• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Demystifying Quantum Physics

godnotgod

Thou art That
You should read more Plato:
I know that I know nothing. "I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know."

But you do, and you make it a point at every opportunity to let everyone know that you do, via your years of training and study, while feigning humility. Why do you feel such a great need to reference your learning in order to make your point, or to publish Greek or Sanskrit (knowing full well that hardly anyone here has a clue as to what it means)?

You're just a pedant, Legion. Stop trying to beat people up with your 'superior knowledge'. It smacks of the fundie who uses the Bible as a weapon.

Even saying that 'I do not fancy I know what I do not know' is just another device the ego uses to make one appear wise. What gives you away is the fact that you continue to make a point of all your learning and training, to let everyone know that you 'know'. It's cheap advertisement.


How would you know? What master trained you? What do you know of mysticism that you comes from something you didn't buy or find online? You mock my qigong instructor, but I trained for years in Japanese and Chinese traditional practices of meditation, martial arts, and medicine. You had google.

...and STILL you know JackS***! All you have, Legion, are the TRAPPINGS of knowledge. You just rattle, and puff yourself up to make yourself appear bigger than you really are, like a short man who wears elevated shoes to make himself appear taller than he really is. Let's put all your so-called 'learning' and years of 'training' under your masters aside and let's see what you REALLY know, instead of just the hiccup of 'perhaps'. And when, Legion, will you cease your attachment to all those 'masters', and stand on your own? After all, Legion, they're just dummies you cart around with you as props and ornaments, like so much excess baggage.

How do I know that dedicated study is not a necessary component of mystical understanding? Because, Legion, mystical understanding is the experience of seeing directly what is, and what is, is independent of that which attempts to make a study of it. 'What is', Legion, cannot be encapsulated in idea, concept, image, or thought of any kind, which is what study is. Why? Because the nature of the divine is infinite. No amount of study can define it. All thought or concept about the infinite are obstacles. 'Dedicated study' must be put aside before mystical understanding can occur. All books, all scripture, are word-symbols that attempt to encapsulate that which is indefinable. All they can do is to point to the infinite. That is where they leave off, and the mind which sees comes into play. We then enter into the Silent World, where true Reality is, where there is no thought, no history, no memory, no time, no space, no cause. Here, there is no more 'study' or 'scholarship', which are functions of the mind. Here there is no mind, which is but a self-created principle; an illusion. That is how I know.

So, Legion. How do you know that 'dedicated study is a necessary component of mystical understanding'? How is that so, Legion?


I've read Matthew in Greek. I've read the early Christian and Jewish literature that relates to it. You looked up Mithras on the internet and got sensationalist crap.

You've read Matthew in Greek but what do you understand? Nada! If you did, you would have understood what Yeshu was saying in Matt18, would'nt you have? But you did'nt then, and you don't now, because you're hung up on the glitter of having 'read Matthew in Greek', which you wear like an ornament. Shiny, but alas, fake.

...complete alien to you. It takes time and effort, like all of the people (even Chopra) you've held up as examples. You just don't feel the need to follow their example because it's easier to make omniscient claims that can't be falsified thanks to Almighty Google.

If my claims cannot be falsified, why do you labor under the impression that you are doing just that? You're just talking out of your academic hat, which I've put a little dent in, and now you're personally offended, and you need to appear gallant and righteous, but only turn out to be defensive and offensive in the process. All an empty shell that just continues to rattle, Legion, "the sound and the fury, signifying Nothing!". Once you get past your head, Legion, that is when you may begin.

But you're correct about one thing: I don't follow their examples because I think for myself. I don't require crutches from academia.



]द्रष्टा दृशिमात्रः शुद्धोऽपि प्रत्ययानुपश्यः ॥२०॥

]दृग्दर्शनशक्त्योरेकात्मतेवास्मिता ॥६

More egoic, pedantic gobbledegook that no one here cares about or can read. What this really says is: "I have nowhere left to hide except behind the color of pedantic authority disguised as wisdom. Fawlty Towers about to crumble into dust.

If you had really learned anything from of all those years of training and meditation under your masters, you would know better than to have to continually make a point of it by drawing attention to yourself. In Zen, we say: "It takes seven full years to get over the stink of Enlightenment".

When have I ever mocked your QiGong instructor? Now you're being just plain silly!
 
Last edited:

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
But you do, and you make it a point at every opportunity to let everyone know that you do, via your years of training and study, while feigning humility.

On the contrary, I have repeatedly stated the limits to my knowledge and the fact that I might be wrong. You have claimed to understand science better than scientists, dismiss religion because or your access to "the source itself", and despite the fact that your mystic training amounts to reading websites you feel free to define what mysticism is.

