Why do You Find Scientific Knowledge and Spiritual Knowledge to be Incompatible?

[bobhikes]

And "you" is not "in the world?"


A few thoughts:

- if you're using the word "self" in a meaningful way, then you have a meaning in mind (and if you don't have a meaning in mind, the word is just a meaningless sound), so the mere fact you're talking about this suggests that your position is false.

- whenever anyone lists off a bunch of "facts" about something and then says that we know so little about this thing that we can't even confirm that the thing exists, I take this as a big red flag that the person is talking out of their butt.

We have a macro world that has laws and rules that can be applied within tolerances and specifics

We have a micro world that works beyond tolerances and randomly. The self being a creation of conscious belongs to the micro world and random actions, understood but not predictable. Is psychology a real science? Was Freud a real scientist?

 

[blü 2]

As for what reality really is as strong objective as independent of the mind none of us know.

We know quite a bit.

And we're still looking, applying reasoned enquiry in order to understand as much as we can, and to test and improve or correct what we already kinow.

Why has all the progress with that understanding come from science, and not from religion?

Yet you do, because you know for objective reality that there are no Gods. I don't, nor do I know that there are Gods.

What definition of 'God' are you using?

How will you know when you've found a real one?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Well, usually in QM the operators are on a Hilbert space.

This is only because of a non-trivial "simplification" and omission on the part of elementary (read "beginning graduate or upper-level undergraduate) textbooks. But even so, every Hilbert space is a Banach space.
The primary operators that characterize the states of their classical counterparts entirely, namely momentum and position, are in the main unbounded operators. Even in many would-be simplest cases such operators (often also the Hamiltonian more generally) are unbounded, and therefore the straightforward eigenvector-eigenvalue characterization connected with the typical Hilbert space presentation is inadequate. One requires more general spaces, more advanced integrals (namely, some form of the Stiltjes integral), and the generalization of diagonallzation and the like from undergraduate linear algebra in the form of spectral decomposition. Finally, the Hilbert-space presentation, while simpler, is also an issue because of the needless and problematic assumption of irreducibility which has for decades been replaced by more generalized measurement schemes and spaces alongside the introduction of e.g., POVMs.
Regardless, even the simple presentation of only finite dimensional Hilbert spaces requires a background in undergraduate mathematics.

But, more fairly, the early material involves solving differential equations and finding eigenvalues of matrices. For a bright student, that can be done while young enough to be in high school (I was reading about Schrodinger's equation and geodesics when I was 15).

Reading about the mathematics involved in relativity and QM in High School is one thing. Sure, differential equations and such can be presented in a manner that a sufficiently motivated student can grasp. But not in a way that can differentiate the mathematics of these fields as opposed to those in physics more generally. It was the claim that the mathematics required for QM and relativity in particular resonated that I found hard to believe. I can't imagine anybody who isn't on the level of Dirac or Witten having a sufficient grasp of the mathematics of theoretical physics in high school in order to have the mathematics of QM and relativity in particular resonate with them

 

[Milton Platt]

Two of our better known posters have created threads to ask why either science or spiritual views are more important than the other.

Do your spiritual views conflict with science?

Do your scientific discoveries conflict with subjective spiritual revelations?

Why are science and spirituality incompatible?

When "spiritual views" conflict with reality, or cannot be substantiated through some empirical means, then they hold an inherently weaker position.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Ah, the jealous dictator who would punish even the sons and daughters of those who differed till their third or fourth generation.

He conned Adam and Eve. Left them alone with the fruit and the serpent. Did he not know that the serpent was around? Who created the serpent? Who allowed the serpent in Eden? And where did he go leaving A & E alone with the serpent? What is this God who cannot even keep his domain safe? And then he rejects Cain's offering that he produced with so much labor and prefers Abel's fat lamb, the glutton. A very poorly formed story.

Yeah, we can do without any God. There are millions of atheists in the world. God and his myriad religions only bring strife in the world.
Promises are promises. Some are not worth the paper they are written on. You cannot test his promise of everlasting life after death.

first of all,
Do you feel you are being ‘punished’? What is this punishment that A&E’s offspring are facing? Just curious what you think it is.
(Most people enjoy living.)

