hackenslash wrote:

savithru wrote:Penrose has replied to all those objections,

Well, he certainly provided a response, but there are problems with his response. His work with Hammeroff is predicated on quantum gravity effects in microtubules. The problem with that is that, of course, we have no quantum theory of gravity, which makes his objections little more than blind assertions. Further, this work was criticised by Max Tegmark, who showed that decoherence time is faster than neuron firing times by 1010 which, I’m sure you’ll agree, is a big fucking number.

Discovery of quantum vibrations in 'microtubules' inside brain neurons supports controversial theory of consciousness

Max Tegmark's objection doesn't stand now as this finding shows. So only his theory of quantum gravity has to be tested. Penrose thinks that the problem of consciousness can be solved with in science and I wish him good luck.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

savithru wrote:
According to me God and Science are mutually exclusive.

And you were crowned Universal Source of Ultimate Knowledge, when exactly? Because I seem to have missed the memo.
You'll have to to better than blindly asserting your opinion I'm afraid.

I'm not a self proclaimed prophet, studies in science and mysticism have shown that there are points of convergence and points of divergence between science and mysticism. New Age thinkers and Quantum quacks who are our near enemies are already fucked up. God and science are mutually exclusive. Both Einsteinian mathematical realism and Platonic realism cannot be true, either one has to be true and the other has to be false. Its not a false dichotomy at all. The contextuality of quantum mechanics is a strong evidence for Platonic realism.

I want Richard Jones to be a representative of Eastern philosophy rather than Deepak Chopra. I wish if people invite Richard Jones in various conferences rather than Deepak Chopra. When did meritocracy and truth got sidelined in the west?

Piercing the Veil: Comparing Science and Mysticism as Ways of Knowing Reality

The entire New Age idea of any "quantum mysticism" is shown to be groundless.
- Richard Jones

savithru wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

savithru wrote:
According to me God and Science are mutually exclusive.

And you were crowned Universal Source of Ultimate Knowledge, when exactly? Because I seem to have missed the memo.
You'll have to to better than blindly asserting your opinion I'm afraid.

I'm not a self proclaimed prophet, studies in science and mysticism have shown that there are points of convergence and points of divergence between science and mysticism.

There hasn't been a study that excludes science from god(s) or vice versa, ergo your claim is nonsense.

savithru wrote:New Age thinkers and Quantum quacks who are our near enemies are already fucked up. God and science are mutually exclusive.

And again you make the same blind assertion without any evidence whatsoever.

savithru wrote:Both Einsteinian mathematical realism and Platonic realism cannot be true, either one has to be true and the other has to be false.

Even if this is true that still doesn't prove that science and god(s) are mutually exclusive.

savithru wrote:Its not a false dichotomy at all.

No, it is a blind one as you have provided no evidence for this.

savithru wrote:The contextuality of quantum mechanics is a strong evidence for Platonic realism.

The green is virtuous in the high of the salty.

savithru wrote:I want Richard Jones to be a representative of Eastern philosophy rather than Deepak Chopra. I wish if people invite Richard Jones in various conferences rather than Deepak Chopra. When did meritocracy and truth got sidelined in the west?

Never. Problem is people like Chopra and Jones don't present truth, they present empty assertions.

savithru wrote:Piercing the Veil: Comparing Science and Mysticism as Ways of Knowing Reality

The entire New Age idea of any "quantum mysticism" is shown to be groundless.
- Richard Jones

Why didn't you quote actual evidence from the book.

savithru wrote:

hackenslash wrote:

savithru wrote:Penrose has replied to all those objections,

Well, he certainly provided a response, but there are problems with his response. His work with Hammeroff is predicated on quantum gravity effects in microtubules. The problem with that is that, of course, we have no quantum theory of gravity, which makes his objections little more than blind assertions. Further, this work was criticised by Max Tegmark, who showed that decoherence time is faster than neuron firing times by 1010 which, I’m sure you’ll agree, is a big fucking number.

Discovery of quantum vibrations in 'microtubules' inside brain neurons supports controversial theory of consciousness

Max Tegmark's objection doesn't stand now as this finding shows. So only his theory of quantum gravity has to be tested. Penrose thinks that the problem of consciousness can be solved with in science and I wish him good luck.

Err, where in that article, or the paper in question, does it mention gravitational effects? You show me micrtubules and I'll show you quantum effects, but where are the quantum gravity effects?

My objection stands unanswered.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

savithru wrote:
I'm not a self proclaimed prophet, studies in science and mysticism have shown that there are points of convergence and points of divergence between science and mysticism.

There hasn't been a study that excludes science from god(s) or vice versa, ergo your claim is nonsense.

savithru wrote:New Age thinkers and Quantum quacks who are our near enemies are already fucked up. God and science are mutually exclusive.

