Science and Religion Converge

[Kilgore Trout]

Mysticism has a long and colorful history of misusing and mischaracterizing science and technology in order to convey a sense of validity. Taking advantage of people's ignorance is nothing new.

 

[Meow Mix]

Meow Mix - you are fantastic - what a teacher

No - but then cats are not abstractions.

Can there be length without rulers? Can there be volts without voltmeters? Did the colour Red exist before the eye evolved?

These are more questions about whether something exists if nothing measures it, which must be the case in realism. Length exists even if it's not measured, electricity flows... red is a different matter though since it's solely a perception (things which are only meaningful as a perception like colors, smells, pain, etc. are called qualia). Light that we perceive as red, however, would still have the same wavelength and still exist even without eyes to intercept it.

The question I thought you were asking is if "length" has existence of its own outside of being possessed by material objects: for instance, does length exist if no objects that possess length exist? Does it perhaps only exist as a capacity in terms of space? What about energy, then? These are more difficult questions.

At some point there has to be a non-abstraction else all the other attributes are meaningless - Length of what?
Are not all attributes a statement of relation - are matter and energy such - or are they a bit different?
I see Momentum as an attribute - again, an attribute of what? Of anyTHING that has K?E - what thing has the KE: Mass and Energy Thus Mass and Energy can be considered non-abstractions?

Is the problem that we use the word mass to mean two things - a measurement but also to describe "Matter".

Matter consists of particles, Particles 'have' mass - but what are particles if not "Mass"?

Mass is sometimes incorrectly used to describe matter, but the two words are separate. Matter isn't the same thing as mass; matter is what possesses mass.

Is is correct to say that Mass is Energy slowed down?

Not really, we just know it's equivalent. Why it's equivalent is a deeper mystery -- two different manifestations of the same thing, or one thing that can change into the other? Are the questions I just posed even a meaningful distinction? We don't know yet.

And lastly photons:
Has the paradox of wave-particle duality has been resolved?
I use the polarisation example as I thought it proved that photons could not be particles or else their nature had to be probablistic. {Polarising quanta through sin A means sin A probability of transmission}

It's been "sort of" resolved. Decoherence explains why there is an appearance of a wave function -- returning a lot of realism to the interpretation of what's going on. However, it still doesn't describe WHAT "wavicles" actually are in reality; so we're still stuck using thought-tools like superposition.

Do you personally thing we will ever have a true realist view of QM?

I think we're heading in the right direction, and so long as physicists remember that deeper physics is only 1/3 physics (the other 1/3 is pure mathematics, the last 1/3 is metaphysics) then we should eventually get there.

For instance the field I'm studying is foundational cosmology -- it isn't so much the study of the universe ("regular" cosmology), it's the study of how we [should] study the universe. Foundational cosmologists ask questions like what mathematical paradigms are efficacious in describing a system one is ultimately a part of? Does Godel's incompleteness theorem render the search for a theory of everything useless? Can topos, category and sheaf theories be used justifiably to describe the universe? Etc.

I think this is the crux of the OP for me. We are all searching for a reductive explanation - for QM but also the other mysteries like Consciousness or even Life itself?

Is this where Science and Religion converge?

Aren't we all trying to solve the mystery of existance according to our view of the Universe?

The Mystics in their Meditation, The Magicians in their temples, and the ArchAngels in their Holy Hadron Colliders

Well I personally wouldn't go that far; just because quantum mechanics are unintuitive doesn't mean they're mystical.

I mean, I'm glad there are people exploring different ways to seek for truth; but there is only one truth and so many of these paths I see people take aren't efficacious. Truth will only be possible through justified belief, so I am open to any methods which justify beliefs, but many folks use methods which do no such thing.

 

[jarofthoughts]

This is the issue for me.

Atheists are so often content to sit back and wait for someone else to proved the evidene for them.
They bark at people to claim to have worked with something beyond their current apprehension, and instead of getting off their arses and finding out if they are right, they sit about and wait to be spoon fed.

How do you know there is no evidence out there?
What makes you think people who might have evidence would necessarily want to share it?

Sorry mate, but that's not even remotely how it works.
The onus of evidence is on the one(s) making the claim.

I can't believe I have to explain this stuff yet again...

Look, if I claim to have an invisible dragon living in my basement, are you just going to outright accept my claim? Without ANY evidence whatsoever? Or are you going to do the wise thing and assume that I'm somewhat loopy?