I’ll get to your questions about the serpent later.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You conveniently cut out my definition. Science is the discovery of processes in the world. / Spirituality is the discovery of self. If you don't like my definition that is fine but this is how I see the differences between Science and Spirituality.

I don't understand your reply. I gave you my definition of open-minded.Did you want to discuss that definition?

Also openminded to me is the ability to accept change, that is all.

OK. But that is not my definition as you know. Any passive mind unable to defend itself from indoctrination will have a change of mind imposed on him, and thus he has the ability to change his mind. That's far from my definition of open-mindedness. It might have been helpful for you to have addressed that definition and those differences between our definitions, which is the necessary first step in comparing the relative validity of the two, but you didn't. So, the discussion has reached its conclusion.

No. Here is for a variation of the evil demon from Descartes and how science is methodological and not philosophical as correspondence as map reality.

Your rebuttal to my comment is "No," followed by a reference to Descartes' demon? OK. Opinion noted and filed.

I am not going to be nice

Then I suppose that you don't require that from me, either. Good to know the rules. Nice gloves off.

For there 2 realities there are no difference. You are in the reality you believe you are. You are the only mind in reality and everybody else and everything else is a simulation running on a computer. You can't prove which one you are in and you claim of mapping reality is unprovable.

Unprovable? What are you talking about? I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm trying to navigate life successfully using an accurate mental map, accurate meaning able to successfully predict outcomes as I described. You're adrift in a world of subjective verses objective and a kind of nihilism regarding knowledge - a nihilistic and extreme form of skepticism (Pyrrhonism?). Your preoccupation with the invalidity of what experience tells us because you can't be sure of the nature of the ding an sich has you paralyzed in a circular dance.

I really hate your sub-culture of science,

Really? Science is a subculture to you, and you hate it? OK. Why so emotional a reaction to the pursuit of knowledge about reality? What's to hate?

You are trying to do philosophy and you fail badly, because you can't prove that your experiences map reality "one to one".

So now you've declared yourself the authority on good and bad philosophy? And your argument is that I do philosophy badly because I can't prove that my experiences map reality? Prove to whom? You? That's not a criterion for me. I have no need or desire to do that for you or me. I only need a demonstration that an idea works at successfully predicting outcomes better than competing ideas - not whatever you consider to be a proof.

The process is to test a hypothesis to see if it allows one to anticipate outcomes. I gave you an example involving a recipe or a set of driving directions. Do they work? Do they deliver a tasty meal or a successful journey from here to there? If you need more than successful outcomes in whatever it is you're calling proof, then you are the one who is doing philosophy badly.
tr

In effect you claim you can prove naive empiricism and philosophical naturalism, but you can't.

Nope. I make no such claim. The underlying metaphysics is, like all metaphysics, irrelevant. I'm happy to agree that there may be nothing out there. It wouldn't matter to the rules of successfully playing the game of life.

Maybe you need to get off of your philosophical high horse.You have no special knowledge or insights, just philosophical vanities that you deploy in pursuit of whatever need you are trying to satisfy.

I just go absurd on you and you don't know how to handle that.

Sure we do. Just back out of the room slowly.

If you can't handle that reality doesn't add up in positive neat terms, then that is your problem.

Actually, I have no problem in that department, but apparently you are troubled. My reality does add up. You seem to have an unhealthy reoccupation with nobody having a useful understanding of reality. You focus on the imagined source of experience rather that what works to control it.

I recommend that you drop this sterile and nihilistic line of pursuit, and focus on what works without allowing yourself to be distracted by irrelevant uncertainties that merely undermine your philosophical footing.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

@It Aint Necessarily So , thanks for those kind words!

It is very late here, so I’ll have to address those belief issues I have that you feel are contradictory, later.

I’ll touch on this:
You know I’m considered an OEC (Old Earth Creationist). And I’m not an OEC necessarily because of science’s discoveries; it’s also from studying lines of evidence in the Bible itself...what the Bible really says. For instance, according to the Bible, when Eve was created, what’s the first thing Adam said? “This is at last bone of my bone.....” This alone, indicates some time had gone by. More than a literal 24-hr. day!

Let’s (amicably and respectfully) discuss the scientific interpretations of the evidence! No Gish though, ok?

