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

psyche101
32 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

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

In other words, do you deny spirit?

 

 

By spirit I am assuming you mean some energy form of ourselves that survives death, so I gather from your posting. If that is the case then... 

Yes entirely, the information we have gathered on the subject does not support a spirit. We understand the energy that our bodies run on, how it is generated and we know what happens to it when we die. The complexity of the human brain just has no viable mechanism to sustain such intracacy upon the point of death. Probability wise, surviving death is highly unlikely. We have more neural connections than stars you can see. 

I looked into the whole idea quite deeply when my father passed. My mother and sisters were deeply influenced by such superstitions so I was no stranger and gave the idea the benefit of the doubt. A great deal of research resulted in knowing that there is no good reason to consider the afterlife as valid, with roots in ancient human philosophies and scare tactics used to scare people into following and believing them. 

Simply put, better information exists that dispels these ancient myths. They were our first guesses at trying to understand the universe around us. With this and a of years of information and great minds studying the problem, I feel all that information from the shoulders of giants is going to be far more accurate than an ancient story that gives comfort and nothing else. 

Why do you feel it's valid Will? Is there information your holding out on or does the idea simply appeal to you a great deal? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

 

Then I'll claim the truth.

 

 

 

15 minutes ago, Hre2breal said:

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

On a forum, in the section Skepticism versus Belief, facts are what establish credibility. 

 

 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 4

Share this post


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

 

Then I'll claim the truth.

 

 

But this is a discussion forum, if claiming the truth you should support that in any way you can. To tell others to simply take your word is the wrong way to go about it altogether. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
1 hour 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.

Do you not claim the afterlife and spirits are reality or am I just assuming that? 

Share this post


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

By spirit I am assuming you mean some energy form of ourselves that survives death, so I gather from your posting. If that is the case then... 

Yes entirely, the information we have gathered on the subject does not support a spirit. We understand the energy that our bodies run on, how it is generated and we know what happens to it when we die. The complexity of the human brain just has no viable mechanism to sustain such intracacy upon the point of death. Probability wise, surviving death is highly unlikely. We have more neural connections than stars you can see. 

I looked into the whole idea quite deeply when my father passed. My mother and sisters were deeply influenced by such superstitions so I was no stranger and gave the idea the benefit of the doubt. A great deal of research resulted in knowing that there is no good reason to consider the afterlife as valid, with roots in ancient human philosophies and scare tactics used to scare people into following and believing them. 

Simply put, better information exists that dispels these ancient myths. They were our first guesses at trying to understand the universe around us. With this and a of years of information and great minds studying the problem, I feel all that information from the shoulders of giants is going to be far more accurate than an ancient story that gives comfort and nothing else. 

Why do you feel it's valid Will? Is there information your holding out on or does the idea simply appeal to you a great deal? 

 

Thanks for the feedback about the afterlife psyche, but what I had in mind was how spirit functions in this life, now.

Like the spirit of a situation, or the spirit of understanding. Spirit overlays the brain, by way of the spiritual receptors of the human mind.

Do you also deny the spirit functions of mind?

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hre2breal
4 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

 

On a forum, in the section Skepticism versus Belief, facts are what establish credibility. 

 

 

Oh ok is that your opinion or is that the actual truth that can be supported by facts ie...Links or evidence....

See where Im going with this you gave me the perfect example to explain what I was meaning...

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Illyrius
Just now, psyche101 said:

Do you not claim the afterlife and spirits are reality or am I just assuming that? 

Is strong belief a sort of claim of "superior knowledge"? I think not. It is just a personal position one holds in life, in my case a strong personal belief. I don't KNOW it, but i certainly strongly believe in it. There are people who claim they know spirits and are sure of afterlife. Personally, i am only a strong believer. So i don't claim that sort of knowledge.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Do you not claim the afterlife and spirits are reality or am I just assuming that? 

 

An honest question psyche.

I know you claim there isn't any proof of an afterlife. 

But tell us the truth. Do you want there to be an afterlife?

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
26 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

But this is a discussion forum, if claiming the truth you should support that in any way you can. To tell others to simply take your word is the wrong way to go about it altogether. 

Indeed, because by giving facts one is showing the reason by which they have arrived at the conclusion. 

It is in this we further dialogues, we create bridges to understanding, we go along way in minimizing conflict. 

To insist one should just take ones word is to encourage gullibility and exploitation. 

 Put up the facts and let the person conclude from there, the merit of the evidence matters too, it must be sound, 

 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits

psyche

Quote

You seem to hate atheists and despise Richard Dawkins or anyone who finds his work valuable.

My opinion of Dawkins, of atheists, your guesses about what those opinions are, how many people share your guesses, ... none of these are on-topic.

Quote

...Guardian translation...

So called not because the Guardian wrote it, but because it published it, and other media outlets picked it up from the Guardian. Ironically, the German press generally did not run the original letter text, but rather retranslated the Guardian English version back into German. An exception was Die Welt (Berlin), which while it did use the Guardian for much of the text they quoted, dug out the original German for some of the hotter passages (presumably from the auction house's low-res pictures of the letter).

Quote

Is the god a different one?

Yes. Einstein plainly doesn't see Spinoza's God, or his own, as identical with Gutkind's God.

Quote

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.

The letter is a thank you note to Gutkind for the loan of a copy of his book. The book is very specifically about how Gutkind interprets portions of the Jewish Bible.

Einstein imagined that religion could progress and mature. Gutkind's ideas were just the sort of thing that Einstein hoped that religion would progress and mature away from.

Finally, thank you for clarifying how linking to Dawkins' inaccurate description of a letter which barely mentions Spinoza helped the other poster to gain a better understanding of Spinoza's views on God.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

 

Thanks for the feedback about the afterlife psyche, but what I had in mind was how spirit functions in this life, now.

Like the spirit of a situation, or the spirit of understanding. Spirit overlays the brain, by way of the spiritual receptors of the human mind.

Do you also deny the spirit functions of mind?

 

 

I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Richard Dawkins once described his spirituality as 'a swelling of the breast' when he gazes at a supanova and I feel a spirit describes a person, like a meek or strong nature. 

Do you mean something like that? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
26 minutes ago, Hre2breal said:

Oh ok is that your opinion or is that the actual truth that can be supported by facts ie...Links or evidence....

See where Im going with this you gave me the perfect example to explain what I was meaning...

 
Hertbereal, Kismet the moderater has established the guidelines, if you want to argue with her be my guest,
 

"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" ( Kismet). 

On a personal note, for me, I do not except any claims online without the facts. 

 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 4

Share this post


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

Is strong belief a sort of claim of "superior knowledge"? I think not. It is just a personal position one holds in life, in my case a strong personal belief. I don't KNOW it, but i certainly strongly believe in it. There are people who claim they know spirits and are sure of afterlife. Personally, i am only a strong believer. So i don't claim that sort of knowledge.

You certainly word your posts as if fact but thanks for clearing your position up, I don't think I'm the only one who finds your wording ambiguous. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


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

 

An honest question psyche.

I know you claim there isn't any proof of an afterlife. 

But tell us the truth. Do you want there to be an afterlife?

 

 

Of course, who wouldn't? To see my father again, my best friend, pets, yes it would be awesome. That's why I looked into it so heavily when my father passed. The only thing I found to be supported properly was physics, which illustrates the afterlife to be a fantasy. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
6 minutes ago, eight bits said:

psyche

My opinion of Dawkins, of atheists, your guesses about what those opinions are, how many people share your guesses, ... none of these are on-topic.

So called not because the Guardian wrote it, but because it published it, and other media outlets picked it up from the Guardian. Ironically, the German press generally did not run the original letter text, but rather retranslated the Guardian English version back into German. An exception was Die Welt (Berlin), which while it did use the Guardian for much of the text they quoted, dug out the original German for some of the hotter passages (presumably from the auction house's low-res pictures of the letter).

Yes. Einstein plainly doesn't see Spinoza's God, or his own, as identical with Gutkind's God.

The letter is a thank you note to Gutkind for the loan of a copy of his book. The book is very specifically about how Gutkind interprets portions of the Jewish Bible.

Einstein imagined that religion could progress and mature. Gutkind's ideas were just the sort of thing that Einstein hoped that religion would progress and mature away from.

Finally, thank you for clarifying how linking to Dawkins' inaccurate description of a letter which barely mentions Spinoza helped the other poster to gain a better understanding of Spinoza's views on God.

What an outstanding example of argumentation between you and Psyche, 

You used sound facts to support your counter and Psyche stood corrected. 

No conflict, no hard feelings, just two intelligent men furthering the dialogue.

And, one happy lady who learned a lot due to both your efforts. 

Thank you.

Paul, I miss you around here, I hope you come on more. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

Indeed, because by giving facts one is showing the reason by which they have arrived at the conclusion. 

It is in this we further dialogues, we create bridges to understanding, we go Lao g way in minimizing conflict. 

To insist one should just take ones word is to encourage gullibility and exploitation. 

 Put up the facts and let the person conclude from there, the merit of the evidence matters too, it must be sound, 

 

Well said Sheri, if a claim is made it should be supported to the best of the posters ability. 

All these people claiming 'to know' and insist they have answers that must be correct I feel only illustrates their desires. 

Always good to hear your views :) I envy your rationale and approach. 

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
5 hours 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?

:)

Name these new discoveries.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
6 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Well said Sheri, if a claim is made it should be supported to the Hest if the posters ability. 

All these people claiming 'to know' and insist they have answers that must be correct I feel only illustrates their desires. 

Always good to hear your views :) I envy your rationale and approach. 

Thank you for your kind words.

I have great examples to aspire to, you, Eighty, Kis., AQ, Simply Bill, X, Will, Stubbs., Hammie, etc. etc. etc. 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DebDandelion
5 hours ago, psyche101 said:

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. 

U actually explained that so that it even made sense to me

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

psyche

My opinion of Dawkins, of atheists, your guesses about what those opinions are, how many people share your guesses, ... none of these are on-topic.

Indeed neither are your comments about reporting you which I was responding to. 

Quote

So called not because the Guardian wrote it, but because it published it, and other media outlets picked it up from the Guardian. Ironically, the German press generally did not run the original letter text, but rather retranslated the Guardian English version back into German. An exception was Die Welt (Berlin), which while it did use the Guardian for much of the text they quoted, dug out the original German for some of the hotter passages (presumably from the auction house's low-res pictures of the letter).

I have no problem with that, thanks for the additional information, you can see how I came to that conclusion. 

Quote

Yes. Einstein plainly doesn't see Spinoza's God, or his own, as identical with Gutkind's God.

It was Gutkind's God I referred to, that's essentially Yaweh isn't it? 

Quote

The letter is a thank you note to Gutkind for the loan of a copy of his book. The book is very specifically about how Gutkind interprets portions of the Jewish Bible.

I think it illustrates also that Einstein saw the concept of a Yaweh type God is not viable, but probably just my personal interpretation of his letter. 

Quote

Einstein imagined that religion could progress and mature. Gutkind's ideas were just the sort of thing that Einstein hoped that religion would progress and mature away from.

I think many hope that and still do, religion could be respectable with some honesty behind it and moving forward as an organisation of hope and help as opposed to this deity nonsense. 

Quote

Finally, thank you for clarifying how linking to Dawkins' inaccurate description of a letter which barely mentions Spinoza helped the other poster to gain a better understanding of Spinoza's views on God.

Dawkins only used the translation being bandied about, it wasnt his fabrication but I agree that he could have been more attentive to fact checking in light of your further information, he does mention though that the translation he finds the overall message to be the same regardless of interpretation. 

I get the felling your being fecitious but all the same no worries I hope it prompted the poster to at least Google spinozas God and find Einsteins view spelled out there himself. 

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 3

Share this post


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

U actually explained that so that it even made sense to me

Thank you. I appreciate your comment. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hre2breal
18 minutes ago, Sherapy said:
 
Hertbereal, Kismet the moderater has established the guidelines, if you want to argue with her be my guest,
 

"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" ( Kismet). 

On a personal note, for me, I do not except any claims online without the facts. 

 

Firstly If I wanted to speak to Kismit or Kismet I would, seems like your clutching at straws now Sherapy..This is not her debate here.Name dropping wont get you anywhere with me im affraid...I think we understand each others view my friend pretty simple really...Truths are truths, Facts are facts...what you wana believe is entirely up to you..Individual choice like I said...Truths can be fabricated..Facts can be tainted...Ill leave it at that...

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Thank you for your kind words.

I have great examples to aspire to, you, Eighty, Kis., AQ, Simply Bill, X, Will, Stubbs., Hammie, etc. etc. etc. 

Thanks don't know all the names but as you know hammer and I had some heated discussions early in the piece, but I admire his conviction, his talent with words and I came away from those discussions respecting him a great deal. We don't have to agree, we just need to be honest about our approach and I find hammer to be honest and a good fellow. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DebDandelion
2 hours 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?

It doesn't make you irrelevant, but reading articles and finding a connection might be the fault of the writer. So you have to read comprehensive studies (or books by smart people) to support the connection you found.

You also have to be careful in which writings you found the connection, might not be credible material.

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Richard Dawkins once described his spirituality as 'a swelling of the breast' when he gazes at a supanova and I feel a spirit describes a person, like a meek or strong nature. 

Do you mean something like that? 

 

Well I was trying to make a distinction between spirituality and spirit itself.

In other words, what spirit is, as an influence that makes us lean towards the spiritual.

Spirit as it is primal.

 

Btw, my sympathies to you and your family for the loss of your father.

 

 

  • Like 3

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.