Thread: Physics and Mysticism

Physics and mysticism seem to be coming to a somewhat similar vision.
I've been reading about how at both the sub atomic and cosmic level the definition of reality is becoming somewhat fluid. About how at the subatomic level the quantum foam seems to be in disobedience to all known physical laws. Time and space are confused and variable at this level. At the cosmic level with dark matter, dark energy, space being warped, black holes etc. reality seems to be "stranger than we can imagine".

On the other hand mystics attain states of consciousness where reality does not appear the same as it does normally. There is a realization that "I know nothing."
Everything appears as a web of intertwined thought energy with our own consciousness only being an "eddy" in the flow. The Hindus call it "maya" (illusion)
Buddhism has been accused of being more the study of reality than of God, likening existence to a dream.

Just one point. Thats all. How would you define a "point" in space/time. How could you fix and define a point? With everything moving in relation to each other, time flowing at different rates the only way you could define a point would be in relation to another object in space/time. Would you give the point a duration? If so it would not be able to define it as the same point because during that duration everything would have shifted in relation to said point. Unless time is made of units instead of a steady flow, for a point to be static it would have to exist with no passage of time. Or in other words a point by definition cannot exist. What I am getting at is there cannot be a defined point unless that point were to be at the place and instant of the big bang. (if there was a big bang)
If a single fixed point is impossible to define, what then is real?

It seems that both science and the mystics have come to the realization that the world is not as concrete and "real" as we think.

Best Wishes
Randy J.

Originally Posted by czydiamond

Physics and mysticism seem to be coming to a somewhat similar vision.
I've been reading about how at both the sub atomic and cosmic level the definition of reality is becoming somewhat fluid. About how at the subatomic level the quantum foam seems to be in disobedience to all known physical laws. Time and space are confused and variable at this level. At the cosmic level with dark matter, dark energy, space being warped, black holes etc. reality seems to be "stranger than we can imagine".

On the other hand mystics attain states of consciousness where reality does not appear the same as it does normally. There is a realization that "I know nothing."
Everything appears as a web of intertwined thought energy with our own consciousness only being an "eddy" in the flow. The Hindus call it "maya" (illusion)
Buddhism has been accused of being more the study of reality than of God, likening existence to a dream.

Just one point. Thats all. How would you define a "point" in space/time. How could you fix and define a point? With everything moving in relation to each other, time flowing at different rates the only way you could define a point would be in relation to another object in space/time. Would you give the point a duration? If so it would not be able to define it as the same point because during that duration everything would have shifted in relation to said point. Unless time is made of units instead of a steady flow, for a point to be static it would have to exist with no passage of time. Or in other words a point by definition cannot exist. What I am getting at is there cannot be a defined point unless that point were to be at the place and instant of the big bang. (if there was a big bang)
If a single fixed point is impossible to define, what then is real?

It seems that both science and the mystics have come to the realization that the world is not as concrete and "real" as we think.

Best Wishes
Randy J.

Nope.

Spacetime is a mathematical 4-manifold. "Point" has its usual meaning.

No mysticism, except by those who lack understanding and wish to make it mystical.

Mysticisn is antithetical to science.

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Originally Posted by czydiamond

Physics and mysticism seem to be coming to a somewhat similar vision.
I've been reading about how at both the sub atomic and cosmic level the definition of reality is becoming somewhat fluid. About how at the subatomic level the quantum foam seems to be in disobedience to all known physical laws. Time and space are confused and variable at this level. At the cosmic level with dark matter, dark energy, space being warped, black holes etc. reality seems to be "stranger than we can imagine".

On the other hand mystics attain states of consciousness where reality does not appear the same as it does normally. There is a realization that "I know nothing."
Everything appears as a web of intertwined thought energy with our own consciousness only being an "eddy" in the flow. The Hindus call it "maya" (illusion)
Buddhism has been accused of being more the study of reality than of God, likening existence to a dream.

Just one point. Thats all. How would you define a "point" in space/time. How could you fix and define a point? With everything moving in relation to each other, time flowing at different rates the only way you could define a point would be in relation to another object in space/time. Would you give the point a duration? If so it would not be able to define it as the same point because during that duration everything would have shifted in relation to said point. Unless time is made of units instead of a steady flow, for a point to be static it would have to exist with no passage of time. Or in other words a point by definition cannot exist. What I am getting at is there cannot be a defined point unless that point were to be at the place and instant of the big bang. (if there was a big bang)
If a single fixed point is impossible to define, what then is real?

It seems that both science and the mystics have come to the realization that the world is not as concrete and "real" as we think.

Best Wishes
Randy J.

Nope.

Spacetime is a mathematical 4-manifold. "Point" has its usual meaning.

No mysticism, except by those who lack understanding and wish to make it mystical.

Mysticisn is antithetical to science.

What is the usual meaning of a point....

Nope mysticism has a deep relation to physics..its not because i don't understand science it because i feel it....

