Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

ON A RESONANCE THEORY OF THOUGHT AND SPIRITUALITY
Karl Jaspers Forum ^ | August 21, 2001 | Varadaraja V. Raman

Posted on 08/02/2003 4:43:59 PM PDT by betty boop

ON A RESONANCE THEORY OF THOUGHT AND SPIRITUALITY


by Varadaraja V. Raman


The following theory is proposed to explain the observed phenomena of thought and spiritual/mystical experience/creativity:

PROBLEM:
(a) Thought is the subtlest emergent entity from the human brain. As of now, though it is taken to arise from complex biochemical (neuronal) processes in the brain, we have no means of detecting any physical aspect of thought.

(b) All sensory experiences (light, sound, smell, taste, sound) result from an interaction between an external agent (photon, phonon, etc.) and some aspect of the brain.

HYPOTHESIS:
(a) It is proposed that, like the electromagnetic field, there is an extremely subtle substratum pervading the universe which may be called the universal thought field (UTF). This may even be trans-physical, i.e., something that cannot be detected by ordinary physical instruments. Or it may be physical and has not yet been detected as such.

(b) Every thought generated in the brain creates its own particular thought field (PTF).

Theory based on the above hypotheses:
(a) Just as EM waves require the complex structure of the brain to be transduced into the experience of light and color, the UTF requires the complex system of the human brain to create local thoughts. In other words, when the UTF interacts with certain regions of the brain, thoughts arise as by-products.

(b) Interactions between PTFs and brains generate other PTFs. Indeed every thought is a different reaction-result to either the UTF or to a PTF.

(c) There is an important difference between UTF and PTF. UTF does not require a material medium for acting upon a brain. But a PTF cannot be transmitted from one brain to another without a material medium, such as sound, writing, signs, etc.

(d) In some instances, as with molecular resonance, certain brains are able to resonate with the UTF in various universal modes. Such resonances constitute revelations, magnificent epic poetry, great musical compositions, discovery of a mathematical theorem in a dream, and the like, as also mystic experiences.

(e) This perspective suggests that there can be no thought without a complex brain (well known fact); and more importantly, that there exists a pure thought field (UTF) in the universe at large which may be responsible for the physical universe to be functioning in accordance with mathematically precise laws.

ANALOGIES:
The following parallels with other physical facts come to mind:

(a) Phosphorescence & luminescence: When radiation of shorter wavelengths falls on certain substances, the substances emit visible light immediately or after some time. Likewise when the UTF falls on a complex cerebral system, it emits thoughts of one kind or another.

(b) One of the subtlest entities in the physical universe is the neutrino, which does not interact with ordinary matter through gravitation, strong, or electromagnetic interaction. Being involved only in the weak interaction, it is extremely difficult to detect it. The UTF is subtler by far than the neutrino, and may therefore (if it be purely physical) it may be far more difficult to detect.



Prof. Varadaraja V. Raman
Physics Department, Rochester Institute of Technology
e-mail VVRSPS@ritvax.isc.rit.edu



KARL JASPERS FORUM
Target Artcle 39
ON A RESONANCE THEORY OF THOUGHT AND SPIRITUALITY
by Varadaraja V. Raman
18 June 2001, posted 21 August 2001
 


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: brain; consciousness; faithandphilosophy; mind; quantumfields; spirit; spirituality; thought
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 601-619 next last
To: Alamo-Girl
I'm still leaning more to dimensions than field, but the net result would be the same WRT consciousness.

Perhaps it is both. A-G, what I'm really wondering about, right about now, is whether this universal vacuum field (universal primary consciousness) relates to what the cosmologists call "dark energy." And whether "dark energy" is outside of our time concept. To me, it seems to have a quality of timelessness...of being in another time dimension than the one we humans normally experience....

Does this make any sense at all?

151 posted on 08/08/2003 9:05:46 AM PDT by betty boop (We can have either human dignity or unfettered liberty, but not both. -- Dean Clancy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; unspun
I'm not sure where man would be in relative importance, but certainly neither at the top nor at the bottom.

Agreed, A-G.

