Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Illyrius

Quantum Mysticism - dawning of the New Age

1,182 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Illyrius
2 minutes ago, Kismit said:

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

Where exactly have i ever claimed i have any sort of superior knowledge in any field? Please quote me that passage or passages.

Edited by Illyrius
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
8 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

What am i making up exactly?

Most of your claims, one such specific claim is this:

The new discoveries in physics are in accordance to ancient spiritual systems and not to flawed-to-the core picture of mechanical atheistic universe. 

That is a personal view and simply made up with no basis in fact. 

8 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

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

Anything beyond a natural universe, particularly a conscious universe or spirits as remnants of physical consciousness beings or gods. 

8 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

No.

They are the best physicists on the planet and actually work with machines like the large hadron collier. 

If you have a genuine interest in learning more about QM, they are the 'go to guys' 

8 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

How so?

He is overreaching the data and making wild claims that are not supported by any source. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MauriOra
16 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

. So how many more threads are you and your little collective going to get locked? 

Atamarie Sir..

Hope you and yours are well..

Right xeno, 

This above,  I believe I am part of this " Little Collective" you indirectly speak of.. And since you have written these words ,I am well within my Right to Answer..this is also the 2nd time you've alluded to this Comment..

So, I will say this to you Directly, Respond or Not, that is your Will..

I kept my Cool in the Debate or Discussion last night ( it was night in NZ).. and I observed that Emotions were High, So that is also part of the Reason, it got "locked".. As you put it..!!! 

How did this " Little Collective" gain so much Power.? 

You Do realise, that this,  Little Collective , Doe's not have the Power, to Lock Anything, and that Decision lyes with Management..

It Was the Big Collective, meaning All Of Us That Were Participating..

I just wanted to clear that up Sir.. You have a Good Day or Night, wherever you are..

Mo..xx

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Illyrius
3 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

That is a personal view and simply made up with no basis in fact. 

So. On a basis on one questionable sentence you accuse me that i make stuff up. Are you even aware how many wild guesses and assumptions and even personal insults are there in your posts?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kismit
7 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

Where exactly have i ever claimed i have any sort of superior knowledge in any field? Please quote me that passage or passages.

By opening a topic about quantum physics and how that relates to mystiscm but by diminishing any scientific discussion on the topic as not relevant to your awareness. You put your awerness or knowledge above others.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Illyrius
Just now, Kismit said:

By opening a topic about quantum physics and how that relates to mystiscm but by diminishing any scientific discussion on the topic as not relevant to your awareness. You put your awerness or knowledge above others.

I am not deminishing any sort of scientic discussion. Everyone is free to write and discuss, myself included. I am here to discuss and i for a difference to others avoid to characterise somebody as "making stuff up" and various other similar accusations. And yet i am the one who is being targeted as "problematic"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kismit
1 minute ago, Illyrius said:

I am not deminishing any sort of scientic discussion. Everyone is free to write and discuss, myself included. I am here to discuss and i for a difference to others avoid to characterise somebody as "making stuff up" and various other similar accusations. And yet i am the one who is being targeted as "problematic"

If you wish to prove your statements are fact you need to present the evidence that supports it.

If someone makes a claim against it you can provide further evidence.

Until you evidence a claim it is only an unproven thought or idea. This is what making something up means. If it's true. Then please present the evidence to support the claim.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Illyrius
1 minute ago, Kismit said:

If you wish to prove your statements are fact you need to present the evidence that supports it.

If someone makes a claim against it you can provide further evidence.

Until you evidence a claim it is only an unproven thought or idea. This is what making something up means. If it's true. Then please present the evidence to support the claim.

OK. This is all correct. There is a whole topic opened for discussions about arguments that will or will not support this claim. I really don't understand why i am the one being criticised for not supporting claims. Take an example of poster named Psyche.. He makes so many assumpions which are completly unsupported. For example he says Deepak Chopra is irrelevent and wrong and makes only one obtuse sentence about it. So why exactly am i so disputed here? What's wrong?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kismit
1 minute ago, Illyrius said:

OK. This is all correct. There is a whole topic opened for discussions about arguments that will or will not support this claim. I really don't understand why i am the one being criticised for not supporting claims. Take an example of poster named Psyche.. He makes so many assumpions which are completly unsupported. For example he says Deepak Chopra is irrelevent and wrong and makes only one obtuse sentence about it. So why exactly am i so disputed here? What's wrong?

You will have to ask psche about that. But I pressume it is because the topic of Depak Chopra has been discussed many tumes before.

My current interest in you was the earlier unesicary retort. The rest has been you wanting me to justify my position..

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Illyrius
1 minute ago, Kismit said:

My current interest in you was the earlier unesicary retort. The rest has been you wanting me to justify my position..

Ok.. i just opened a topic and it is up to discussion. I made one unsupprted claim, and i hope that is not something terrible. I am interested what others have to say and this is not about me...

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due

 

Can't resist.

"The argumentative defense of any proposition is inversely proportional to the truth contained."

Peace

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
40 minutes ago, eight bits said:

psyche

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

You seem to hate atheists and despise Richard Dawkins or anyone who finds his work valuable. Quite frankly, I don't think I stand alone in that opinion. I don't think it's against the rules to hate someone with such passion, and the people who see his work as positive. Is it? 

And that's fine, I think Einstein was a brilliant man, but had poor morality. Each to their own there. 

40 minutes ago, eight bits said:

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.

This passage gave me the impression they had published their own version which translated as the auction house did:

 

As has been reported previously, there are difficulties with a widely used translation, an abridged version of which ran in the Guardian newspaper in May 2008, after quotes from it appeared in reporting by the Guardian‘s James Randerson. The shorter excerpts which had been printed in the Bloomsbury auction catalog agreed with the Guardian translation verbatim.

 

 

If I'm incorrect there, so be it. 

40 minutes ago, eight bits said:

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.

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

Is the god a different one? 

I would have thought the religion would not matter as the question related to the western popular monotheistic version regardless of the culture supporting it. 

40 minutes ago, eight bits said:

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.

Yes it was my own words that noted spinozas God specifically, I made direct reference. I linked to Dawkins page to illustrate the Einstein referred to spinozas God as a universe entity not the monotheistic representation adopted in the West. 

And in that regard I agree that with regards to traditional religions I think Einstein was more atheist than religious regarding how he discussed the universe in context. I agree with Dawkins that Einstein often used the word God in context which I think does apply to his religious outlook. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
44 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

So. On a basis on one questionable sentence you accuse me that i make stuff up.

Yes, you did exactly that. 

44 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

Are you even aware how many wild guesses and assumptions and even personal insults are there in your posts?

Please list them as they become apparent to you. If that really is the case then it should form part of the discussion I would think. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
30 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

OK. This is all correct. There is a whole topic opened for discussions about arguments that will or will not support this claim. I really don't understand why i am the one being criticised for not supporting claims. Take an example of poster named Psyche.. He makes so many assumpions which are completly unsupported. For example he says Deepak Chopra is irrelevent and wrong and makes only one obtuse sentence about it. So why exactly am i so disputed here? What's wrong?

Deepak Chopra is the most prominent person promoting what your thread title describes, a connection between QM and spirituality.

He attacks physicists often on twitter, and then gets his backside handed to him. He is a good example to show your title has been discussed amongst the public and in professional circles. That's what you wanted to know isn't it? Is it viable, what are others thoughts  well there is some pretty intense debate on  that very subject.  

If you want to know more about any comment I make, just ask. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Illyrius
15 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Please list them as they become apparent to you. If that really is the case then it should form part of the discussion I would think. 

Assumption on  a personal level : “I think you are overreacting terribly.“

Personal opinion: „They are the best physicists on the planet“

Personal opinion: „He is overreaching the data and making wild claims“

Explosive assumption on a personal level: „You seem to hate atheists and despise Richard Dawkins or anyone who finds his work valuable.“

Assumption on a personal level: „He is a good example to show your title has been discussed amongst the public and in professional circles. That's what you wanted to know isn't it?“

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
8 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Deepak Chopra is the most prominent person promoting what your thread title describes, a connection between QM and spirituality.

He attacks physicists often on twitter, and then gets his backside handed to him. He is a good example to show your title has been discussed amongst the public and in professional circles. That's what you wanted to know isn't it? Is it viable, what are others thoughts  well there is some pretty intense debate on  that very subject.  

If you want to know more about any comment I make, just ask. 

 

Do you dismiss all things that are a part of the spirit psyche?

In other words, do you deny spirit?

 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King

Even as a spiritualist myself, I avoid discussions of quantum mechanics, cause I feel that 1: It's too complicated for the average person to rightly understand or discuss (kind like a bunch of average joes sittin' around talkin' about rocket science), and 2: Uncertainty doesn't equal certainty, as most arguments in defense of it could easily fall into the 'god of the gaps' category.

Now, could there be something 'spiritual' about the nature of the quantum realm? Of course there could (I personally view all things as having spiritual aspects to it in some sense, but I digress). I just have a hard time seeing how arguments like this really help your cause. While it may be true, it's a rather weak argument to make in my view, so I typically try to avoid this kind of argument entirely.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
36 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Can't resist.

"The argumentative defense of any proposition is inversely proportional to the truth contained."

Peace

 

 

Will, this is not the way argumentation works, one makes a claim they support it, with facts, it is called giving the facts. 

And if one has none, they say they have nothing this is called establishing credibility.. 

 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
3 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

Assumption on  a personal level : “I think you are overreacting terribly.“

"I Think" means assumption doesn't it? 

3 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

Personal opinion: „They are the best physicists on the planet“

Not personal, they are the most prominent in their field they hold the best qualifications and awards, they don't let just any turkey at the wheel of the LHC

Please feel free to disprove that statement. 

Lawrence Maxwell Krauss is an American-Canadian theoretical physicist and cosmologist who is Foundation Professor of the School of Earth and Space Exploration at Arizona State University, and director of its Origins Project.

Sean Michael Carroll is a cosmologist and physics professor specializing in dark energy and general relativity. He is a research professor in the Department of Physics at the California Institute of Technology. 

Brian Randolph Greene is an American theoretical physicist, mathematician, and string theorist. He has been a professor at Columbia University since 1996 and chairman of the World Science Festival since co-founding it in 2008.

Who would you suggest is more qualified? 

3 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

Personal opinion: „He is overreaching the data and making wild claims“

Nope, proven by phycisists such as those cited above. Not opinion, fact. 

3 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

Explosive assumption on a personal level: „You seem to hate atheists and despise Richard Dawkins or anyone who finds his work valuable.“

Yes assumption, "you seem" I feel illustrates that perfectly. 

3 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

Assumption on a personal level: „He is a good example to show your title has been discussed amongst the public and in professional circles. That's what you wanted to know isn't it?“

You said and I quote 

 

Quote

The new discoveries in physics are in accordance to ancient spiritual systems and not to flawed-to-the core picture of mechanical atheistic universe.

 

That's not the case at all is it. 

 

Quote

Thoughts

There you go. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
6 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Will, this is not the way argumentation works, one makes a claim they support it, with facts, it is called giving the facts. 

And if one has none, they say they have nothing this is called establishing credibility.. 

 

 

What I quoted Sheri didn't use the word "facts" it used the word "truth."

Do you think truth is the same as fact?

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
1 minute ago, Will Due said:

 

What I quoted Sheri didn't use the word "facts" it used the word "truth."

Do you think truth is the same as fact?

 

 

Facts are what establish the veracity of a claim, Will.

Period. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
1 minute ago, Sherapy said:

Facts are what establish the veracity of a claim, Will.

 

 

Then I'll claim the truth.

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hre2breal
3 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

What I quoted Sheri didn't use the word "facts" it used the word "truth."

Do you think truth is the same as fact?

 

 

Establishing ones credibility is by telling the truth ...So thats a great point Will...

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due

 

I was just thinking:

 

Quantum mechanics is to spirit, as facts are to truth, as belief is to faith, and of course, feeling is to knowing.

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hre2breal

Ones truths can vary from one to another....

Ones facts can also vary from one source to another...

Very interesting concepts the both of them but to state or claim one proceeds the other is an individual opinion or belief...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.