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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
well evidence...
again you're looking for evidence of somethign that is beyond the sciope of the scientific method.
In fact the closest we have IS the chakra system
again, chakras themselves and the attributions and system itself is garbage...
It is a map... this is why there are other systems of such things.
What are chakras, well as I am sure you already know, they are like non corporeal "soul organs" again this is just a map also....
So what we have is a system called chakras that is used to map the territory of something that is seen through the invisible eye...although some can see the invisible with the visible eye.... this often takes practice, although some homosapiens can simply see them.
So as much as you do not like it, thousands of years of invisble exploration has led to things such as the chakra system, for that what it is, a system, a map of something.... chakras themselves dont exist they are representations of a deeper truth....
I understand that the fact we cant get a test tube or a bar chart..that it upsets you....
But thats life
it's not about right and wrong, it's about growth and stagnation.
What does entropy have to do with area? That Hawking guy... always thinking.
The last generalized account of QM I have read came from a professor's written lecture; guy seems to think there are at least eighteen different flavors of quantum theory floating around. I get the arXiv updates on my Google Reader... I'm thinking there's a whole lot more than eighteen. The Standard Model is inexorably linked to the Copenhagen Interpretation; Bohr's Complimentariness merged with Heisenburg's Uncertainty - but it seems the latter is contingent upon the quantum nature of time. If time does not actually exist... well, things will get strange. I'm pretty sure we got it backwards way back when. Instead of conceptualizing entropy to account for time, I'm thinking we conceptualized time to account for entropy.
Why? Well, because we're entropic, of course. We don't know "nothing" because everything we know is "something." Some of us, however, seem to know something else. For instance, the role of the observer in QM. As we all observe, we all alter the potential outcome. Meaning we're a long way from evidence of psychic ability if one psyche can scramble the experiment. What is the potential solution? Machine intelligence. Ever since we started asking questions, there has been a need to question the questioner; but as we are all human, there is no way to know just what we know.
We don't know atoms, our machines know atoms, our mathematics knows atoms - until, of course; we learn more - redo our math, and reprogram our machines - and reprogram ourselves in the process.
One is the number of thingness. An apple tree contains many apples, but they are all apple. We are all human. These are all words.
Zero is the number of nothingness, but as such cannot be known, it has that inherent flaw - the name "zero," the location at the origin. That flaw is useful in that we have a piece of nothing that acts like a number, for the most part; but what happens when it doesn't? Infinity - which in our terms in the infinity of thingness - and hiding beneath nothing is... well everything.
The point is that there is no answer, merely more pertinent questions. Some of us are on a quest, others are content to know; humanity needs both types of mindsets. Questions lead to answers that we can stand upon to find more questions; it's not about right and wrong, it's about growth and stagnation. We can't live perpetually with uncertainty, but we will surely stagnate if we ever truly know.
Phil, how can you be a string theorist and not speak gibberish?The idea that we don't know atoms, out machines no atoms is nonsense. we have an enormous evidence for the existence of atoms and we understand their properties very well. i have to say i think most of your post is gibberish, sorry if that seems harsh but what on Earth are you trying to say?
Why don't you make your claims more specific ?
If you are running from the tiger because it roared then sorry, it was not you it was what is stored in your brain from the past, fear, specially fear of death.What is really real - the numbers, or the roar of the tiger? If we work together, we can slay the beast, no? Isn't it all just a matter of perspective? This is what science says - cause and effect, empirical evidence, the future is a story being told by the past - and this is why science cannot stand alone. I really don't know about chakras, or meditation, or long-distance energy transferal - but I know that there's more than science going on. There's Gwynnie, for one. Everything I know, science tells me resides in this skull; that I end when this body dies. Yet, if it should come to the tiger; it's him or me - but Gwynnie lives.
Tigers, Phil; tigers.
When the tiger roars, he is saying "beat it" in a language every animal understands. The science says the tiger is four hundred pounds of tooth and claw and raw power. The science says that tiger has no higher purpose that to eat foolish naked apes like me. Yet the religion says that tiger ain't getting my Gwynnies. I don't fancy my chances against the tiger, sitting here in my walled enclave of Phoenix; yet conversely, I have much better odds standing between the tiger and Gwyneth Paltrow.
An added dimension beyond the kingdom of self. The tiger's in the cage, so it had to happen at one point in the past that man conquered tiger. I'm thinking he didn't do it alone - it was more like men - and I'm also thinking that a few men ended up in the belly of the tiger trying to validate the hypothesis that tiger could be conquered. There was no empirical evidence for such a hypothesis to be formed. Wanna take a guess as to what was the basis for such a hypothesis?
Faith. It ain't all bad.
Very often doctors do nothing but hand out/dispense pharmesudicals.
While these drugs CAN help,
(a particular problem)
most often they simply trade off one problem for another.
They do not actually HEAL the person.
Have you seen the lists of warnings on those things?
Unfortunately modern medicine... beyond broken arms...
is often not actually about healing at all.
Also, while I may trust DOCTORS in general,
to be well qualified in their field...
I do not trust the big money pharmesudical companies
as far as I can throw them.
Their motives are profit.
If they ACTUALLY healed everyone
they would soon be out of business.
Very often doctors do nothing but hand out/dispense pharmesudicals.
While these drugs CAN help,
(a particular problem)
most often they simply trade off one problem for another.
They do not actually HEAL the person.
Have you seen the lists of warnings on those things?
Unfortunately modern medicine... beyond broken arms...
is often not actually about healing at all.
Also, while I may trust DOCTORS in general,
to be well qualified in their field...
I do not trust the big money pharmesudical companies
as far as I can throw them.
Their motives are profit.
If they ACTUALLY healed everyone
they would soon be out of business.
Friends,
Agree what you are discussing are also *dimensions of reality* but the SPACE of the OP is different. Can we stay on track??
And friend UV could start another Thread on her subject of Profits from desires /motives etc.
Love & rgds
I don't really care enough.
I won't derail your thread either.
Friend UV,
The intention was not of hurting your sentiments, it was only to point the WAY through another WAY!
Am sure you understand!
Love & rgds
scary when you think about how much power pharmaceutical companys have. Makes you wonder where viruses really come from.