152 posted on 08/08/2003 9:07:00 AM PDT by betty boop (We can have either human dignity or unfettered liberty, but not both. -- Dean Clancy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Phaedrus
Well, it looks as if you've stirred things up.
153 posted on 08/08/2003 9:07:21 AM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
The subject of consciousness will be explored by science, the issue is whether science will have blinders on, only looking to material explanations.

A-G, if the cosmologists are telling us that matter accounts for only 4% of the total "content" of the Universe, on what basis do people think they can get 100% of their answers based on matter alone?

154 posted on 08/08/2003 9:10:35 AM PDT by betty boop (We can have either human dignity or unfettered liberty, but not both. -- Dean Clancy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
A-G, if the cosmologists are telling us that matter accounts for only 4% of the total "content" of the Universe, on what basis do people think they can get 100% of their answers based on matter alone?

Strange, but isn't that the same proportion of "junk" DNA in the human genome according to some?

155 posted on 08/08/2003 9:22:02 AM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Perhaps it is both. A-G, what I'm really wondering about, right about now, is whether this universal vacuum field (universal primary consciousness) relates to what the cosmologists call "dark energy." And whether "dark energy" is outside of our time concept. To me, it seems to have a quality of timelessness...of being in another time dimension than the one we humans normally experience....

Does this make any sense at all?

Precisely, exactly, "right on" and "oh, yeah!"

That is my thinking as well and it does make sense - especially in light of this article:

Constraints on Extra Time Dimensions


156 posted on 08/08/2003 9:35:04 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
A-G, if the cosmologists are telling us that matter accounts for only 4% of the total "content" of the Universe, on what basis do people think they can get 100% of their answers based on matter alone?

Indeed. It is rather unsettling to the assurances when one realizes how much is truly unknown.

157 posted on 08/08/2003 9:42:07 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
Thanks so much for the link, A-G. Have printed it out and will study it over the weekend.

That you think my speculation might possibly "make sense" is deeply reassuring to me! Hugs!

158 posted on 08/08/2003 9:55:23 AM PDT by betty boop (We can have either human dignity or unfettered liberty, but not both. -- Dean Clancy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
p.s.: Oooooppps! What am I saying? That's one of the papers I studied last weekend!!! (The other being that F-theory paper...which I thought was a tad "overwrought.")

Maybe I'll read it again!

A-G, looking at the authors of "Constraints of Extra Time Dimensions, I notice three more Eastern European surnames.... It's amazing to see what has been going on behind the Iron Curtain all those many years, now that the captive countries' scientists are free to tell us about it.

159 posted on 08/08/2003 10:03:06 AM PDT by betty boop (We can have either human dignity or unfettered liberty, but not both. -- Dean Clancy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Thank you for your reply!

I believe you might have read that one already! I posted it on the "Ground-breaking work in understanding of time" thread.

But that was before you began thinking in terms of gravity propagation of the extra time dimension you proposed as being manifest in this time dimension as dark energy. I believe the article may point in that direction.

I say that because dark energy does not appear in laboratory conditions (under gravity) but does in the vacuum of space, as if negative energy. If the gravity propagation is dimensional (wrt time) then it makes sense to me.

160 posted on 08/08/2003 10:07:15 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
LOLOL! It looks like you discovered it was the same just before I posted.

A-G, looking at the authors of "Constraints of Extra Time Dimensions, I notice three more Eastern European surnames.... It's amazing to see what has been going on behind the Iron Curtain all those many years, now that the captive countries' scientists are free to tell us about it.

So true. So true. I'm very glad the language of science is English so that some of these ideas are being translated so that we can appreciate them!

161 posted on 08/08/2003 10:09:54 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000; Alamo-Girl; unspun; Phaedrus; RightWhale; djf; Ichneumon
You are correct, this is not science, this is new age stuff trying to make itself look somehow scientific.

Aric2000, the "New Agers" that I know -- and I have met many -- would be, in all likelihood, completely incapable of handling the science that Grandpierre lays down, in elaborate detail, in support of his postulate of the universal vacuum field. Plus all fields are universal -- the size of the Universe itself. We are comprised of such fields. Add to that quantum superpositioning and entanglement, and you realize that "local" quantum events may "spread" to any place in the universe, instantaneously.... There must be some field or matrix that facilitates this. Its properties are mainly unknown to us right now; but that's why you develop a theory -- to come up with a logical "macrolevel" framework whose identified elements/relations are capable of being tested. I think it would be a "good guess" to say that, in the universal vacuum field, superluminal velocities are achievable.

All of which is to suggest that what you call "new age stuff" may, in fact, be a very serious speculation on solid scientific grounds. Stay tuned!

162 posted on 08/08/2003 10:27:54 AM PDT by betty boop (We can have either human dignity or unfettered liberty, but not both. -- Dean Clancy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Well, it looks as if you've stirred things up.

I suppose the "polite" thing to do would be to allow the Materialists to get by with silence or, worse, non-answers. As you are acutely aware, quantum mechanics embodies not only counter-intuitive but intangible aspects, the implications of which remain almost wholly unexplored. If Materialism continues to dominate mainstream science, these crucial aspects will never be explored from that perspective. 75 or so years is long enough to wait for minds to open.

163 posted on 08/08/2003 10:32:04 AM PDT by Phaedrus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
I'll be the first to jump up and down for joy if such things are proven scientifically.

Right now though, it is outside the range of science.

I never said that it is not worth further study, I am just saying that right now it is not scientific, because if you can't measure it, Induce conclusions from it, or repeat it and verify it, then by that very nature it is unscientific.

When science can come up with the technology and verbage to deal with these phenomenon, I will be one of the first to be joining the grand parade, it's a great thought, it's a wonderful hypothesis, but it is not yet science.

That's all I was saying.
164 posted on 08/08/2003 10:37:04 AM PDT by Aric2000 (If the history of science shows us anything, it is that we get nowhere by labeling our ignorance god)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Thank you so much for that great post!

Indeed, the concepts are so far-reaching that I have no doubt it will be troubling to many and may seem like 'new-ageness' to some.

The bottom line to me is that as this speculation moves to theory status, it will be formalized, tested and falsified. Thus, Grandpierre is "doing" science.

165 posted on 08/08/2003 10:37:37 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
...it's a great thought, it's a wonderful hypothesis, but it is not yet science.

Well Aric2000, science has to start somewhere. Before you can move to the design of an experiment, long before you get to actual experimental tests, you need to know what your experiment is designed to do. So you need a "speculation," a theory first.

166 posted on 08/08/2003 10:41:59 AM PDT by betty boop (We can have either human dignity or unfettered liberty, but not both. -- Dean Clancy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Yes, indeed, but let's keep our verbage straight please.

This is a hypothesis, not a theory yet, once it is verified, falsified, repeatable etc, then it will be moved to theory status.

Again, I never said that it was not an interesting study, or worth pursuing, and if he wishes to use his scientific skills to pursue it, more power to him, but it is still outside the realms of science at this point, just as quantum mechanics once was, just as the theory of gravity once was, etc.

I never said that it wouldn't happen, I just don't think the chances are good, but I wish him luck all the same.
167 posted on 08/08/2003 10:47:50 AM PDT by Aric2000 (If the history of science shows us anything, it is that we get nowhere by labeling our ignorance god)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; Aric2000; Alamo-Girl; Phaedrus; RightWhale; djf; Ichneumon
Aric2000, the "New Agers" that I know -- and I have met many -- would be, in all likelihood, completely incapable of handling the science that Grandpierre lays down, in elaborate detail, in support of his postulate of the universal vacuum field. Plus all fields are universal -- the size of the Universe itself. We are comprised of such fields. Add to that quantum superpositioning and entanglement, and you realize that "local" quantum events may "spread" to any place in the universe, instantaneously.... There must be some field or matrix that facilitates this. Its properties are mainly unknown to us right now; but that's why you develop a theory -- to come up with a logical "macrolevel" framework whose identified elements/relations are capable of being tested. I think it would be a "good guess" to say that, in the universal vacuum field, superluminal velocities are achievable.

LOL

This is one time when I can be sure in relating that, "I couldn't have said it any better!!!" -- LOL2

There are reasons why "New Age" is dangerous, beyond simple distraction. Also ways in which the Ancient of Days has his messengers engaged in His Univers.

168 posted on 08/08/2003 10:51:51 AM PDT by unspun ("Do everything in love." | No I don't look anything like her but I do like to hear "Unspun w/ AnnaZ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
I say that because dark energy does not appear in laboratory conditions (under gravity) but does in the vacuum of space, as if negative energy. If the gravity propagation is dimensional (wrt time) then it makes sense to me.

These are such fascinating ideas, A-G! I've even been dreaming about them lately....

169 posted on 08/08/2003 10:55:05 AM PDT by betty boop (We can have either human dignity or unfettered liberty, but not both. -- Dean Clancy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000; betty boop; Alamo-Girl
This is a hypothesis, not a theory yet, once it is verified, falsified, repeatable etc, then it will be moved to theory status.

Hear! Hear!

The same is true for any attempt of the process of validation/invalidation by the Scientific Method, in addressing things that are beyond our physical perception (including of course, "origins.").

Stands to reason that this subject matter would be (a-hem) difficult, since we are not allowed (or capable) to "put the Lord your God to the test."

170 posted on 08/08/2003 10:55:42 AM PDT by unspun ("Do everything in love." | No I don't look anything like her but I do like to hear "Unspun w/ AnnaZ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Phaedrus
We have "science" and we have "pseudo-science." Until proven otherwise, this is pseudo-science. When the "materialists" are forced to "open their minds" to pseudo-science, all manner of nonsense will come flying through the open window and the logic filter will be useless. ESP, dowsing, touch therapy, etc. It's not that science isn't "open minded," it's just that it's (usually) immune to balderdash and flim-flam.
171 posted on 08/08/2003 10:56:56 AM PDT by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: unspun
Well, now we can say that we actually agree on something...;) LOL
172 posted on 08/08/2003 10:57:29 AM PDT by Aric2000 (If the history of science shows us anything, it is that we get nowhere by labeling our ignorance god)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000; betty boop
Er, if I may interrupt.

The conversation about speculation is quite interesting and perhaps ought to be a discussion topic of its own.

For instance, how do we distinguish scientific speculation (such as Hawking, Penrose, Tegmark and Ovrut do on a regular basis) - from non-scientific speculation (such as sci-fi writers do every day?)

173 posted on 08/08/2003 10:57:47 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: unspun
There are reasons why "New Age" is dangerous, beyond simple distraction. Also ways in which the Ancient of Days has his messengers engaged in His Univers.

Believe me, unspun, I am aware of both these things. WRT "New Age," I've seen that up-front, close, and personal, so I well know whereof you speak....

174 posted on 08/08/2003 10:58:39 AM PDT by betty boop (We can have either human dignity or unfettered liberty, but not both. -- Dean Clancy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Yes. And I believe you realize I was saying that in support of your... insights.
175 posted on 08/08/2003 11:00:06 AM PDT by unspun ("Do everything in love." | No I don't look anything like her but I do like to hear "Unspun w/ AnnaZ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: unspun
(including of course, "origins.")

I would like to jump in her feet first and say that even if, as Hawkings asserts, we could account for all of time, we still wouldn't have solved the problem of origins.

176 posted on 08/08/2003 11:00:44 AM PDT by js1138 (I feel better now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; Aric2000; unspun
...how do we distinguish scientific speculation (such as Hawking, Penrose, Tegmark and Ovrut do on a regular basis) - from non-scientific speculation (such as sci-fi writers do every day?)

Great question, A-G. Maybe we'll have to put up a post on that some time!

177 posted on 08/08/2003 11:01:44 AM PDT by betty boop (We can have either human dignity or unfettered liberty, but not both. -- Dean Clancy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
You may interupt at any time, your input is always welcome.

And scifi speculation is normally based on some type of scientific speculation that seems plausible at the time it was written.

Heinlein is one of best as far as I am concerned for speculative Science Fiction, but then again, I have every book he has written, fills up 2 shelves 2 books deep on my bookshelf, the man was prolific. So I am a little prejudiced!! ;)

Speculation based on scientific evidence, and speculation based on imagination or the question of life is a bit different, and could be a very fascinating discussion.

Megahugs!!

178 posted on 08/08/2003 11:02:22 AM PDT by Aric2000 (If the history of science shows us anything, it is that we get nowhere by labeling our ignorance god)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
Suggest you may wish to do a little Web search on "Rupert Sheldrake," in your interest in testable results.
179 posted on 08/08/2003 11:02:24 AM PDT by unspun ("Do everything in love." | No I don't look anything like her but I do like to hear "Unspun w/ AnnaZ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Of course you are aware of the Akashic level of Edgar Cayce. How this would work is exactly the same as the field you are studying. Edgar Cayce, of course, was not a scientist, so wouldn't have developed the theory. Quantum entanglement and the hypothetical existence of extra dimensions, some of them curled back on themselves in a distance commensurate with the size of brain neurons, makes for some interesting possibilities.
180 posted on 08/08/2003 11:03:10 AM PDT by RightWhale (Destroy the dark; restore the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: unspun
New Age is not science. It is like a rowboat in the main shipping channel.
181 posted on 08/08/2003 11:04:51 AM PDT by RightWhale (Destroy the dark; restore the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: js1138
I would like to jump in her feet first and say that even if, as Hawkings asserts, we could account for all of time, we still wouldn't have solved the problem of origins.

;-`     Yes. And if we could account for all of the observable in even our human history, we could gain much from inference... inference as clear as an auditory bell (or the audible voice of God, U-Pick).

182 posted on 08/08/2003 11:06:45 AM PDT by unspun ("Do everything in love." | No I don't look anything like her but I do like to hear "Unspun w/ AnnaZ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
New Age is not science. It is like a rowboat in the main shipping channel.

So, let's push that back off the table and let it hit the floor and crumble. Then let's get on to the subject of this thread.

183 posted on 08/08/2003 11:08:38 AM PDT by unspun ("Do everything in love." | No I don't look anything like her but I do like to hear "Unspun w/ AnnaZ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
New Age is not science. It is like a rowboat in the main shipping channel.

So, let's push that back off the table and let it hit the floor and crumble. Then let's get on to the subject of this thread.

184 posted on 08/08/2003 11:08:38 AM PDT by unspun ("Do everything in love." | No I don't look anything like her but I do like to hear "Unspun w/ AnnaZ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
New Age is not science. It is like a rowboat in the main shipping channel.

So, let's push that back off the table and let it hit the floor and crumble. Then let's get on to the subject of this thread.

185 posted on 08/08/2003 11:09:00 AM PDT by unspun ("Do everything in love." | No I don't look anything like her but I do like to hear "Unspun w/ AnnaZ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: unspun; betty boop
Thank you so much for your post, unspun!

The same is true for any attempt of the process of validation/invalidation by the Scientific Method, in addressing things that are beyond our physical perception (including of course, "origins."). Stands to reason that this subject matter would be (a-hem) difficult, since we are not allowed (or capable) to "put the Lord your God to the test."

Certainly we cannot put God to the test. But shouldn't we look at, explore and appreciate that which God has made? (Psalms 33, etc.)

Do you read the following passage to mean that we ought only to study what is in the Scripture and not what is in the creation?:

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. - II Timothy 2:15

186 posted on 08/08/2003 11:10:38 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

Hmm... Must be a warp in Internet time.
187 posted on 08/08/2003 11:11:25 AM PDT by unspun ("Do everything in love." | No I don't look anything like her but I do like to hear "Unspun w/ AnnaZ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: unspun
Persistent, aren't you.

Action or contemplation, contemplation or action. I choose, in the interests of correct dharma: action, the way of the second stage of life.

188 posted on 08/08/2003 11:12:38 AM PDT by RightWhale (Destroy the dark; restore the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000; betty boop
Thank y'all so much for your reactions! It does sound like it would make for a lively and interesting thread. I leave it to y'all to work up an article whenever you are ready.

HUGS!!!

189 posted on 08/08/2003 11:13:20 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
Silence might imply the opinion of P. A. M. Dirac who once refused to approve a scientific paper for publication by saying, "This is not correct. In fact, it is so bad, it is not even wrong."
190 posted on 08/08/2003 11:14:57 AM PDT by js1138 (I feel better now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Of course you are aware of the Akashic level of Edgar Cayce.

Unfortunately, RightWhale, I can't say I'm familiar with Edgar Cayce, though I think I read him once upon a time, back when I was a teenager. I appreciate your pointing out the resemblance that you've noticed between Cayce and Grandpierre.

While I have you "on the line" (so to speak), can I ask you a question? What is the reason that hypothetical extra dimensions have to "curl back on themselves in a distance commensurate with the size of brain neurons?" (I'm just trying to cure an "information deficit" here, so thought you'd be a good person to ask.)

191 posted on 08/08/2003 11:15:14 AM PDT by betty boop (We can have either human dignity or unfettered liberty, but not both. -- Dean Clancy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; betty boop
Certainly we cannot put God to the test. But shouldn't we look at, explore and appreciate that which God has made? (Psalms 33, etc.)

Yes, as we are competent and allowed (and theoretics being different from empiricism). I admit, there are limits imposed upon us by the Lord of our Christian understanding, as to what kinds of empiricism is and is not to be engaged in, here.

Remember, this ground beyond our physical ground, is primarily Relational Ground, for better or worse. (Albeit that our physical ground is Relational as well, but with physical filters.)

192 posted on 08/08/2003 11:16:27 AM PDT by unspun ("Do everything in love." | No I don't look anything like her but I do like to hear "Unspun w/ AnnaZ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
I suppose some of our actions are made without contemplation, but I can't honestly say the opposite.
193 posted on 08/08/2003 11:18:59 AM PDT by unspun ("Do everything in love." | No I don't look anything like her but I do like to hear "Unspun w/ AnnaZ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
Click for article:

Some of the science that is presented in these books is right. Some of it is plausible speculation. Some of it is wrong. And some of it is, in the words of Dirac reviewing a paper, "so bad it's not even wrong." But if you don't know the physics already, you can't tell which is which, and, of course, the authors sure aren't going to stop in the middle of the book and tell you "oh, and by the way, all the science on the past four pages is bogus." (To give the authors credit, I do think that they do believe that the stuff they're writing is true and they are not just cravenly "writing what the gulls want to hear," but they should at least be honest enough to put in somewhere the point that most of the scientific community doesn't buy their interpretations.)

Again, trying to go through all the physics that is wrong or misinterpreted in these books would take an entire book itself, but almost all the mistakes are of the following form:

The writer makes a statement about quantum mechanics that is strange, weird­sounding and counter­intuitive to common sense.
The writer says (explicitly or implicitly) that quantum mechanics is true.
The writer makes a statement about (choose as many as apply) new age thought, spirituality, psychic phenomenon, philosophy, psychology, mysticism, etc. that is strange, weird­sounding and counter­intuitive to common sense, but sounds vaguely like statement A.
The writer concludes that since statement A is weird but true (and scientifically proven at that!) then statement C must also be true.
I forget the exact term for this type of logically fallacious argument, but I like to call it "guilt by association." But again, trying to use a physical theory about particles to prove a psychological/spiritual point doesn't work because they're entirely separate areas.

For example, say the book says something like this: "Since quantum mechanics shows that electrons can tunnel through solid matter, past 'forbidden zones,' then we know that our consciousness can ascend to other realms forbidden to our normal existence." So statement A here is the part about electrons tunneling through matter and it is completely true. But statement C (the part about our consciousness) has nothing to do with statement A other than they are both in the same sentence. What do consciousness and electrons have to do with each other? Are there any studies showing such a connection between electron tunneling and consciousness? For that matter, electron tunneling and "forbidden zones" refers to the physical realm. Is the author then saying that these "other realms of consciousness" exist physically in space? Of course some authors and readers would argue back at this point that the writer is merely making a metaphor in comparing the physical world of the electron and the spiritual world of the human consciousness. And I would reply that if that is the case, then they should stop trying to be metaphorical. Skip the part about electrons and quantum mechanics and go straight into the part about consciousness since that is their main point. Why bother with all the science stuff if it's just there to "pretty up" the writing? And the answer is that the science is there to add credibility and validity to their statements, never mind that the science has nothing to with what they're talking about. (When I was an undergraduate we heard a lecture in sociology class from Reverend Ike, a wealthy and flamboyant black minister who had gotten rich using radio and TV appeals. The difference between him and Robert Tilton is that Rev. Ike made no pretense that he wasn't rich. God had wanted him rich, and his followers had seen to it that God's Will was done. Rev. Ike also made no bones about the methods that a lot of evangelists (himself included) used on their congregation. "You would not believe," he told us, "the number of people out there who will believe anything you tell them, no matter how ridiculous, so long as you put a Bible verse in front of it and another Bible verse after it. We call that a 'Scripture Sandwich.'" The writers of the new age physics books use the same method to present "science sandwiches" to their readers.)


194 posted on 08/08/2003 11:20:05 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; RightWhale
Er, for reference and Lurkers, here is a link to a 5D version of general relativity that does not require compactification of the extra dimension (Kaluza-Klein): Space-Time-Matter Consortium
195 posted on 08/08/2003 11:20:55 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Didn't get the formatting right. Trying again:

Again, trying to go through all the physics that is wrong or misinterpreted in these books would take an entire book itself, but almost all the mistakes are of the following form:

  1. The writer makes a statement about quantum mechanics that is strange, weird­sounding and counter­intuitive to common sense.
  2. The writer says (explicitly or implicitly) that quantum mechanics is true.
  3. The writer makes a statement about (choose as many as apply) new age thought, spirituality, psychic phenomenon, philosophy, psychology, mysticism, etc. that is strange, weird­sounding and counter­intuitive to common sense, but sounds vaguely like statement A.
  4. The writer concludes that since statement A is weird but true (and scientifically proven at that!) then statement C must also be true.

196 posted on 08/08/2003 11:23:22 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
hypothetical extra dimensions have to "curl back on themselves in a distance commensurate with the size of brain neurons?"

There are 7 extra dimensions in some versions of hyperstring theory. Other numbers are possible, even as many as 24 or so but analysis bogs down the machines. The extra dimensions are invisible to us because they are very tiny and operate only on subatomic size regions. However, a scientist, I don't remember her name, thinks that one or more of the extra dimensions are somewhat larger in our 3-D space and can be measured in the lab, which she and others are now trying to do. The size expected is a millimeter or so, which would be the size of neuronal groups, so the brain could interact with something, another brain or nervous system, through another dimension. All hypothetical at this time, but could become scientific knowledge if this works out. It would cause a revolution in Galilean science.

197 posted on 08/08/2003 11:25:32 AM PDT by RightWhale (Destroy the dark; restore the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
In answer to your note just received:

Yes.

I know our God is a God who sees value in economy and order --that means that He creates reusable systems and devises dependable methods.

So, I cheer you on (likely as would Frank Herbert, however spicy this all might be to him `-) ...with certain caveats.

Love in Him,
AW
198 posted on 08/08/2003 11:25:59 AM PDT by unspun ("Do everything in love." | No I don't look anything like her but I do like to hear "Unspun w/ AnnaZ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; unspun
Certainly we cannot put God to the test. But shouldn't we look at, explore and appreciate that which God has made? (Psalms 33, etc.)

Oh Alamo-Girl -- so beautifully said! Why would God have made such a glorious Cosmos, made it possible for humans to be intelligent and so capable of exploring such Cosmos -- and then tell us we shouldn't do it, because that would be putting "Him to the test?" How can it be a "test of God" to love and admire and study His works? Instead, maybe what we have here is a test of man; and our "indifference" with respect to studying and understanding His creation according to our best lights earns us a grade of "F."

It's just a thought. (No man knows how God judges.)

199 posted on 08/08/2003 11:27:45 AM PDT by betty boop (We can have either human dignity or unfettered liberty, but not both. -- Dean Clancy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: unspun
Thank you so much for your reply! Whew! I thought we were in agreement on that.

I admit, there are limits imposed upon us by the Lord of our Christian understanding, as to what kinds of empiricism is and is not to be engaged in, here.

Indeed, and we also have physical limitations. IMHO, one of the most interesting physical limitations is in our vision. We are limited in the number of dimensions we can see. Perhaps that causes a limitation in comprehending higher dimensional dynamics - or perhaps that is yet another such limitation of our mind.

I suspect such physical limitations were intentional and wonder if they may keep us from being aware of what is going on around us, spiritually speaking and in terms of "all that there is."

200 posted on 08/08/2003 11:29:43 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 601-619 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson