Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: Of Physics and philosophy.

  1. #1

    Of Physics and philosophy.

    हरिः ओम्


    Namaste AG,

    As YajvanJi has rightly pointed out, the welcome thread is not the best- place for this discussion. So I have
    answered you here; I hope that you don't mind AG.

    Interesting, by your definition of proof, you have just described Jyotish. One of the six limbs of the Vedanga.
    Please take the time to read a little in the respective sub forum. It is the study of light and time, in a purely
    relative context; very scientific.
    It is a mathematical bridge between objective and subjective reality; believe it or not.

    I dislike the elitism of science, and hold a healthy disdain for its consequent establishment.
    Funnily enough, so did Dr. Feynman who had an aversion to anyone in a suite.
    And to quote the great man himself ...

    “Anyone who claims to have understood Quantum Electro Dynamics, clearly hasn’t”

    So to what did he profess, and what can we conclude about physics from this statement? There is, it
    would seem, a lot of very spooky goings on at the quantum level, can we really ignore this and only
    see the material results?

    What of particle physics? Which states that; the more that you know of the position of a particle, the less
    you know of its speed; the more you know of a particles speed the less you know of its position. That said
    Δt has always been rathar vague.

    The fact that you we observe a particle, affects its state of spin, it “knows” that it is being watched.
    Now if E=mc then this particle is energy correlated to matter by space and time, as such, the faster it
    moves the less material it becomes the slower it goes the more material it becomes or time changes rate.
    Kashmiri Shavism and other philosophy’s* would agree with this in that the particle is consciousness, it
    would appear that Physics may be arriving at a similar conclusion.

    Some striking parallels, no?

    Interestingly Newton was an astrologer, and the force of attraction between celestial body’s has been described
    I believe 1200 years prior to Newton, but its value as a mathematical constant was not at that time realised,
    the way of thinking being much more relative in nature at its outset. Interesting also that he was relentlessly
    looking for a secret mathematical code within the Bible.

    The maths of Einsteins relativity was largely conceived by Dr Maxwell pertaining to magnetic fields,
    Dr Einstein turned it towards space and time and Einstein abhorred certain elements of his own work
    exclaiming that God does not play dice!

    Can you profess to believe in a science, if you do not attempt to grasp its most basic concepts, its finest
    elements. That, to my mind, is blind faith, Which is something in which I do not believe.

    You see sanAtana dharama is a path which helps one to realise their full potential and to do so in harmony
    with their surroundings; to help them focus. Western culture treat Scientific Genius as if it is unnatural,
    a bit crazy; it never quit understands where things have come from its rather haphazard an immature in
    comparison.

    This is exemplified by your veneration Dr Feynman and Dr Einstein, putting their ideas out of the reach of the
    common man.

    A few examples of other geniuses:
    Dr Maxwell, who actually developed the field theory in electromagnetism.
    Also we might consider Marie Curie; she was looking for “spiritual energy” when she discovered radioactivity.
    Then there is Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin, who proposed that the Sun consisted of burning Hydrogen, nobody
    listed for years, due to the indoctrinated nature of the establishment.

    In regards to you concern as to the importance of subjectivity and how it concerns gravity:

    The subjective nature of gravity is relativity.
    Anugraha is the Sanskrit word for this effect, in it’s finest detail ...
    That’s grace in English. "Graha" is a grosser form.

    To my mind, the principal point of relativity is that a planet, for example, its dimensions thus its gravity depend
    entirely upon the subjective time frame of the observer; please do read and understand Einstein, before you put
    your faith into his doctrine. If we apply this knowledge without fully grasping its implications. We end up with
    an economy which depends on CFCs oil and the cutting down of forests to balance its workings, non of which
    would have been possible with out scientific thought. Scientist really should assume all its Karmas.

    I have nothing against science at all, I consider myself to be a theoretical physicist.
    Many of the ideas of today's science, I had meditated upon at a young age; the nature of DNA as a field existing
    in a different dimensional space, the resulting implications which are now shown to exist in the field of
    Epigenetic's. But the realisation as to the manifold nature of nature which had appeared before me, resulted in
    my being put into a mental hospital and drugged heavily; I was consequently told that I was mentally ill and
    would be taking drugs for life.

    I left Europe and my spiritually immature family; and after that was fine. Relatively, it does take some getting
    used too

    So, I had a highly spiritual experience at 19, my family had me put into a mental institution and agreed to my
    being drugged heavily with brain damaging drugs. I had ask for a spiritual guide at the time, because I knew that
    this was perfectly natural experience, but the British cultural structure and my families limited knowledge of this
    very basic, and fundamentally human trait, that of growing up, had so crumbled in adharma that their was no
    help available.


    I hope that I have expressed my thoughts and experience well enough; that you might see a little from my
    perspective.


    praṇāma

    mana


    * I must humbly request that the knowledgeable reader forgives my statement here as I am very much a student
    of this enormous expanses of knowledge and as such can not easy refer to the other philosophise and schools of
    thought, but I am studying.


    ॐ नमः शिवाय
    Last edited by Mana; 13 February 2013 at 11:50 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    November 2009
    Age
    37
    Posts
    839
    Rep Power
    1024

    Re: Of Physics and philosophy.

    Mana, correct me if I'm wrong here, but it sounds like your disdain is more directed at medical doctors than philosophy doctors (specifically physicists).

  3. #3

    Re: Of Physics and philosophy.

    हरिः ओम्


    Namaste sanjaya,

    Hello

    Oh there is a little disdain, it is a reflection of that which I have been on the receiving end of. I have learned much since this first happened
    and I still love physics an science just as profoundly.
    To my mind, rightly or wrongly, a physician is a physician; phd's today are letters which are bought and sold; differentiated knowledge is
    both bondage and ignorance. Chemists are physicists, physicists are astrologers, it is only the last 200 years which have seen the exponential
    explosion of terminology around all the new fields of knowledge.

    Differentiated knowledge is bondage; ignorance of undifferentiated knowledge; is bondage ...

    kāla does as she must; I have no gripe, but I will speak my mind, especially after the administration of legalised dose of a poison which is the
    chemical equivalent to a large hammer to the head. The effect of which was to remove my newly established belief, rather rudely.

    I am overjoyed now to have discovered Jyotish, which explains quite wonderfully.


    praṇāma

    mana



    ॐ नमः शिवाय
    Last edited by Mana; 13 February 2013 at 12:50 PM.

  4. #4

    Re: Of Physics and philosophy.

    हरिः ओम्


    Namaste sanjaya,


    Of course; Astrophysicists have a special place in my heart.

    What is your field of study or work, If you don't mind my enquiry?
    What are you thoughts on Jyotish?
    As you may have gathered, I am rather passionate about it.


    praṇāma

    mana


    ॐ नमः शिवाय

  5. #5
    Join Date
    February 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA / London, UK
    Posts
    34
    Rep Power
    27

    Re: Of Physics and philosophy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mana View Post
    Namaste AG,

    As YajvanJi has rightly pointed out, the welcome thread is not the best- place for this discussion. So I have
    answered you here; I hope that you don't mind AG.
    That's fine with me. Sorry to hear you had a bad experience with your health. I don't believe that disdain towards the scientific community is justified because of it, though.

    It obviously sounds like you have a passion for this stuff, however if it's okay with you we can cut the waffle and discuss topics without rehashing the entire history of science, according subjective interpretations. Cool with you?

    Thanks,
    AG

  6. #6

    Re: Of Physics and philosophy.

    हरिः ओम्


    Namaste,

    I am fine thank you, my society is a little worse for wear though, which is a little irritating. I'm sure science has a cream for that though.

    With all due respect, AG I have no problem with my health, that is your scientific perspective being projected upon me ...
    The power of mantra. This took a very long time for me to undo; the Samskara thick like a treacle*.

    The manta given by science; makes it infinitely more painful to for me, when I see how broken society is today. This has been highly
    predictable for a long time, which is the cause; If you are awake long enough to see that. An art that I am now turning my analytical
    disposition towards.


    You have avoided continually my question pertaining to the language of maths; its axioms, a timely moment to bring it back up I feel.
    please avoid use of the word "they" in your response, I want to know your thoughts and not those of an establishment of others ideas.
    It leaves me with the impression that you are fast asleep.

    Cantor would be a great example for this ...



    praṇāma

    mana

    * "Hot tar" maybe a better description; especially given the origins of this expression, but it is a little too graphic, as the effect is reversible.


    ॐ नमः शिवाय
    Last edited by Mana; 14 February 2013 at 02:48 AM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    November 2009
    Age
    37
    Posts
    839
    Rep Power
    1024

    Re: Of Physics and philosophy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mana View Post
    हरिः ओम्


    Namaste sanjaya,


    Of course; Astrophysicists have a special place in my heart.

    What is your field of study or work, If you don't mind my enquiry?
    What are you thoughts on Jyotish?
    As you may have gathered, I am rather passionate about it




    Haha, good to know your disdain for us is less than the rest of the scientific community.

    Well my field is astrophysics, as you know. Specifically I study particle astrophysics, which has to do with the production of high energy particles by certain classes of objects in space, like supernova remnants, X-ray binary systems, quasars, and such.

