Is Science Compatible with Mysticism?

[Sunstone]

It's a cleverly constructed narrative, to be sure.

The current narrative is not guaranteed to be the continuing narrative.

 

[Sunstone]

You know how adversarial we have been over the years, Phil, but I am with you 100%. I could not agree more and thank you for putting it so eloquently.

Thanks, Paul. I think we see eye to eye on a great deal concerning mysticism. No one seems more surprised than us by that, though.

 

[Willamena]

The current narrative is not guaranteed to be the continuing narrative.

The narrative that proceeds from the previous narrative is the continuing narrative.

 

[Sunstone]

The narrative that proceeds from the previous narrative is the continuing narrative.

Science is subject to even radical changes in narrative based on factors outside the original narrative.

 

[Willamena]

Science is subject to even radical changes in narrative based on factors outside the original narrative.

Go figure...

 

[Mr Spinkles]

But if, as you say, the empirical method is the best, you have to realize that it's not reality that is being determined, but a continuing narrative based on the previous accepted narrative.

No, you only have to realize that that is possible. It's also possible that our "narrative" is a very accurate representation of reality. You maximize the chances of the latter (but never know it for sure) by doing science. You find out whether our current understanding is the former by doing science. At what point does some "non-empirical" method swoop in and replace these subtle limitations on knowledge with absolute certainty?

*edit: Let's take an example, for clarity. Consider the ancient model of the solar system, with heavenly bodies orbiting the Earth in concentric circles. Observations of some heavenly bodies (planets) deviated a bit from this model, but that could be explained by assuming that planets orbited in smaller circles within the larger circles, called "epicycles". This incorrect model of the solar system worked for a long time. What you are saying, Willamena, correctly, is that reality could be very different even if our model works. You are absolutely right about that. As we all know, the ancient model was wrong, it turns out that planets orbit in ellipses, not circles, and they do this due to the mutual force of gravity they exert on each other, not due to pre-set paths they must follow. Where you go wrong, Willamena, is when you claim that our models based on empiricism can NEVER be right. In fact, you want to suggest that they never even incrementally APPROACH being right, they are just "narratives based on narratives" wandering aimlessly around, never sniffing out reality and getting closer to it. Here you're wrong. A model might be right, we just can't ever know for sure if it's right. Using empiricism, we can only know for sure (a) that our model was wrong, or (b) that our model works, and therefore it MIGHT be right. Even if it's based on assumptions, if the assumptions work there's a good chance they were accurate assumptions.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The narrative that proceeds from the previous narrative is the continuing narrative.

The victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki will be relieved to know that the nuclear physics used against them was just a narrative, proceeding from a previous narrative, with no connection to an underlying reality.

 

[Sunstone]

The victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki will be relieved to know that the nuclear physics used against them was just a narrative, proceeding from a previous narrative, with no connection to an underlying reality.

Indeed. They can stop glowing in the dark now.

 

[Willamena]

No, you only have to realize that that is possible. It's also possible that our "narrative" is a very accurate representation of reality.

Empirically speaking, if it is not verifiable it cannot be reality. The reality is left to be an experimenter, an experiment, results and a narrative.

At what point does some "non-empirical" method swoop in and replace these subtle limitations on knowledge with absolute certainty?

Perhaps at the point where we are willing to suspend disbelief.

*edit: Let's take an example, for clarity. Consider the ancient model of the solar system, with heavenly bodies orbiting the Earth in concentric circles. Observations of some heavenly bodies (planets) deviated a bit from this model, but that could be explained by assuming that planets orbited in smaller circles within the larger circles, called "epicycles". This incorrect model of the solar system worked for a long time. What you are saying, Willamena, correctly, is that reality could be very different even if our model works. You are absolutely right about that. As we all know, the ancient model was wrong, it turns out that planets orbit in ellipses, not circles, and they do this due to the mutual force of gravity they exert on each other, not due to pre-set paths they must follow. Where you go wrong, Willamena, is when you claim that our models based on empiricism can NEVER be right.

I don't claim that. I simply pointed out that empirically speaking, if it is not verifiable it cannot be reality. The narrative is verifiable (the model), something "beyond" that is not. Reality should rest with the current "best case" narrative.