 

[bobhikes]

I don't understand your reply. I gave you my definition of open-minded.Did you want to discuss that definition?



OK. But that is not my definition as you know. Any passive mind unable to defend itself from indoctrination will have a change of mind imposed on him, and thus he has the ability to change his mind. That's far from my definition of open-mindedness. It might have been helpful for you to have addressed that definition and those differences between our definitions, which is the necessary first step in comparing the relative validity of the two, but you didn't. So, the discussion has reached its conclusion.

.

The Op is about Scientific Knowledge vs Spiritual Knowledge. Open Mindedness is another topic that would have to be discuss under its own topic. I believed you where challenging my views on the different knowledges which is how I responded I did not realize you wanted to discuss something different. My definition of Open mindedness was just a throw in to point out our differences of opinion not to derail the op.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Actually, I have no problem in that department, but apparently you are troubled. My reality does add up. You seem to have an unhealthy reoccupation with nobody having a useful understanding of reality. You focus on the imagined source of experience rather that what works to control it.

I recommend that you drop this sterile and nihilistic line of pursuit, and focus on what works without allowing yourself to be distracted by irrelevant uncertainties that merely undermine your philosophical footing.

You see, I don't always consider my words wisely, but I have learn something over the years. And you have confirmed it.
We always end in psychology or if you like what makes sense first person. I do it as you noted and you do it.

The trick is to challenge in the end that reality must make sense and you delivered: My reality does add up.
So whether you like it or not you have confirmed epistemological solipsism: My reality does add up.

Now for the rest of your post, we actual agree. You make a mental map and if that works for you, you don't care for what reality really is. You care that it works for you. That was my point. I do the same.
So thank you for your answer. You did well. Kudos to you.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Polymath257]

This is only because of a non-trivial "simplification" and omission on the part of elementary (read "beginning graduate or upper-level undergraduate) textbooks. But even so, every Hilbert space is a Banach space.

Yes, but Banach spaces that are not Hilbert spaces are seldom used in QM. More likely is some sort of Topological Vector space, like the collection of test functions or distributions. But even physicists seldom know much about those.

The primary operators that characterize the states of their classical counterparts entirely, namely momentum and position, are in the main unbounded operators. Even in many would-be simplest cases such operators (often also the Hamiltonian more generally) are unbounded, and therefore the straightforward eigenvector-eigenvalue characterization connected with the typical Hilbert space presentation is inadequate. One requires more general spaces, more advanced integrals (namely, some form of the Stiltjes integral), and the generalization of diagonallzation and the like from undergraduate linear algebra in the form of spectral decomposition.

While the spectral decomposition theorem ultimately lies behind a lot of QM, the full theorem is not required for the beginning material. For that matter you aren't likely to find it in the advanced material unless you are wanting a specifically axiomatic treatment. NONE of the standard texts say anything about it. Steiltjes integrals are mostly in the same camp: the measures involved are usually either absolutely continuous or point masses, which means the relevant integrals are standard ones or infinite sums. I very much doubt there are many physicists that know of the Cantor infinite staircase, for example. The unboundedness of the operators is typically meliorated by the fact that they are closed operators and, in fact, differential operators. So, most of the aspects even there are not seen in the physics books.

Finally, the Hilbert-space presentation, while simpler, is also an issue because of the needless and problematic assumption of irreducibility which has for decades been replaced by more generalized measurement schemes and spaces alongside the introduction of e.g., POVMs.
Regardless, even the simple presentation of only finite dimensional Hilbert spaces requires a background in undergraduate mathematics.

Sure, some play with matrices and eigenvalues, but that is well within the reach of an advanced high school student. My guess is that a high school student would be reading this at the level of, say, Eisberg & Resnik or slightly below. That hardly has the mathematical prerequisites you mention, but is a legitimate treatment of quantum physics.

