Is Science Compatible with Mysticism?

[Open_Minded]

Yes, nicely said. Marriage is not about making two things the same.

Exactly .....

 

[Windwalker]

Yes, nicely said. Marriage is not about making two things the same.

I like the marriage analogy a lot. The realization of this nondual Oneness I believe is reflected in what Jesus said when he said, "I and my Father are One", and then prayed, "that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you". That's not a unity in common belief, but a realized nature. It is spoken of in duality, but its nature is Oneness. That is the paradoxical mystery.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Legion - may I ask a simple question? From your scientific point of view do you think we inhabit an interconnected universe/reality?

(Just a straight-forward answer will do - you don't have to provide the scientific basis of your thought)

How is that a simple question? I have a point of view, but to call it a scientific point of view seems to make as calling it a philosophical point of view, or a historical point of view, or a 21st century point of view. More importantly, to me calling the universe or reality interconnected doesn't make much sense. Social networks are interconnected. Neural systems are interconnected. Climate is the product of interconnected systems. For all of these things, I can at least give a description about what is connected to what, how it is connected, and why that matters. For the universe, I don't know what that would mean. It's either trivially true, in that everything in the universe belongs to a set of things that are in the universe, so they are connected in that sense.

Perhaps a better way to explain why the question doesn't resonate is to compare it to asking if humanity is interconnected. In lots of ways the answer is yes, clearly (we're all humans, for one thing). But most of human activity not only doesn't affect me, I don't even know about it. And that's one species on one planet. If some debris on some planet I have no idea exists is disturbed, what connection might I have with that?


It's a simple question, perhaps, if you already have not only an answer, but a metaphysical interpretation of both question and answer. I don't.

 

[atanu]

You mean there is reality that is seen that is not reality, and reality that is seen to not be seen that is reality? Is either reality? Or is reality doing away with "either"?

Many on this thread seem be abusing poetry.

(e? raises hand)

When one seeks something that continually recedes, it usually is a mirage that one is pursuing. May be Master (Ymir) wants to teach us a simple thing that reality cannot be pursued. Reality is what is doing the searching.

I repeat a note: A clear understanding/experience of what cause is and what effect is is a pre-requisite.

 

[Open_Minded]

How is that a simple question? I have a point of view, but to call it a scientific point of view seems to make as calling it a philosophical point of view, or a historical point of view, or a 21st century point of view.

You are scientist are you not? This part of your life influences the way you perceive reality - does it not? That is all I meant - I'm not trying to get into a debate over details - I'm trying to search for common ground.

As an individual, I recognize that my world-view is impacted by my life experiences. Part of your life experiences come out of your science. That's all I'm saying, "including your scientific perspective - not denying it - but embracing it --- do you feel such or such????"

More importantly, to me calling the universe or reality interconnected doesn't make much sense. Social networks are interconnected. Neural systems are interconnected. ..... It's a simple question, perhaps, if you already have not only an answer, but a metaphysical interpretation of both question and answer. I don't.

Firstly - I am honestly trying to find common ground here ... I really am. I don't feel a need to anticipate your "answer" and "pounce" upon you with a "metaphysical" interpretation.

Let's try it from another route..

Do you think it's fair to say the Newtonian clockwork model of the universe has been thrown into question, given what we now know about quantum physics?

Again - can you PLEASE try to keep things basic - if you want to find common ground with other human beings, you first have to find a point from which you can both work. That's what I'm trying to do here.

 

[YmirGF]

I don't disagree with you. There is much to savor in life. When I was younger, I too experienced the sort of urgency to 'get there' you mentioned. I also wanted more and more. But now, I find that, as Lao tzu recommends, by making my desires few, I have deepened my experience with less, partly because my life has fewer distractions in it. But more to your point. I am not concerned so much with 'arriving' at some epiphany, because I now realize that, no matter what I think or do, the consciousness of the Infinite is always here in all its fullness. My work is to refocus constantly on the Present Moment, because it contains everything I will ever need. IOW, by paying attention to what is here and now in front of me and experiencing it as completely as possible, I won't be carrying residue from the past into the present to contaminate my experience. It is why the Buddhists say: 'When you burn, burn completely.' In addition, by experiencing each moment fully, the rest will begin to fall into place of its own accord.

