An Interesting challenge

[Thermos aquaticus]

An example of a scientific approach would be Gimatrya. (A mathematical value of characters).
It is filled with mathematical equations and pattern.

So how do you determine which mathematical equations are meant to describe which area of science?

I would love doing it in another post it is not the intention of this thread unless you offer a scientific interpolation to things
So if you wish to open a new post I will gladly join. we can start with the word "בראשית"

I am a bit confused. What did you mean by this?

"So my challenge is finding a group of people with a vast knowledge of sciences . . . that are willing to take a dive to a very interesting idea of trying and finding a scientific discoveries BASED on the Kabbalah rather then disregarding it as a myth or just another religion."

What did you mean by "scientific discoveries based on the Kabbalah"? I would think that any such discussion would include examples of those scientific discoveries.

 

[Segev Moran]

The word תּוֹרָה ends with the Hebrew letter hei (or hey) and is transliterated Torah, not Tora.

The oral Tora (sic), while traditionally seen as including kabbalah, refers primarily to the Talmud.

That is not true.
The Oral toraH is every aspect of the Jewish religion that is not literally written in the Written toraH (תנ"ך)

 

[Segev Moran]

Why?

In what way is Kbl specific enough not to lend itself to multiple possible interpretations as it applies to very specific scientific predictions?

Perhaps you could cite one small example and we could discuss?

I would love doing it in another post it is not the intention of this thread unless you offer a scientific interpolation to things

Very true. I would be relying on you to educate me on the specifics of Kbl interpretation. However, I don't see why this would hamper any discussions.

For example, let's say there are a set of scriptures called the Aesops, and one of those scriptures states:

"The snake had two eyes that glared forward with intensity."

From that scripture, I state that it clearly points to the existence of two charged particles, the electron and proton. I am sure that many people would point out that without modern knowledge of atomic physics, no one would have ever said that the scripture was talking about what makes up atoms, much less the type and charge of particles in that atom.




How do you know specifically and precisely what the Kbl suggests?

So you do not understand what science is or how it works either.

The scientific method is an approach to solving problems. It does not lead to "objective truth". It leads to theories that explain nature. Theories are always changing because they tend to be improved when some aspect of them are found to be wrong.

when i say objective truth i mean truth that can be demonstrated and accepted to best we understand our reality. so we are on an agreement.
not that science provide answers that are absolute "existenigally" (that relates to existence) objective
so to me its an objective smashing a raw egg on a floor will break it

 

[Tumah]

For example, let's say there are a set of scriptures called the Aesops, and one of those scriptures states:

"The snake had two eyes that glared forward with intensity."

From that scripture, I state that it clearly points to the existence of two charged particles, the electron and proton. I am sure that many people would point out that without modern knowledge of atomic physics, no one would have ever said that the scripture was talking about what makes up atoms, much less the type and charge of particles in that atom.

Just to explain where the OP is coming from (regardless whether I agree or not), kaballah isn't a Scripture in that way. It's more like an extremely intricate and complicated model. The analogy would actually work better in the other direction: the kabbalistic model would be about the election and proton, and an application of the model to the snake, would lead us to believe that the eyes of the snake are representative of the charged particles. So the OP is suggesting that a study of the model will lead to parallels between it and known scientific models.

 

[Tumah]

And also thanks fixed the post

Also I believe Rav Kook had a similar idea.

 

[Segev Moran]

So how do you determine which mathematical equations are meant to describe which area of science?

To make a long story short.. because it says so.

I am a bit confused. What did you mean by this?

you asked to give you a cite.. so instead we can start with one word it is enough to discuss for hours

"So my challenge is finding a group of people with a vast knowledge of sciences . . . that are willing to take a dive to a very interesting idea of trying and finding a scientific discoveries BASED on the Kabbalah rather then disregarding it as a myth or just another religion."

What did you mean by "scientific discoveries based on the Kabbalah"? I would think that any such discussion would include examples of those scientific discoveries.

If any will be discovered, than obviously.
I can give you an example...
One of the statements in the Kbl is that the spoken word has an affect in a molecular level of the water.
It is explained that the sound wave produced (correctly) by a specific word causes a vibration that changes water in a specific manner.
This is said in a way that cannot be interpolated otherwise.
And only in the past 30 years we have found that words can really do this.
I do not speak of a spiritual idea rather an actual statement saying the sound of the word is what changes the water.

It is in any way very interesting. like this, there are many claims that can be examined and measured.

there are medical advises that prove most effective these days.

nothing requires a spirit or an angel. it is all explained with a great reasoning that is different in terms than modern science.[/QUOTE]

 

[Segev Moran]

Just to explain where the OP is coming from (regardless whether I agree or not), kaballah isn't a Scripture in that way. It's more like an extremely intricate and complicated model. The analogy would actually work better in the other direction: the kabbalistic model would be about the election and proton, and an application of the model to the snake, would lead us to believe that the eyes of the snake are representative of the charged particles. So the OP is suggesting that a study of the model will lead to parallels between it and known scientific models.

Almost, but thanks for trying

where i come from is not relevant to the given example.
I am not talking about symbols rather clear statements.

 

[Segev Moran]

Also I believe Rav Kook had a similar idea.

Dunno
I will check tough.
I think that one difference is that he was not objective.

 

[sealchan]

Hi All,

I was a very active user of these forums.
I have taken some time (A few month) to do some studying.
I've been studying quite a lot and still am.

I have many reasons to assume god (Any of them) doesn't exist. Actually.. the correct statement will be I have very little reasons to believe god exists.

But as an atheist from the one hand, and a very curious person from the other, i invest many many hours studying and "investigating" many religious ideas and concepts.

I am a jew, and grew up in a Jewish way of life. Not a religious jew, but Jewish by birth.
I study (in the past and present) the Jewish religion in a very deep and detailed manner.
I still have a long way to go and there are literally millions of pages of information I've yet to learn regarding the Jewish belief.

Undoubted, the most complex and elaborated religious "theory" I've ever encountered is the oral Tora and especially Kabbalah.

It is one of the most in depth analysis of EVERY aspect related to our reality ranging from the creation of the universe and to the structure and behavior of living beings.

Although still an atheist, I honestly find the Kabbalah to be an amazingly (in the true sense of the word) complex, deep and detailed view on life as we know from the aspect of materialistic and non materialistic POV.

The most "WOW"ing thing about it as far as i am concerned, is that once you learn the Kabbalah in depth, the similarities between the most recent scientific discoveries and the ideas of the Kabbalah are far more common than you might think.

There are many things that are in contradiction (although after doing some more deep research I find them to be "solved").

I have a very logical mind. I am a very skeptic in the way i respond to things.

Now.. before you jump ahead and ask me ... Well.. if it is so amazing, Isn't it a proof of God? the short answer is no.. far from it!

I will not go into why, as this might be a very very long post ( already is.. i know ).

So what is the challenge?

well, Although i have a broad scientific knowledge, there are many things i don't know.
There is too much to learn and not much time

So my challenge is finding a group of people with a vast knowledge of sciences (preferably atheists [not because i have something against theist scientists, rather because i think someone who treats god only as an idea will be more objective in this case] although if one is open minded and will not be offended of things that might be said, i think it will be a great value) that are willing to take a dive to a very interesting idea of trying and finding a scientific discoveries BASED on the Kabbalah rather then disregarding it as a myth or just another religion.

If in any way I've caused anyone to be offended from my statement that Kabbalah is the most complex and detailed religious doctrine, please accept my apology. this statement is of course based on my own knowledge and what i have come across so far in my short life

Just as an example for the complexity of the Kabbalah, the letter "Alef" (The first [and last] letter of the Hebrew Kabbalah language) it self in the kabbalah can easily fill a 100 pages book of explanations.

really hop[e to find some cooperation as this subject can be a very educating and intriguing thing.

Cheers

Behind all carefully thought out religious beliefs there is a segment of knowledge which focuses on knowledge itself. These mystical, philosophical, hermetic, etc...belief systems get at the nature of what it is like to know things...as such they develop a subtle and precise language of psychological phenomenology. Jung in coming to understand how the psyche adjusts its way toward a balance found that alchemy captured, in its own mystical language, very much what Jung discovered through his own investigations.

Such teachings teach us about the mirror that IS the mind rather than the forms and substances that the mind apprehends. At the same time, such knowledge provides clarity on categorical and sensory knowledge in return. If you throw a little neurology into the mix you then find that you are studying "what it is like to look at a Universe with "brain-colored" glasses" to coin a mixed metaphor.

The abundance of the sense of knowledge one gets from such pursuits is comforting and meaningful to the student. But it is also somewhat impractical in its applications other than to the personal pleasure of the knower. It is sort of like getting a good calisthenic exercise for the concept juggling brain...and as such is perhaps a pursuit most suited to such nerdy types as myself.

Cheers!

I'm a big student of Genesis and the gospel of Matthew, I'm studying The Mahabharata for its own sake and for its parallels with Genesis and I am finding endless intellectual discovery and new insight.

 

[Segev Moran]

Behind all carefully thought out religious beliefs there is a segment of knowledge which focuses on knowledge itself.

These mystical, philosophical, hermetic, etc...belief systems get at the nature of what it is like to know things...as such they develop a subtle and precise language of psychological phenomenology. Jung in coming to understand how the psyche adjusts its way toward a balance found that alchemy captured, in its own mystical language, very much what Jung discovered through his own investigations.