And again you make the same blind assertion without any evidence whatsoever.

savithru wrote:Both Einsteinian mathematical realism and Platonic realism cannot be true, either one has to be true and the other has to be false.

Even if this is true that still doesn't prove that science and god(s) are mutually exclusive.

savithru wrote:Its not a false dichotomy at all.

No, it is a blind one as you have provided no evidence for this.

Have you ever heard of Non-overlapping magisteria by Stephen Jay Gould? Science deals with empirical reality and Religion deals with the reality of the numinous. Both science and God are mutually exclusive. Only some crazy fundamentalists having no knowledge of religion believe that God exists in this empirical reality which is not true.

Christian mysticism, Pauline Christianity, Cabbala, Taoism, Buddhism, Islamic Hermeticism etc. In fact all religious oral traditions of the world are in support of Non-overlapping magisteria. The epistemology and ontology of Revealed truth is completely different from the epistemology and ontology of scientific models.

savithru wrote:I want Richard Jones to be a representative of Eastern philosophy rather than Deepak Chopra. I wish if people invite Richard Jones in various conferences rather than Deepak Chopra. When did meritocracy and truth got sidelined in the west?

Never. Problem is people like Chopra and Jones don't present truth, they present empty assertions.

That's where the west has lost its meritocracy, Chopra has no authority on Science and Eastern philosophy where as Jones has that complete command over the subject. A physician spreading quantum woo is no match for someone who has a PhD in Asian religions. Chopra gets neither quantum mechanics right nor he gets Eastern philosophy right and hence his assertions are empty but Jones puts both things right. That's the difference.

savithru wrote:Piercing the Veil: Comparing Science and Mysticism as Ways of Knowing Reality

The entire New Age idea of any "quantum mysticism" is shown to be groundless.
- Richard Jones

Why didn't you quote actual evidence from the book.

I know the whole idea of New Age thinking is fucked up. Its those who have a misunderstanding of Science, New Age and Asian religions who has to read it.

Duplicate post!

savithru wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

savithru wrote:And they were the same physicists

Who?

Erwin Schroedinger
Wolfgang Pauli
David Bohm
Fritjof Capra etc.

savithru wrote: who misrepresented eastern mysticism

Where and when? References and citations please.

Schroedinger's Mind and Matter mangled with Upanishads
Fritjof Capra's Tao in Physics mangled with Taoism
Pribram-Bohm's Holographic model who copied eastern mystical ideas from Drushya-Druk viveka and foolishly applied it to brain.

savithru wrote:with their barbaric and childish

In what way were they barbaric and childish?

They were careless, biased, uncritical, foolish in their analysis of eastern mysticism. They based their pedestal not on the traditional view but on their own fanciful imaginations which was fucking wrong and led to New age and quantum woo.

savithru wrote:understanding of the scriptures.

What scriptures?

Upanishads, Taoist scriptures, Buddhist scriptures etc.

savithru wrote:I don't want a fucking scientist telling me what my religion is.

Who does that? References and citations please.

Of course they don't do it directly but these scientists are one's who drive the followers of New Age and that becomes a New Age dogma. Hell people who strictly follow the traditional route have no place for debates in front of these pseudo-scientific New Age believers against New Atheists.

savithru wrote:It is only Bernard D'Espagnat who has gone on to study the philosophy of science and the problems inherent in the foundations of quantum physics.

What problems?

Fashion, Faith and Fantasy by Roger Penrose
Lee Smolin's The Trouble with Physics
The Most embarrassing graph in Modern Physics

As an outsider no one laughs at the current state of Physics more than I do. Quantum mechanics is great in explaining everything from the stability of atoms to developing cool quantum gadgets but when one considers it seriously no naive realistic description of Nature can be possible. Scientific models are just models no greater reality should be attributed to them, all the mess of modern physicists is that they don't want to give up realism and QM slaps them every time they try to build a realistic descriptive model of the world.

savithru wrote:Scientists are indeed those who blindly assume the existence of the empirical world independent of us and take it for granted.

Who are these scientists, when and where do they do this? References and citations please.

Quantum physicists who have sidelined some important questions that they won't ask every time they encounter with the enigma of Consciousness.

savithru wrote:I'm ain't wrong, New Atheism is based on just that, to show extreme intolerance towards religion and convert young minds to worship science.

When was this established? Who established this? Bring citations.

That's the whole idea of New Atheism.

savithru wrote:If its anything it should be scientists and atheists who should be embarrassed who with all their boasting

Who are these scientists and atheists who boast? References and citations please.

Stephen Hawking, Daniel Dennet, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris etc.

savithru wrote:cannot really unlock the mysteries of the universe without considering God into the picture.

