to a faker and ridicule spirituality. To many other scientists it would be rather a colossal cheek what you have done, to recommend a physics book without even having a clue of SI Base Units their definitions and laws of Physics...., I decided to hang loose and laugh. One more time. I do not want to take away your world view by 'validating nonsense'. It's your POV. The Reality remains unaffected, no matter what we write. Add: If my replies to you have an touch of offense, I have to apologize. I defended my profession and my study and my to me very valuable insights I have got from different cultures. The last I want is to fight with you, we simply have two very different views of the world... Have a good one as well.