    As for Jyotish...not sure you want to know what I think, but since you asked I must be wrong. Let me put it this way: when you know as much astronomy as me, it's hard to believe that the positions of planets is indicative of one's karma. On the bright side I do believe in God and karma, but not that this is dictated by planetary positions. My issue here isn't the proposition of supernatural activity (I've got no problem believing in the supernatural). It's the mechanism. If you gave me some prediction and told me "God said so," there's a decent chance I might believe it. But by invoking astronomical readings, the prediction somehow becomes less plausible in my mind.

    To be fair I don't know that much about Jyotish. I probably will never learn too much about it honestly, because if I investigated every pseudoscientific claim I was presented with, I wouldn't have time to either do real science, or my monthly pujas. Certainly I can respect Jyotish, since it's widely regarded among other Hindus as having a good deal of merit. Heck, my parents are into it, and these days I'm not even sure they believe in God. But it's not something I take too seriously.

    Sorry, don't mean to trample on something you take so seriously.

  8. #8

    Re: Of Physics and philosophy.

    हरिः ओम्


    Namaste sanjaya,

    How wonderful to study something so fascinating for ones work!

    God is such a fundamental prerequisite to my thought that I do at times perhaps negate to mention, but I am Kashmir Shavite
    he permeates everything.
    The Jyotish that I am studying currently, the philosophical framework is based upon Maharishi Parasara; there is a
    most wonderful correlation between his model and that of Astrophysics; Black energy being Narayana shakti.

    Oh we are all free to perceive the world, as it presents its self to us but I will state that, you have misunderstood the nature
    of Jyotish. The planets do not effect us; they merely reflect our state, as śiva folds back upon himself.
    You seem to be surprisingly Newtonian in thought for a particle physicist, I am just a little surprised.
    If I said to you that to my mind the heliocentric model of the solar system is physically impossible; would you call that pseudo
    science? It is total nonsense from a relativistic point of view.
    I would be very interested to hear your definition of time?
    I struggle to accept delta t's everywhere, feeling that they leave massive holes in space; Perhaps their are more recent models
    with which I am not familiar, that have replaced these tools?
    Jyotish examines light and the nature of time. By means of the neuro-endocrian system, so grasp of
    neuroscience is needed to thoroughly follow my line of thought on this.
    There is no action at a distance as everything is unified and is śiva. The same goes for electrons, when they interact at a distance,
    to my mind, that's like saying that the planets effect us at a distance ...

    Pleased to meet you! I am used to dealing with the strong opinions of fellow scientists. I enjoy discussing these matters weather
    the views held are similar or opposing; it is admittedly rather difficult for me to find people who either understand or are interested
    by these concepts, as they are all selectively filtered out of my community.

    praṇāma

    mana


    ॐ नमः शिवाय
    Last edited by Mana; 15 February 2013 at 08:16 AM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    February 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA / London, UK
    Posts
    34
    Rep Power
    27

    Re: Of Physics and philosophy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mana View Post
    हरिः ओम्


    Namaste sanjaya,

    How wonderful to study something so fascinating for ones work!

    God is such a fundamental prerequisite to my thought that I do at times perhaps negate to mention, but I am Kashmir Shavite
    he permeates everything.
    The Jyotish that I am studying currently, the philosophical framework is based upon Maharishi Parasara; there is a
    most wonderful correlation between his model and that of Astrophysics; Black energy being Narayana shakti.

    Oh we are all free to perceive the world, as it presents its self to us but I will state that, you have misunderstood the nature
    of Jyotish. The planets do not effect us; they merely reflect our state, as śiva folds back upon himself.
    You seem to be surprisingly Newtonian in thought for a particle physicist, I am just a little surprised.
    If I said to you that to my mind the heliocentric model of the solar system is physically impossible; would you call that pseudo
    science? It is total nonsense from a relativistic point of view.
    I would be very interested to hear your definition of time?
    I struggle to accept delta t's everywhere, feeling that they leave massive holes in space; Perhaps their are more recent models
    with which I am not familiar, that have replaced these tools?
    Jyotish examines light and the nature of time. By means of the neuro-endocrian system, so grasp of
    neuroscience is needed to thoroughly follow my line of thought on this.
    There is no action at a distance as everything is unified and is śiva. The same goes for electrons, when they interact at a distance,
    to my mind, that's like saying that the planets effect us at a distance ...

    Pleased to meet you! I am used to dealing with the strong opinions of fellow scientists. I enjoy discussing these matters weather
    the views held are similar or opposing; it is admittedly rather difficult for me to find people who either understand or are interested
    by these concepts, as they are all selectively filtered out of my community.

    praṇāma

    mana


    ॐ नमः शिवाय
    Mana,

    I am curious. Speaking in scientific terms, why is God such an important prerequisite to your thought? Let's keep the posts shorter this time. It's very difficult to respond to entire essays.