Of course not, god did it. *ALLAKHAZAM*

See, mystery "unlocked". Praise the LAWD! Thank you, brilliant! I feel so enlightened.

Not really, we have our own theory, our own model of Consciousness and our own methodology. It explains more than just saying God did it.

You don't have a theory, you have a collection of rectally extracted blind assertions.

savithru wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

savithru wrote:
I'm not a self proclaimed prophet, studies in science and mysticism have shown that there are points of convergence and points of divergence between science and mysticism.

There hasn't been a study that excludes science from god(s) or vice versa, ergo your claim is nonsense.

savithru wrote:New Age thinkers and Quantum quacks who are our near enemies are already fucked up. God and science are mutually exclusive.

And again you make the same blind assertion without any evidence whatsoever.

savithru wrote:Both Einsteinian mathematical realism and Platonic realism cannot be true, either one has to be true and the other has to be false.

Even if this is true that still doesn't prove that science and god(s) are mutually exclusive.

savithru wrote:Its not a false dichotomy at all.

No, it is a blind one as you have provided no evidence for this.

Have you ever heard of Non-overlapping magisteria by Stephen Jay Gould?

No. Can you provide actual quotes that are relevant to the discussion at hand or is this yet another blind appeal to (vague) authority.

savithru wrote:Science deals with empirical reality and Religion deals with the reality of the numinous.

Bollocks. Religion purports to deal with emperical reality all the time. Be it miracles, saints or the creation of the universe.

savithru wrote:Both science and God are mutually exclusive.

Like I said before, mindlessly regurgitating the same blind assertion does not make it true.
You have provided no evidence for this assertion. Only vague references and regurgitation.

savithru wrote:Only some crazy fundamentalists having no knowledge of religion believe that God exists in this empirical reality which is not true.

How do you know this?
Where's your evidence?

savithru wrote:Christian mysticism, Pauline Christianity, Cabbala, Taoism, Buddhism, Islamic Hermeticism etc. In fact all religious oral traditions of the world are in support of Non-overlapping magisteria.

Except that they're not as evidenced by the examples of emperical parts of religion I mentioned above.

savithru wrote:The epistemology and ontology of Revealed truth is completely different from the epistemology and ontology of scientific models.

The angry bisector is reversed retracted from the blue octafe.

savithru wrote:

savithru wrote:I want Richard Jones to be a representative of Eastern philosophy rather than Deepak Chopra. I wish if people invite Richard Jones in various conferences rather than Deepak Chopra. When did meritocracy and truth got sidelined in the west?

Never. Problem is people like Chopra and Jones don't present truth, they present empty assertions.

That's where the west has lost its meritocracy, Chopra has no authority on Science and Eastern philosophy

Says who?

savithru wrote:where as Jones has that complete command over the subject.

Bollocks. The guy doesn't even have a wiki or other prominent biography page. Surely if he had complete command over science and eastern philosophy, he'd be a world renowed authority?

savithru wrote:A physician spreading quantum woo is no match for someone who has a PhD in Asian religions.

How does a PhD in Eastern religions make one have complete command over science?

savithru wrote:Chopra gets neither quantum mechanics right nor he gets Eastern philosophy right and hence his assertions are empty but Jones puts both things right. That's the difference.

It's also completely irrelevant to the discussion we're having.

savithru wrote:

savithru wrote:Piercing the Veil: Comparing Science and Mysticism as Ways of Knowing Reality

The entire New Age idea of any "quantum mysticism" is shown to be groundless.
- Richard Jones

Why didn't you quote actual evidence from the book.

I know the whole idea of New Age thinking is fucked up. Its those who have a misunderstanding of Science, New Age and Asian religions who has to read it.

It's science, not Science.
And you're still rambling utter nonsense.

savithru wrote:Have you ever heard of Non-overlapping magisteria by Stephen Jay Gould? Science deals with empirical reality and Religion deals with the reality of the numinous. Both science and God are mutually exclusive. Only some crazy fundamentalists having no knowledge of religion believe that God exists in this empirical reality which is not true.

Science studies phenomena. If you are asserting that something cannot be studied with the scientific method, you are asserting that it is a thing that produces no phenomena.

Which begs the question what possible reason you could have for thinking these things exist.

If, on the other hand, you are saying that these things you are referring to have actual effects then they can be studied via the scientific method.

savithru wrote:
all the mess of modern physicists is that they don't want to give up realism and QM
slaps them every time they try to build a realistic descriptive model of the world

The reason why quantum mechanics slaps them every time is because it is a phenomena that is not fully understood
So it has nothing to do with it being incompatible with realism. Because all science does is investigate phenomena and
nothing else. You want to know about the nature of reality then go ask a philosopher not a scientist. And the fact that
many or most scientists are materialists is irrelevant because that itself is a philosophical position not a scientific one

Nicko wrote:

savithru wrote:Have you ever heard of Non-overlapping magisteria by Stephen Jay Gould? Science deals with empirical reality and Religion deals with the reality of the numinous. Both science and God are mutually exclusive. Only some crazy fundamentalists having no knowledge of religion believe that God exists in this empirical reality which is not true.

Science studies phenomena. If you are asserting that something cannot be studied with the scientific method, you are asserting that it is a thing that produces no phenomena.

Which begs the question what possible reason you could have for thinking these things exist.

If, on the other hand, you are saying that these things you are referring to have actual effects then they can be studied via the scientific method.

Irrespective of whether it produces actual effects or not Theurgy is not science and cannot be studied through the scientific method. The understanding of Theurgy among westerners truly sucks.

"Theurgic union is attained only by the perfective operation of unspeakable acts correctly performed, acts which are beyond all understanding, and by the power of unutterable symbols which are intelligible only to the Gods"

Iamblichus, De Mysteriis. 2,11

We don't give a damn fuck about what science says.

savithru wrote:

Nicko wrote: (...)
If, on the other hand, you are saying that these things you are referring to have actual effects then they can be studied via the scientific method.

Irrespective of whether it produces actual effects or not Theurgy is not science and cannot be studied through the scientific method. The understanding of Theurgy among westerners truly sucks.

"Theurgic union is attained only by the perfective operation of unspeakable acts correctly performed, acts which are beyond all understanding, and by the power of unutterable symbols which are intelligible only to the Gods"

Iamblichus, De Mysteriis. 2,11

We don't give a damn fuck about what science says.

Well, that cuts both ways. Your mumbo-jumbo is about as relevant as childrens' rhymes. It is there to make self-important frauds seem important to the easily deluded ignoramuses that believe in such crap. Ditch your computer, fill a box with chicken feet and ether, perform some theurgy over it, and hey presto - Internet! Surely the wisdom of that old fart Iamblichus must trump the 1800 years of progress since he popped his sandals.

I bet a damn is given about what science says about gravity and edges of cliffs

Ah, but if you study these Ancient Mystic Religions you can step off the cliff edge and float down.

savithru wrote:Irrespective of whether it produces actual effects or not Theurgy is not science and cannot be studied through the scientific method. The understanding of Theurgy among westerners truly sucks.

Tell that to ceremonial magicians. But the point is, it either produces an effect, or it does not. If it does not, it's by definition achieving nothing. If it does, those effects are measurable or they are nothing. If they are measurable, they are subject to scientific scrutiny.

"Theurgic union is attained only by the perfective operation of unspeakable acts correctly performed, acts which are beyond all understanding, and by the power of unutterable symbols which are intelligible only to the Gods"

Iamblichus, De Mysteriis. 2,11

So acts that are beyond all understanding, yet you complain that the understanding of theurgy among westerners is lacking. Shome mishtake, shurely.

Unspeakable acts - what are they? Oh, sorry, my mistake, they're unspeakable so you can't tell me. But people need to perform them perfectly. Acts that no one would understand, and the use of unutterable symbols; what are those symbols? Oh that's right, you can't say. What a fucking joke.

savithru wrote:Irrespective of whether it produces actual effects or not Theurgy is not science and cannot be studied through the scientific method.

Why not?

savithru wrote:The understanding of Theurgy among westerners truly sucks.

"Theurgic union is attained only by the perfective operation of unspeakable acts correctly performed, acts which are beyond all understanding, and by the power of unutterable symbols which are intelligible only to the Gods"

Iamblichus, De Mysteriis. 2,11

If you are defining something as "beyond all understanding", you do realise that logically includes your understanding as well?

savithru wrote:We don't give a damn fuck about what science says.

We've noticed.

Now, if you're through with the posturing, care to make it explicit as to what it is you are claiming "theurgy" can accomplish?

Well, if you are of a scientific mindset, the unutterable, unspeakable stuff beyond understanding is even more un-understandable. Or something.

Unutterable symbol.

Scary stuff.

Oh the humanity, won't someone think of the children etc etc.

savithru wrote:Irrespective of whether it produces actual effects or not Theurgy is not science and cannot be studied through the scientific method. The understanding of Theurgy among westerners truly sucks.

Why do so many repeatedly say shit like that; "Theurgy is not science", as if that makes it immune to scientific examination? Gravity, germs and evolution aren't science either. Science is the rational critical examination of observed things like them.

If theurgy produces actual effects then that can be scientifically examined. If it doesn't produce actual effects then it is indistinguishable from the nonexistent.

savithru wrote:We don't give a damn fuck about what science says.

You do go on about it when you think you can twist it to sound like it might agree with you though, if even just a little.

But why should we give a damn fuck about what you say? At least science offers demonstrable results.