I do not wish to investigate psychological issues

Such teachings teach us about the mirror that IS the mind rather than the forms and substances that the mind apprehends. At the same time, such knowledge provides clarity on categorical and sensory knowledge in return. If you throw a little neurology into the mix you then find that you are studying "what it is like to look at a Universe with "brain-colored" glasses" to coin a mixed metaphor.

The abundance of the sense of knowledge one gets from such pursuits is comforting and meaningful to the student. But it is also somewhat impractical in its applications other than to the personal pleasure of the knower. It is sort of like getting a good calisthenic exercise for the concept juggling brain...and as such is perhaps a pursuit most suited to such nerdy types as myself.

I Get your point, but that not what intrigues me.

Cheers!

cheers

I'm a big student of Genesis and the gospel of Matthew, I'm studying The Mahabharata for its own sake and for its parallels with Genesis and I am finding endless intellectual discovery and new insight.

What kind of insights for example?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

What do you mean limitations? what limitations?

Our attachment to individual mind, is our greatest limitation.

Not until we start to combine our powers of though and reason in the universal Mind, will any more significant progress be made.

When we work together in Unity, growth and progress is found.

Regards Tony

 

[Segev Moran]

Our attachment to individual mind, is our greatest limitation.

Not until we start to combine our powers of though and reason in the universal Mind, will any more significant progress be made.

When we work together in Unity, growth and progress is found.

Regards Tony

Whats a universal mind?

 

[shunyadragon]

Some years ago I participated in a rather comprehensive on line seminar on the Kabballah, and have a great appreciation of the work. I so not share your enthusiasm concerning its relationship to science, but I am willing to follow and learn.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Whats a universal mind?

This is an area you noted above that you do not want to go, but it is good to know anyway.

Universal Mind is the

"......station of primal reason which is known as the Prophet and the Most Great Pillar. Here reason signifieth the divine, universal mind, whose sovereignty enlighteneth all created things—nor doth it refer to every feeble brain; for it is as the wise Saná’í hath written:

How can feeble reason encompass the Qur’án,
Or the spider snare a phoenix in his web?
Wouldst thou that the mind should not entrap thee?
Teach it the science of the love of God!" (Baha'u'llah Seven Valleys and Four Valleys.)

Basically it is using Faith to tap into what is the cause of creation and when we do this in unity, all will be possible.

There are quotes on this potential of the unity in mind, if you are interested.

Regards Tony

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I was studying some of those the other day. I made a prediction from them and it came true . . .

We had chicken for dinner, just as the entrails told me.

I have a question on this. I've been reading tea leaves, and they commonly and accurately predict a relaxing hot drink with a book in hand.
Why haven't I switched to reading tequila shots from a supermodels belly?

 

[sayak83]

To make a long story short.. because it says so.

you asked to give you a cite.. so instead we can start with one word it is enough to discuss for hours

If any will be discovered, than obviously.
I can give you an example...
One of the statements in the Kbl is that the spoken word has an affect in a molecular level of the water.
It is explained that the sound wave produced (correctly) by a specific word causes a vibration that changes water in a specific manner.
This is said in a way that cannot be interpolated otherwise.
And only in the past 30 years we have found that words can really do this.
I do not speak of a spiritual idea rather an actual statement saying the sound of the word is what changes the water.

It is in any way very interesting. like this, there are many claims that can be examined and measured.

there are medical advises that prove most effective these days.

nothing requires a spirit or an angel. it is all explained with a great reasoning that is different in terms than modern science.

[/QUOTE]
Spoken words do not change water. Please cite a scientific article for your claim.

 

[Curious George]

Spoken words do not change water. Please cite a scientific article for your claim.

Well that is not exactly true. Speaking creates sound waves that can disturb water. Because of hydrogen bonding this can be said to disturb the water at a molecular level.

Though, I do not think that is to what he is referring. If I had to guess, I would say he is referring to some Deepak Chopra tests that can't be replicated.

 

[sayak83]

Well that is not exactly true. Speaking creates sound waves that can disturb water. Because of hydrogen bonding this can be said to disturb the water at a molecular level.

Though, I do not think that is to what he is referring. If I had to guess, I would say he is referring to some Deepak Chopra tests that can't be replicated.

Everybody knows sound waves travel through water. If that's the great discovery then, duh.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have a question on this. I've been reading tea leaves, and they commonly and accurately predict a relaxing hot drink with a book in hand.
Why haven't I switched to reading tequila shots from a supermodels belly?

A good question. You will find that tequila is readily available. Some of it is even affordable and still drinkable (unless you live in the state of Washington, highest liquor taxes in the country) Super model belly buttons are in short supply. I can hook you up with some beer bellied males if that will do. Not nearly as enjoyable, but the volume of tequila should be much greater.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

It is explained that the sound wave produced (correctly) by a specific word causes a vibration that changes water in a specific manner.

Wouldn't every word cause water to vibrate in a specific manner different from other words? Wouldn't this vibration also be dependent on the frequency of the speakers voice?