That is why when someone makes a claim, no matter what it is, we don't run around FOR them trying to find evidence to neither support nor refute their claim. That would just be silly, not to mention that considering the number of ridiculous claims out there it would take forever. That is why when someone makes a claim the onus is on them to provide the evidence.

Also, you seemed really eager to teach me this nonsense a few post back, so if you have any evidence put it forth so I'll know I'm not wasting my time. And if you can't (as I fully expect to be the case), once again, I call cow-poo...

There are two kinds of people for me, the ones who believe nothing thing until being told otherwise and the ones who believe everything is possible until they have seen it to be false.

Seems you have left out an important kind of people. The ones who believe nothing even when told otherwise and who will disregard stuff that has absolutely no evidence supporting it.

I think we are opposite people!

I think you are delusional!

 

[Looncall]

This is the issue for me.

Atheists are so often content to sit back and wait for someone else to proved the evidene for them.
They bark at people to claim to have worked with something beyond their current apprehension, and instead of getting off their arses and finding out if they are right, they sit about and wait to be spoon fed.

How do you know there is no evidence out there?
What makes you think people who might have evidence would necessarily want to share it?

There are two kinds of people for me, the ones who believe nothing thing until being told otherwise and the ones who believe everything is possible until they have seen it to be false.

I think we are opposite people!

Please note that supposing that something is possible is not grounds for believing that it is in fact the case. The only honest grounds for accepting that something is the case is evidence.

Otherwise, we would have to believe in anything we could imagine.

You seem to be implying that you have evidence for god(s). How about letting us see some? I'd be interested to see anything that hasn't been refuted long ago.

 

[McBell]

This is the issue for me.

Atheists are so often content to sit back and wait for someone else to proved the evidene for them.
They bark at people to claim to have worked with something beyond their current apprehension, and instead of getting off their arses and finding out if they are right, they sit about and wait to be spoon fed.

Theists are the ones making the claim.
Seems to me that the one making the claim should be the one to present evidence to support said claim.

How do you know there is no evidence out there?

None being presented is, like, the first clue....

What makes you think people who might have evidence would necessarily want to share it?

:biglaugh:
Really?
Are you serious?
All the people in the world trying to shove god and religion down everyone else's throat, but won't present the evidence?
:biglaugh:

There are two kinds of people for me, the ones who believe nothing thing until being told otherwise and the ones who believe everything is possible until they have seen it to be false.

You forgot a few:

People who refuse to believe anything other than what they want to believe regardless of truth, facts, etc.

People who modify their beliefs based upon evidence that is presented to them.
​

 

[Octavia156]

Mysticism has a long and colorful history of misusing and mischaracterizing science and technology in order to convey a sense of validity. Taking advantage of people's ignorance is nothing new.

I disagree, I am not so cynical

Mysticism has nothing to gain from taking advantage of anyone. It also has no need to attempt to convey any form of validity - Mysticism is a personal Gnostic journey unfolded to this inititate through symbolism, metaphor and allegory.

Science is just another set of symbols to a Mystic.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I disagree, I am not so cynical

One person's realistic is another person's cynical, I suppose.

Mysticism has nothing to gain from taking advantage of anyone.

Mystics do, however.

 

[Octavia156]

I mean, I'm glad there are people exploring different ways to seek for truth; but there is only one truth and so many of these paths I see people take aren't efficacious. Truth will only be possible through justified belief, so I am open to any methods which justify beliefs, but many folks use methods which do no such thing.

Thank you Meow Mix

I am certain there are some very efficacious methods which justify beliefs. I personally require the Hermetic Qabala to explain mine.

I have experienced phenomenon I can't explain, and just like deeper physicists I have used models to explain my understanding of them. I am unable to fully explain my data because its sujective, but I find I can communicate a great deal using models like the Tree of Life.

I don't think a lot of people really understand what Mysticism is. In essence the Mystic and the Physicist are both searching for the one Truth, but speak completely different languages

 

[Revoltingest]

I mean, I'm glad there are people exploring different ways to seek for truth; but there is only one truth and so many of these paths I see people take aren't efficacious. Truth will only be possible through justified belief, so I am open to any methods which justify beliefs, but many folks use methods which do no such thing.