Maybe it's just me, not being clear enough, but from my standpoint, this is a given. My naughty assumption was that you folks would understand that. The last line especially is almost exactly what I was meaning by moving towards the receding tide.

All that is needed is to awaken and to be fully present and receptive to it. That is the gift that is already ours without our having to 'get' anything.

And I agree 100% with this. The trick is to appreciate that this marvelous achievement is but a first baby step in a whole new way of walking, as it were.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Let's try it from another route..

Do you think it's fair to say the Newtonian clockwork model of the universe has been thrown into question, given what we now know about quantum physics?

I would say that Newton's model and the classical model are obsolete. Newtonian mechanics is at best a decent approximation of many things, but it is wrong.

You are scientist are you not? This part of your life influences the way you perceive reality - does it not?

Yes, it does. And I'm not trying to debate anything. I'm trying to answer your question but in order to do so I have to know what it is you are asking.

The way you phrased the question ("from your scientific point of view") to me says either that I have a view and it is a scientific one (which I wouldn't agree with), or that your are asking me not for my point of view, but from my point of view as a scientist.

I'm trying to search for common ground.

You could then just ask for my point of view. It is, as you say, influenced by my experience in the sciences, but much less so than by other things.

Firstly - I am honestly trying to find common ground here ... I really am. I don't feel a need to anticipate your "answer" and "pounce" upon you with a "metaphysical" interpretation.

I didn't mean to imply you were trying to anticipate my answer. What I meant was that what may seem like a simple question to you does so for a particular reason: you have an answer and a framework or worldview into which the question fits.

There are those who believe that one doesn't have pets, but companions. If I came up to such a person who was holding a leash with a dog attached to it I might naturally say "your dog is adorable". To me there is nothing whatsoever complicated about this question, but to the individual I have just suggested that they "own" the dog, that the dog is a possession rather than an animal with just as much autonomy as any human, and my statement was offensive even though I intended it as a compliment.

 

[Willamena]

Reality is what is doing the searching.

I like that.

 

[YmirGF]

You can always challenge what I say. I'm not asking you to believe in any doctrine, or forcing you to agree with me.

The weird part in all this godnotgod, is that in simple conversation, in the flesh, as it were, I think our difference would be quickly resolved - much like Open_Minded has intimated several times. I'll never completely agree with everything you say, and fully expect the same in response, but many basic element could be covered fairly quickly.

YmirGF - every quote you highlighted struck me as well.

So much time quibbling over details and folks have "missed the boat" in the process.

*materialized in full Elvis regalia*
I hear ya, Momma. Though I didn't respond to some of your other posts, I do enjoy your thinking. As a "recovering theist" I certainly understand your position fairly well.

I don't often contribute, but when I do, I can even surprise myself.

That is certainly how I feel sometimes. What most posters cannot comprehend that I personally use RF to "flesh out" much of my thinking. Sitting in my chair, brimming with mirth, the ideas are all latent and RF helps me to bring them to the surface. Sometimes I'm as amazed by what I have written as much as dear Atanu, albeit for far different reasons, LOL.

 

[Open_Minded]

I would say that Newton's model and the classical model are obsolete. Newtonian mechanics is at best a decent approximation of many things, but it is wrong.

OK - now we are both starting from the same place. Let's see where we can take this (together).

Since Newton's model is now obsolete, there is currently an on-going discussion within the scientific community about "the nature of reality" for lack of a better term. I posted this link before.

At a conference called "Quantum Physics and the Nature of Reality," held in July 2011, they offered up a survey: In 16 questions, they asked their colleagues -- a group of physicists, mathematicians and philosophers -- to report their feelings on the very foundations of physics. If this seems ambitious, don't fret: It was multiple choice.