Why do you feel such a great need to reference your learning in order to make your point, or to publish Greek or Sanskrit (knowing full well that hardly anyone here hasn't a clue as to what it means)?

Because unlike you, I've actually studied and trained under masters, and unlike you I know what mystics have written over thousands of years. I know that study matters, albeit in different ways, to mystics. I know that masters have required students to prove themselves with mundane tasks for years and years just to show they are worthy to instruct. You take five minutes to find some website and claim you know the Source Itself.

You're just a pedant, Legion. Stop trying to beat people up with your 'superior knowledge'. It smacks of the fundie who uses the Bible as a weapon.

You quoted the bible. I didn't.


...and STILL you know JackS***!
Maybe. But I follow the path of those whom you have held up as exemplars: I study and train and question my knowledge constantly. I don't claim to be omniscient because I have internet access.


All you have, Legion, are the TRAPPINGS of knowledge.
But I have that within which passeth show....

You just rattle, and puff yourself up to make yourself appear bigger than you really are
Says the individual who claims to understand physics, religion, reality, and everything else through his Teach Yourself Mysticism in 24 Minutes.

And when, Legion, will you cease your attachment to all those 'masters', and stand on your own? After all, Legion, they're just dummies you cart around with you as props and ornaments, like so much excess baggage.
Two went to pray? O rather say
One went to brag, the other to pray:
One stands up close and treads on high,
Where the other dares not send his eye.
One nearer to God’s altar trod,
The other to the altar’s God.
-Crashaw

How do I know that dedicated study is not a necessary component of mystical understanding?

You don't.


You're just talking out of your academic hat
Which all your exemplars wear, yet you don't. They all studied for years, most of them in Western academia. You have Google.

But you're correct about one thing: I don't follow their examples because I think for myself.
Which explains how often you've quoted websites, linked to youtube videos, and defended other people as authoritative.
 
Last edited:

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Why do you feel such a great need to reference your learning in order to make your point, or to publish Greek or Sanskrit (knowing full well that hardly anyone here has a clue as to what it means)?...

More egoic, pedantic gobbledegook that no one here cares about or can read. What this really says is: "I have nowhere left to hide except behind the color of pedantic authority disguised as wisdom.
Which one of us has quoted lines in ancient foreign languages that we cannot read?
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
godnotgod said:
You're just a pedant, Legion. Stop trying to beat people up with your 'superior knowledge'. It smacks of the fundie who uses the Bible as a weapon.

You quoted the bible. I didn't.

Your prized possession of Logic continues to fail you. I did not quote the Bible as a means of beating you up, but to demonstrate a point, to which your shallow response was that you had read Matthew in Greek. Did that allow you special insight into Matthew that I do not have? In fact, Legion, you're just fooling yourself by the very fact that you think having read Matthew in Greek actually means something, when a lot of evidence points to the idea that the NT was originally written in Aramaic. (Uh, oh...here we go)

Now I have a better picture of you, Legion. All your years of learning, of training, of knowledge of languages, of QM, are merely egoic ornaments of wisdom, just the old shallow game of spiritual one-ups-manship, like the Christians love to play with each other, of being closer to Jesus, and therefore holier, than some other fool.
 
Last edited:

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
Says the individual who claims to understand physics, religion, reality, and everything else through his Teach Yourself Mysticism in 24 Minutes.
:clap
I think that even I would be hard pressed to come up with a more delightful or accurate description of what you are up against here, Legion. The only change I might be inclined to suggest is that the title be Teach Yourself Mysticism in 2.4 Minutes! You too can trumpet the glories of SixPack Chopra's spoon-bending thoughts on Quantum Mechanics without understanding a single word you are saying! A suitable alternate might be Achieving Mystical states with Google.
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
Which one of us has quoted lines in ancient foreign languages that we cannot read?

You. 'Tat tvam asi' is a transliteration, which anyone can easily look up on, you guessed it: Google, in order to access its meaning immediately. But you know full well that the Greek you posted is completely meaningless to most everyone here, rendering it a mere ornament you display like a peacock.
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
You. 'Tat tvam asi' is a transliteration, which anyone can easily look up on, you guessed it: Google, in order to access its meaning immediately. But you know full well that the Greek you posted is completely meaningless to most everyone here, rendering it a mere ornament you display like a peacock.
At least a peacock has something worthy of both displaying and also having looked at.
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
:clap
I think that even I would be hard pressed to come up with a more delightful or accurate description of what you are up against here, Legion. The only change I might be inclined to suggest is that the title be Teach Yourself Mysticism in 2.4 Minutes! You too can trumpet the glories of SixPack Chopra's spoon-bending thoughts on Quantum Mechanics without understanding a single word you are saying! A suitable alternate might be Achieving Mystical states with Google.

