Quantum Mysticism - dawning of the New Age

[Illyrius]

The Newtonian model of physics suggested that everything in universe is separated, and it functioned well all the way till the discovery of quantum particles. Now we are aware that such view of reality is completely flawed and in fact the whole picture of universe maintained by that illusive picture of reality collapses into ashes where it belongs. The new discoveries in physics are in accordance to ancient spiritual systems and not to flawed-to-the core picture of mechanical atheistic universe.

Thoughts?

Edited February 5, 2018 by Illyrius

[Lilly]

Uh...a guy named Einstein already went into this...and I'm pretty sure it didn't involve any "spiritual systems". 

[Illyrius]

2 minutes ago, Lilly said:

Uh...a guy named Einstein already went into this...and I'm pretty sure it didn't involve any "spiritual systems". 

Maybe he simply wasnt interested to make paralleles with ancient spirituality.

Edited February 5, 2018 by Illyrius

[psyche101]

22 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

The Newtonian model of physics suggested that everything in universe is separated, and it functioned well all the way till the discovery of quantum particles. Now we are aware that such view of reality is completely flawed and in fact the whole picture of universe maintained by that illusive picture of reality collapses into ashes where it belongs. The new discoveries in physics are in accordance to ancient spiritual systems and not to flawed-to-the core picture of mechanical atheistic universe.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

My thought is you are just making stuff up. There are differences between GR and QM sure, that only means there is more work to do. Quantum mechanics in no way supports a spiritual universe or nature, it is chaos at a quantum level creating virtual particles constantly, a reaction between two such particles is proposed to have caused the big bang. Obviously you have never read or listened to Lawrence Krauss, Brian Greene or Sean Carroll. 

Connecting the spiritual to QM is Deepak Chopra material, and he is not only unsupported, he is flat out wrong. 

GR works and QM works. We can tell when the sun will come up or eclipse, we can plan out the movements if the stars, QM works, we can see what we predict with the atom smashers we have. Both work, both stand the test of scrutiny, both offer prediction. 

A unifying theory is not going to dismiss all that. It's going to bring them together. They are on very different scales hence the nature of their differences. 

Edited February 5, 2018 by psyche101

[psyche101]

5 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

Maybe he simply wasnt interested to make paralleles with ancient spirituality.

He gave much thought to the idea of spinozas God. 

So he did consider such yes. 

https://www.richarddawkins.net/2012/09/albert-einsteins-historic-1954-god-letter/

[Kismit]

5 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

Maybe he simply wasnt interested to make paralleles with ancient spirituality.

A lot of scientists were/are interested in trying to connect the two. 

Oddly over time more and more of them can not connect the two. They try, and they try, and they try, and they keep trying, even these days with so many spiritually minded people telling them that science is wrong and religion is right.

 

[XenoFish]

So is there really a point to this thread? Spirituality is really more of a psychological function than hard science. It deals with beliefs and emotions more than anything. 

[eight bits]

Quote

https://...net/2012/09/albert-einsteins-historic-1954-god-letter/

A beautiful thing about the internet is how it confers immortality on lies.

What Einstein actually wrote on that occasion is discussed here:

https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/tag/einstein-gutkind-letter/

What Einstein wrote on a different occasion, inscribed in a Bible he gave to an employee:

Quote

This book is an inexhaustible source of wisdom and comfort. Read in it often and gifts for you

You an see a picture of that inscription here:

https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/2013/06/29/auction-of-a-bible-from-the-einsteins/

Want to read the whole 1954 letter, German and English, and excerpts from the book Einstein was responding to?

https://uncertaintist.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/einstein-letter-gutkind-excerpts.pdf

Einstein was a mature thinker about Abrahamic religion, not a childish namecaller. The sustained disinformation campaign surrounding this one letter is a scandal.

 

[Illyrius]

3 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

So is there really a point to this thread? Spirituality is really more of a psychological function than hard science. It deals with beliefs and emotions more than anything. 

If you don't see a point of this thread i suggest that you join discussion in "Is Elvis really dead?" I have a feeling it may be of more interest to you. What is the point of asking is there a point of the thread? And besides as far as i know you are a nihilist - so nothing makes any point to you anyway.

[psyche101]

20 minutes ago, eight bits said:

A beautiful thing about the internet is how it confers immortality on lies.

What Einstein actually wrote on that occasion is discussed here:

https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/tag/einstein-gutkind-letter/

What Einstein wrote on a different occasion, inscribed in a Bible he gave to an employee:

You an see a picture of that inscription here:

https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/2013/06/29/auction-of-a-bible-from-the-einsteins/

Want to read the whole 1954 letter, German and English, and excerpts from the book Einstein was responding to?

https://uncertaintist.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/einstein-letter-gutkind-excerpts.pdf

Einstein was a mature thinker about Abrahamic religion, not a childish namecaller. The sustained disinformation campaign surrounding this one letter is a scandal.

 

I think you are overreacting terribly. 

This is the common translation for the link I posted:

 

The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. 

 

And from your link:

 

[Your book] is written in language that is inaccessible to me. The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends.

 

The sentence "pretty childish" is removed, that according to your sources is an embellishment, and I agree with the links, that does not sound like Einstein. It is probably an embellishment on part of the translator, if I read your links right it was probably translated by  staff member at the Guardian, so the objection stands to reason, but hardly changes the general outlook expressed. 

I don't think it changes that Einstein saw Christianity as rather silly, and preferred the idea of Spinozas God, which is the point I was making. 

[Crazy Horse]

1 hour ago, Illyrius said:

The Newtonian model of physics suggested that everything in universe is separated, and it functioned well all the way till the discovery of quantum particles. Now we are aware that such view of reality is completely flawed and in fact the whole picture of universe maintained by that illusive picture of reality collapses into ashes where it belongs. The new discoveries in physics are in accordance to ancient spiritual systems and not to flawed-to-the core picture of mechanical atheistic universe.

Thoughts?

Im no expert but, I always thought that any connection of QP and spirituality was the mind.

The Mind of God creating the different planes of existence, the physical universe being energy vibrating very quickly, appearing to be solid, but it is the affect of consciousness upon less solid matter that really connects QP with Spirit.

In an universe of Idealism, Mind is ALL.

[Illyrius]

1 minute ago, Crazy Horse said:

Im no expert but, I always thought that any connection of QP and spirituality was the mind.

The Mind of God creating the different planes of existence, the physical universe being energy vibrating very quickly, appearing to be solid, but it is the affect of consciousness upon less solid matter that really connects QP with Spirit.

In an universe of Idealism, Mind is ALL.

Beautifuly said. Thank you.

[Crazy Horse]

3 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

Beautifuly said. Thank you.

Thank you..

This idea of separateness, from God being separate from humanity, leading to a cosmology of separateness, which in turn leads to a theology of separateness, to a sociology of separateness, right down to a pathology of separateness. This whole idea is nothing but trouble. 

The Hermetic axiom of, "THE ALL in all, and the all in ALL" to me at least makes much more sense!

 

[Illyrius]

8 minutes ago, Crazy Horse said:

Thank you..

This idea of separateness, from God being separate from humanity, leading to a cosmology of separateness, which in turn leads to a theology of separateness, to a sociology of separateness, right down to a pathology of separateness. This whole idea is nothing but trouble. 

The Hermetic axiom of, "THE ALL in all, and the all in ALL" to me at least makes much more sense!

 

More sense than modern art which arised from this separateness like in following example:

 

[MauriOra]

42 minutes ago, Crazy Horse said:

Im no expert but, I always thought that any connection of QP and spirituality was the mind.

The Mind of God creating the different planes of existence, the physical universe being energy vibrating very quickly, appearing to be solid, but it is the affect of consciousness upon less solid matter that really connects QP with Spirit.

In an universe of Idealism, Mind is ALL.

Atamarie Sir.. xx

I Agree with Our Learned Friend..

This is Beautiful..!!! And You maybe more of an "EXPERT" then you Realise..

Never Doubt Yourself.. Doubt is a Killer to Your Inherent Powers Within and Without of You..

We Must Trust In Our Self and Question Everything.... Always..!!!!

I Hope You Are Well My Friend..xx

Peace to you and yours.. xx

MauriOra.. xx

[Illyrius]

2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

My thought is you are just making stuff up.

What am i making up exactly?

 

2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Quantum mechanics in no way supports a spiritual universe or nature

What is spiritual universe or nature from your perspective so that we may know what are we talking about here?

2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Obviously you have never read or listened to Lawrence Krauss, Brian Greene or Sean Carroll. 

No.

2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Connecting the spiritual to QM is Deepak Chopra material, and he is not only unsupported, he is flat out wrong.

How so?

[XenoFish]

1 hour ago, Illyrius said:

If you don't see a point of this thread i suggest that you join discussion in "Is Elvis really dead?" I have a feeling it may be of more interest to you. What is the point of asking is there a point of the thread? And besides as far as i know you are a nihilist - so nothing makes any point to you anyway.

I honestly see no point in any of the threads you create. You've already decided what you believe and possess zero ability to discuss anything outside of your own paradigm. So the real question is "Why do you bother?". So how many more threads are you and your little collective going to get locked? Ever since you showed up I have seem more threads in this section locked than ever before. So yeah, this'll be my last post in this thread, but you should really reconsider the point and purpose behind your actions and save other the frustration of dealing with you. 

[Crazy Horse]

6 minutes ago, MauriOra said:

Atamarie Sir.. xx

I Agree with Our Learned Friend..

This is Beautiful..!!! And You maybe more of an "EXPERT" then you Realise..

Never Doubt Yourself.. Doubt is a Killer to Your Inherent Powers Within and Without of You..

We Must Trust In Our Self and Question Everything.... Always..!!!!

I Hope You Are Well My Friend..xx

Peace to you and yours.. xx

MauriOra.. xx

Wow, lifes great MO, thanks for asking..xxx

 

 

 

 

 

[khol]

5 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Obviously you have never read or listened to Lawrence Krauss, Brian Greene or Sean Carroll. 

No.

Why not Argon?  Latching on to something without fully researching both sides makes no sense . Its a disservice to yourself.Also you make references to QM yet have never read or listened to any of the leading researchers. You have no basis for what your asking

[Illyrius]

3 minutes ago, khol said:

Why not Argon?  Latching on to something without fully researching both sides makes no sense .

Have you researched every single book that exists on this planet which as a subject has quantum physics or mysticism?

Edited February 6, 2018 by Illyrius

[khol]

7 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

Have you researched every single book that exists on this planet which as a subject has quantum physics or mysticism?

I can safely say no on that. What are there a kazillion publications ?  Ive tried to focus on research by people at the forefront of there fields as a way to help filter out all the nonsense out there

[Kismit]

7 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

Have you researched every single book that exists on this planet which as a subject has quantum physics or mysticism?

Have you?

Let's try to keep the sensless and antagonistic comments to a minimum. Or preferably not at all.

It is perfectly reasonable that a sugestion be made to enquire into your own subject more thoroughly.

No one can argue effectively from a point of ignorance. Ignorance being a lack of knowledge. 

Unfortunately you have chosen to argue a topic several members are knowledgable on so it is a good thing and a positive thing for you to read up on the science of quantum as well as the mysticsm.

Maybe you can really rectify the two. No one can consolidate the two without a true understanding of both.

[eight bits]

psyche

Quote

I think you are overreacting terribly.  

Report the post if you have a problem with it. Regardless, your opinion of me or of my judgment is not the topic.

Quote

if I read your links right it was probably translated by  staff member at the Guardian,

Probably not. The auction house has acknowledged translating the letter. The Guardian ran more of the letter than the auction house included in its catalog, but the agreement where the two overlap is verbatim.

Most likely, then, the auction house translated the whole letter in-house, used a portion of its translation in its catalog, and furnished the rest in a press kit. The Guardian then ran the parts it wanted to, attributing them in an odd way (which is a separate issue, and off-topic in this thread).

So far as I am aware, at no time has the Guardian ever claimed that any part of the translation was its own work.

Quote

but hardly changes the general outlook expressed.

Well, for one thing, even as truncated as it is, the second version shows that the money sentence has been cherry-picked to make it sound as if Einstein was writing about God, when in fact he was writing about his reaction to how one particular author (Gutkind) used religious words like God and Bible in a specific book. Gutkind's God has one set of properties; Spinoza's God has other properties, and doubtless other people's God would have still other properties.

That's a big change in the "general outlook," what the guy was actually writing about.

There's also a bit more to the dispute than that one sentence.

Quote

I don't think it changes that Einstein saw Christianity as rather silly,

He was writing about a Jewish author's book on Jewish issues. Even in the cherry-picked version, Bible is the Jewish Bible.

Quote

and preferred the idea of Spinozas God, which is the point I was making.

Then why did you link to an atheist activist's disinformation piece? It is completely uncontroversial that Einstein was an admirer of Spinoza, and there's nothing in the letter about Spinoza's God, except that determinism can have no exceptions in Spinoza's view.. which was not the point you were making.

[Illyrius]

1 minute ago, Kismit said:

Have you?

Let's try to keep the sensless and antagonistic comments to a minimum. Or preferably not at all.

It is perfectly reasonable that a sugestion be made to enquire into your own subject more thoroughly.

No one can argue effectively from a point of ignorance. Ignorance being a lack of knowledge. 

Unfortunately you have chosen to argue a topic several members are knowledgable on so it is a good thing and a positive thing for you to read up on the science of quantum as well as the mysticsm.

Maybe you can really rectify the two. No one can consolidate the two without a true understanding of both.

First of all, i am being questioned for not reading certain books as an argument for my irrelevance in discussion to this topic. Does that make any sense in regard how many books there are in the whole world? Now lets say i have read 0 books on subject of quantum physics and read only a few articles and found a connection in this articles with things i know from various books on subjects of mysticism... Would that make me irrelevant for discussion?

[Kismit]

1 minute ago, Illyrius said:

First of all, i am being questioned for not reading certain books as an argument for my irrelevance in discussion to this topic. Does that make any sense in regard how many books there are in the whole world? Now lets say i have read 0 books on subject of quantum physics and read only a few articles and found a connection in this articles with things i know from various books on subjects of mysticism... Would that make me irrelevant for discussion?

You where asked why you had not read up on the leading researches in a field you are claiming to have superior knowledge in. That is a reasonable question

What is not a reasonable response is

Quote

Have you researched every single book that exists on this planet which as a subject has quantum physics or mysticism?

That is not a helpful or positive line of enquiry.

It is pure antagonism. And I am well and trully over having to police threads laden with childish retorts.

So discuss the topic like an adult or it will be shut down too.