Through the poll, they hoped to take the pulse of the physics community on questions like these: Does randomness lie at the heart of physics? Do we really change the universe just by looking at it? Can objects really be in two, three or an infinite number of locations at once?

Physicists have debated these questions ever since they got their first glimpse at the topsy-turvy world of quantum theory. The equations of quantum mechanics are elegant and practical -- they look good and they work -- but their deeper implications are so counterintuitive that they have divided the physics community for decades.
For instance, consider a quantum quandary like this: You've found yourself a particle -- say, an electron -- and you want to measure a particular property called spin. (Though electrons aren't actually spinning, spin sums up the properties, like angular momentum, that they would have if they were spinning.)

There are two possible outcomes: Either it's spinning "up," or it's spinning "down." So you take your measurement, and voila! Spin up! But quantum mechanics won't tell you what the electron was doing immediately before you took that measurement. In fact, mathematically, it seems that the electron was spinning both ways at once until your measurement forced it to make a choice.

Does that mean that the entire universe exists in some sort of limbo? That, until we come along and start poking and prodding at it, there is no definitive reality at all?
This most literal take on quantum physics, often called the Copenhagen interpretation, is what you're most likely to encounter in a physics classroom. Yet it has rankled physicists as eminent as Albert Einstein. To these thinkers, the Copenhagen interpretation amounts to an argument that the world ceases to exist the moment you close your eyes, or that page 100 of the novel on your nightstand remains blank until the moment you turn over page 99. In other words: It just doesn't smell right.

So how did it fare in the poll? It came out on top, with 42 percent of the votes. The information interpretation, which suggests that information, not matter or energy, is the fundamental "stuff" of the universe, came in a distant second, with 24 percent. Close behind in third, at 18 percent, was that sci-fi favorite, the many-worlds interpretation, according to which every quantum measurement actually splits the universe into multiple, parallel universes.

"Other" and "no preferred interpretation" tied for fourth place, with 12 percent apiece. (Yes, eagle-eyed readers, something fishy is going on with the math here: Respondents were allowed to vote for more than one choice.)

You might say, then, that the Copenhagen interpretation is on the decline. Though Copenhagen has been around since the 1920s, the many-worlds idea didn't arise until the 1950s, and quantum information theory is an even later entry into the race, suggesting that physicists are hungry for new ways of thinking about quantum mechanics.

Where would you place yourself on the spectrum of different interpretations being discussed within the scientific community?

 

[DreadFish]

Reality is what is doing the searching.

I also like this. With your permission, I might steal it

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Since Newton's model is now obsolete, there is currently an on-going discussion within the scientific community about "the nature of reality" for lack of a better term. I posted this link before.

Most scientists don't know any more about quantum physics your average individual. And as for the "on-going discussion", it would be news to them.

Where would you place yourself on the spectrum of different interpretations being discussed within the scientific community?

Where would you place yourself on the spectrum of different interpretations of orality and its influence on the Jesus tradition being discussed in the religious community? And if you think that is an unfair, bizarre, and/or nonsensical question, perhaps you might consider that science is not a singular entity, and that just because some scientists are discussing something doesn't make it any more relevant to scientists everywhere than my question does to anybody who has religious/spiritual beliefs.

However, in the spirit of dialogue, I've created a thread which you can peruse at your leisure to get something akin to the answer(s) to your qeustion.

See here

 

[YmirGF]

Yes, but when you are speaking of technical details and stating things willy-nilly, you can't then hide behind some grand cosmic argument. You are engaging at that level yourself.

As Luke pointed out, I've been on RF for a fairly long time and have already written extensively on a wide range of topics. That forms a legacy, if you will, that I am fairly proud of, given that I do not subscribe to any particular school of thought. Unlike godnotgod and Atanu, for example, I don't have a huge body of material to draw on, though I suppose I could simply stoop to cut and pasting from what I have said in the past.