Actually, you're both wrong! In entanglement, communication is signal-less, requiring no time at all, which is just an illusion anyway, as both QM and mysticism demonstrate. Then again, you knew that, did'nt you? Or are you still surgically attached to the old paradigm, as Legion is, defending a rusting listing old warship that's seen it's day? Are you planning to go down with your ship, cap'n?
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
At least a peacock has something worthy of both displaying and also having looked at.

Oh, so you pretend to read Greek, do you? Or are you just hypnotized by all the cheap theatrics? You can join Legion in the cave where you can be entertained by egoic dancing cave wall shadows for hours and hours. by Hasbro.
 
Last edited:

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
Hmmm....you may have a point there....sorta like having your attention caught by some cheaply-perfumed bedizened whore?
As opposed to your unerring channeling of the source? :facepalm:

Oddly, I would think that someone so plugged into seeing "reality: as it is" would be able to construct far better arguments. Perhaps I missed something.
 
If we could try to refocus on the topic of this thread ... for example:
godnotgod said:
In entanglement, communication is signal-less, requiring no time at all ...
To clarify this for everyone, in quantum entanglement, you can't really "communicate" i.e. send information faster than light. In the classic experiment, when Alice measures her particle it does instantly affect Bob's particle. This "effect" is singal-less and requires no time at all, as godnotgod said. But information or causal influences can only be sent the ordinary way, at light speed or less--e.g., Alice sends Bob a text message, "Hey Bob, FYI I just measured my particle and got spin-up, so your particle must be spin-down at this moment".
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
If we could try to refocus on the topic of this thread ... for example:
To clarify this for everyone, in quantum entanglement, you can't really "communicate" i.e. send information faster than light. In the classic experiment, when Alice measures her particle it does instantly affect Bob's particle. This "effect" is singal-less and requires no time at all, as godnotgod said. But information or causal influences can only be sent the ordinary way, at light speed or less--e.g., Alice sends Bob a text message, "Hey Bob, FYI I just measured my particle and got spin-up, so your particle must be spin-down at this moment".

Is Alice really David Copperfield? I smell an illusion. ;)
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
As opposed to your unerring channeling of the source? :facepalm:

Oddly, I would think that someone so plugged into seeing "reality: as it is" would be able to construct far better arguments. Perhaps I missed something.

You did. It's called 'seeing reality as it is', because if you don't, then you see it as it is not. But don't fret over it; it's the same consciousness either way.

re: 'far better arguments'. Science is making it all too complicated, topheavy, and cumbersome. It's much simpler than all that.
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
If we could try to refocus on the topic of this thread ... for example:
To clarify this for everyone, in quantum entanglement, you can't really "communicate" i.e. send information faster than light. In the classic experiment, when Alice measures her particle it does instantly affect Bob's particle. This "effect" is singal-less and requires no time at all, as godnotgod said. But information or causal influences can only be sent the ordinary way, at light speed or less--e.g., Alice sends Bob a text message, "Hey Bob, FYI I just measured my particle and got spin-up, so your particle must be spin-down at this moment".

But what happens when you add the idea of a holographic universe?

Has the following experiment been falsified yet:

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2011/11/18/shubert-einstein-wrong.cnn.html

(BTW, that's 'signal-less', not 'singal-less'.)

 
Last edited:

godnotgod

Thou art That
But what happens when you add the idea of a holographic universe?

Has the following experiment been falsified yet:

Was Einstein wrong? - CNN.com Video

(BTW, that's 'signal-less', not 'singal-less'.)


...and not just holographic, but a holographic consciousness that is an illusion, in which communication is instantaneous across the entire universe, as consciousness permeates everything...IS everything, and in consciousness, there is no Time, Space, or Causation. Everything just 'is'. This image of the universe fits perfectly with the mystical view.

The Holographic Universe - Crystalinks
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
[youtube]bnQ63AOrs6s[/youtube]
Dr Amit Goswami - 'Consciousness, Quantum Physics and Being Human' - by Iain McNay - YouTube


Amit Goswami is DA MAN!

If you really, really listen to both Chopra and Goswami with an open mind, you will see that what they are both saying is that man must evolve beyond his biological evolution. This is the spiritual path returning home.

In this video he talks about how consciousness and quantum physics are really one experience, and which serves far more to 'demystify' QM than any chalkboard filled with mathematical computations.

There is another one of his videos in which he explains how signaless communication is possible despite the seeming limitation of the speed of light. I will post this later when I find it again.
 

Skeptisch

Well-Known Member
Deepak Chopra phoning Amit Goswami:
“Did you know that the moon is only there when we look at it?”

Goswami: “Yes I know I am looking at it right now”.

Chopra: “How can that be when I am not?”

What do you think Goswami answered back?

He probably answered something like:
If you don’t believe in the Many-Moons interpretation you better stick to mental spoon bending?
 
Top