In fact, you want to suggest that they never even incrementally APPROACH being right, they are just "narratives based on narratives" wandering aimlessly around, never sniffing out reality and getting closer to it.

If you want to allow something alleged and admitted as unknowable as reality, you allow for possibility, but you also allow for fantasy.

Here you're wrong. A model might be right, we just can't ever know for sure if it's right. Using empiricism, we can only know for sure (a) that our model was wrong, or (b) that our model works, and therefore it MIGHT be right. Even if it's based on assumptions, if the assumptions work there's a good chance they were accurate assumptions.

Right.

 

[Willamena]

The victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki will be relieved to know that the nuclear physics used against them was just a narrative, proceeding from a previous narrative, with no connection to an underlying reality.

The narrative is the reality that they are glowing in the dark. The reality that says that they are glowing in the dark in some unknowable fashion that is not the narrative is a fantasy.

 

[godnotgod]

I think what you, me, and Sunstone are trying to say is not that the scientific method is perfect. I think what we are trying to say is that it's the best method available for determining reality, including the reality of the mind.

If, as you admit, science is imperfect, it is impossible to know that it's conclusions about reality are reliable. How can you arbitrarily say it is the 'best method', when you are still looking at the mystical experience from the outside, through your filters of logic, analysis, and 'reason', when it is outside those spheres of investigation?

How can you talk about 'the mind' when you don't even know what it is? In fact, you don't know whether it is an illusion in and of itself.

 

[godnotgod]

Mysticism is the experience of the world beyond ideas about them, as the world itself. It is the experience of being. Where is the evidence of this? Inside all of us, just waiting for us to quit looking for it 'out there'.

What should be noted about the following quote from Rumi is that it goes beyond the duality of 'certainty' and 'doubt':


"As salt resolved in the ocean
I was swallowed in God's sea,
Past faith, past believing,
Past doubt, past certainty!"

Rumi

...and it should also be noted that doubt is a positive sign in the mystical world:

"Little doubt, small enlightenment;
Great doubt, great Enlightenment"
Unknown source

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Would you prefer that scientists not do experiments to see whether quantum mechanics is "at play" in living systems?

Well, let's see what I've said on this in the past:

There are plenty of journals, research papers, volumes, etc., on the inadequacy of the "classical physics" approach to biology. I've referenced many, and works like
Quantum Biochemistry: Electronic Structure and Biological Activity (Wiley VCH; 2010), or the contributions in Quantum Aspects of Life (Imperial College Press, 2008) represent current, cutting edge research in multiple fields.

In order for you to be right, physics has to change behaviour depending on scale, and therefore the entire Standard Model is wrong. Go collect your Nobel.

It's already been awarded. In the free online book I linked to is a paper "Quantum Transition State for Peptide Bond Formation in the Ribosome". The use of quantum crystallography to understand ribosome structure and function was the reason that one of the authors was awarded the Nobel prize.

From "Bridging the Gap: Does Closure to Efficient Causation Entail Quantum-Like Attributes?"

“It is my conjecture that quantum and living systems are related in non-trivial ways, and that the comprehension of this link would be of crucial benefit not only for theoretical biology, but also for quantum theory.”

"The boundary between quantum theory and classical physics is still largely unknown. Quantum theory obviously applies on length scales smaller than atomic radii but beyond that it is not entirely clear where it should be superseded by Newtonian mechanics. Here weargue that recent criticisms of the use of quantum mechanics in biology are not very convincing since they ignore the already existing evidence for quantum effects in biological systems." (Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2011)

Volume 70 (2004) included a study by Rosa & Faber: "Quantum models of the mind: Are they compatible with environment decoherence?" The authors (like Tegmark) criticized the Penrose & Hameroff model and its account of coherence. However, they state:

"based on this difference, we do not conclude, as Tegmark does, that the quantum approach to the brain problem is refuted if we use decoherence instead of gravitational collapse."

