I've spent almost 2 years here in this board and heard numerous time that mysticism is as if an established theory and please don't make me quote myself for a proof. People believe mysticism here more than any established scientific theory , though this forum is inclined to scientific views. You can safely discard any statement that attempts to take Quantum Physics out of the realm of the subatomic. Quantum Mechanics, as the name implies, is a group of theories attempting to describe how and why subatomic particles do not obey the normal laws of physics. Then we can get into the problems with String Theory itself, such as infinite vacua and pre-selection. However, String Theory has so many problems and inconsistencies that it has been repeatedly tossed out as a valid theory before being brought up again as a possible explanation for inconsistencies in a new theory. String theory has been revived and revised about a half a dozen times (and eventually discarded) before its current revival as "M-Theory" and a candidate for possible "TOE"... However, problems such as lack of testability have resulted in most physicists categorizing it as a "failure in regards to TOE."
And what has THIS claim to do with my reply to post #59? "how can you claim it is an issue?!" ..I never did.. You should know that it is you that calls those posts mysticism. So it is you who has to demystify things. Usually one can do this by getting familiar / studied with the matter. Then the mumbo jumbo vanishes. And for the scientific established theories..the thread titles are about god, the idea of oneself, world view and so on. It addresses also spirituality, religion, metaphysics... Science has there not much to offer. Science is about objects and not the 'scientist' itself. If this thread would be about reaction mechanisms of organic Chemistry I surely would not refer to eastern meditations... "You can safely discard any statement that attempts to take Quantum Physics out of the realm of the subatomic. Quantum Mechanics, as the name implies, is a group of theories attempting to describe how and why subatomic particles do not obey the normal laws of physics." Physics has no 'normal' laws... ...it indicates a bias...the particle model is as normal as a wave function Also Quantum theory is a far wider subject as you seem to know. Your blue statement is very adventurous and Bohr comes into my mind: "The one who isn't appalled by Quantum Mechanics hasn't probably got it." It's about the entire idea of matter (particle)!!! The entire idea of matter also reflects the idea of oneself---> body. Also (size) is relative to the observer..what is sub-atomic? It's about particle / wave dualism, about location / probability. Information / matter..observer / observed object dualism....it's about 'duality' of consciousness. (Scientist / observation)...it's about matter as a particle with a location generally. It's about hierarchy of 'objects'. (Information of appearances and form) Honestly I don't think that you have really dealt with Quantum Theory and the consequences.....I recommend Anton Zeilinger..for instance. There are phenomena which can be observed with the bare eye (double slit, quantum eraser)....the theory itself may concern 'sub atomic particles, or Photons'...but it's about their attributes / behaviours..and those can be observed with the bare eyes (as phenomenon)...
Yen, you're sitting on your ears - ergo, you must be a scientist... "You cannot know if it is no issue!" This is a claim!!!! "You can not know..." by definition, it most strenuously is a claim... Capito?
Quantum Mechanics is just about statistics, nothing more. The rest is mere speculative imagination and poor philosophizing by the mystic...... QM offers nothing at all to the field of ontology or epistemology.... It is just like a game to be played on wishful thinkers to keep them occupied with something........
Yes Sir, it is. But it does not claim that it has to be an issue (as you've implied) It claims that you cannot know if (yes or no both are possible by this claim). Are you arguing in the name of science or in the name of ego? Are you faithful here to your own demands? All you do is to believe to be able to know 'the right (science)' by degrading other subjects. Your choice is arbitrary and your artificial demands are there to defend your construct. Your world view is quite narrow...as result the world appears to you with the same attribute. QM is not about statistics it just knows conditions in between originally 2. They can be described as a function of probability. QP started with Max Planck already....sorry to say but I think you have no clue. QP is made to resolve dualisms, especially localisation here and there and wave / particle. Why do you think the light maximum is found in the middle of both slits (double slit experiment)? And why not when you close one slit? Denying QP this phenomenon must be mystic to you, lol.
So, you are denying me the very possibility to say anything on the subject on which you strenuously claim these things, which are no claims in the sense you describe? Boy, you is a laugh sometimes... Good fun, m8!
Arrrggg...lol.....it is the disadvantage of a virtual forum. The entire debate takes usually a hour when we all would sit around a table.... ....here it are weeks... The claim 'you cannot know' (btw you= the public) is based on the fact (I've posted that at other posts) that a dream is only then recognized as dream when being 'awake'. One must wake up right after the dream that one can remember of the dream at all. We are dreaming every night (REM state), but at some nights we say, we haven't dreamed. AND concerning nested dream: When one dream ends and 'something' new starts we usually think to have waken up. This totally changes when it ends again and something new starts. We know to have been wrong to have waken up, just another dream has started.... Finally we 'end' there what we call to be awake. Conclusion: It is a pure assumption to say we are awake, furthermore it is rather probable that we are dreaming. To 'know' it one should research for a higher state of awareness. It is cleverer to speak of different conditions of awareness which are changing instead of 'to be awake'. My claim is based on these things....if there is a wrong conclusion feel free to post. First, there are a lot of cognitive 'exercises' people can practice when having a deficit. So it is actually nothing 'strange'...it is nothing special to train senses to enhance cognition. Also there are professions which are based on a special training: perfumer, sommelier, 'coffee-tester'....and so on... Have you ever read a 'description' made by a sommelier of a wine and laughed about, or description of a taste of a Whisky? Yeah well, it is just because one cannot distinguish all those flavours, but he's trained to do. There are people who even cannot distinguish the wine type, there are people who can even figure the origin. So when laughing about it is to 'laugh' about those who have got special 'concentration, awareness'...this also applies when practising eastern meditations. To laugh about is very poor, actually... When practising 'awareness on the present' that what one calls to be awake is recognized as a dream. (Ken Wilber for instance describes it far better than I can). One can also focus awareness there where being 'becomes'. This happens every moment, hence focus on the now is practised , but it remains unaware to those who have the focus elsewhere...they are dreaming already...they are identified with their idea already. I know it sounds fantastic, it sounds as fantastic as a sommelier describing a wine. One can research outside. Sleep lab, brain waves, CNS active substances, cog. tests, 'intelligence tests', visual thinking... And one can research 'inside'. Means to train awareness using cultural 'established' methods. (meditation, contemplation, visualisation....) It does not matter what others say to them, they are not competent if not practising. The 'value' is up to the reader. It unveils not before trying by oneself. One can also say there are 'endless' abilities we have 'hidden'...the consequences are 'unimaginable'...there is a far higher intelligence from which abstracts that what we call identity and intellect... What is the 'use' of that all? It enlightens that we 'think' our identity (becoming) whilst 'that' what thinks we 'really' are (being). From being, becoming (and time) is abstracted. Being has the attributes of 'god', is eternal and infinite..(it is the real subject)...the differentiating consciousness is a product of it...'individual consciousnes'.
You really took seriously this little Asiatic story of a "dream", haven't you... Look, a nice story, OK... but no more.... You're making a meal of it...
One cannot get its meaning without doing it, sorry. It is not serious, it is life, one's life, now. The contrary: Life loses its 'heaviness'... I ever had been unforced, when I wanted to know something I tried it. Sure I came to it due to my travels. But it is not exclusively Asiatic to do 'something' that simply makes you more aware of that what you are doing now.... The grade of awareness of each individual changes constantly. Those practices are simply made to keep them on a constant level. It is the most simple approach one can think of....if 'I' want to 'understand' myself and the world, then I have to look as close at it and me as I can, not tomorrow and not by thinking (is biased). The intellect wants to be valued by using it hence one complains: You never will get any knowledge without 'me', the intellect. One has to put something in the balance without to expect something...a real researcher's nature.....you cannot expect what you already are. But you can expect to become your illusionary idea of yourself and if you fail you suffer... To be fully awake means to be, that easy, it is absolute reasonable. It does not mean to be an changing idea. (dreaming)
Oh, puurrrrhhhleaseeee.... We are all doing it... Well, that and dreaming... Occasionally, at least... So, we all know, thanx a bunch... You can stop now... Honestly... So, can we now debate the nature of Human Nature, maybe? Whaddyafink?