I like your posts...clear, thoughtful & unpretentious. The yin to my yang, as it were.
Anyway, I find "truth" to be over-rated. It implies something inerrant & final, attributes which experience suggests are
beyond us. I prefer your approach, that we simply strive to better our understanding, all the while recognizing its limitations.

 

[Octavia156]

Theists are the ones making the claim.
Seems to me that the one making the claim should be the one to present evidence to support said claim.


None being presented is, like, the first clue....

I completely take your point here Mestamia, my post was ignorant.

Its all confusing - cause this is not about Theists.

My OP was based around a belief in an abstract idea or concept - the Absolute - not God.


I'm an Atheist. I practise Occult Science. I keep accurate records of all my experiments. This is my evidence. Success is thy proof...
This is a big issue for me, I use the Scientific Method applied to Mysticism and I get results. I know any person would achieve exactly the same results if they repeated my tests. But the data is subjective and cannot be measured objectively.

 

[Fattington fis]

'Why is it that atheists so vehemently reject all God and religion?' youre as much an athiest as we are in many cases, for example im sure niether of us believe in the sun god Ra, we just believe one god less than you do.

Also your comment about 'unbias search for the truth', religion claims that it has already found the truth that the universe was, created by an ultimate and supreme being, and that is the source of everything, science makes no forth right assumption as such, it is simply the thought process of thorough interrogtion of evidenc which religion has proven only to hinder snf destroy unsuccessfully thankfully.

 

[McBell]

My OP was based around a belief in an abstract idea or concept - the Absolute - not God.

I understand that.
Thus the reason I used god in my reply.

I'm an Atheist. I practise Occult Science. I keep accurate records of all my experiments. This is my evidence. Success is thy proof...
This is a big issue for me, I use the Scientific Method applied to Mysticism and I get results. I know any person would achieve exactly the same results if they repeated my tests. But the data is subjective and cannot be measured objectively.

:help:
"...exactly the same results.....the data is subjective..."
:help:

 

[Octavia156]

I understand that.
Thus the reason I used god in my reply.


:help:
"...exactly the same results.....the data is subjective..."
:help:

I'll give you an example:

An Occult Scientist finds a ritual that works to heighten the senses of the practitioner, he refines it perfectly so that everyone who tries it gets exactly the same results - yet it is disregarded - because the results cannot be measured only experienced by those who practise the ritual.

or

If you do ritual X under Y conditions for Z number of days you will experience a heightened sensation in body parts A B and C.

Subjective identical results,

Its a bit like an acid trip in a way - you take tab X and you will experience a colourful hallucination - same results for everyone but all results subjective.
This may or may not be a good metaphor for what I mean - but I hope that answers your :help:

If you zoom out futher its like a curriculum. If you follow a mystical curriculum of study (Scientific Illuminism) certain results are sure to follow - the same results for everyone if followed correctly but all of which are entirely subjective.


These systems use the Method of Science - no results are accepted as valid unless they are recorded exactly and can be repeated.


Its the same bug-bare I have with the way some forms alternative medicine are viewed by the Scientific Community. They are completely disregarded because their mechanisms are not measurable, and yet they work time and time again.

 

[painted wolf]

An Occult Scientist finds a ritual that works to heighten the senses of the practitioner, he refines it perfectly so that everyone who tries it gets exactly the same results - yet it is disregarded - because the results cannot be measured only experienced by those who practise the ritual.

Actually this could be tested. You would measure the senses of the participants beforehand and then divide them into test groups. Group one would be a test group with nothing done to them, group 2 would be given a non-working(but told it works) ritual and group 3 would be given the working ritual.
Measure them again and do a statistical analysis of the results to determine if anything significant changed.

It's that easy.

wa:do

 

[jarofthoughts]

I'll give you an example:

An Occult Scientist finds a ritual that works to heighten the senses of the practitioner, he refines it perfectly so that everyone who tries it gets exactly the same results - yet it is disregarded - because the results cannot be measured only experienced by those who practise the ritual.

As shown by Painted Wolf, this is definitely testable.

If you do ritual X under Y conditions for Z number of days you will experience a heightened sensation in body parts A B and C.

Also testable.

Subjective identical results.

Which are testable.

Its a bit like an acid trip in a way - you take tab X and you will experience a colourful hallucination - same results for everyone but all results subjective.

Which are also testable, at least to some degree. I expect an fMRI machine would be useful for this experiment.

This may or may not be a good metaphor for what I mean - but I hope that answers your :help:

The thing is, I don't think most people realize exactly how far our search for knowledge, actual testable evidence-based knowledge, has come, and thus they proclaim that certain things are beyond science when in fact the methods for testing them are readily available.

If you zoom out futher its like a curriculum. If you follow a mystical curriculum of study (Scientific Illuminism) certain results are sure to follow - the same results for everyone if followed correctly but all of which are entirely subjective.

And so far, it seems, entirely testable.

These systems use the Method of Science - no results are accepted as valid unless they are recorded exactly and can be repeated.

What results are these and where can I find the published tests?

Its the same bug-bare I have with the way some forms alternative medicine are viewed by the Scientific Community. They are completely disregarded because their mechanisms are not measurable, and yet they work time and time again.

Their mechanisms need not be measurable, but their results sure have to be. And while there are grey areas (many of which are in the process of being tested), the general notion is that there is no such thing as alternative medicine. There is medicine that has been evidentially shown to work, and there is the other stuff, which really doesn't deserve the label "medicine" but rather "nonsense". Homoeopathy, Crystal Healing, Prayer and so on all fall into the "nonsense" category.

 

[Octavia156]

Their mechanisms need not be measurable, but their results sure have to be. And while there are grey areas (many of which are in the process of being tested), the general notion is that there is no such thing as alternative medicine. There is medicine that has been evidentially shown to work, and there is the other stuff, which really doesn't deserve the label "medicine" but rather "nonsense". Homoeopathy, Crystal Healing, Prayer and so on all fall into the "nonsense" category.

Agreed on the crystal healing &c.

But what about things like Reflexology... or Eastern medicine?

I've never heard of this general notion that there is no such thing as alternative medicine... it certainly exists here in the UK....

 

[Octavia156]

Which are also testable, at least to some degree. I expect an fMRI machine would be useful for this experiment.

Cool, then we agree. I'd love to get images of my brain before and after ritual. Anyone willing to lend us Occultists an fMRI scanner? no? Guess our results will have to remain subjective for now

 

[Meow Mix]

Agreed on the crystal healing &c.

But what about things like Reflexology... or Eastern medicine?

I've never heard of this general notion that there is no such thing as alternative medicine... it certainly exists here in the UK....

There are a lot of indications that reflexology and eastern medicine like acupuncture are identical to placebo effects.

White AR and others. A blinded investigation into the accuracy of reflexology charts. Complementary Therapies in Medicine 8:166-172, 2000 (Results: reflexology consistent with placebo effects)

Kesselring A. Foot reflexology massage: A clinical study. Forsch Komplementarmed 6 Suppl 1:38-40, 1999 (Results: reflexology *worse* than placebo patients)

Brygge T and others. Reflexology and bronchial asthma. Respiratory Medicine 95:173-179, 2001 (Results: reflexology consistent with placebo effects)

Madsen, M. V.; Gotzsche, P. C.; Hrobjartsson, A. (2009). "Acupuncture treatment for pain: systematic review of randomised clinical trials with acupuncture, placebo acupuncture, and no acupuncture groups" (Results: acupuncture consistent with placebo effects)

Fink M, Gutenbrunner C, Rollnik J, et al. Credibility of a newly designed placebo needle for clinical trials in acupuncture research. Forschende Komplement¼rmedizin und Klassiche Naturheilkunde 2001;8(6):368-72. Available online at www.karger.com/journals/fkm (Results: acupuncture consistent with placebo effects)

 

[Meow Mix]

Cool, then we agree. I'd love to get images of my brain before and after ritual. Anyone willing to lend us Occultists an fMRI scanner? no? Guess our results will have to remain subjective for now

Scientists don't deny that meditation can change a person's state of awareness; the question is whether there's anything "mystical" about it. After all, we routinely change our state of awareness every night: by sleeping.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Agreed on the crystal healing &c.

But what about things like Reflexology... or Eastern medicine?

I've never heard of this general notion that there is no such thing as alternative medicine... it certainly exists here in the UK....

Cool, then we agree. I'd love to get images of my brain before and after ritual. Anyone willing to lend us Occultists an fMRI scanner? no? Guess our results will have to remain subjective for now

Meow Mix beat me to it and I fully support her replies which are consistent with what my own research (i.e. reading peer reviewed studies) into these subjects have indicated.