From the American Physical Society: Sustained Quantum Coherence and Entanglement in the Avian Compass

Here's how your first link presented the information:
"Experiments show that European robins only oriented themselves for migration under certain colours of light, and that very weak radio waves could completely mix up their sense of direction. Neither should affect the standard compass that biologists once believed birds had within their cells.
What makes more sense is the quantum effect of entanglement. Under quantum rules, no matter how far apart an "entangled" pair of particles gets, each seems to "know" what the other is up to - they can even seem to pass information to one another faster than the speed of light"

This suggests that the "experiments" show that "an 'entangled' pair of particles" and how they "pass information...faster than the speed of light" is related to what bird migration.

The study, however, says nothing about passing information faster than the speed of light. It is concerned with "the time scales for the persistence of full quantum coherence" in living systems.

The quantum world seems filled with impossibilities, paradoxes, etc., none of this corresponds to what we experience or observe. Somehow, the bizarre things which happen at the quantum level "decohere", or transition into the "classical world". The question is when, why, how, and with what significance?

For example, both humans and birds have visual systems, which means that photons are detected by our eyes and interpreted. Even though this means that the human visual system relies on quantum physics, as photons are governed by quantum mechanics, nobody cares. Our eyes don't seem to make use of quantum "weirdness".

For European Robins, the researchers suggest, things might be different:
"there are molecular structures in the bird’s eye which can each absorb an optical photon and give rise to a spatially separated electron pair in a singlet spin state. Because of the differing local environments of the two electron spins, a singlet-triplet evolution occurs. This evolution depends on the inclination of the molecule with respect to Earth’s magnetic field. Recombination occurs either from the singlet or triplet state, leading to different chemical end products. The concentration of these products constitutes a chemical signal correlated to Earth’s field orientation.
The specific molecule involved is unknown."

From New Journal of Physics -Quantum superpositions in photosynthetic light harvesting: delocalization and entanglement

First, while I understand that reading the whole thing may not be possible or comprehensible, but reading at least the summary could have helped as far as understanding what their findings concerns, particularly when they state: "Yet, it is not clear whether quantum mechanics or quantum information processing play significant and nontrivial roles in biological organisms."

Additionally, as you started with:

And yet - much to the dismay of many - quantum mechanics works.

Note that the authors also indicate a central reason this study and all studies on the extent to which quantum mechanics plays a non-trivial role in living systems are difficult. It is because the "problem of measuring quantum entanglement is an active field of research of its own".

The "measurement problem" is what I talked about and what you initially responded to with "quantum mechanics works". The research you just cited is part of an increasing realization that "Niels Bohr brainwashed a whole generation of physicists into believing that the problem (of the interpretation of quantum mechanics) had been solved fifty years ago. (Murray Gell-Mann in The Nature of the Physical Universe: the 1976 Nobel Conference ).

 

[Open_Minded]

The research you just cited is part of an increasing realization that "Niels Bohr brainwashed a whole generation of physicists into believing that the problem (of the interpretation of quantum mechanics) had been solved fifty years ago. (Murray Gell-Mann in The Nature of the Physical Universe: the 1976 Nobel Conference ).

I have never operated under the illusion that the interpretation of quantum mechanics has been solved. In fact I quite celebrate the debate going on within the Scientific community right now.

I also celebrate the quest of empirical experimental sciences on all fronts. It's the way we'll find the answers. I don't feel the need to dismiss scientists and their work if they are willing to publish in peer-review journals. It's the process of science (is it not)?

 

[Gram28]

I see no connection whatsoever between science and mysticism. The role of science is to provide facts. Mysticism tends to ignore facts, warp facts, or latch onto one fact at the exclusion of reason. Sorry, but that's how I see it.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

If, as you admit, science is imperfect, it is impossible to know that it's conclusions about reality are reliable.

Your balance is imperfect. Does that mean you can't walk?

Medical science is imperfect. But when was the last time a plague wiped out most of Europe?

Your argument is basically that imperfect means it cannot be reliable, which is not valid, but more importantly it doesn't say anything about the reliability of anything else. If I determine that my cell phone reception isn't reliable, I have no reason to suspect that telepathy is a better way to try reach someone.

How can you arbitrarily say it is the 'best method', when you are still looking at the mystical experience from the outside, through your filters of logic, analysis, and 'reason', when it is outside those spheres of investigation?

