Physics in training

[BlueTravesty]

saint. the author is ted dekker. another book of his, THR3E, was made into a movie that should hit theaters this year. another -house- is also theater bound.

as soon as you said "unorthodox Christian novel" and started talking about quantum physics, I knew it had to be Dekker

[cjurakpt]

Sifu John Takeshi once explained God to me in the only way that makes any sense:

"God is the peanut butter, and we are the jelly. If we put margarine on the bread before we apply the peanut butter, we cannot understand the glory of god. And if we apply the Jiffy to both pieces of bread, and then sandwich the jelly betwixt, we cannot maintain ourselves, and surely shall slip out onto the plate, discarded with the chaff. And lo, should we put both equal measures of peanut butter and jelly on each piece of bread, we shall reach a kind of equilibrium; and so is the glory of god comprehensible to mankind."

it's about as plausible as any of the other more well-known texts on the subject...

[Jeong]

I regularly get people asking me questions about how quantum mechanics work and does it 'allow' certain strange phenomenon and such (I'm a particle physicist; QM is what I do for a living). I have to admit I haven't really thought about the connection between qi and QM, but here's my two cents:

It's important to remember the first word of quantum mechanics: quantum. While yes, we believe the rules of QM do underly physical law, there is a reason that physics was done for over 2 centuries before any evidence for QM started popping up. The fact of the matter is that QM is extremely important at atomic scales (and sub-atomic too) but as you move up to scales of multiple and hundreds of atoms the weird effects that QM predicts that differ from classical physics become exponentially improbable. There is a reason for example that once you get the energy states of atoms & molecules from QM that's essentially all you need to do chemistry (based on the classical physics of thermodynamics mostly) and from there you can move up to biology where almost all trace of QM is gone. Most biological pathways and metabolic chains and such have no reference to anything related to QM (at least to my knowledge, I'm no biologist).

Secondly it's also important to remember that QM is just a scientific theory. While yes it does seem to work wonderfully well and explains data quite well, it is just a theory. There is no way to know whether the model of quantum mechanics is what is actually happening, or if it just happens to explain the data well. (Some might claim there is no difference, but I would claim they don't really understand physics then.) This being the case any extrapolation of QM too far from it's basic principles (to something like qi for example) is always questionable in it's validity.

Now that all being said I will say that I do think there is such a thing as qi, but I don't see it being rooted in QM. To me it seems far more likely to be based on much more normal things like the level of control we can have over different parts of our bodies in different mental states and such.

I'd love to address the God question, but I'm actually running late for church; lol. I guess that'll have to wait for another day.

[Mega-Foot]

Considering that Quantum Mechanics has predicted results to 99.9999999% accuracy, it is our most successful scientific notion yet. The mathematics are not a theory.

Explaining the math is where the theory begins, and truly takes on abstract proportions.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

We are inundated with beliefs, theories, notions, and the occasional lunatic.. but, we are gifted with simple common sense.. absorb the various descriptions of "how things are", then.. get still, and let your inherent common sense speak to you..

In my stillness i have come to believe that there is likely a force similar to Qi.. that force is the result of integrated energetic systems.. from the sub-particle level, to the active physical processes, to great cosmic processes.. it isn't particularly mystical, except to those marketing it as such for profit..

My desired goals are to live, love and laugh well, with gusto.. if this "Qi" cannot contribute to these goals, what use is it? From my perspective, it has contributed well in some ways, not so much in others.. from a MA perspective Qi has made some quantifiable contributions to my desired MA goals, and.. it has also shown itself to be contrary in some ways, too.. i rely on practical results, use what works, discard what doesn't.. i don't have all the answers, no one does..

I Live, and the first requisite of living is to be practical.. while mental masturbation may bring a certain satisfactory result, to be useful it must be applicable in the Art of Living..

Yes, particle physics indicates a model consistent with the notion of Qi as sometimes romantically discussed.. the question is, are we informed and evolved enough to apply that model to Living well?... identify your needs, identify the processes necessary to fulfill those needs, and see if Qi or Quantum Physics is applicable..

