Martial Arts & Religion

[Syn7]

Good stuff.

And for those who want proof the double slit single electron experiment is worth having a look at.


When we interpret Quantum Mechanics it is common to hold the Copenhagen View or the Many Worlds view (personally I like the former).

The Copenhagen as you observed above considers the object existing as a Probability Wave until this wave is forced to collapse by measurement. Once it collapses the other probabilities cease to exist and the object takes a definite position.

The many Worlds interpretation considers that every possibility along the wave becomes manifest in a separate universe. Personally I don't like this one for several physical reasons, but more importantly (for me) from intuition.

The lesser Known 'Many Minds' interpretation may be of interest here as part of this topic. This proposes that the many worlds are split inside the mind of the observer as opposed to being physical universes.

This is the part of Physics that I feel starts to occupy a similar space with spirituality.

The Probability wave itself, when it collapses does it choose a place on the wave by some kind of quantum of free will, or is it genuinely random? Is anything genuinely random? Developments of Quantum Theory will change the way we view the world, physically, philosophically and spiritually.

Yup... We can be friends!

The many worlds theory is interesting but I dunno. I got right into it when I was reading Edward Wittens work. M-Theory is fun to think about. It's just so freakin subjective, u know!
Possibility=actuality is a hard one to swallow.


I don't really distinguish the diff between theoretical physics and philosophy since they are both technically the same thing.



Thomas Young was the man, by the way.

Most people look at me funny when I talk about the duality. Most folks are only aware of three states of matter. Are they even teaching the 4th state in HS yet? Not when I was there. I got in trouble for bringing it up. I was a disruption. My teacher was a GuideBook teacher. Everything she knew was from the teachers guide. I think she was just mad that she couldn't answer a 15 year olds physics question.

[Syn7]

Why would a being OUTSIDE our known reality have to conform to anything inside what we CURRENTLY perceive as our reality?

How can something real be outside reality? If it's outside reality it isn't real.

[Syn7]

Naw, I am somewhat of a genius myself, I figured it out on my own.

I am one of those guys that is both, dumb as a door and too smart for my own good!!

Did I mention I am a narcist too?

Don't fall in then!!! The lake is simply looking at itself in your eyes!

[Scott R. Brown]

Who knew? Another Christian...

You don't know any other Christians?

Don't fall in then!!! The lake is simply looking at itself in your eyes!

When I am busy gazing at myself, all I see is ME. I don't even notice the lake!

[rett]

Mindset is what creates our preconceived notions and we all have them.
When I used to go to church because I had to, I hated it.
When I used to go to a mosque or syngouge I used to think how strange and wrong their customs were.
As my eyes opened to God, I see His Hand everywhere and I see the enormous potential we have as humans is we just live truly in "His Image".
There are many paths to God and they exist because of our cultural trappings and the preconceived notions that they created.
From what I have studied about naturalism, it doesn't seem to have the answers to the questions that its answers create,
Of course the same can be said about religion.
The first thing we have to do is admit that we do NOT know the answers and be open to that, since we don't know, we can't rule something out because it doesn't "fit" into our preconceived notion of what we THINK something should be.

I totally agree about the importance of acknowledging that at the most important level we just don't know. Driven by perplexity perhaps we can get to where we are at ease with uncertainty.

Where you see God's hand everywhere maybe someone else sees the workings of Dharma (nature) everywhere.

Physical science is, by definition, physical. It can help us dispell the illusion of a separate self by helping us see our bodies as temporary formations of elements intimately linked to the entire cosmos.

Where religions go further is that they write the ethical and mental dimension into reality. As the constituents of our bodies are linked to suns and physical forces on a cosmic scale, so the components of our personalities are linked together in time and space in a great web. But here it's not observable and testable in the same way as physical theories. It's no longer scientific thinking.

Arguments happen between religion and science because they use the same words "truth" "believe" "is" but the words actually mean different things in the different domains. Activistic creationists are a warning example of the intellectual and moral trainwreck of mixing up these concepts.

If we relate to bad things that happen to us as the fruition of karma, or as trials to bring us closer to God, that changes us in a valuable way.

This kind of thinking can coexist in the same person as scientific thinking. There are plenty of great scientists who were also religious.

Sorry if this is all just emo posturing and "not getting it and never will" or whatever. I'm all too happy to have the critical thinkers rip it to shreds.

But it's the direction I've decided to walk.

[sanjuro_ronin]

How can something real be outside reality? If it's outside reality it isn't real.

Who's reality ?

[sanjuro_ronin]

Where you see God's hand everywhere maybe someone else sees the workings of Dharma (nature) everywhere.

Bu God I mean the "name" we give to the creative force, not the judeo-christian God ( though of course I personally believe them to be the same).

Physical science is, by definition, physical. It can help us dispell the illusion of a separate self by helping us see our bodies as temporary formations of elements intimately linked to the entire cosmos.

It CAN do many things but is limited to OUR ability to preceive reality in our limited way.

Where religions go further is that they write the ethical and mental dimension into reality. As the constituents of our bodies are linked to suns and physical forces on a cosmic scale, so the components of our personalities are linked together in time and space in a great web. But here it's not observable and testable in the same way as physical theories. It's no longer scientific thinking.

Science tries to answer HOW, Religion, why.

Arguments happen between religion and science because they use the same words "truth" "believe" "is" but the words actually mean different things in the different domains. Activistic creationists are a warning example of the intellectual and moral trainwreck of mixing up these concepts.

Sure.

If we relate to bad things that happen to us as the fruition of karma, or as trials to bring us closer to God, that changes us in a valuable way.

Agreed.

This kind of thinking can coexist in the same person as scientific thinking. There are plenty of great scientists who were also religious.

Always have been and always will be probably.

Sorry if this is all just emo posturing and "not getting it and never will" or whatever. I'm all too happy to have the critical thinkers rip it to shreds.

But it's the direction I've decided to walk.

We each must find our own path and I wouldn't worry too much about "critical thinkers", far too many like the sound of their own voices and are under the impression that they are stating "something new".

[Syn7]

Who's reality ?

Mine, of course. it's the only perspective I have!


Actually, I was just joking before. Talkin' sh1t. Honestly I haven't ruled on whether reality is subjective, objective or some weird incomprehensible mix of the two. Really, I dunno. I could argue any of those points honestly and effectively. I don't tho, I'm far more interested in thinking it through on my own and hearing what others have to say about it.


Again, like the god proof argument, without clear definitions everything being said is rather pointless as far as achieving any sort of reasonable consensus is concerned.


If the point is to blurt out ideas for the sake of ideas, then that's something else altogether. There will be no communal growth tho.

You guys are sure pigeon holing critical thinking. Like anything it's susceptible to the process and the more honest the thinker the better the results. When the idea is to eliminate assumptions I find many assumptions get left behind and are taken for granted despite the mandate to do otherwise. Not everyone who calls themselves a critical thinker is the same, they don't get the same results and they are just as open to being diluted with ego as any scientist or creationist. But that doesn't discount them any more than it does the others. REAL peer review and subjection to scrutiny is still and always will be the best way to achieve reasonable consensus.

[Hebrew Hammer]

Bu God I mean the "name" we give to the creative force, not the judeo-christian God ( though of course I personally believe them to be the same).

Since the beginning of my exploration of organized religion, I've always thought of God, Allah, and Buddha as essentially the same being, speaking to various cultures differently. I really don't see their base teachings as that different...in practice yes, in dogma somewhat, in ritual they are different. I read this great book called the Jew and the Lotus, it showed how compatible Jewish Mysticism and Buddhist thought were...very enlightening.

[Syn7]

If there were a god it would be none of the above and all of the above. As far as I'm concerned most religious schools of thought are saying the same thing but from their own cultural perspective. Human beings have traditionally been hard put to accept other cultural perspectives. The more alien the more it's pushed away. That is the cause of all the debate between the 'majors', not actual differences in morals and ethics, for the most part. These things get politicized and they lose their whole purpose. Now it's just a clusterfukc of b1tching and whining. Most of the 'real' work is done by these peoples 'lessers'.

[wenshu]

57. Refutation of Bishop Berkeley
After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the nonexistence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it -- "I refute it thus."

http://www.samueljohnson.com/refutati.html

Scott you should just make this your avatar.

[sanjuro_ronin]

If there were a god it would be none of the above and all of the above. As far as I'm concerned most religious schools of thought are saying the same thing but from their own cultural perspective. Human beings have traditionally been hard put to accept other cultural perspectives. The more alien the more it's pushed away. That is the cause of all the debate between the 'majors', not actual differences in morals and ethics, for the most part. These things get politicized and they lose their whole purpose. Now it's just a clusterfukc of b1tching and whining. Most of the 'real' work is done by these peoples 'lessers'.

I agree, the exceptions being those religions that quite obviously advocate things that are, well..."controversial".
Things that one can quite obviously understand to be detrimental to society in both the short term and long term ( things like refusing medical treatment, isolationism, advocating violence against others, etc).
Of course this is subjective because what one culture may view as "wrong" another my view as quite "correct".
Still, the are some(possible) universal truisms, one that comes to mind is that almost every culture would agree that bad things happening to THEM is wrong ( though some my view it as deserving) and this goes to the individual level as well.

[Scott R. Brown]

57. Refutation of Bishop Berkeley
After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the nonexistence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it -- "I refute it thus."

Scott you should just make this your avatar.

I have been patiently waiting for someone to bring this up!

Unfortunately it is NOT a refutation!

Kicking a stone and feeling pain is not a proof, it is a function of a sensory system that communicates with a mind. Sever any nerve along the path of the sensory system and pain does not exist. Condition the mind properly through meditation and pain does not exist either.

A tree falling in the forest does NOT make a sound. Sound is a function of a sensory input being transferred to a mind that interprets that sensation as a sound.

The vibrations of the tree falling stimulates the atmosphere creating waves that strike a tympanic membrane. This stimulation is transported the brain using a nervous system. If there is no receptive system (nervous system) and interpretative system (a mind), there is no sound, regardless of the transport of the v!bratory (yes v!bratory will get you *******) waves through the atmosphere.

It is the same with any sensation, including pain.

If one chooses to argue that it is not the pain that demonstrates the stone to be real, but the fact it stops the foots motion, it must be remembered, that the same thing occurs in a computer game and a cartoon. It is merely a rule of the artificially constructed system and does not demonstrate it is "non-ideal" in substance, only that there is an inherent conformation of form within an artificially constructed system to the rules of the system within which it is constructed.

At any rate, if there is no mind available to experience the foot bouncing off a rock, there is no foot to bounce off a rock. It requires a mind to recognize the foot is a foot, the rock is a rock, the foot striking the rock and the foot bouncing off the rock.

It even requires a mind to separate inherently holistic phenomena into separate entities that interact with one and other. But the mind may also perceive phenomena holistically without any separation of event and entities into separate and distinct parts. Buddhist philosophy would say this is the inherent function of mind and is lost when mind is trained to separate entities from one and other in the first place, which results in the artificially constructed world in which most of us believe we live.

And have forgotten is an artificially constructed world!

[David Jamieson]

...and then, Scott blinked out of existence somehow.

sound logic, borders on nihilism...

[Scott R. Brown]

...and then, Scott blinked out of existence somehow.

sound logic, borders on nihilism...

I have use of a mind, therefore something exists that, apparently, cannot blink out of existence. In order to blink out of existence, it would require an absence of mind!!

If this occurred, the part of mind I call ME, would not notice any loss!