Because you're using a computer on an internet discussion board which was only possible thanks to several centuries of work and progress using the "filters of logic, analysis, and 'reason'". And unless you happen to have internet access in a remote, deserted region somewhere far from roads, hospitals, running water, pharmacies, etc., then the internet and a computer is hardly the only thing you use frequently which is only around because of this method.

How can you talk about 'the mind' when you don't even know what it is?

The same way you can. How can you talk about what science can and cannot tell us about the mind or any number of other things when you don't even know what the research has to say?

 

[godnotgod]

Your balance is imperfect. Does that mean you can't walk?

Medical science is imperfect. But when was the last time a plague wiped out most of Europe?

Your argument is basically that imperfect means it cannot be reliable, which is not valid, but more importantly it doesn't say anything about the reliability of anything else. If I determine that my cell phone reception isn't reliable, I have no reason to suspect that telepathy is a better way to try someone.

Because you're using a computer on an internet discussion board which was only possible thanks to several centuries of work and progress using the "filters of logic, analysis, and 'reason'". And unless you happen to have internet access in a remote, deserted region somewhere far from roads, hospitals, running water, pharmacies, etc., then the internet and a computer is hardly the only thing you use frequently which is only around because of this method.

My comment was not about mechanics, medicine, or technology that science is responsible for, but about reality, which is what Mr.Sprinkles was referring to. What he said was:

"I think what you, me, and Sunstone are trying to say is not that the scientific method is perfect. I think what we are trying to say is that it's the best method available for determining reality, including the reality of the mind."

I far from agree that it is the best method for determining reality, although it is an excellent tool for the discovery of factual knowledge.

The problem with science in determining what reality is, is the very first foot it sets forth in its investigation, and that is its own methodology, which is based on reason, logic, and analysis, which are basically all tools of dissection. Again, these are fine tools for uncovering facts which lead to technological, medical, and other developments, and can be used to predict behavior and properties of materials, but are of little use in reaching an understanding of the nature of reality. For that we need another kind of knowing, and we come with that already built-in.

The same way you can.

Not true. Science sees what it calls 'mind' as something real. I see it as illusory. It is like an ocean wave. We talk about it as if it were something real, when in reality, there is no such thing called 'wave'. Science talked about 'matter' for years as if it were something real. Then Einstein and Planck came along and said it was not real. Quantum Mechanics adds the observer to the issue.

How can you talk about what science can and cannot tell us about the mind or any number of other things when you don't even know what the research has to say?

But I have, and so far, the best it can do is the 'emergent' theory of the mind. Mystics, on the other hand, have understood the nature of mind for centuries, and most of their conclusions over time and independent of each other have been consistent.

I will say this to you and everyone else here right now: the pursuit of science and technology, without an understanding of our own spiritual reality leads to mindsets that created Nazi Germany and the Holocaust at worst. But if the current trend continues, especially where science and technology are in the hands of uneducated world leaders and money-grubbing corporations, the future will make Nazi Germany look like a playpen.

My brother, who was a yogi, used to refer to our world leaders as 'big monkeys with big toys'. Science and technology are already in the wrong hands, and it got there because we, as humans, do not nurture our spiritual growth first to make these two our handmaidens, rather than gods we hold in awe and worship.

 

[atanu]

Such a great quote. What owner?

I suppose the vocal cords are their own masters and fingers are their own?

As one infinite being to another infinite being, I'd suggest that it would be more accurate to say the whole is more than the sum of the parts - but that's just me.

I am very much a localized being, unlike you. Further I think that the idea that the aggregates pre-exist the unborn whole is untenable. But a discussion on this is futile, it seems.

 

[godnotgod]

Yes. And I believe that parts do not make up the whole rather the mind braeks up the whole into diversity for entertainment.

Ah, the missing element: playfullness. When we look into the face of this world and out into space, what we see without question is infinite and multitudinous variety, for no apparent purpose other than Being itself...and then you realize it's YOU!

Otherwise, the manifested universe would have to be a dead serious affair.

 

[Windwalker]

I see no connection whatsoever between science and mysticism. The role of science is to provide facts. Mysticism tends to ignore facts, warp facts, or latch onto one fact at the exclusion of reason. Sorry, but that's how I see it.

Well, that's a pretty damned narrow view. Funny I don't do any of those things....