Time - does it have any meaning?

quote:

Originally posted by pe-zulu:
Dear Erik

Or to put it in another way:

Do you (Erik) know matter? Yes, you know matter, but no matter what you say, you don´t know no matter or nothing. It would matter if you knew that you knew nothing about nothing, that would be something, - and this is how nothing suddenly might become transformed into something, something that matters.

Regards,

I think I know what matter is. You might think that scientists know what matter is and that their view is clear and shared and not in the least bit controversial. This would be the publics view I think. However, the view is erroneous. Scientists are completely baffled about what matter is or wait for it.....that it even exists!! This news might come as a bit of shock but I can quote these scientists verbatim all day long. The simple fact is that matter, as described by classical physics just does not exist.

An Empirical Demonstration Of PIE As The
Ratio Of The Circumference Of A Circle To Its Diameter.

MY REAL NAME! 15th May 2003.





If a circle is made up of many similar segments, and these are modelled as isosceles triangles (the similar sides being the radii of the circle segments), then it will be clear that as the number of segments is increased, the difference between the chord lengths subtended by the segments, and lengths of the end side of the triangular sections decreases. So if the above circle is considered, it may be seen that it is made of up of twelve similar triangles (with black similar sides), thus:

Triangles AOC, COE, EOG and so on to FFOA.

It may be noted that in the diagram, for the sake of clarity, each of the twelve similar triangles subtends an angle about the origin of 30 degrees. [The red lines fall into the argument later]. Clearly each similar angle at the origin must be any fraction of the whole circle 360/n, where n is the number of similar triangles being used to model the argument and an integer.

The Argument.

Considering one triangle:

If the triangle AOC contains an angle at the origin of 360/n, where n is the number of triangles required to completely fill the circle, then the angle AOC will be 360/n. If the reader then considers that the triangle is cut into two similar right angle triangles, whose right angles occur at B, it will be seen that an approximation of the chord length AC will be made up of the two opposite sides of Triangles AOB and BOC. [Opposite relative to the angle at the origin]. As n approaches infinity so this becomes of decreasing significance as an approximation.


Now, considering the Diameter as being of Unit Length, and therefore, the Radius as half Unit Length:

It may be seen that applying trigonometry:

Sin (360/ 2n) = opposite side/ radius … and is equal to opposite side/ half unit

So:

2.Sin (360/ 2n) = opposite side

And thus, by dividing both sides by 2:

[Sin (360/2n)]/2 = opposite side

If the opposite side is then multiplied by 2n, to give an approximation of the Circumference in Ratio to the Diameter, a formula may be written thus:

2n.Sin(360/2n)/2 = an approximation of the circumference.

OR, simplifying:

n.Sin(360/2n) = an approximation of the circumference.

If n is made larger, then the accuracy of the demonstration is increased, and it may be said that n multiplied by the found length of the opposite sides of the right angle triangles is closely approximate the value of PIE, as expression of the Ratio of the Circumference of a Circle to its Diameter, the length of which is considered to be of Unit Length.

The Iteration:

So the for twelve, 30o degree triangles we arrive at:

3.10582854123 (using n =12 in the formula) …not terribly accurate.

However if we make the number of triangles, n, large, for example n = 3600, the formula gives us 3.14159225485, which compares to a standard figure for PIE of 3.14159265359

Finally we should make the number of triangles, n, very large indeed, (so large it could not be drawn clearly), say:

n = 3,600,000

The Ratio emerges as: 3.14159265359, correct to the twelfth decimal place, according to the reference. (Concise Oxford Dictionary, Fifth Edition, 1964)



Originally written in May 2003.

Amended on 4th November, 7th December 2003 and 1st January 2004, 27th May and 30th July 2005.

Dear Friends,

The above post shows somewthing of my questing approach to a priori knowledge - things we are told are true, and like it or lump it, we just accept it. I never could, and in the weeks after quitting University I grappled with one of those little bits of information we are told is a fact.

It is purely empirical logic, and maybe that demonstrates a profound lack of imagination.

In an engineering sense, and a Newtonian sense it makes a logical premise, but not I suspect in a truely philosophical one!

All the best from Fredrik

PS: I have been waiting for a chance to post that. I bet no one else here develeoped an empirical demonstration of Pie!

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
An Empirical Demonstration Of PIE As The
Ratio Of The Circumference Of A Circle To Its Diameter.

MY REAL NAME! 15th May 2003.





If a circle is made up of many similar segments, and these are modelled as isosceles triangles (the similar sides being the radii of the circle segments), then it will be clear that as the number of segments is increased, the difference between the chord lengths subtended by the segments, and lengths of the end side of the triangular sections decreases. So if the above circle is considered, it may be seen that it is made of up of twelve similar triangles (with black similar sides), thus:

Triangles AOC, COE, EOG and so on to FFOA.

It may be noted that in the diagram, for the sake of clarity, each of the twelve similar triangles subtends an angle about the origin of 30 degrees. [The red lines fall into the argument later]. Clearly each similar angle at the origin must be any fraction of the whole circle 360/n, where n is the number of similar triangles being used to model the argument and an integer.

The Argument.

Considering one triangle:

If the triangle AOC contains an angle at the origin of 360/n, where n is the number of triangles required to completely fill the circle, then the angle AOC will be 360/n. If the reader then considers that the triangle is cut into two similar right angle triangles, whose right angles occur at B, it will be seen that an approximation of the chord length AC will be made up of the two opposite sides of Triangles AOB and BOC. [Opposite relative to the angle at the origin]. As n approaches infinity so this becomes of decreasing significance as an approximation.


Now, considering the Diameter as being of Unit Length, and therefore, the Radius as half Unit Length:

It may be seen that applying trigonometry:

Sin (360/ 2n) = opposite side/ radius … and is equal to opposite side/ half unit

So:

2.Sin (360/ 2n) = opposite side

And thus, by dividing both sides by 2:

[Sin (360/2n)]/2 = opposite side

If the opposite side is then multiplied by 2n, to give an approximation of the Circumference in Ratio to the Diameter, a formula may be written thus:

2n.Sin(360/2n)/2 = an approximation of the circumference.

OR, simplifying:

n.Sin(360/2n) = an approximation of the circumference.

If n is made larger, then the accuracy of the demonstration is increased, and it may be said that n multiplied by the found length of the opposite sides of the right angle triangles is closely approximate the value of PIE, as expression of the Ratio of the Circumference of a Circle to its Diameter, the length of which is considered to be of Unit Length.

The Iteration:

So the for twelve, 30o degree triangles we arrive at:

3.10582854123 (using n =12 in the formula) …not terribly accurate.

However if we make the number of triangles, n, large, for example n = 3600, the formula gives us 3.14159225485, which compares to a standard figure for PIE of 3.14159265359

Finally we should make the number of triangles, n, very large indeed, (so large it could not be drawn clearly), say:

n = 3,600,000

The Ratio emerges as: 3.14159265359, correct to the twelfth decimal place, according to the reference. (Concise Oxford Dictionary, Fifth Edition, 1964)



Originally written in May 2003.

Amended on 4th November, 7th December 2003 and 1st January 2004, 27th May and 30th July 2005.

Pretty impressive stuff from a guy that makes Jam!

Beano

Dear Erik

quote:

Originally posted by erik scothron:
Dear Pe-zulu,
Or can I call you pe?

Call me poul

quote:

You made the initial claim, I merely responded to it. I think therefore, it is for you to back up your claim. I suspect you can't which is why you seek to turn the tables on me. Am I right?

Yes, you are right in assuming that. I can´t back it up in a definitive way.

quote:

It does indeed 'seem' as if something can arise from nothing but if we check we find that this neither makes sense in (classical) physics and, for the most part, neither does it make sense in quantum theory and it certainly makes no sense philosopically.

Exactly one of my points in another way. Your words equal that we don´t understand it.

quote:

So I sugggest that we do indeed have 'better explanations at hand' if we but try to find them. Better explanations do indeed exist.

Our discussion is now about, whether it ever will become possible to design a theory which is able to explain this issue. I doubt, and I definitely think it is premature to say, that better explanations exist, when you haven´t found them (yet??). And how can you be so sure of the universal validity of the principle of causality, when we haven´t found these better explanations?

Well, I know, that the logical weakness in my argumentation is, that I reject an apparent logical argument (nothing comes from nothing) with another equally apparent logical argument (something may come from nothing in a way we never shall understand). But we human beings have no other choice, than using our logical sense. Maybe though the answer is, that logic can´t be used in the description of the issue of the origin of matter. This seems illogical at first, but I can just as well assume so, as you can assume that better explanations exist (and will be found).

quote:

The introduction to the book which is available for download on the website has been substantially re-written but you will get the gist nonetheless. The first chapter is also available. There is another chapter called 'What is the matter with matter' which would answer many of your questions and I would be happy to e-mail it to you if you were genuinely interested having read the the Intro and first chapter. The book is stuffed full of quotes from all the top scientists and the buddhist element is pure philosophy and has nothing to do with faith or belief in holy beings and has, therefore, no religious element to it.

Thanks very much for the link. I have downloaded it already, and I shall read it, and will return to the topic, when I have read it. Your remarks about no religious elements certainly appeal to me.

Regards,
Poul

quote:

Originally posted by pe-zulu:

Hi Poul,

quote:

Exactly one of my points in another way. Your words equal that we don´t understand it.

Nope. I do not accept my words equal we dont understand 'it' if by 'it' you mean cause and effect and how something can come from nothing. None of these disciplines support the view that something can come from nothing IMO.

quote:

Our discussion is now about, whether it ever will become possible to design a theory which is able to explain this issue. I doubt, and I definitely think it is premature to say, that better explanations exist, when you haven´t found them (yet??).

Nope. I said a better explanation does exist. It has exisited for the last 2,500 years. This explanation completely resolves the current problems in the interpretation of quantum theory.

quote:

And how can you be so sure of the universal validity of the principle of causality, when we haven´t found these better explanations?

See above.

quote:

Well, I know, that the logical weakness in my argumentation is, that I reject an apparent logical argument (nothing comes from nothing) with another equally apparent logical argument (something may come from nothing in a way we never shall understand). But we human beings have no other choice, than using our logical sense. Maybe though the answer is, that logic can´t be used in the description of the issue of the origin of matter. This seems illogical at first, but I can just as well assume so, as you can assume that better explanations exist (and will be found).

See above

quote:

The introduction to the book which is available for download on the website has been substantially re-written but you will get the gist nonetheless. The first chapter is also available. There is another chapter called 'What is the matter with matter' which would answer many of your questions and I would be happy to e-mail it to you if you were genuinely interested having read the the Intro and first chapter. The book is stuffed full of quotes from all the top scientists and the buddhist element is pure philosophy and has nothing to do with faith or belief in holy beings and has, therefore, no religious element to it.

Thanks very much for the link. I have downloaded it already, and I shall read it, and will return to the topic, when I have read it. Your remarks about no religious elements certainly appeal to me.

Regards,
Poul

I hope you enjoy it.

Three fundamental thoughts (but it would take others a book to express them)

a) How far is it from London to New York and how long will it take to fly there at 500mph

b) What is Something and did it ever have a beginning

c) Does God exist

"a" is pretty straight forward. We have developed a predictable understanding of our world such that we can turn raw materials into jet aeroplanes and navigate with practical accuracy. (shooting the tin can on the moon syndrome). This includes GPS and the atomic clocks within the associated satellites, which have all been adjusted to take account of what we call general relativity. All pretty basic stuff. But note. I say with practical accuracy. ie, our theories are good enough, but not necessarily the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

"b" we don't know.
even I could write a book about what we have discovered and "string" together a few "relatively" complex-looking equations to try to make our discoveries look predictable and useful as if science had taken a "quantum" leap forward. And just when we thought that "alpha" was a universal constant, or the speed of light "c" was a universal constant, some bright spark starts looking at Gamma Rays again and finds they probably aren't constant. So we are back to comparing ratios again (direct measurements can't be assumed to be constant, but we think ratios could be!)

"c" more or less the same as "b" but with fanatics, fundamentalists and lots of emotion.

With "a" "b" and "c" I am happy to talk and read about other peoples experiments, thoughts, ideas, hopes etc providing they aren't rammed down my throat as "facts" unless they fall into "a" and serve a well-established, predictable and beneficial service to mankind. More or less

Oh, possibly a FOURTH fundamentsl thought.....we simply haven't got anywhere near the "truth" at all. None of our theories, or their supporting experiments, or philosophical thoughts and associated discussions has yet begun to reveal the reality of existence. And we don't have words to describe it or the imagination to recognise it etc etc

Cheers

Don

But I can imagine that when it IS revealed, we'll all be amazed at how bleeding obvious it was.........

Don,

I agree with all you say with the exception of the last part - I do genuinely believe ultimate truth is attainable (ultimate truth about reality)but I dont think it is bleeding obvious. Even an intellectual understanding of ultimate truth (as opposed to conventional truth)is counter-intuitive and involves a good deal of thought and exploration with a light and open mind.

A revelation of ultimate truth (a direct first order empirical experince/realisation)requires not just an intellectual understanding but a profound reconfiguration of consciousness which is beyond words, thoughts and expression as it is beyond the duality of conceptual thought.

The way to develop this reconfiguration does work but sadly not in 5 mins.

Regards,

Erik

quote:

Originally posted by Ears:
[QUOTE]

Hello Ears,

Sorry I completely forgot to answer you as promised earlier.



[QUOTE] Is the metamind of Buddhist teaching completely outside the realm of phenomena?

I have not come across metamind in Buddhist teaching but insofar as all phenomena are appearances to mind the metamind (whatever that is)could not be outside of the realm of phenomena (whatever that is). Ditto cause and effect.

Just in case I have misunderstood your questions would you please define metamind and realm of phenomena and I will give a more considered answer.

One of the great things about Buddhist Madhymaka philosophy is the insistence of using shared terminolgy with very precise definitions the meanings of which must be fully grasped for meaningful dialogue to take place. This philosophical rigor is almost entirely lacking in science, western philosophy and religion. I googled metamind and it returned all kinds of stuff relating to NLP etc. so I'm not sure what you mean by the term.

All the best,

Erik

Hello Erik

No apology required - the reply is still prompt. Yes, guilty as charged - please add "amateur philosophers" to your list of those displaying insufficient rigour in definition of terms - I'll try to explain myself more clearly.

By metamind I meant the underlying or ultimate reality. I attributed a mental aspect to it as a contrast to that of a material / physical entity, categorising Buddhism as a sort of mental monism. (I realise you may wish to correct me on this).

By realm of phenomena I meant the world as we perceive it through our sense organs. I agree that this world is not as real as it seems and needs careful analysis however counter-intuitive.

Best wishes from Ears.

quote:

Originally posted by Ears:
Hello Erik

No apology required - the reply is still prompt. Yes, guilty as charged - please add "amateur philosophers" to your list of those displaying insufficient rigour in definition of terms - I'll try to explain myself more clearly.

By metamind I meant the underlying or ultimate reality. I attributed a mental aspect to it as a contrast to that of a material / physical entity, categorising Buddhism as a sort of mental monism. (I realise you may wish to correct me on this).

By realm of phenomena I meant the world as we perceive it through our sense organs. I agree that this world is not as real as it seems and needs careful analysis however counter-intuitive.

Best wishes from Ears.

Hello Ears,

Ok gotcha now. I assumed you meant something along these lines but it is easy to make wrong assumptions hence the desire for clarification.

Simply put Buddhism teaches there are three levels of mind

1/ Gross mind. The waking mind of our senses (by which we apprehend gross objects e.g. this laptop.

2/ Subtle mind. The mind of dreaming whilst sleeping or deep meditation by which we apprehend dream/subtle objects.

3/ Very subtle (or root mind. This mind, the most subtle, usually only manifests itself only in deep sleep and at the time of death. Usually the our awareness is too dull to identify it. Through training however we can purify our mind sufficiently to manifest this mind at will.

The gross mind manifest out of and dissolves back into the subtle mind. The subtle mind manifests out of and dissolves back into the very subtle mind.

The very subtle mind is non-dual. It is the same nature as ultimate reality (emptiness - as in all phenomena are 'emppty' of or lack inherent existence).

Gross objects (matter if you like)lack inherent existence. There is nothing, absolutely nothing that is a thing in its own right. All phenomena are dependent-related - they appear to exist as separate entities but exist entirely in dependence on other phenomena. Our gross minds create the illusion that phenomena ARE inherently existent and this causes us all kinds of suffering whereas our purified very subtle mind is free from this delusion. Cultivating this mind is what Buddhism is all about. The religious aspect is simply a ritualised method of helping us on our way on this path so as a religion is quite different to any other.

The very subtle mind is also called the 'clearlight mind'.

There are two levels of clearlight mind.

1/ example clearlight - this still has some very subtle duality present.

2/ meaning clearlight - this is completely pure and free from subtle obscuration and could be said to be outside of the world of phenomena if you said 'outside the world of inherently existent phenomena'. I hope this answers your question.

A person who has a direct realisation of emptiness would not see anymore inherently exisitent phenomena at all he/she would see the true/ultimate nature of everything all the time and would be totally free from suffering.

The ultimate nature and conventional nature of phenomena interpenetrate on all levels 'form is emptiness, emptiness is form'. An enlightened being sees the two natures at once.

We poor deluded sods see only the conventional nature of phenomena even if intellectually we understand there is an ultimate nature (and most people dont even know this)- an intelectual understanding is not enough (but its a start)we must actually reconfigure our consciousness through meditation.

I hope this ansers your question but this is a complex area. Even the highly condensed 'form is emptiness, emptiness is form' is only really unpacked by several pages of commentary.

Regards,

Erik

quote:

I like what you have written. Its easy to read and covers additional ground that I have read about (eg the concept of Branes, String Theory, and Loop Quantum Gravity)

Thank you. As you can tell, this is an area I'm very interested in, but it's rare indeed to find an opportunity to discuss it.

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:

quote:

scientists said that they couldn't see past the big bang to whatever existed "before". This wasn't because there was any problem with the question, but because making statements about something without evidence is faith, not science.

However, I rather suspect that we will differ (and so will a lot of other people, each with their own views) with regard to the above quote, or at least the bit "because making statements about something without evidence is faith, not science".

Possibly its no more than semantics. eg "what counts as evidence" and "how much of the statement is actually supported by the evidence".

When Einsein stated his theories of General and Special Relativity, he had a bit of evidence, and likewise with String Theory (is their any evidence?) and Loop Quantum Gravity Theory. More evidence has been added from time to time, but not with universal agreement amongst "scientists". In other words, a lot of scientists generate theories without much (or any) evidence.

Don,

scientists create theories to try to explain features of the world around them. Often these are based on little evidence when first created.

These theories gain credibility by making predictions which are then confirmed by experiment.

Sometimes a theory is contradicted by experiment, which then leads to a more accurate or fundamental theory. This doesn't always mean that the preceeding theory was incorrect, just that it only applied in certain circumstances. The classic example of this is Newtons laws of motion, which apply as long as you are not talking about objects travelling close to the speed of light, or objects of sub-atomic mass. Just because Special Relativity & Quantum Mechanics disagree in these circumstances, it doesn't stop NASA from using Newtonian Mechanics to design the trajectories of spacecraft over billions of miles at tens of thousands of miles an hour to incredible accuracy.

However, scientific theories can never be finally "proved". They may explain billions of observations, but there's nothing that forbids someone discovering a disagreement with, say, Newtonian mechanics in everyday objects at everyday speeds. Someone would just then have to come up with a more all-encompasing theory.

It is known that Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity & General Relativity make different predictions in certain extreme cases, so a better "theory of everything" is required.

String theory may have little or no observational evidence, but it tries to be that "TOE", starting from the idea that the standard description of particles as infinately small points is probably an over-simplification (ie another theory waiting to be proved not-quite-good-enough). It is also based on a number of other concepts dating back to early in the twentieth century, such as ten- or eleven-dimensional space.

String theory is a long way from being backed by (?much?) actual evidence, and that has seriously hampered theorists. There are too many versions, and they need to disprove some or most of them to give hints which direction to continue the development.

quote:

Likewise, I am somewhat sceptical about many scientific theories, and particularly ones where the promoters make strong claims about as-yet-un-proven consequences eg the Big-Bang and the consequence of Nothing preceding it. Nevertheless, I am interested in what they have to say, and in a few cases, I trust them and their "evidence"

Some of these theories are based on very long and convoluted chains of reasoning and a lot of hand-waving instead of detail or observations.

Things that were "proved" five years ago (such as inflation and the existence of black holes) now seem to be not quite so certain.

Unfortunately, scientists have to fight to get their theories accepted, and this does make them over-protective. The media also likes to play down all the "maybe's" and "possibly's" when they report them.

cheers, Martin

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Martin Payne:
[QUOTE]

Hi Martin,

I'd say that all you have written above is very reasonable and admirably balanced as far as it goes. My trouble with many scientists is that they react with total horror everytime consciousness is brought willingly or unwillingly into the picture. In a desperate attempts to prove that an observer does not collapse the wave function they invent decoherence or the many worlds theory or string theory or some other desperate flavour of the month theory which has no evidence except some equation on a piece of paper.

I laughed out loud in a borders book shop this week when reading a review of a newly published book written by a scientist who said that it is man who has made up the laws of the universe. The reviewer thought this was very 'radical'. I think it is spectacularly obvious. A mathematician acquaintance of mine at my table asked what I was laughing at so I showed him the quote. He said that man does not make up these laws they are written in numbers into the very fabric of the universe.

Part of the problem is a good deal of the equations work (though only up to a point imo), they do predict accurately (quantum physics is accurate to one part in 100 million or so I read)but they dont tell the whole story as you rightly point out but many talk in terms of laws and absolutes as if talking about irrefutable fact. This bothers me and it seems to bother Don. Yes, quantum theory is incredibly predictive but ask a bunch of quantum theorists what it all means and they have not got a clue.

Lee Smolin a respected physicist:

'The founders of quantum theory, such as Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg and Schrödinger did not agree …
There is now no more agreement about what quantum theory really means…'

Science, either classical physics or quantum physics has very little to say about reality imo, far far less than most people would suspect and far far less than many scientists will readily admit to.

There are, however, a few who speak out: Jim Baggot, a respectable physicist, from his recent book A Beginner’s Guide to Reality: This book seeks to locate a definite reality within different spheres of human endeavour, sociological, philosophical and physical and his conclusion is that:

'We must now come to terms with the fact that there is no hard evidence for this common sense reality to be gained from the entire history of human thought. There is simply nothing we can point to, hang our hats on and say this is real'.

Henry Stapp, another respected physicist:

“The properties of ‘quantum matter’ lie ‘mid-way’ between those of classical matter and mind: ‘matter’ has moved towards ‘mind’."

David Bohm, ahead of his time, suggested that there was need for:

“a new notion of unbroken wholeness, in which consciousness is no longer to be fundamentally separated from matter.”


A GUT (Grand Unifying Theory Theory)or ToE wont be found imo as long as consciousness is ruled out of the picture as mind is primary imo. Even if some GUT or TOE is found it will be found to be lacking, it will be replaced or refined untill thinking is refined enough to finally break through the wall of descrimination concerning consciousness. Yes, they are over-protective of their theories (its all about turf, money, pride and big grants or publishing deals)in short its about self interest but they all join forces when anyone starts talking about consciousness. David Bohm, a genius imo has long been labelled a maverick by people not worthy of cleaning his shoes. I think there are a number of scientific charletans out there Richard Dawkins and Vilayanur Ramachandran and so called philosophers like Danial Dennett muddy the water as best they can and all fight like mad to preserve their 'turf'. Hopefully one day people will see through them and hopefully one day consciousness will take its place centre stage as being primary in the universe.

Regards,

Erik

quotes taken from

Time is one way of telling when a thread has gone on too long...

quote:

Originally posted by erik scothron:
I hope this ansers your question but this is a complex area. Even the highly condensed 'form is emptiness, emptiness is form' is only really unpacked by several pages of commentary.

Regards,

Erik

Hello Erik

Many thanks for the answer - it helps. I look forward to more of the reading you have recommended.

In another post you refer to David Bohm: "A new notion of unbroken wholeness..."

I like this... INTEGRITY (in the non-moral sense) - what every system should have, whether to solve an everyday business problem, or standing as an metaphysical model.

Just to take two examples where something less than the whole was used:

Western idealist philosophers seemed to hit a brick wall attempting to identify underlying reality, declaring it unknowable; sometimes I think it is a shame they didn't tweak their model a bit more given their undoubted intellectual power, but maybe this is harsh when you consider what they had to battle against.

More recently Julian Barbour's fascinating "The End of Time" (which I see you read too) deliberately excludes consciousness as a total mystery.

So I hope I shall find some brilliant writing which will make me re-think a few things.

Best wishes from Ears.

quote:

Originally posted by Ears:
[QUOTE]


Western idealist philosophers seemed to hit a brick wall attempting to identify underlying reality, declaring it unknowable; sometimes I think it is a shame they didn't tweak their model a bit more given their undoubted intellectual power, but maybe this is harsh when you consider what they had to battle against.

Hello Ears,

I agree. You make a good point. I'm afraid Rene Descartes has a lot to answer for. Even Berkely fell at the last hurdle. Both got into conceptual deep water and used 'God' to bail themselves out. Berekely, indeed, only needed to 'tweak his model' a little to have got the intellectual side of ultimate reality. Unfortunately all these philosophers, mathematicians, scientists et al are using gross levels of concsiousness to explore the gross world which unfolds out of more subtle layers. David Bohm got this and wrote about it in his excellent book 'Wholeness and the implicate order'.

To really get at an underlying reality that have to reconfigure their consciousness and they have no knowlege of how to do this, nor are they aware of their need to or that it is possible. Ramachandran thinks he knows more about the mind than anyone in the world but in reality he is but a child compared to those who have worked with their minds through long years of meditation. To experience ultimate reality directly by the very subtle mind free from any duality/conceptual generic image just once would be the life changing event of all time. Even if one never experienced this again one would never doubt the real nature of the universe again.

Incidently many of these issues were discussed over the 11 pages or so of the 'swine thread' which discussed all manners of stuff about the bible, religion, buddhism, meditation and science. Here

quote:

Part of the problem is a good deal of the equations work (though only up to a point imo), they do predict accurately (quantum physics is accurate to one part in 100 million or so I read)but they dont tell the whole story as you rightly point out but many talk in terms of laws and absolutes as if talking about irrefutable fact. This bothers me and it seems to bother Don. Yes, quantum theory is incredibly predictive but ask a bunch of quantum theorists what it all means and they have not got a clue.

What a lot of sense this is Erik.

The problem is that any theory is only testable against what we can observe and what we can observe changes year by year.

Before the invention of the telescope the theory that the sun orbits the earth fit well enough with our observations until Galileo discovered moons orbiting Jupiter and realised that the Copernican model of a heliocentric universe was the correct one. We now 'know' this not to be true as the sun is not the centre of the universe but only the solar system.

My point is that the 'absolutes' of history are now 'known' not to be true and the same will happen in the future to our current 'absolutes'. To believe that we are anywhere near the truth is, in my opinion, arrogant.

I enjoy reading about cosmology and the latest theories as it is a subject that fascinates me greatly, but each new theory is just a starting point for further debate and testing I think.

After all, if we really did discover the TOE, what would there be left to talk about?

Mark