It is not he who has the most that is wealthy, it is he who needs the least..

Be well...

[Flying-Monkey]

I am reading a VERY unothodox christian novel currently. it is about a special forces soldier that was recruited to a black ops program. anyway, in the story, the man is told that the spaces between atoms are waves of energy. waves can be manipulated, particles cannot, which they explain to him is why many things considered preposterous by regular physics is feasible in quantum physics.

he runs with the idea and finds he is able to manipulate the temperature in his immediate vicinity and other things, like the flight path of a bullet. I know this isn't real, but quantum theory is. do you think it lends itself to proving the existence of qi?

on an interesting side note, I saw a quote by the founder of quantum theory stating something to the effect of all energy or matter that is created must be willed into existence by something else. so, can quantum theory explain god?

no. it doesn't explain it.

[Sang Feng Fan]

At best the idea of a quantum universe allows for all possibilities, at it's worst it lays more ground to the idea that time is an illusion.

Granted plenty of people, myself included, still embrace the idea of the older Newtonian notions.

[Shaolin Wookie]

At best the idea of a quantum universe allows for all possibilities, at it's worst it lays more ground to the idea that time is an illusion.

Granted plenty of people, myself included, still embrace the idea of the older Newtonian notions.

Well, I'm back. And just in time to save us from the spiritualization of subatomic scientific rambling.

It's a good thing that you still embrace the older Newtonian notions. Even though I love Niels Bohr and Heisenberg. Clauser pretty much proved John Bell (that the action of a subatomic particle here can cause an almost instantaneous reaction in a subatomic particle in Betelgeuse [which defies belief, since if nothing moves faster than the speed of light, how could the information travel so quickly?]), and Einstein created this whole dilemma, quite to his chagrin. He plotted a more accurate orbit for Mercury (which for 200 years or so confounded astronomers. The elliptical orbit seemed to drag too much at the suns perhelion, which Einstein explained using general relativity [how photons can lose energy clawing their way out of the sun's gravitational field, causing a redshift which makes the orbit look longer than it actually is---to put it in simplistic terms you might comprehend easily]). Nevertheless, even Einstein maintained the precept of classical physics--that there is a tangible real world behind the quantum curtain. Despite the fact Bohr whooped his ass in several debates saying that there wasn't (althought, the classicists would argue it was a stalemate). But the fact remains, he was debating einstien behind a lectern, so what the **** was the world in which he was living, despite his subatomic correctness? A classical one.

Still, the world functions in a classically continuous way on a macroscopic scale. The quantum mystery, on a human level, is ridiculous. At the most simplistic level of existence, billions upon billions of times smaller than the human scale, things act strangely. But as it goes with quantum physics, as that scale climbs up into order, order heaps upon itself more order to create a very Newtonian universe--the one we experience daily. By the time we reach the human scale, the world acts in a continuous manner. Debating the fundamental material existence of our computers, at this level, is pointless. You can reach out and touch it, or even sense it with your perhipheral senses. Hell, even a bat could verify the existence of your computer using sonar.

So, for the most part, quantum physics explains subatomic particle behavior, and nothing more. (Although I've always loved the fact that every 8 years all of the atoms in my body will have passed out into the world and been replaced by entirely new atoms from other sources, creating a kind of matter exchange between all sentient beings and insentient things). More than anything, quantum physics, when used theologically, disproves God. John Wheeler once described this universe as a Higgeldy-Piggeldy universe, where things are absolutely absurd and ridiculous. This doesn't sound like anything an Alpha and Omega would create--especially the Judaic Am I?.....er, I mean....I AM. If you want to talk proving gods, you'd have more luck with Loki--a deceptive trickster.


We've all see fantastical qi demos put forward by qigong showmen, but none of us see anything divine in those. They're mere quackery. "Alternative medicine" such as acupuncture and the lot--they're called alternative for a reason. It's PC keywords, nothing more. "Alternative medicine" means "non-medical medicine." Snake-oil and Bumbaklat. "But wait!" You say. "I've seen chi at work when my tai chi teacher pushes me super far and exercises breath control!" Sorry, says I. It's just body mechanics and breath control. When I see a bodybuilder press a **** truck, I don't say: "Wow, that blighter's got mad chi!" I say: "Dude is strong!" He exercises breath control and dynamic tension. It isn't chi, unless you're a down-to-earth guy like myself and don't think chi is anything more than dynamic tension and breath control, used to help the body move more efficiently in exercise. But as for moving chi and holding it in certain areas, I'm going to have to let you guys puff and pass. I just say no to duds. You can will yourself to believe just about anything if you put your mind to it (or, in cases of persons like myself, take our minds away from it). Hell, just look at Scientology (man, I hate those bastaretards).

The fundamental (loses its meaning in this context) nature of an atom is in duality. It acts as a particle and a wave (complementarity). This does nothing to explain God.

One such ontological argument might go something like this:

1. A God is something that exists, is the predicate of all values, and creates or wills all things into existence.

2. Atoms exist.

3. Atoms act as particles.

4. Atoms act as waves.

5. Atoms act as particles and waves at the same time, but you can only measure one or the other at any moment, and hte measurement of momentum means that you cannot, under any circumstances, measure teh location of that atom at that time due to the complementary relation of its manifestation.

6. God created atoms.

7. God is the predicated value of all things he creates.

8. Atoms are unpredictable.

9. The predicate of unpredictable is incomprehesible.

10. God is incomprehensible.

11. We are attempting to comprehend god in this argument.

12. God cannot be comprehended at all, under any circumstances, especially this onotological argument.

13. Therefore, God cannot be known or comprehended.

14. But God created atoms and atoms exist.

15. Atoms exist, but exist in duality.

16. The nature of atoms before measurement is in a kind of unpredictable duality (as particle and wave), and therefore doesn't exist with any certainty (per Schrodinger).

17. God created atoms, which don't exist with any certainty until measured.

18. God creates things which must be measured in order to exist.

19. Humans measure these things.

20. God creates things which must be measured by humans or other sentient creatures (perhaps even protozoa) in order to be said to exist.

21. Humans are integral to the measurement of god's works.

22. God does not exist without outside verification. And even with verification, he is incomprehensible. He has become subject to an outside force. He has thereby lost his power over all things, including logic and this ontological argument.

23. Humans cannot comprehend the god they verify through the measurement of god's works, which negates the fact that they are god's works without a hefty dosage of unwarranted and gross presumption.

24. God cannot exist. And any god we can comprehend is surely a figment of our wishfully thinking imaginations.



Hmm.......

For those of you puffing, don't break the cypha!

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi Shaolin Wookie,

Thank you for saving us from the spiritualization of quantum physics, but who will save us from you?

Your comments concerning God are senseless. You presume to criticize others while understanding very little of that which you criticize. Your ontological argument is no argument, it is non-sense. Stick to your knowledge base, which apparently may be physics or some other science, and leave spiritual things to those who study them.

I am not commenting here concerning physics. That is apparently your purview. However, you have made a few presumptions about God/The Absolute that demonstrate a lack of knowledge of the subject. It is understandable because you have taken the popular culturally based views and assumed them rather than thoroughly investigated the subject.

Concerning your ontological argument:

7. God is the predicated value of all things he creates.

8. Atoms are unpredictable.

9. The predicate of unpredictable is incomprehensible.

10. God is incomprehensible.

You assume that God cannot be comprehended because the behavior of atoms cannot be predicted? This is a leap of fantasy! The primary flaw here is rather basic, but may not appear obvious to those not schooled in the subject.

First, just because an atom’s behavior “at this time” cannot be “rationally” predicted/comprehended does not mean it is “forever” unpredictable/incomprehensible. Only that, “at this time” to the scientific community it is “rationally” unpredictable/incomprehensible. At one time aerodynamics was not understood, but now it is. At one time gravity was not understood, but now it is. At one time micro-organisms were unknown and the cause of sickness was attributed to evil spirits. Now we understand that these micro-organisms play a role in illness as well as evil spirits. Here we must understand that the “evil spirits” are unhealthy mental attitudes that contribute to a weakened immune system thus giving the opportunity for micro-organisms to multiply to the level of dis-ease.

Secondly, to understand the “Creator” is not predicated upon understanding the “Created”, you have this backwards. Understanding the “Created” is predicated upon understanding the “Creator”.

Understanding/comprehension, in the scientific sense, is founded upon reason. Your argument states, “God is the predicated value of all things”. Therefore, God is a predicated value of reason/logic. This means that reason/logic is a subset of a quality of God. Since reason/logic is a subset of God, God supercedes reason; “supercedes” means: “to be placed in a higher position”. This means that God is BEYOND reason and therefore God cannot be comprehensively understood using reason; one cannot demonstrate God completely or describe God completely using reason. To understand/comprehend God, God must be directly experienced. To try to use reason/logic to understand/comprehend what is beyond rational comprehension is foolishness. There are many phenomena that are beyond rational comprehension/demonstration. These phenomena are accepted as real even though they may not be measured accurately using the scientific method.

There is a form of understanding that is not rationally based. It is so common to our experience that we do not consider it. We take it for granted and therefore do not recognize it. It is the understanding of direct experience. Direct experience of phenomena cannot be accurately measured as physical matter and physical phenomena may be measured. It is tangentially measured through reports of those who have had the experience previously. In some cases the effects of the experience may be measured, however the measurement of effects are NOT the experience itself and therefore do not PROVE the experience; they merely indicate it may have occurred.

For example, happiness is an experience that exists. I may state I am happy, but you will only understand what I mean because you have experienced happiness yourself. If you had never experienced happiness you would have no idea what I mean. To you happiness would not exist because you have no knowledge of it directly. If you never have the experience of happiness it will never exist for you. The fact that it never exists for you does not demonstrate it is not a “REAL” experience, only that you are incapable of experiencing it.

If I state to you that my happiness on a scale of 1 to 10 is 9, I cannot prove to you that my happiness is in fact a 9 because the scale has no inherent meaning and you are unable to experience what I experience. You cannot KNOW “rationally/logically” how I really feel even if you have experienced happiness because I cannot PROVE to you just how happy I am. You may only accept or disregard my statement of fact. Your acceptance or disregard of my experience does not negate my experience in anyway. It merely reflects your state of belief. I may only communicate what the feeling is LIKE and you must take my word for it. My description of my state of happiness will only have meaning to one who has been happy, but it still does not PROVE what I am feeling is happiness. You must take my word for it as you contrast my description with your own experience. The fact I cannot PROVE to you my happiness is a 9 on a scale of 1-10 does not demonstrate I am not that happy either.

Happiness is a condition of being. It cannot be PROVEN to another and no one will understand this condition of being who has not had the direct experience themselves. The fact it cannot be proven does NOT demonstrate happiness does not exist. It is proven by the direct experience of it. God is a condition of being that supercedes reason and logic. The fact that God cannot be proven in a scientific sense does not demonstrate God does not exist only the limitations of science.

[SevenStar]

as soon as you said "unorthodox Christian novel" and started talking about quantum physics, I knew it had to be Dekker

I'm glad I stumbled on that book - he's a great writer.

[SevenStar]

Hi Shaolin Wookie,

Thank you for saving us from the spiritualization of quantum physics, but who will save us from you?

Your comments concerning God are senseless. You presume to criticize others while understanding very little of that which you criticize. Your ontological argument is no argument, it is non-sense. Stick to your knowledge base, which apparently may be physics or some other science, and leave spiritual things to those who study them.

I am not commenting here concerning physics. That is apparently your purview. However, you have made a few presumptions about God/The Absolute that demonstrate a lack of knowledge of the subject. It is understandable because you have taken the popular culturally based views and assumed them rather than thoroughly investigated the subject.

Concerning your ontological argument:

7. God is the predicated value of all things he creates.

8. Atoms are unpredictable.

9. The predicate of unpredictable is incomprehensible.

10. God is incomprehensible.

You assume that God cannot be comprehended because the behavior of atoms cannot be predicted? This is a leap of fantasy! The primary flaw here is rather basic, but may not appear obvious to those not schooled in the subject.

First, just because an atom’s behavior “at this time” cannot be “rationally” predicted/comprehended does not mean it is “forever” unpredictable/incomprehensible. Only that, “at this time” to the scientific community it is “rationally” unpredictable/incomprehensible. At one time aerodynamics was not understood, but now it is. At one time gravity was not understood, but now it is. At one time micro-organisms were unknown and the cause of sickness was attributed to evil spirits. Now we understand that these micro-organisms play a role in illness as well as evil spirits. Here we must understand that the “evil spirits” are unhealthy mental attitudes that contribute to a weakened immune system thus giving the opportunity for micro-organisms to multiply to the level of dis-ease.

Secondly, to understand the “Creator” is not predicated upon understanding the “Created”, you have this backwards. Understanding the “Created” is predicated upon understanding the “Creator”.

Understanding/comprehension, in the scientific sense, is founded upon reason. Your argument states, “God is the predicated value of all things”. Therefore, God is a predicated value of reason/logic. This means that reason/logic is a subset of a quality of God. Since reason/logic is a subset of God, God supercedes reason; “supercedes” means: “to be placed in a higher position”. This means that God is BEYOND reason and therefore God cannot be comprehensively understood using reason; one cannot demonstrate God completely or describe God completely using reason. To understand/comprehend God, God must be directly experienced. To try to use reason/logic to understand/comprehend what is beyond rational comprehension is foolishness. There are many phenomena that are beyond rational comprehension/demonstration. These phenomena are accepted as real even though they may not be measured accurately using the scientific method.

There is a form of understanding that is not rationally based. It is so common to our experience that we do not consider it. We take it for granted and therefore do not recognize it. It is the understanding of direct experience. Direct experience of phenomena cannot be accurately measured as physical matter and physical phenomena may be measured. It is tangentially measured through reports of those who have had the experience previously. In some cases the effects of the experience may be measured, however the measurement of effects are NOT the experience itself and therefore do not PROVE the experience; they merely indicate it may have occurred.

For example, happiness is an experience that exists. I may state I am happy, but you will only understand what I mean because you have experienced happiness yourself. If you had never experienced happiness you would have no idea what I mean. To you happiness would not exist because you have no knowledge of it directly. If you never have the experience of happiness it will never exist for you. The fact that it never exists for you does not demonstrate it is not a “REAL” experience, only that you are incapable of experiencing it.

If I state to you that my happiness on a scale of 1 to 10 is 9, I cannot prove to you that my happiness is in fact a 9 because the scale has no inherent meaning and you are unable to experience what I experience. You cannot KNOW “rationally/logically” how I really feel even if you have experienced happiness because I cannot PROVE to you just how happy I am. You may only accept or disregard my statement of fact. Your acceptance or disregard of my experience does not negate my experience in anyway. It merely reflects your state of belief. I may only communicate what the feeling is LIKE and you must take my word for it. My description of my state of happiness will only have meaning to one who has been happy, but it still does not PROVE what I am feeling is happiness. You must take my word for it as you contrast my description with your own experience. The fact I cannot PROVE to you my happiness is a 9 on a scale of 1-10 does not demonstrate I am not that happy either.

Happiness is a condition of being. It cannot be PROVEN to another and no one will understand this condition of being who has not had the direct experience themselves. The fact it cannot be proven does NOT demonstrate happiness does not exist. It is proven by the direct experience of it. God is a condition of being that supercedes reason and logic. The fact that God cannot be proven in a scientific sense does not demonstrate God does not exist only the limitations of science.

as you said, you have to experience something in order to relate to someone else's experience of it. You can say god is real; you can say you have expereinced god. But how do you know that is what you experienced? As he is not somewhere we can see and touch him, you really have no idea what you experienced. you only know that others may have had that experience, and like you, they BELIEVE it was god. that is a faith issue. there is no way to prove whether he exists or not; you simply choose to believe that he does.

[Becca]

oooh. qi is only used to explain many things.

and so is god?!

Good point. Even an Atheist believes in something.




For my two cents:

I believe Qi is an abstract consept. How does a bee know the difference between the smoke from a BBQ grill and a real fire, but doesn't know when it's a smoke can? How can a dog know the difference between his master's blood pressure spiking due to stress vs due to stroke? I don't know. But the consept that we, all things both sentiant or not, alive or not, are interconected by a currently undefine energy does seem to make sence. Calling it Qi is fine by me.

I'm not going to annoy anyone by stating mu oppinions on religion at this time, though.

[cjurakpt]

as I've argued elsewhere, i believe that, based on my personal study of the topic through books and direct experience, that "qi" is a metaphorical descriptor of the net effect of functional interelationships that exist in the human organism and in the environement within which it operates (the universe); it is not a separate thing that can be measured per se, although aspects of it - heat, electromagnetic force, kinetic energy, etc. - are all things that occur naturally in the human body and in the world around it, and so their function is contained within the descriptor called "qi"

that said, combining "qi" with contemporary scientific principles doesn't make that much sense - they function off of different assumptions, so while they might seem similar at the end, the way in which they arrived there, the processes that underly them are very different both in terms of inception and method

first, as some here have pointed out, if you really understand the roll of quantum physics, you know that at the macro level Newton holds sway - what happens at very small levels happens due to the inherent uniformity at that level so the laws governing it are possible, where as at this level of order and differentiation, you need other types of laws for that structure to hold; that, or you would need tremendous amounts of very discreetly contained energy to allow quantum mechanics to work at a macro level without the macro level falling apart...

so "qi" not being a thing per se, is essentially a subjective experience: I look at someone and tell you about the state of their "qi" based on my experience - there are no norm-referenced tables that rate "qi"; because it is subjective, it does not fall into the range of scientific experimentation and theory, which is what underlies quantum theory; hence, changes to quantum theory occur for very different reasons than my personal subjective sense of "qi"; neither is better than the other necessarily, BTW, but they are different

as for God - this is also a metaphorical construct - the easiest way to explain that is the unbelieveable amount of philosophical / religious writing arguing for God's existence despite the fact that no direct evidence of God's existence can be proven using any aspect of inherent human sensorial capacity: you can't see, smell, touch, hear, even think God - God, by definition, is beyond human comprehension - (yet somehow God's hand works it's way into every aspect of daily life...?); anyway, obviously I espouse an atheistic belief - but this is based on empircal observation, as opposed to a leap of faith (you wouldn't buy a car from me based on that, but you want me to dedicate my life to something based on that? okay...); quantum physics, like atheism, is based on direct observation, predictive theorizing, testing and rejecting / refomulation of hypotheses, etc.; God is based on faith, because there is no amount of logical cause and effect argument that can prove God's existence (if there were, then that would unermine the proposed inherent nature of God as being beyond human reason, which is, after all, the basis for logic; saying it doesn't disprove God doesn't get much traction either - you could say that a Vernicious Knid lives in Oompa Loompa land and I couldn't disprove that either, but you are the one posing it, so burden of proof and all that...)

[Becca]

rrotflmao! You gotta love those threads that manage to combine God, Chi and Vernicious Knids all into one rolling ball of... fluff.

[Scott R. Brown]

The superficial socially based constructions of religions are based upon faith, for those who have directly experienced God it is not a matter of faith it is a matter of direct experience.

We must remember that, for the most part, our ideas of God are taught to us and tend towards historical and cultural biases that vary from inaccurate to incomplete. Some religions have a large socially based component; they are designed to control and direct social behaviors. These religions may fairly be called faith based. You trust an assumed authority and therefore have faith in his/its judgment. There is little direct experience of the Absolute found in these religions.

There are those throughout history that have sought to directly experience a phenomena that has been termed Tao, Buddha Nature, God, etc. These individuals are commonly called mystics. Mystics are found in nearly every religion and are a minority. They commonly participate on the outer fringes of the religion because they have understanding that transcends the socially based traditions of the religion. Mystics are individuals that seek to directly experience the Absolute. The reports of mystics concerning their experience tend towards similar descriptions. To be sure there are some differences in the descriptions; however these may be attributed to the historical and cultural environment in which the individual lives as well as individual personality, education and ability to communicate experiences that are, by their nature, beyond description. Experiences of the transcendent must be filtered through the individual’s personality and because the experiences are indescribable the best anyone can do is describe what the experience is LIKE, not what it IS! Descriptions are, at best, a finger pointing to the experience and not the experience itself. The experience must be directly apprehended. An individual artistically oriented may describe his experience through poetry or painting, whatever his media of expression, whereas an intellectually oriented individual may communicate the experience more philosophically. Regardless, there are consistent themes to the descriptions of the direct experience that will allow other individual’s to recognize the experience when they have it for themselves. Faith, for the mystic, is not the blind following of an authority; it is similar to a traveler who trusts a map to lead him to his destination. The goal is to have the direct experience, not to fit into a narrow social construction that many religions encourage.

The concern that mystical writings may not contain objective reporting fails to take into account that there is inherently no such thing as true objectivity. Those who consider themselves objective only fool themselves into thinking they are objective and this demonstrates how they are affected by their own subjectivity. All information is filtered through the mind/personality which interprets information according to preconditioned criteria. Preconditioned criteria are the attitudes and beliefs an individual possesses including trust in one’s objectivity. An objectively trained scientist is just as subject to biases as an individual not trained in objectivity. Even the idea that objectivity is preferable to subjective interpretation is a subjective determination. As humans we are ruled by our subjectivity. To be sure we create criteria designed to limit subjectivity as much as possible, however the criterion are devised according to principles that are subjectively influence and are thus prone to inaccuracies.

One of the methods we use to try to limit inaccurate subjective influence is the repeatable process. A phenomena/process must be repeatable according to a specific context providing similar results to be considered a fact/truth of reality. With the observational sciences, such as the behavioral sciences, observation is the primary source of information. All observation is subjectively influenced. Which characteristics of a phenomenon we notice and what we communicate concerning it are affected by our subjective conditioning. Even individuals trained in objective observation report different information because of their subjective influences.

Effects are observed according to a specific context. When similar effects occur according to that context conclusions are drawn that describe a cause and effect relationship. Mystics report similar experiences with variations in their reporting attributable to cultural/historical influences and the individual’s ability to accurately communicate the experience. These variations may be effectively sifted through by those with direct knowledge and experience with the subject. The experiences reported by mystics occur according a specific context. When the context is understood the information may considered an accurate description of transcendental reality/God/Tao/Buddha Nature, but this is not for the uneducated.

As with all topics everyone may have an opinion but also, as with many topics, most opinions are sorely ill-informed. Many people think they have an understanding of religion or God, but they have done very little investigation into the actual topic. They observe popular cultural displays of a religion, which provides limited information and little to no context or engage in superficial readings supporting or criticizing a specific perspective. Conclusions are drawn from inaccurate, biased and limited information and individuals think they have arrived at an objective opinion. The truth is, since their opinion is based upon limited and inaccurate information combined with their subjective conditioning they have arrived at flawed conclusions.

Would we accept the opinion of a physician who arrived at his expertise through watching ER or SCRUBS?