Yes, there is resting in the open-ended question. To be sure. And that to me is everything we are all saying. How is it you assume you are the only one who sees this?

I know I am not the only one who sees reality from a different perspective. The important part is that I don't claim to be right. I don't know; I could be quite wrong. Besides, I'm not especially hung up on so-called "truth". I will admit, there is a certain smugness to my attitudes that is very similar to that of all the others here. In that respect, we are no different.

How is it you assume you are different and have the edge on this "answer" you just pointed out in how others don't see the truth in the way you do?

Smugness aside, I know I am different, so I don't feel a need to even defend that idea. It's pretty obvious and this thread would seem to verify that, in spades. To answer the second part of your question is not as simple as asking the question.

 

[Open_Minded]

Most scientists don't know any more about quantum physics your average individual. And as for the "on-going discussion", it would be news to them.

Legion the survey in the link provided was given as follows:

At a conference called "Quantum Physics and the Nature of Reality," held in July 2011, they offered up a survey: In 16 questions, they asked their colleagues -- a group of physicists, mathematicians and philosophers -- to report their feelings on the very foundations of physics. If this seems ambitious, don't fret: It was multiple choice.

Those who took the survey were at a conference called, "Quantum Physics and the Nature of Reality". They were qualified to have an opinion on the survey.

Where would you place yourself on the spectrum of different interpretations of orality and its influence on the Jesus tradition being discussed in the religious community? And if you think that is an unfair, bizarre, and/or nonsensical question, perhaps you might consider that science is not a singular entity, and that just because some scientists are discussing something doesn't make it any more relevant to scientists everywhere than my question does to anybody who has religious/spiritual beliefs.

However, in the spirit of dialogue, I've created a thread which you can peruse at your leisure to get something akin to the answer(s) to your qeustion.

See here

Again, the people who were surveyed were attending "Quantum Physics and the Nature of Reality". They were qualified to answer the survey questions. You are a scientist, you obviously "know your stuff" when it comes to the subject matter. You have participated in this thread, much of which has addressed quantum physics and the nature of reality.

Why is it so difficult for you to give a straight-forward answer? Why must you find ways to introduce conflict, where none is necessary?

We are having the discussion in this thread - I'm not going back to a thread started in November of 2012 to continue the discussion. Either you want to find common ground, or you don't. The choice is yours. It's not that difficult to place yourself on a spectrum - I wasn't asking you to give us the "grand unified theory"... I was simply asking where you are at on a spectrum of possibilities being discussed within the established physics community.

If you want to find common ground, then stating your position on the subject is necessary.

Many involved in this thread have stated their personal positions on "the nature of reality", including myself.

Is it easier to debate another's position, than state your own and try to find commonalities, try to seek consensus?

 

[Windwalker]

I know I am not the only one who sees reality from a different perspective. The important part is that I don't claim to be right.

But do you assume others are when they share their point of view from their respective traditions? I hear you saying that about others who you don't see eye to eye with, as if you have figured this out and they have not.

Not everyone thinks that way, even if they are speaking from a particular lineage. I know I have differences with godnotgod in some regards, but I don't get the impression he is married to those views as "I'm right and you're wrong". It's good to argue one's position, since that's how ideas grow. It's bad when someone is dogmatic about them and doesn't learn or grow.

I don't know; I could be quite wrong. Besides, I'm not especially hung up on so-called "truth". I will admit, there is a certain smugness to my attitudes that is very similar to that of all the others here. In that respect, we are no different.

Are you perhaps projecting on others what you see in yourself? God knows, that's something we all do when we don't like something in ourselves. It's called your shadow persona. We heap all manner of evil upon another and hate it, and it is really just ourselves, our own skin of evil. The reality of who that other person is is typically not anything like what we see in them, which is ourselves.

Smugness aside, I know I am different, so I don't feel a need to even defend that idea. It's pretty obvious and this thread would seem to verify that, in spades. To answer the second part of your question is not as simple as asking the question.

I think you assume yourself to be unique and try to define yourself that way by painting others as distinctly different.