Reading about the mathematics involved in relativity and QM in High School is one thing. Sure, differential equations and such can be presented in a manner that a sufficiently motivated student can grasp. But not in a way that can differentiate the mathematics of these fields as opposed to those in physics more generally. It was the claim that the mathematics required for QM and relativity in particular resonated that I found hard to believe. I can't imagine anybody who isn't on the level of Dirac or Witten having a sufficient grasp of the mathematics of theoretical physics in high school in order to have the mathematics of QM and relativity in particular resonate with them

Special relativity is much easier with general relativity mostly (at that level) pushing around Christoffel symbols (Christ-awful symbols). Again, easily within the range of an advanced high schooler with access to the right books. For example, I was reading Misner, Thorn, and Wheeler when I was 15 and it was my second or third book on GR.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Do you feel you are being ‘punished’? What is this punishment that A&E’s offspring are facing? Just curious what you think it is. (Most people enjoy living.).

Me, feeling afraid of an imaginary sky daddy! Hockeycowboy, I am a strong atheist. I am the stuff which constitutes the universe.
As people say, these are bronze age stories. It is 21st Century now.
Sorrow and pleasure are but all temporary, imaginary. I have had many of them. Yeah, life is fun.

 

[Father Heathen]

Whether or not science is incompatable with spirituality depends on how you define the latter.

 

[PearlSeeker]

As one who who goes by science, I do not discredit religion. Religion has its own uses. I just points out that there is no proof of existence of God or soul, and of the enlargements on that, i.e., heaven, hell, judgment, deliverance and everlasting life. Either religions should provide proof for that or just say that this is what they want to believe. I would have no problem with that. But they should not trumpet it as the only truth. It is only what they believe. Of course, there are religions that do not oppose reason. (leaving out my own version of Hinduism) Buddhism is one such religion. Talking about God, soul, various messengers from God / Allah, and then about heaven, hell, judgment and everlasting life is, sure, illogical and unscientific, since religions cannot provide any evidence for that.

Buddhists also have concepts similar to judgement, heaven and hell...

No proof doesn't mean something opposes reason. "Russell's teapot", "invisible pink unicorn" and "flying spaghetti monster" are concepts contrary to reason. They're just a straw man fallacy making fun of religion. On the other hand concepts like arche (ultimate reality), unmovable mover (unchangeable changer), soul etc. aren't. They are the very expression of questioning mind seeking answers beyond the reach of scientific method.

 

[Aupmanyav]

How is the concept of God and then of his sending prophets, sons (by immaculate conception), messengers, manifestations, mahdis, not against reason? What answers have Abrahamic religions got for their questions? What reason can you give for God or soul?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How is the concept of God and then of his sending prophets, sons (by immaculate conception), messengers, manifestations, mahdis, not against reason? What answers have Abrahamic religions got for their questions? What reason can you give for God or soul?

That is not the only God possible. Stop making a straw man of religion.
Here is religion:

Religion, human beings’ relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, absolute, spiritual, divine, or worthy of especial reverence. It is also commonly regarded as consisting of the way people deal with ultimate concerns about their lives and their fate after death. In many traditions, this relation and these concerns are expressed in terms of one’s relationship with or attitude toward gods or spirits; in more humanistic or naturalistic forms of religion, they are expressed in terms of one’s relationship with or attitudes toward the broader human community or the natural world. In many religions, texts are deemed to have scriptural status, and people are esteemed to be invested with spiritual or moral authority. Believers and worshippers participate in and are often enjoined to perform devotional or contemplative practices such as prayer, meditation, or particular rituals. Worship, moral conduct, right belief, and participation in religious institutions are among the constituent elements of the religious life.
...

religion | Definition, Types, & List of Religions

You want to promote knowledge. Then start using knowledge!

 

[Aupmanyav]

I think I have not said anything against religion. I am myself an orthodox Hindu. I was talking about existence of God, Soul, and the claims of people of being authorized signatories of the said God or Allah.

 

[PearlSeeker]

How is the concept of God and then of his sending prophets, sons (by immaculate conception), messengers, manifestations, mahdis, not against reason? What answers have Abrahamic religions got for their questions? What reason can you give for God or soul?

First the concept of God. Written with a capital it usually means monotheistic conception. There are different forms of monotheism. What is common is that God (ultimate reality/being) is one.

What is here against reason?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yeah, for monotheists, God is one. But then, he is propped by different by different proponents. Each monotheist religion has its own God. Ahur Mazda or Aten are not your Gods. Jesus was not the son of Ahur Mazda or Aten. Was he?