To say that mysticism and science are antiethical is to admit ones total ignorance of what mysticism is.
R.J.

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Nope.

Spacetime is a mathematical 4-manifold. "Point" has its usual meaning.

you say this as if it is true. math is our way of rationalizing the universe as something we can comprehend since it allows us to give proportions and ratios to everything. if there was only one single simple object in the entire universe, all of its attributes would be unknown because they could not be comprehended without comparison to something else. i think this is what is meant by "point". to me its as if the universe is only possible in the context of interactions. again I am taking this to seem as though you are justifying that the concept of "point" is nothing more than the standard definition, despite that this definition was created about the concept. whydowecareaboutwhatwebelieve?

also the connection between physics and mysticism seems like a relation to chaos. all i can say is that alchemy is a terrific way to truly comprehend reality, since it allows you to experience (and experience is entirely different from and ABOVE comprehension or understanding) irrational chaos as a way of 'supporting the opposing viewpoint' as they say in writing and therefore better understand rational ideas by contrast.

Originally Posted by czydiamond

To say that mysticism and science are antiethical is to admit ones total ignorance of what mysticism is.
R.J.

Mysticism is looking for answers by assuming the supernatural and superstition instead of using reason and empiricism. Science is exactly the opposite.

There is no superstition in mysticism, which you define with a very broad brush.
Mysticism is the practice of viewing life and consciousness from a different perspective. Traditionally practiced through meditation and more recently using psychoactive substances and or meditation. Believe me, things can look VERY different. The previous poster mentioned a state of chaos, which in physics we have recently become aware of. Mystics have been aware of this for thousands of years.
Called the wall of unknowing or the veil. Reality seems to be very much an illusion, a steam of energy more than matter. Ever heard of consensus reality? One of mysticism's prime tenets, if it can be said to have tenets, is that "I know nothing". I think many physicists, when beginning to understand the chaos inherent in the subatomic and cosmic and temporal (and how many more we know nothing of) levels of the universe, begin to realize the same. "I know nothing".
R.J.

I think what he is getting at is that at the very edge of our understanding at the moment, there is a lot of uncertainty and probability involved. So the only thing that seems to link the two is the "Unknown", but i dont agree they are remotely related.
Science seeks to reduce the unknowns at least until its clear they are part of the mechanism, like the uncertainty principal. Whereas mysticism seeks to worship the "unknown" as something supernatural and spiritual, requiring faith without evidence.

just because science concedes to some things in the universe being uncertain as part of the structure, you cant say that means mysticism and science are merging together.
This is just another manifestation of the "god of the gaps" arguments. And all this "I know nothing" stuff is purely philosophical. Everyone knows when it comes down to it you cant prove anything as being real outside of your own head, but thoughts like that dont belong in this section. If we take that attitude we might as well forget the whole scientific endeavour then!

You seem to imply that we are on the very edge of getting it. Just like the Buddhists and Hindus cant seem to quite get it I think they at least know it better.
You guys would love some of the Tibetan Buddhists, they have been accused of being atheists because they view themselves as more trying to understand reality than of worshiping a god.
I think that they differ amongst them selves as to whether there is a god or if reality is more an amorphous, shifting, undirected consciousness.
Many folks have taken to creating their own religions from other peoples writings or hearing. We are all nuts anyway and we are able to imagine many things.
I in no way demean science except to say that some are too dogmatic in dismissing any but the traditional material way of looking at things. How in the world can you think we're even close? When the entire basis of the physical world is found to be only chaos? Can you measure good or evil? I wonder if the stars are aware? Ever smell the air just after it rains? Can you define the space between wakefulness and dreams? Can't you see the beauty, love and structure apparent all around us, all too often hidden by our own stupidity.
Lots of mystics, I think, have lost it a bit when they view reality as being uncaring, or impersonal and random. Trouble is we cant find our own way back. I'd be awfully scared right now if this is all we have. Why all the misery amidst all the goodness? Kind of like a piece of s**t in the middle of a really beautiful lawn.
I'm not a stockbroker but I really think there is a correction coming.
R.J.

The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible. ~ Albert Einstein

Who was it that said that "the universe is not only stranger than we can think, but stranger than we can imagine."

It has also been said that men are "ever learning but not able to come to the knowledge of the truth"

I do not think that any form of mysticism can carry us any further than science can. I have read some opinions on this, and most of them hover along the fact that science is inherently limited due to its reliance on empiricism while spiritual knowledge is virtually limitless.

However, if you start to look at it, you see that every form of spiritual knowledge has to limit itself at some point through a basic doctrine. Rather than relying on a set of determinable and measurable quantities, spiritual knowledge relies on a set of basic and immutable truths that are not really attained through anything but an empiric deduction or a set of personal experiments -- so they really hit against the same wall. This is, in fact, normal; just like we find a fact that contradicts the theory of relativity to be irrational and impossible, a Buddhist will find a fact that contradicts the generality of Samsara to be irrational and impossible. It's the same kind of limit, only a different kind of wall.

So if you are thinking that spiritual knowledge can take you further than science can, think again. The only other major difference is that scientists also try to test their conclusions against reality, while most mystics try to frame and bend the reality until it takes the shape required to fit their truths.

I agree with you that there are the same limits to the mystic as there are to science.
I hate to try to put this into words, as I am not really a poet, and words cannot convey the intangible, but most mystics view our condition as being lost in a sea of dreams. The mystical traditions generally teach acceptance of this being lost and not knowing, trusting that the universe will work stuff out in the end.
There are many mystics who do not believe in God, but instead see reality as being uncaring, just a flow of living, peaceful, aware energy, flowing without direction throughout eternity.
Mans unhappiness is caused by his blindness.
While I agree that both science and mysticism, which both rely on our own abilities is no ultimate answer.
We are all lost children who imagine ourselves to be found.
That is why I endeavor to put my trust in the One in whose thoughts we all have our being. Faith is something which cannot be proven or disproved, but let me ask you, "Have you seen the stars tonight". We are meant for so incredibly much more than what we have.

Best Wishes
Randy J.

you should read these books on science and mysticism


http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com...y/theology.pdf
PROLEGOMENON TO THE STUDY OF THE SIMILARITIES IN MYSTICAL THEOLOGY AND SCIENCE


http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com...Decentred1.pdf

PROLEGOMENON TO A NEW COPERNICAN REVOLUTION
A NEW SCIENCE MAN LOOSES HIS PRIVILEGED PLACE AT THE CENTRE OF THE UNIVERSE AS A PRIVILEGED KNOWER MAN IS DECENTRED

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Originally Posted by czydiamond

Best Wishes
Randy J.

Nope.

Spacetime is a mathematical 4-manifold. "Point" has its usual meaning.

No mysticism, except by those who lack understanding and wish to make it mystical.

Mysticisn is antithetical to science.

And yet, most of the great scientists who actually pushed things forward read mystical texts along the way. Fermi quotes from the Baghavad Ghita (however you spell that...) Both Einstein and Newton studied alchemy. (Or at least one of Einstein's wives said that he was constantly reading alchemical texts.)

Originally Posted by kojax

And yet, most of the great scientists who actually pushed things forward read mystical texts along the way. Fermi quotes from the Baghavad Ghita (however you spell that...) Both Einstein and Newton studied alchemy. (Or at least one of Einstein's wives said that he was constantly reading alchemical texts.)

And yet, all of their actual discoveries came from reality, not adherence to some mystical text. Any similarities between superstitions and science are only ever noticed after the fact through very vague and liberal interpretation. There is no such thing as the aether. Saying that Newton believed in it doesn't make it exist and neither does redefining the word. (And no, Einstein did not believe in the aether, nor anything else in alchemy.)

and even if he did it wouldn't matter. His theories, as well as newton's, exist independent of what they personally believe.

and besides that, mystical texts are great reads as long as you know they aren't grounded in reality

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician

and even if he did it wouldn't matter. His theories, as well as newton's, exist independent of what they personally believe.

Yeah. I'm thinking that it certainly didn't hurt. There's no reason a modern physicist should avoid investigating that stuff.

and besides that, mystical texts are great reads as long as you know they aren't grounded in reality

It was probably just a pass time or hobby for most, but there's no way to tell what they did with the half-completed conjectures they were reading. Maybe they stumbled onto something in the text that could be turned into a good idea by correcting some logical mistakes, and adding some reliable data. Like "fixer upper" ideas.

It's no different than being fascinated with Star Wars or Star Trek, or any number of science fiction writers, except the ideas in an arcane text usually have multiple contributors instead of just one.

Originally Posted by czydiamond

There is no superstition in mysticism, which you define with a very broad brush.
Mysticism is the practice of viewing life and consciousness from a different perspective. Traditionally practiced through meditation and more recently using psychoactive substances and or meditation. Believe me, things can look VERY different. The previous poster mentioned a state of chaos, which in physics we have recently become aware of. Mystics have been aware of this for thousands of years.
Called the wall of unknowing or the veil. Reality seems to be very much an illusion, a steam of energy more than matter. Ever heard of consensus reality? One of mysticism's prime tenets, if it can be said to have tenets, is that "I know nothing". I think many physicists, when beginning to understand the chaos inherent in the subatomic and cosmic and temporal (and how many more we know nothing of) levels of the universe, begin to realize the same. "I know nothing".
R.J.

Fine. Then mysticism is using subjective experiences as opposed to objective verification. The latter is what science is all about. Trying to use methods like meditation to find answers implies that there should be something else than what can be described by reason and empiricism - which I deny. Any "subjective truth" is by definition outside science, because it is not verifiable. Sure. Things may look very different. But do these experiences have anything to do with reality, or are they just a result of a mental state?