 

[YmirGF]

LOL. You are beyond light in solid unbroken darkness and your posts are truly lucid in the sky studded with brilliant diamonds. Check up whether the reality is receding or your mind is wobbling, due to too much of lucidity?

*Snort* I guess we can just ignore my 36 years of meditation and extensive explorations of Lucid dreaming, since that era.

What is continually receding is continually taking birth and that is not the reality. Do not impose the mind on the reality, which is centred in the Seer.

Duly noted.

Reality is what is doing the searching.

But Atanu, that is pretty well what I meant when I wrote, "We can KNOW reality, but REALITY is like a receding tide that we are always moving towards. The ground we cover is our experienced reality." Yes, for pity sakes, Reality is using self-created illusions to understand what it IS.

 

[atanu]

When one seeks something that continually recedes, it usually is a mirage that one is pursuing. May be Master (Ymir) wants to teach us a simple thing that reality cannot be pursued. Reality is what is doing the searching.

But Atanu, that is pretty well what I meant when I wrote, "We can KNOW reality, but REALITY is like a receding tide that we are always moving towards. The ground we cover is our experienced reality." Yes, for pity sakes, Reality is using self-created illusions to understand what it IS.

I have become fond of colors.

 

[atanu]

I also like this. With your permission, I might steal it

You must pay some royalty however.

 

[DreadFish]

You must pay some royalty however.

I will pay you in two princesses and a duke.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Legion the survey in the link provided was given as follows:
Those who took the survey were at a conference called, "Quantum Physics and the Nature of Reality". They were qualified to have an opinion on the survey.

The choice is yours. It's not that difficult to place yourself on a spectrum

They asked 33 physicists, philosophers and mathematicians 16 specific questions. (source). You asked me where I place myself on a spectrum within the scientific community, based on what 33 people said to 1 out of those 16 questions. That 42% and the other figures are all in response to this question: "Question 12: What is your favorite interpretation of quantum mechanics?"

My answer would be with 12% who said "other."

Why is it so difficult for you to give a straight-forward answer? Why must you find ways to introduce conflict, where none is necessary?

We are having the discussion in this thread - I'm not going back to a thread started in November of 2012 to continue the discussion. Either you want to find common ground, or you don't.

I address the first questions in more detail below, but as they are longer and I can be briefer here I'll respond first two both quotes above: I'm all for trying to find common ground. What you see as me unnecessarily introducing conflict is me trying to explain to you that you are ensuring we can't find common ground. And in order to find common ground, you have to understand why your question makes this harder.

Here's why:

First, it is because I believe that part of the problem, both in this thread and in much of the world, is a fundamental disconnect between how most people view science and scientists relative to what scientists actually do and what research actually consists of.

Second, because although you may think of this as me introducing conflict by not giving straight-forward response, you have berated me for doing just that in the past. You didn't even respond to much that I said other than to dismiss it as literalist. You had your reasons for doing so, even if I don't necessarily understand them (or agree with them).Now you believe I am being unreasonable and unnecessarily difficult, while I am trying to make something I think is important clear. Specifically:

Since Newton's model is now obsolete, there is currently an on-going discussion within the scientific community about "the nature of reality" for lack of a better term. I posted this link before.

Where would you place yourself on the spectrum of different interpretations being discussed within the scientific community?

There is no such discussion going on in the scientific community. The difference between whether or not all scientists are discussing this or just a bunch of scientists may seem trivial to you, and therefore it may seem like I'm just nitpicking. But I have actually responded to this kind of discussion before (science vs. religion, and why it was because of religion that science originated). A central problem tends to be overgeneralizing, such as seeing a discussion within some of the physics community as a discussion within the entire scientific community.

It is like viewing religious people as basically all the same (which is something some people do, particularly some atheists, and I find that problematic as well). And I don't want to reinforce this view by answering a question about a discussion in the scientific community that doesn't actually exist any more than the discussion I mentioned exists in the religious community.