    Sanjaya - If it's ok with you, I'd like you to weigh in on this scientifically.

    Thanks,
    AG

  10. #10
    Join Date
    November 2009
    Age
    37
    Posts
    839
    Rep Power
    1024

    Re: Of Physics and philosophy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mana View Post
    हरिः ओम्


    Namaste sanjaya,

    How wonderful to study something so fascinating for ones work!
    Definitely one of the reasons I decided to put myself through the hell of graduate school. It's worth it to feel like your job is meaningful. Also beats flipping burgers (or whatever real Indians have at McDonald's back home).

    Quote Originally Posted by Mana View Post
    God is such a fundamental prerequisite to my thought that I do at times perhaps negate to mention, but I am Kashmir Shavite
    Quote Originally Posted by Mana View Post
    he permeates everything.


    It's good to hear that you have such a level of faith as to hold to God as a necessary prerequisite. This is the ultimate act of surrender to God at the intellectual level, and I'm sure is at the core of Sri Krishna's instruction when he says to abandon all worldly forms of religion. Honestly I wish I possessed such a level of devotion. At the moment I don't; I could stop believing in God right now and the philosophical underpinnings of my understanding of the universe would remain intact. I believe in God, mostly because I always have and don't really know or want to know how to. Might also be because most atheist apologists are graceless brutes who don't realize that even a good argument, when presented rudely, will fall on deaf ears (certainly not directed at our friend AG). Who knows? Perhaps I haven't yet accumulated the merit to be granted such faith as of yet.

    As to this statement that God permeates everything. I suppose this could be a rationale for attributing Jyotish predictions ultimately to God. But how does this not distill down to fatalism, where everything that happens is directly attributed to God? Gita says that when there is a decline in dharma and an increase in adharma, the Lord manifests himself to correct human behavior. Furthermore it says that when he descends into Maya, he is not subject to it. That suggests to me that though God permeates the universe, he is in some sense also distinct from it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mana View Post
    Oh we are all free to perceive the world, as it presents its self to us but I will state that, you have misunderstood the nature
    of Jyotish. The planets do not effect us; they merely reflect our state, as śiva folds back upon himself.
    You seem to be surprisingly Newtonian in thought for a particle physicist, I am just a little surprised.
    Well, I might argue that all humans are naturally disposed to Newtonian thought. When something good or bad happens, don't we naturally ask "why?" That suggests we believe in some sort of determinism. I wouldn't say I believe in a strictly deterministic universe. I do believe in a deterministic God though, if only because an arbitrary one would be quite frightful.

    I will say that the notion of planetary positions reflecting the current state of things rather than determining them is slightly more plausible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mana View Post
    If I said to you that to my mind the heliocentric model of the solar system is physically impossible; would you call that pseudo
    Quote Originally Posted by Mana View Post
    science? It is total nonsense from a relativistic point of view.
    I would be very interested to hear your definition of time?
    Depends on the evidence presented. If a weak case were made for heliocentrism, i.e. if someone suggested the model without doing a good year's worth of observations of the planets and the starfield, yes I'd say that the model is unscientific. But when you observe the planets with respect to the stars and recognize that epicycles must be introduced to preserve a geocentric model, you must change your mind and accept heliocentrism. Now with Jyotish, arguments have (presumably) been presented and rejected by scientists. I personally haven't examined them, but someone has, and the community of astronomers rejects the idea because of lack of evidence.

    I think the key point here is that while most ideas are worthy of consideration, they aren't worthy of consideration by everyone. When new ideas are presented, there isn't enough time for every scientist to study every idea. That's why we divide into different fields, and we trust one another's findings. In principle you could classify this approach as appeal to authority, but the argument is one of practicality rather than logic.

    As for defining time, my high school physics teacher asked me that. Still haven't come up with a satisfactory answer.

    I struggle to accept delta t's everywhere, feeling that they leave massive holes in space; Perhaps their are more recent models
    with which I am not familiar, that have replaced these tools?[/QUOTE]

    I'm not familiar with the "delta t" terminology. Can you clarify?

    Quote Originally Posted by Atheist Guru
    Sanjaya - If it's ok with you, I'd like you to weigh in on this scientifically.
    Go for it. I'd only consider it my "scientific duty" to object if you were publishing something in Astrophysical Journal, so I certainly wouldn't want to censor anyone.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Quantum Physics?
    By Equinox in forum Science and Religion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08 August 2012, 09:37 PM
  2. Einstein, science, quantum physics and Hindu phylosophies and advaitha.
    By upsydownyupsy mv ss in forum Science and Religion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 23 July 2010, 03:06 AM
  3. Who or what is God?
    By nac in forum New to Sanatana Dharma
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 14 September 2009, 05:09 AM
  4. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 25 August 2007, 10:39 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •