The redneck strike again.

[The Grand Nudger]

If physical science could prove that somebody's concept of god really exists there would be no atheists.

Doesn't follow. We have people on these boards that simply do not accept science as an authority. Evolution is a fact, and yet there are plenty who "don't believe in it". The same could be true for any god science "proves".

"Quantum, this guy said quantum over here! Quick, duck!" I generally pull out the Montoya routine whenever someone starts going on about quantum this and thats, but meh.

It's impossible to use physical science as a way of researching something which is supposed to transcend physical reality.

Why, again? You responded to the question by way of reassertion.

[The Grand Nudger]

If physical science could prove that somebody's concept of god really exists there would be no atheists.

Doesn't follow. We have people on these boards that simply do not accept science as an authority. Evolution is a fact, and yet there are plenty who "don't believe in it". The same could be true for any god science "proves".

"Quantum, this guy said quantum over here! Quick, duck!" I generally pull out the Montoya routine whenever someone starts going on about quantum this and thats, but meh.

It's impossible to use physical science as a way of researching something which is supposed to transcend physical reality.

Why, again? You responded to the question by way of reassertion.

[Confused Ape]

Doesn't follow. We have people on these boards that simply do not accept science as an authority. Evolution is a fact, and yet there are plenty who "don't believe in it". The same could be true for any god science "proves".

I see what you mean. If science ever proves that somebody's concept of god really exists there could be atheists and many religious people who refuse to accept it.

"Quantum, this guy said quantum over here! Quick, duck!" I generally pull out the Montoya routine whenever someone starts going on about quantum this and thats, but meh.

Quantum Foam is a genuine scientific concept, not New Age woo. It doesn't prove that Brahman is real, though, because it's dealing with physical reality and Brahman is supposed to transcend physical reality as well as creating it.

Quantum foam (also referred to as space-time foam) is a concept in quantum mechanics devised by John Wheeler in 1955. The foam is supposed to be conceptualized as the foundation of the fabric of the universe.[1]

Additionally, quantum foam can be used as a qualitative description of subatomic space-time turbulence at extremely small distances (on the order of the Planck length). At such small scales of time and space, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle allows energy to briefly decay into particles and antiparticles and then annihilate without violating physical conservation laws. As the scale of time and space being discussed shrinks, the energy of the virtual particles increases. According to Einstein's theory of general relativity, energy curves space-time. This suggests that—at sufficiently small scales—the energy of these fluctuations would be large enough to cause significant departures from the smooth space-time seen at larger scales, giving space-time a "foamy" character.

It's impossible to use physical science as a way of researching something which is supposed to transcend physical reality.

Why, again? You responded to the question by way of reassertion.

How are scientists supposed to use physical science to research the transcendent bit of something which is supposed to transcend physical reality as well as creating it? As this bit isn't physical it can't be measured, weighed or even studied via CERN's Large Hadron Collider.

Believing that Brahman is objective reality requires just as much faith as believing in any other deity being objective reality.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's just the rub, you're skipping a step here. I would settle for science studying the part of the brahman that is here, present, with us, in this world.

I would like to determine whether or not the brahman has any parts at all - before we start debating over whether or not any particular part has a particular attribute (like transcendence). Otherwise we're staring very intently at an empty set, and it;s not like that;s going to get us very far, is it?

Seems to me that you're demanding that science not be included for no reason at all. I could suggest reasons - but they wouldn't be flattering to the claim. The only reason I;m making any noise about this is that it;s fascinating to me that you can go on about quantum foam and the brahman in one breath - and then tell us that science must be immediately and thoroughly discarded as useless the next. Convenient, sure...but well founded? Not in this thread, not yet anyway. Is it possible that you are stretching both science and brahman simultaneously, so that they might appear to meet in the middle?

[Little Rik]

Matter is not the ultimate.
In fact it is the bottom.

Your fan favorite top ten list would be irrelevant to the point and in no way illustrative of any discernible connection to reality beyond your own preferences.

What an intellectual extravaganza boy
Instead of talking this intellectual bullshit why don't you explain how the physical reality can solve non physical problem?

How the hell by using the bottom you can understand what is at the top?

Easily, in fact, that's precisely how we've been using our noodles/ We study underlying mechanics (the bottom) in an attempt to explain the observed phenomena (the top). It works fantastically well, for me, for you, I don't see the problem. Science doesn't have a problem with "the immaterial" anyway. Gravity, done and done.

You are making a hell of a confusion.
You are working within the borders of physicality while we are dealing with exit these borders in order to go further.
Your top is once again related to physicality.
Your problem is that according to you everything can be solved physically
but man is not only made of physicality so very little get solved by rely on physicality alone.
Waka, waka boy.

How a primary student can understand the knowledge of a doctor?
The universe is composed of matter and matter does not have intellect to understand what guide it.
Get real boy.

Why couldn't a primary student understand it? What impassable barrier is there to that understanding? If there were a barrier, where do doctors come from - storks and such? Clearly, if there are doctors, there must be a way for a primary student to understand that knowledge. Whatever the universe may be composed of, and whether or not it has intellect is irrelevant to both my comments and your own. Get coherent.

If a primary student would understand what is taught at the uni he wouldn't have to start from the primary.
The barrier is there but the barrier will be knock down as the learning progress.
The universe is composed of space, air, light, water and matter.
All these element are in constant movement and change so they also move forward in their progress.
Nothing is irrelevant in this universe but of course it is for people like you that regard the physical world as the ultimate.

So..no magic huh? You just wanted to make the claim, you weren't interested in it's accuracy, or any demonstration of it? Why is magic so damned disappointing? Why are magical people so un-magical when confronted? What might explain all of this...hmn......guess we'll just never know

It is interesting how you claim that i play magic when in fact you by relying on physicality alone can be able to give an answer to human problem?
Please explain how the physical side alone can solve human problem.
If you can i will appoint you the supreme magician and i will cover you in coat of pure gold.

[The Grand Nudger]

Instead of talking this intellectual bullshit why don't you explain how the physical reality can solve non physical problem?

Set a "non physical problem" in front of me?

You are making a hell of a confusion.
You are working within the borders of physicality while we are dealing with exit these borders in order to go further.

except that we haven't established that there is any "further"

Your top is once again related to physicality.
Your problem is that according to you everything can be solved physically
but man is not only made of physicality so very little get solved by rely on physicality alone.
Waka, waka boy.

No, that's not my problem, because it's not something I would even remotely begin to claim. I'm suggesting that we might be able to solve -something- about this "physically". I'm suggesting to you that you may not have succeeded in slaying the dragon, so to speak, that you need to slay before you get to grab the girl.

If a primary student would understand what is taught at the uni he wouldn't have to start from the primary.

If a primary student -couldn't- understand it..then no amount of uni would help, would it?

The barrier is there but the barrier will be knock down as the learning progress.
The universe is composed of space, air, light, water and matter.
All these element are in constant movement and change so they also move forward in their progress.
Nothing is irrelevant in this universe but of course it is for people like you that regard the physical world as the ultimate.

Word salad.

It is interesting how you claim that i play magic when in fact you by relying on physicality alone can be able to give an answer to human problem?
Please explain how the physical side alone can solve human problem.
If you can i will appoint you the supreme magician and i will cover you in coat of pure gold.

You don;t think that we've been solving any human problems these last few thousand years by physical means alone? 2 hands working are better than a thousand clasped in prayer after all. Howsabout you pick up a shovel and solve the human hunger problem? Or, if you prefer - you could solve it "non-physically"...whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean. I want that gold coat, by the way, or is that just another empty promise from the magic-man? Honestly though, this last bit baffles the hell out of me. You know when we really started solving "human problems"? When we got off our lazy asses.... and stopped trying to pray them away. We did the work.

[Confused Ape]

That's just the rub, you're skipping a step here. I would settle for science studying the part of the brahman that is here, present, with us, in this world.

You mean the physical universe which science is already studying? Is there any scientific evidence so far that the physical universe is only one part of the Brahman?

Erwin Schrödinger was into the Vedanta and the page I've linked to provides quotes relating to it. If you think this sufficient proof that Hindu cosmology is correct as objective reality you can study Quantum Mysticism, otherwise known as Quantum Woo. A good introduction to this is a movie called What The Bleep Do We Know!?

The film has been criticized for both misrepresenting science and containing pseudoscience and has been described as a case of quantum mysticism.

Some ideas discussed in the film are:

The universe is best seen as constructed from thought (or ideas) rather than from substance.

I would like to determine whether or not the brahman has any parts at all - before we start debating over whether or not any particular part has a particular attribute (like transcendence). Otherwise we're staring very intently at an empty set, and it;s not like that;s going to get us very far, is it?

The Brahman is supposed to manifest as the physical universe. How will you go about determining whether or not this concept of God has any parts at all?

Seems to me that you're demanding that science not be included for no reason at all. I could suggest reasons - but they wouldn't be flattering to the claim.

Have you thought about why Quantum Mysticism is classed as pseudoscience? If the universe could only be explained by a transcendent reality beyond the physical, Stephen Hawking would have written a book about it.

The only reason I;m making any noise about this is that it;s fascinating to me that you can go on about quantum foam and the brahman in one breath - and then tell us that science must be immediately and thoroughly discarded as useless the next. Convenient, sure...but well founded? Not in this thread, not yet anyway.

Do you really believe that quantum foam proves that the Brahman exists as objective reality? Do you really believe that there's a transcendent reality beyond the physical universe? If there is one, why hasn't somebody been awarded a Nobel Prize for proving it and providing scientific facts about it?

Is it possible that you are stretching both science and brahman simultaneously, so that they might appear to meet in the middle?

The only sort of science which can be stretched to meet in the middle with the Brahman is pseudoscience. Mainstream science hasn't found any evidence of a transcendent reality so it can't be used to meet in the middle with any concept of God.

[The Grand Nudger]

I've watched What the Bleep, was good as entertainment, for sure.

The Brahman is supposed to manifest as the physical universe. How will you go about determining whether or not this concept of God has any parts at all?

When did it become my job to flesh out a brahman claim?

Have you thought about why Quantum Mysticism is classed as pseudoscience?

For the same reasons as anything else is classified as psuedo-science. It's not not science. It's sciencey sounding magic. That would be my guess.

Do you really believe that quantum foam proves that the Brahman exists as objective reality? Do you really believe that there's a transcendent reality beyond the physical universe? If there is one, why hasn't somebody been awarded a Nobel Prize for proving it and providing scientific facts about it?

Most questions to me begining with "do you really believe" have the same answer, lol.

Mainstream science hasn't found any evidence of a transcendent reality so it can't be used to meet in the middle with any concept of God.

Can't be used effectively. People will still make the stretch, agreed? I see no barrier being demonstrated to its use in the investigation of god concepts. If science discovered that evidence, it would then be very, very effective - wouldn't it?

[Jacob(smooth)]

Not planning to reengage with this nut job, but couldn't let this go!

The universe is composed of space, air, light, water and matter.

Who knew air and water were not matter?

He forgot yoghurt. Space, air, light, water, matter and yoghurt.

---

Also, bacon.

[Confused Ape]

When did it become my job to flesh out a brahman claim?

In Post #814 you said -

I would like to determine whether or not the brahman has any parts at all

It sounded like you'd volunteered which is why I asked you the question.

For the same reasons as anything else is classified as psuedo-science. It's not not science. It's sciencey sounding magic. That would be my guess.

It's taking the findings of physical science and using them to claim proof of something that physical science hasn't detected. It would definitely be magic if it worked.

Most questions to me begining with "do you really believe" have the same answer, lol.

We agree about something in this topic, then.

Can't be used effectively. People will still make the stretch, agreed? I see no barrier being demonstrated to its use in the investigation of god concepts. If science discovered that evidence, it would then be very, very effective - wouldn't it?

The way I see it, the big problem at the moment is that science still hasn't figured out the true nature of the universe. Is it explained by M-Theory or are we really living in somebody else's computer simulation? Until science has come up with the answer the question of what's transcendent to our physical universe is meaningless.

'The idea we live in a simulation isn't science fiction'

If the universe is just a Matrix-like simulation, how could we ever know? Physicist Silas Beane thinks he has the answer

The idea that we live in a simulation is just science fiction, isn't it?
There is a famous argument that we probably do live in a simulation. The idea is that in future, humans will be able to simulate entire universes quite easily. And given the vastness of time ahead, the number of these simulations is likely to be huge. So if you ask the question: 'do we live in the one true reality or in one of the many simulations?', the answer, statistically speaking, is that we're more likely to be living in a simulation.

If this is true, the god who created our universe is a computer programmer.