When different lines of thought meet.

Read to the end.

There seems certain similarties of certain internal belief systems between Einstein and The Buddha.

The belief in an external world independent of the perceiving subject is the basis of all natural science. Since, however, sense perception only gives information of this external world or of "physical reality" indirectly, we can only grasp the latter by speculative means. It follows from this that our notions of physical reality can never be final. We must always be ready to change these notions—that is to say, the axiomatic basis of physics—in order to do justice to perceived facts in the most perfect way logically.
-Einstein

While the Tathagata, in his teaching, constantly makes use of conceptions and ideas about them, disciples should keep in mind the unreality of all such conceptions and ideas. They should recall that the Tathagata, in making use of them in explaining the Dharma always uses them in the semblance of a raft that is of use only to cross a river. As the raft is of no further use after the river is crossed, it should be discarded. So these arbitrary conceptions of things and about things should be wholly given up as one attains enlightenment.
-Buddha

Infinity can be infinitely interesting, but it is also possible it is just all in the mind and intentionally or not, all mind created.

From a personal perspective I like that the Tao of Physics started with a quote from Carlos Castaneda

Any path is only a path, and there is no affront, to oneself
or to others, in dropping it if that is what your heart tells
you . . . Look at every path closely and deliberately. Try it .
as many times as you think necessary. Then ask yourself,
and yourself alone, one question . . . Does this path have
a heart? If it does, the path is good; if it doesn’t it is of no
use.
Carlos Castaneda, The Teachings of Don juan

and this:

It is probably true quite generally that in the history of human
thinking the most fruitful developments frequently take place
at those points where two different lines of thought meet.
These lines may have their roots in quite different parts of
human culture, in different times or different cultural environments
or different religious traditions: hence if they actually
meet, that is, if they are at least so much related to each other
that a real interaction can take place, then one may hope that
new and interesting developments may follow.
Werner Heisenberg

Tao of Physics - still the best book to read about post-Newtonian physics,
I wonder how many discarded it completely because of the word 'Tao'?

Carlos Castaneda - opens the world up into hyper-reality in a very
down to earth manner

{words fail me}

But such great names and titles all in one place, I have seldom seen -

Though a good place to raise the subject of the very word 'physics'.
It is is clear to me that space must be at least 4-dimensional in purely spacial terms
for so many reasons, any of which would be enough on its own.

But if we talk about realms beyond this 3d world as having real noumenal ontological existence -
then they must be physical
but the mind is said to not be physical - and yes this devolves to a discussion on semantics.

So then in one sense everything is physical,
but in another sense there is a meaningful distinction between the physical and the psychological.

And the term metaphysical has been abused and contorted more than any word deserves.

Tho the term 'uncertainty principle' is certainly an oxymoron...

It is an age old question that has no definitive answers. Physics has come a long ways especially with the quantum and the observer effect observations. The mind can do a lot of things and very creative and imaginative things.

I find a lot in the Tao of physics as it does tend to incorporate both mind and physics as a bit of a continuum. I think it was the first place that I ran across that ancient Hindu/Buddhist story about the web of infinity. Indra's net. That can be a topic all in it's own right. The mythical content of the Hindu's is staggering. Well, as is the Buddhist and the Tao are from lame on depth of philosophies thing either.

Do you know how many of the great physicists have spoken really highly of the Bhagavad Gita?

Another topic of it's own.

All of this is so ice cream for the mind. (or whatever food you may prefer).

Then the stories of Castaneda. I totally feasted on the first  7 or so books. So creative, so imaginative. Although he seemed to say it was mostly observation and learning from the mystical Nagual, Don Juan Matus.

I was less fond of the art of Dreaming though, although is quite an interesting read. I have had a lot of dreams including Lucid ones, and they don't jive that well with what he wrote in the book. Everybody dreams differently I think.  Another whole topic of it's own.

My gosh this is turning into a food fest for the mind. The uncertainty principle could be a topic of its own as well.

Hmm.
The thing that gets me about Heisenberg is that they claim that the observer is affecting the electron.
In order to ascertain that, they are implying that they know what the electron is doing when
it is not being observed.

Mayflow wrote:It is an age old question that has no definitive answers. Physics has come a long ways especially with the quantum and the observer effect observations. The mind can do a lot of things and very creative and imaginative things.

I find a lot in the Tao of physics as it does tend to incorporate both mind and physics as a bit of a continuum. I think it was the first place that I ran across that ancient Hindu/Buddhist story about the web of infinity. Indra's net. That can be a topic all in it's own right. The mythical content of the Hindu's is staggering. Well, as is the Buddhist and the Tao are from lame on depth of philosophies thing either.

Do you know how many of the great physicists have spoken really highly of the Bhagavad Gita?

Another topic of it's own.

All of this is so ice cream for the mind. (or whatever food you may prefer).

Then the stories of Castaneda. I totally feasted on the first  7 or so books. So creative, so imaginative. Although he seemed to say it was mostly observation and learning from the mystical Nagual, Don Juan Matus.

I was less fond of the art of Dreaming though, although is quite an interesting read. I have had a lot of dreams including Lucid ones, and they don't jive that well with what he wrote in the book. Everybody dreams differently I think.  Another whole topic of it's own.

My gosh this is turning into a food fest for the mind. The uncertainty principle could be a topic of its own as well.

Mayflow,

Growing up in a cheap family with many mouths to feed, dinner often consisted of outdated and otherwise discounted supermarket food.  Your reverence for the absurd religious notions of people who revere cows reminds me of my mother's trust in anything that came in a can.  

Of course canned food is normally labeled, then as now.  But cans with the labels torn off and lost, a common supermarket event in the days before improved stickum, were sold at severely discounted prices.  These cheap cans were normally a good deal (for people who ate processed and canned food).  

These analogies come to mind because I hold the beliefs of ancient religionists and their equally brilliant modern counterparts in about the same high regard and esteem as I now reserve for canned food and dead rodents.  

I bring up the issue of canned food, and unlabeled canned food, by way of analogy to the canned but unlabeled New Age notions you and Bain are promoting.  One night my mother served her family a new casserole that she made from packaged noodles, a slab of processed "cheese," and an unlabeled can of mystery meat.  Everyone except me scarfed down the food, and was conventionally appreciative.  I was sent to bed prematurely for refusing to even taste that shit.  

The mystery meat was dog food.  

I still have my old copy of "The Tao of Physics," which I regard as the second-most incompetent mystical crap I've ever tried to read.   I gave up about three chapters into it when it became clear that its theme was a casserole of previously marketed, factory-packaged, conventionally processed intellectual fodder built around a can of mystery meat.

Sorry about that for you. On the farm where I grew up we ate what we grew for ourselves, and didn't blame the food on others. If you had an awful childhood take it to the psychiatrist's couch,,,, did I make one of those here yet? BTW if you think dog food is too good for you, take a look at what chickens eat.

Mayflow wrote:Sorry about that for you. On the farm where I grew up we ate what we grew for ourselves, and didn't blame the food on others.  If you had an awful childhood take it to the psychiatrist's couch,,,, did I make one of those here yet? BTW if you think dog food is too good for you, take a look at what chickens eat.

Mayflow,

You seem to have missed my point.  Pretty much like you missed out on understanding Beon Theory.  You could try again, but I'm guessing that you are the kind of person who, upon having speed-read something once, considers it perfectly understood.  That kind of low-level comprehension works for the readers of newspapers and popular magazines, not for information presented in print by the few who have given serious thought to what they wrote.

I apologize for confusing you, and in the future will try to avoid that by directing my comments elsewhere.  I think that you are a good person, and very well-intentioned, but no more qualified to understand my ideas and comments than I'd have been at your tender age.

When at the library I may look at many books - some I find nothing of interest in for me, some I get some bit of a spark of interest - that would be Beon theory. Reading on, I may think, well it really has nothing more to offer and there are countless other books read, so I put it back on the shelf until I can pick up another which I can feel happy to check out. I'll check out maybe 1-10 books to take home to read, and then speed read until one somewhere really makes me stop to think. The following is one but as a better 100 to one you won't get it. It may start out slowly but it builds the ideas up. I actually read this in grade school and had never heard of Buddhism and still was really moved by it. Now grown up and having more understandings I read it again and was moved even more. http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/siddhartha.pdf

The Bhagavad Gita certainly opened my eyes in so many ways.
Out of all the religious texts I must rate it as having the highest artistic merit.
There is something indescribable that happens when reading it with the music
going on in the background.



Perhaps it is the tragic inevitability of war, those emotions that one feels
in words one does not understand. It somehow reminds me of the Native American
music 'sacred spirit'.

But back to the Gita. It always struck me as peculiar that such a serious text should
have a mystical character with blue skin. I have mused that creatures who evolved
on a planet with a blue sun would most likely have blue skin, as that would have a
better survival possibility due to it reflecting blue light.

Reincarnation is so real to me. Its astonishing that one can often see 5-year olds
with more maturity than 55 year olds. Reincarnation explains so much. It allowed me
to forgive the horrors I suffered during the apartheid war. I must have been a
militant in a past life, and so I suffered what it meant to be a youngster while the
society I lived in was trying to make us as violent as it could. Without reincarnation
I doubt if I would have been able to forgive what they tried to do to me. Of course
now I would like to believe I could forgive them no matter what I had done or not done.

But taking responsibility for the karma allowed me to transcend it. But I suppose one
never quite completely transcends such things. I largely avoid conflict knowing that
it could trigger the beast within. Perhaps I still cannot die without a fight.
Perhaps I'll always have those leopard spots. But still, knowing that the next life
is the result of the karma in this one means that I am quick to keep my claws
withdrawn, and prefer to just growl a bit if its needed. But reflexes cannot be
untrained so easily. Once you have learnt the instinct of having a quick paw
then the speed of one's own strike is the scariest karma of all.

Jonathan Ainsley Bain wrote:The Bhagavad Gita certainly opened my eyes in so many ways.
Out of all the religious texts I must rate it as having the highest artistic merit.
There is something indescribable that happens when reading it with the music
going on in the background.

Perhaps it is the tragic inevitability of war, those emotions that one feels
in words one does not understand. It somehow reminds me of the Native American
music 'sacred spirit'.

But back to the Gita. It always struck me as peculiar that such a serious text should
have a mystical character with blue skin. I have mused that creatures who evolved
on a planet with a blue sun would most likely have blue skin, as that would have a
better survival possibility due to it reflecting blue light.

Reincarnation is so real to me. Its astonishing that one can often see 5-year olds
with more maturity than 55 year olds. Reincarnation explains so much. It allowed me
to forgive the horrors I suffered during the apartheid war. I must have been a
militant in a past life, and so I suffered what it meant to be a youngster while the
society I lived in was trying to make us as violent as it could. Without reincarnation
I doubt if I would have been able to forgive what they tried to do to me. Of course
now I would like to believe I could forgive them no matter what I had done or not done.

But taking responsibility for the karma allowed me to transcend it. But I suppose one
never quite completely transcends such things. I largely avoid conflict knowing that
it could trigger the beast within. Perhaps I still cannot die without a fight.
Perhaps I'll always have those leopard spots. But still, knowing that the next life
is the result of the karma in this one means that I am quick to keep my claws
withdrawn, and prefer to just growl a bit if its needed. But reflexes cannot be
untrained so easily. Once you have learnt the instinct of having a quick paw
then the speed of one's own strike is the scariest karma of all.

Jonathan,

You are confused about the nature of karma.  It has nothing to do with the speed of your strike, a skill which you no doubt found that you were "born with," a skill that you did not need to learn because you already know it-- yet a skill that can be refreshed and enhanced.  

Karma is a consequence of your previous misuse of a once hard-earned skill.  It cannot be attenuated by blaming the skill.  It can only be honestly dealt with by doing differently with your current skill set, and you seem to be diligently avoiding that by burying your personal responsibility behind pages of "eye opening" mysticism.  

You sound like the liberals who blame guns for crime while giving short sentences and lots of rehab to the gun-wielders, ignoring the victims.  Or like TV news jerks who say things like, "the car swerved into oncoming traffic."  We know that the car did no such thing.  The jackass behind the wheel steered his car into oncoming traffic.  

You can't get rid of your karma until you own it, personally.  That might require dealing with your victims.  It cannot be reduced by reading mystical texts.  That's just a bullshit avoidance mechanism, a feel-good technique.  Look at how well it's working for you.  You're talking about karma, yet have no idea what it is.  

It may not be possible to locate your old victims.  There is an interesting alternative.  There are a number of healing techniques that are most effectively implemented by reincarnated warriors, and plenty of people who might warrant some healing.

Jonathan Ainsley Bain wrote:Hmm.
The thing that gets me about Heisenberg is that they claim that the observer is affecting the electron.
In order to ascertain that, they are implying that they know what the electron is doing when
it is not being observed.

Jonathan,
This is the kind of nonsensical statement that someone who'd learned QM by watching TV documentary channels, or reading the translations of confused mystics (e.g: The Tao of Physics) might propose. Did you ever take a university level course in QM?

Greylorn, Fritjof Capra has a phd in physics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritjof_Capra.

That aside, Johnathan was talking about the Bhagavad Gita which is an older and different work. If you are fairly familiar with QM you should be able to understand at least some of the following article. http://www.krishnapath.org/quantum-physics-came-from-the-vedas-schrodinger-einstein-and-tesla-were-all-vedantists/

greylorn wrote:

Jonathan Ainsley Bain wrote:Hmm.
The thing that gets me about Heisenberg is that they claim that the observer is affecting the electron.
In order to ascertain that, they are implying that they know what the electron is doing when
it is not being observed.

Jonathan,
This is the kind of nonsensical statement that someone who'd learned QM by watching TV documentary channels, or reading the translations of confused mystics (e.g: The Tao of Physics) might propose.  Did you ever take a university level course in QM?

It makes no difference where one 'learnt' something. Logic is logic regardless of its source.
Regurgitating accepted dogma does not make it correct regardless of one's position
in the ponzi-scheme-naked-empire of academia.

I would never consider 'qualifications' to be a criteria when evaluating somebody's understanding or misunderstanding
of any subject because that would simply amount to an 'argument from authority.'
(A basic tenet of Phil 101 btw)

It would be like an Imam saying Islam is correct and YOU have no qualification to disagree.
Be careful now. You don't want to find yourself in such a karmic position of reversal, now do you?

Nonetheless, in post-grad philosophy of science, I ended up explaining QM to the prof
and they all agreed that up until then I was the only one in the course who could explain it in his/her own words.
(But that is obviously water under the bridge)

As it is, my critique is entirely valid, and it does not refute any of the empirical claims of QM;
what it does is evaluate the philosophical explanation a posteriori to QM.
Please try and distinguish between these two processes.

Like most people, you fail to appreciate that metaphysics is a priori to science.

All empirical measurement is immediately followed by speculation, and those who are typically
blind to the necessary links from metaphysics to physics and back to metaphysics, lazily label
this entire process of such epistemology and ontology as 'science because the boss said so'.

Some claim may possibly be correct, but who can be sure?
Seeing as though the entire epistemology of science has been reduced to mere hermeneutical process,
flying the false colors of 'scientific fact' when it by definition cannot be so, because science is a method.
There are no 'scientific facts'. That is like saying a circle is a square.

The word 'science' has long since lost its original meaning. (Especially since the cult of Einstein-worship).

Yet more proof that the long-standing decision to arbitrarily separate philosophy from science
is a certain recipe for the outright false ontologies which compromise so much of Western thinking.

Thus the West, I fear is in irreversible decline.
Na Zdorovie

The logic remains:

There is no way to claim that the measurement of the position of the electron can be accurately
measured, without accurately measuring the momentum of it.

We can only be certain of the position of any object if we had formulated a law which predicted
the next position in sequence. The only way that is possible is if we accurately know the momentum.

If you have ever tried to write a real-time computer algorithm of even the simplest model
this would be intrinsically obvious.

As somebody who has been programming computers professionally since the 1980's it bothers
me that I begin to feel that if one cannot write a computer program, then one is incapable of pure logic.
(I still harbor some hope that this is not entirely so, because there are plenty of people with
computer qualifications which entitle them to positions which are little more than territorial
fiefdoms protected by the relevant beurocratic corruption such as tenure.)

As it is, I never needed a qualification in computer programming as I got in excess of 100% in
computer practicals in Com Sci 101, (I was teaching the prof who built his own computer language
how his language could be programmed more efficiently than he himself realized.)

So I found that the course was a sheer waste of my time, (ending civil war was a more pressing engagement).
I would rather explore the unknown, which at that point led to me entering Philosophy and Psychology and Art.
Horror of horrors! The physics 101 class leader dropped out of 'phys 101 for nazis' led by Herr Oberführer Gruber.
(A horrid specimen which I am sure I would have nudged into the netherworld had I remained.
Although I would more likely have got to Herr Oberführer Kotze of 'queer math 101' first. The point is sort of mootish).

Remember the greatest parable: It was not the rabbi who acted in the highest ethical fashion,
his position of power was one of cowardice. But it is the Samaritan, the outcast, who is the REAL teacher/leader.

Perhaps, Greylorn if you caught yourself before your usual ad hominem tirade,
and asked yourself why you have a need to base your arguments thus,
and then re-examine your thoughts, removing such, you will find that you begin
to understand how to understand a bit better. Whenever I catch myself losing patience, it
is always because there is an unexplored part of the process which I have neglected.

This is reason why an understanding of both Psychology and Philosophy should be prerequisites
to any attempt to critically evaluate any body of knowledge.

But let me just reiterate: there are plenty of people with 'qualifications' in Psychology and Philosophy
(which are my 'formal' post-grad qualifications, btw) who are great at regurgitating contradictory ontologies
whilst claiming the said contradiction is entirely 'logical' - because they wrote an exam
and the teacher said: 'what good boy, give him a special badge'.

greylorn wrote:

You are confused about the nature of karma.  It has nothing to do with the speed of your strike, a skill which you no doubt found that you were "born with," a skill that you did not need to learn because you already know it-- yet a skill that can be refreshed and enhanced.  

Karma is a consequence of your previous misuse of a once hard-earned skill.  It cannot be attenuated by blaming the skill.  It can only be honestly dealt with by doing differently with your current skill set, and you seem to be diligently avoiding that by burying your personal responsibility behind pages of "eye opening" mysticism.  

I shall consider this for some time, obi-wan.

You sound like the liberals who blame guns for crime while giving short sentences and lots of rehab to the gun-wielders, ignoring the victims.  Or like TV news jerks who say things like, "the car swerved into oncoming traffic."  We know that the car did no such thing.  The jackass behind the wheel steered his car into oncoming traffic.  

Well actually the auto-industry is as culpable as the gun-owner who gives his gun to a three-year-old to play with.

But I would never own a gun in civilian life. My reflexes are just too fast -  too instinctual.
However I do practice paw-swatting with my ginger cat, but I think she lets me win half the time.
And I abhor motor-cars - there are too many jerks swerving all over the place propped up by
an auto-industry that is far more culpable than all the wars and gun-owners in existence.

You can't get rid of your karma until you own it, personally.  That might require dealing with your victims.  It cannot be reduced by reading mystical texts.  That's just a bullshit avoidance mechanism, a feel-good technique.  Look at how well it's working for you.  You're talking about karma, yet have no idea what it is.  

I have no victims that I know of in this life-time.
Reincarnation is not an idea I got from any text.
Strangely, I just always knew what it was, or so it seems.

It may not be possible to locate your old victims.  There is an interesting alternative.  There are a number of healing techniques that are most effectively implemented by reincarnated warriors, and plenty of people who might warrant some healing.

And do I find these techniques by reading mystical texts?
Or will you send me curious dreams, obi-wan?

Mayflow wrote:Greylorn, Fritjof Capra has a phd in physics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritjof_Capra.

That aside, Johnathan was talking about the Bhagavad Gita which is an older and different work. If you are fairly familiar with QM you should be able to understand at least some of the following article. http://www.krishnapath.org/quantum-physics-came-from-the-vedas-schrodinger-einstein-and-tesla-were-all-vedantists/

The ego or its separation is an illusion.

But this 'illusion' is still a very real illusion,
thus
it is not actually illusion.

Tesla wanted to give power to everyone for free!

What a tragically awful idea! Pity he never appreciated apprehending the psychology
of people, and the base ideas that motivate most of them. Assuming that others
are nice people because you yourself are such is a terrible misconception.

hmm.
I always enjoy this sort of thing. Full of cool ideas some good, some not so.
Who was it that first considered that lighting the inside of the pyramids
could be quite easily achieved simply using mirrors?

I do have quite a clear idea as to how pyramids may be used to generate
enormous power however. And I think it was Planck who showed that
the equations to 'infinite energy' were refuted by quantum energy.
(The 'ultraviolet catastrophe'.)

Tesla is an interesting character, but some of his ideas were clearly not
workable. The perpetual motion device of his, eventually deconstructs into
a simple wheel.

Wrong ideas are the compost of right ideas.

Mayflow wrote: if you think dog food is too good for you, take a look at what chickens eat.

It is better to eat dog food than
to be dog food

Jonathan Ainsley Bain wrote:

Mayflow wrote:Greylorn, Fritjof Capra has a phd in physics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritjof_Capra.

That aside, Johnathan was talking about the Bhagavad Gita which is an older and different work. If you are fairly familiar with QM you should be able to understand at least some of the following article. http://www.krishnapath.org/quantum-physics-came-from-the-vedas-schrodinger-einstein-and-tesla-were-all-vedantists/

The ego or its separation is an illusion.

But this 'illusion' is still a very real illusion,
thus
it is not actually illusion.

This incompetent use of language is better suited to advertisers, salesmen, politicians, and other bullshit artists, than to a philosopher wanna-be.  Prefacing a noun (e.g. illusion) by an adjective that negates the meaning of the noun, without justifying the reason for the negation, is a linguistic trick, and logically meaningless.  

By way of example I might declare, theoretically of course, that Jonathan Bain is a false pinhead.  Does that make him a genius?  Does it make him even smart enough to get the point?

Jonathan Ainsley Bain wrote:

Mayflow wrote: if you think dog food is too good for you, take a look at what chickens eat.

It is better to eat dog food than
to be dog food

Only if you're a dog, and have no further expectations because you or are insufficiently conscious to have any expections.

Jonathan Ainsley Bain wrote:

Tesla wanted to give power to everyone for free!

What a tragically awful idea! Pity he never appreciated apprehending the psychology
of people, and the base ideas that motivate most of them. Assuming that others
are nice people because you yourself are such is a terrible misconception.

How you get from hearsay TV documentary opinions about what Tesla allegedly wanted, to your opinion that he himself is a nice person, or that he was so stupid as to believe that nice people represent a consequential component of the human population is a mystery.  

Nikola had a talent for thinking far ahead of others.  Perhaps free power for the idiots would be the best way to eradicate them from the planet-- the ultimate reset button.

Mayflow wrote:Greylorn, Fritjof Capra has a phd in physics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritjof_Capra.

That aside, Johnathan was talking about the Bhagavad Gita which is an older and different work. If you are fairly familiar with QM you should be able to understand at least some of the following article. http://www.krishnapath.org/quantum-physics-came-from-the-vedas-schrodinger-einstein-and-tesla-were-all-vedantists/

Please give me a break.  I know what Bain was talking about and where he comes from.  He and you are both devotees of the ongoing attempt to reduce physics to mysticism.   I'm opposed to this nonsense.  I believe that physics can be used to effectively explain all "spiritual" phenomena.  However, all the mystical spiritual bullshit in the world cannot explain physics.   Your proof of this is that the homesite of mystical garbage such as the Bag-Gita is India, a country that supposedly obtained these deep insights several millinnia ago.  Despite that, India is a 3rd world country.  It is a "nuclear power" only because a few of its US educated students learned nuclear physics-- not from the Bag-Gita but rather from USA universities.  

If you've had the unfortunate opportunity to try to obtain solutions to technological problems from a provider who outsources such services to India (and its Pakistani neighbors) you'll have had the opportunity to learn first-hand that these people consist of educated (but stupid) nitwits who are fundamentally pissed off because their backwards nation, despite the several millennia head-start granted to them by the insightful geniuses who wrote the Bag-Gita and taught them that cows are sacred, is somehow not a consequential world power.  

Why you people want so desperately to admire and emulate failed religious teachings is beyond my understanding.  But then, you're a speed-reader.  To me that means, a reader who blows off anything she does not immediately understand-- i.e. anything that "People" Magazine would not publish because it would challenge its readers.  

I'm not a Christian, but it would be worth noting that the world's most powerful civilizations have come from those who had adopted Christian philosophies.  Of course the USA is the most notable example of that.  This follows from its adoption of a variety of Christian religions, all of them full of bullshit but on the same basic page regarding the nature and purpose of mankind, with enough divergence to foster mental competition.  

There is a very real relationship between fundamental beliefs and human behavior, but I do not think that you are mentally equipped to acknowledge that reality.  I'm writing this in case someone other than you and your crony Bain will read this, and because I need to blow off steam.

BTW lots of pinheads have Ph.Ds.  I've worked with and for several Ph.Ds and learned to recognize those who deserve their title.  I'd have one myself if there was an interesting field in which I could earn it.  I don't much give a shit about titles because I know that most are worthless, or phony.   A brother-in-law who I like, whose company I enjoy, and is one of the few who has competently read my book, has a mail-order Ph.D.  He acknowledges its worth.  Remember please, when touting the value of the Ph.D title, that Barack Obama, citizen of Kenya and President of the USA has one, without turning in a thesis.  

Kindly don't tout Ph.D's to me.  I'm interested in mental value, and am more likely to get it from my local postmaster than from a pinhead like Capra.  I sure as hell won't get it from his devotees.

Mayflow wrote:Greylorn, Fritjof Capra has a phd in physics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritjof_Capra.

That aside, Johnathan was talking about the Bhagavad Gita which is an older and different work. If you are fairly familiar with QM you should be able to understand at least some of the following article. http://www.krishnapath.org/quantum-physics-came-from-the-vedas-schrodinger-einstein-and-tesla-were-all-vedantists/

Mayflow,

This blog is a perfect example of the differences between us.  The information puts the text in small print, while showing plenty of large heads, the heads of old men, implying wisdom.    The blog's text is illiterate: e.g: "In the 1920’s Werner Heisenberg (1901-1976) (pictured Left) formulated his famous uncertainty principal..."  The correct word is "principle," which tells me that the blog's author is a pinhead.

The large-head, small and illiterate-text combination appeals to those whose beliefs depend upon authority figures (large old heads) but who minimize the condensed and trivialized content of whatever those old guys offered.  Clearly the blog's author obtains his beliefs from simplifications, cartoon versions of core ideas developed by authority figures, rather than from anything those figures actually said or wrote.  This is typical of those who do not read competently enough to analyze content for themselves.

Perhaps, Greylorn if you caught yourself before your usual ad hominem tirade,
and asked yourself why you have a need to base your arguments thus,
and then re-examine your thoughts, removing such, you will find that you begin
to understand how to understand a bit better. Whenever I catch myself losing patience, it
is always because there is an unexplored part of the process which I have neglected.

This is reason why an understanding of both Psychology and Philosophy should be prerequisites
to any attempt to critically evaluate any body of knowledge.

For instance its a bit odd that you neglect the results of my algorithms
all based on programming logic, whilst at no point even showing the
vaguest attempt at anything mathematical.

Perhaps revisit as to why it is that you spew vitriol on the results
of said computer algorithms whilst being unable to even update your
own website in the very easy to use language of html.

Your need to 'blow off steam' as being the basis for you visiting this site
shows a deep-seated self-obsession, rather than a genuine appreciation
that knowledge growth is based on dialog. (Not monologue).

How you try and discredit some person's logic because of spelling issues
shows a laziness in at least some of your thinking.

As it is you make plenty of valid points and would be capable of genuine
consistency between your points if you would just make the effort
to recognize when your emotional ego gets in the way.

I suspect that your learning was interrupted on the 6th chakra.
That is, you need to go back to why it is that arguments from mathematics
evoke such negative emotions within you.

I would guess that you had emotionally unstable math or computer teachers
which is typical of how the West suffers a schism between the 7th
and the 6th chakra. Which means that the way that the west thinks
that logic is separate and above and beyond spirituality is its deepest
tragedy. People problems cannot be solved directly with gadgetry.

I do not in any way reduce physics to mysticism.

No person can ever know everything, and the vast majority of answers to
most questions will always be mysterious.

Whenever one examines a component of physics, one always starts with
basic assumptions; and no matter how rigorous one tries to be, one
cannot escape this. The trick is to not let that make you exasperated.

Actually like all meta-physicists the attempt is actually to reduce mysticism
to physics. But in any one life-time, no matter how immaculate it is,
one can only make a few steps in this regard, and the majority of the universe
remains mystical. But it is by being comfortable with the mystical that one
can begin in earnest to demystify that small portion of the universe within
one's grasp.

But one is inevitably left with the paradoxical question as to whether all the physical
universe is conscious, or whether consciousness is an illusion of the physical.
Or else we are left with Cartesian dualism. Now there is a rigid type of dualism,
and a softer version. That is such dualism does exist, but the link between
the mind and the body seems to also exist. So in absolute terms we have to
decide whether the entire universe is conscious, (physics is illusion)
or is consciousness the illusion?

Jonathan Ainsley Bain wrote:

Perhaps, Greylorn if you caught yourself before your usual ad hominem tirade,
and asked yourself why you have a need to base your arguments thus,
and then re-examine your thoughts, removing such, you will find that you begin
to understand how to understand a bit better. Whenever I catch myself losing patience, it
is always because there is an unexplored part of the process which I have neglected.

This is reason why an understanding of both Psychology and Philosophy should be prerequisites
to any attempt to critically evaluate any body of knowledge.

For instance its a bit odd that you neglect the results of my algorithms
all based on programming logic, whilst at no point even showing the
vaguest attempt at anything mathematical.

Perhaps revisit as to why it is that you spew vitriol on the results
of said computer algorithms whilst being unable to even update your
own website in the very easy to use language of html.

Your need to 'blow off steam' as being the basis for you visiting this site
shows a deep-seated self-obsession, rather than a genuine appreciation
that knowledge growth is based on dialog. (Not monologue).

How you try and discredit some person's logic because of spelling issues
shows a laziness in at least some of your thinking.

Jonathan,

Consider that one manifestation of egocentrism is, for example, your choice to preface a complaint directed at me, not by a quote of anything I'd written, but by another brilliant complaint of yours.

You are getting tiresome.  Can't you at least figure out how to post simply, preceding your whining with an example of what exactly you are whining about?   I'm not going to waste the time to go back and figure out what I wrote that pissed you off.  

Show me your "algorithms" and the consequential results in a coherent fashion and I will consider dealing with them.  So far, all you've shown is your "results" and they look like bullshit to me.  

BTW, even you ought to know that an algorithm is not a mathematical form.   Please pretend that you already knew that, and do not conflate algorithms with mathematics.  I suppose you'll consider this an "ad hominem" attack, because it implies that you are either stupid or ignorant.  What can I say?  No one who has studied math and computers would confuse algorithms with mathematical statements unless they were one or the other.  

Instead of whining, why not grow some intellectual balls and demonstrate that accomplishment by addressing some of the questions I and Paul Martin have put to you, that you've blown off?  Right now you strike me as a pretentious intellectual sissy.  That's an evaluation, not an attack.  

My website is written, by me, using HTML.  HTML is no more a language than the meowing of cats and barking of dogs, and it is erroneous to call it a language.  It does not contain the subtleties of context that are the indicators of even the most primitive human languages.  It's simply a markup-script, a poorly diminished version of TeX.  

Perhaps you are whining because you cannot figure out how to access the entire site.  That is because I've used HTML scripts to disconnect the pages.  I've offered to make the entire site available to anyone who demonstrates that they have competently read and understood the easily available pages/chapters.  Of course my shitty book contains similar material and is available to anyone willing to buy it, netting me a nifty profit of $2.35.  The website is free to competent readers.  Pick and choose or quit whining.  

The main reason I visit this site is in the hopes of finding intelligent individuals with whom I can exchange ideas.  

Improper spelling of published material is the first indication that the person doing the publishing is not competent.  Spell checkers are ubiquitous.  There are so many bullshitters writing crap about things of which they know nothing, one cannot piss away one's life reading all of them.  Filters are useful.  My complaint was not about bad spelling, BTW.  It was about the incompetent use of words.  The pinhead used the wrong word, but spelled it correctly.  

Enough for now.  You are insufficiently competent to speculate about my problems.   They are irrelevant to my ideas, which you seem unable to understand.  Your problems are easier to diagnose and fix.  Get your navel replaced with a lucite lens so you can see better from chakra 6, or extract your head from your dorsal orifice and consider things from higher levels.  

Good luck with that.