--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <no_re...@...> wrote: > > > Gotta say it; I don't claim to be a scientist or even all that current, but I > sure can tell that Hugo's grasp of science is missing at least one can of the > six pack. > > It's like Sal is explaining Einstein. Ugh. > > Edg >
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." Einstein. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <fintlewoodlewix@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "anatol_zinc" <anatol_zinc@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > What is Science? > > > > Good question, how about: A quest to explain the universe > > independent of our beliefs/opinions of what it might be? > > > > Or simpler: The search for what *is* rather than what we want > > it to be? > > > > > > > > > > > Ok, let's see what I can offer from my 2cents physics PhD about the > > > following quote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hawkins ~ "There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is > > > based on authority, and science, which is based on observation and > > > reason. Science will win because it works." > > > > > > > > > > > > Is above assumption the whole truth and nothing but the truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > No, it is not! > > > > > > > > > > > > Hawkins is taking a very narrow view and polarizing it by taking the > > > worst of religion and the best of science. This makes me say that > > > Hawkins, if the above quote is accurate, is much much less of a real > > > scientist than Einstein was. It is true that as a young man Einstein > > > felt that much in the bible was not possible, but as he got older he > > > became more tolerant toward religious views, and overall he had his own > > > cosmic religion and did not shy away from using the word God to mean the > > > supreme unknown intelligence of the universe. > > > > Like most physicists (indeed humans in general) Einstein > > would be fascinated by concepts of god but that doesn't > > mean he believed it and even if he did it wouldn't mean > > such a thing was any more or less likely. There are plenty > > of religious scientists as science is simply a tool for > > working things out, some of these are religious by upbringing > > and simply ignore the contradictions between faith and > > discovery, like the school science teacher on a recent TV > > doc who believed the world was only 4000 years old but knew > > from experiment (and taught as much to pupils) that it is in > > fact billions of years older. He couldn't explain his personal > > disconnect between the two positions but was convinced he was > > right about the biblical age(I consider him functionally > > insane). Of the others I don't know, you'd have to ask > > them but I'm sure they'd agree that a belief in god can't > > be acquired scientifically. > > > > The knowledge uncovered by science is what is important here, > > a scientist believing in god doesn't make god more likely, > > the only thing that would do that is if god turned out to be > > a better explanation than any of the alternatives. > > > > > > > Maharishi said, don't remember his words exactly, that the word God > > > is the most [exalted] of all the words and that not believing in God is > > > simply due to a weak mind. > > > > Rather self-serving don't you think? > > > > > > I know that Maharishi is right about this > > > from my years of studying engineering, math, physics( PhD ) and giving > > > up on God; until I met Maharishi and his lecture "atheists shaking > > > hands with God" ; thank you Maharishi. > > > > > > > > > > > > But, before having all sort of discussions about Hawkins etc, > > > shouldn't we first ask the question whether the initial assumption > > > is valid and true? Even if it may be partially valid, is it not > > > necessary to look at the whole picture, as wide a scope as possible, if > > > one is interested in the whole truth and nothing but the truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > So, how about asking "what is science?" > > > > > > > > > > > > We could define science initially as : > > > > > > Observation => recording observation => analysis => making an initial > > > assumption and giving it a fancy name hypothesis => further observation > > > to confirm assumption => repeated confirmations elevate the assumption > > > into a theory => using theory to make predictions and/or technological > > > applications => often newer better theories replace older narrower > > > theories => > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes older theories have to be discarded as bogus, as mistakes due > > > to wrong assumptions; on the other hand some old theories continue to be > > > practical in the limited environment where they work very well like > > > Newtonian Mechanics > > > > > > > > > > > > However, observation and reason in the above steps are only part of the > > > story. We need to ask "where do the hypothetical assumptions come > > > from?" Einstein said that his [amazing] insights came not from his > > > rational mind of observation and reason, but from intuition. And besides > > > that Einstein had a scholarly friend who was into eastern philosophy. > > > Hmmmmm, perhaps the idea for Einstein's Unified Field Theory came > > > from the Vedic view of Brahman, the Absolute Source of All? > > > > And then again perhaps not. The thing about Einsteins insights > > (and all similar scientific revelations like the discovery of > > the shape of DNA in a dream) is that he spent his entire life thinking > > about physics, energy and matter. He is the first to > > admit that he was standing on the shoulders of giants, if it > > wasn't for the discoveries of Newton, Poincare etc. he would > > never have had his revelations. > > > > That the unconscious mind does our thinking for us should come > > as no surprise as it runs our bodies for us without us even > > noticing (have you seen how much work goes into programming a > > robot to walk? we do it automatically) so someone who has > > both an enquiring mind and extensive knowledge of maths and > > physics is actually rather likely to have big ideas. > > > > The unconscious is powerful but is it what you claim it to be? > > On the evidence I would say no because there are too many simpler > > explanations that don't require infite beings of pure knowledge > > for them to work. If Einsteins theory of relativity had popped > > into the head of someone with no knowledge of physics I'd be > > impressed, but things like that never seem to. > > > > Here is how science works: Someone like Einstein notices that > > a current explanation is inadequate to explain the observations > > we have. Experiments are carried out to see if the new theory > > better fits the observations if it does then that theory stands > > until some new evidence comes to light that disproves the old > > idea. So far with Einstein that hasn't happened despite many > > tests, in fact like the theory of evolution only evidence to > > confirm the idea has been found. > > > > Contrast that to religious thought. How much of that actually > > stands up to analysis? I find the idea of received wisdom > > fascinating but have doubts about whether it is all it's > > cracked up to be. If you could really close your eyes/climb > > a mountian etc. and get knowledge handed to you from god > > wouldn't some of it mirror what has actually been discovered > > by science? You'd think so but where is the knowledge about > > the true age of the earth in the vedas? Same with DNA, > > evolution, astronomy etc. It seems to me that science has > > provided us with a demonstrably far superior view of where and > > what we are without ever claiming to be absolutely true, in > > fact quite the opposite. > > > > The so-called "truths" of religion are a bit disappointing if > > we are totally honest. > > > > > > > > > Maharishi also said that all new valid knowledge should be traceable to > > > Vedic knowledge, which does seem to have some validity; > > > > Oh yeah? I think the vedas contrast quite markedly with the > > way we look at things now. So what do you mean exactly? > > > > > > but I still > > > strongly disagree with his approach to stamp the label of > > > "Maharishi" on all Vedic knowledge; in India the strength of > > > everything Vedic has been built and maintained, not by one organization, > > > by innumerable individual realized sages, known and unknown, all real and > > > supreme scientists > > > > > > > > > > > Instead of billionare $ atom smashers, telescopes, and other > > > high-technology to study the huge but limited universe of matter and > > > energy, the ancient Vedic scientists transcended the limited mind of > > > thoughts to plunge into the depths of unbounded/infinite awareness > > > > Great fun, I've done it myself but what amazing knowledge did they uncover > > that actually features as a testable hypothesis? I don't > > believe there has ever been a spiritual revelation that turned > > out to have a basis in fact. Please correct me if I'm wrong. > > > > > > > So now, perhaps we can define science more accurately as: > > > > > > "observation, reason, and faith in intuitive insights which are > > > sometimes called the `Ahaa!' experiences." > > > > Correct except for the "faith" part. It doesn't matter > > where the theory comes from as long as it stands up to a bit > > of probing. > > > > > > > > > > "faith in intuitive insights" sounds like the best of religion > > > to me instead of the worst of religion as authoritative dogma and > > > beliefs based on fear. > > > > > > > > > > > > OK now we're getting somewhere. What kind of sciences are there > > > overall: > > > > > > Science of Matter and Energy > > > > > > Science of Unified Fields > > > > > > Science of Mind/Psychology > > > > > > Science of Medicines > > > > > > Science of Spirituality > > > > Not a real science. > > > > > > > > Science of Religion > > > > Ditto > > > > > > > Science of Economics > > > > > > Science on Oil Spills( ooops ) > > > > Wish it was a real science. > > > > > > > Science of Engineering/Technologies > > > > > > Science of War/Torture > > > > > > > > > > > > And of course all the Vedic Sciences ( on meditation, breath, sound, > > > environment, devotion, health, yoga, family, renunciation, > > > consciousness, etc) > > > > > Science on Nutrition and Health as in www.thechinastudy.com > > > <http://www.thechinastudy.com/> supposed to be the largest research > > > study on nutrition conducted over a period of two decades > > > > > > > > > > > > And how about Science of Common Sense; in everyday life, don't we > > > observe, make assumptions/hypothesis, act accordingly and suffer the > > > consequences good or bad; and don't we sometimes get "aha" > > > insights when our thoughts stop for a moment? True it's our common > > > sense reason which makes either good use of our insights or not, due to > > > our conditioning. > > > > > > > > > > > > And what is the best way to get rid of negative conditioning? Well, > > > reason can help if reason is part of our good conditioning. But the > > > supreme way, is pure observation, free from thoughts, from the clear > > > view of our own awareness. And it seems to be my experience that faith > > > in our own awareness is what makes progress possible in this area. > > > > > > > > > > > > There, I have done it, shown that the highest science is actually based > > > on faith, > > > > Not really, we can kid ourselves too easily, common sense tells > > us that the sun goes round the earth, it can't be trusted. > > > > As Einstein said: Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by > > age eighteen > > > > > > > > >but please remember that it is faith in our own awareness; > > > not faith in dogma( religious or scientific or political or economic ); > > > actually if we look into it, it is not "faith" in dogma, it is > > > all fearÂ…and fear clouds reason, observation and faith > > > > > > > > > > > > From my observation, people define "God" in a limited way and > > > say I don't believe in such a "God." Well good for them! > > > How about we define "God" as the unbounded infinite > > > awareness/consciousness/supreme-intelligence in which all phenomena > > > appears, persists temporarily short or long, and disappears? Hmm. > > > > How about we don't define god at all until someone comes > > up with a whole in understanding so big that only some sort > > of infinite being can fill it? > > > > To me god is simply a way people have always had of accounting > > for things that we have no explanation for, god used to be the > > all powerful creator but in this age of quantum tunnelling and evolution by > > natural selection poor old god has been forced into managing the gaps > > between the bits that make up the bits that > > make up atoms, poor guy! > > > > I'm not being hard on our amazing ancestors, they didn't know > > any better. I do think it's reasonable to have a god to explain > > things when you don't have another way of finding out, seems > > obvious to our common sense that complex things must have a more complex > > creator. And this is where science has done us proud, evolution and the > > physical sciences have shown us that that is > > not only unnecessary but that it never happened, at least in any > > way taught to us by any religion you could name. > > > > What next for knowledge? Is it true that every subatomic particle > > in the multiverse is micro-controlled by a supreme being but > > in a way that makes it all look random? It's possible, but is it likely? > > > > > > > > May > > > take a little honest persistent investigation, real science free from > > > the limitations of fear. We can start with our own awareness and get a > > > hug from Amma currently touring America and ending in Canada on July > > > 22nd. > > > > > > http://www.amma.org/tours/amma-tours/n_america.html > > > <http://www.amma.org/tours/amma-tours/n_america.html> > > > > So all this was a plug for a hug? > > > > OK I'll give it a try but don't expect a major conversion, > > amazing states of consciousness are fun but don't mean that > > the explanations for given for them by the provider are > > necessarily correct. Am I a sceptic or what? > > > > > > > it all comes down to faith and depends on what you choose, some limited > > > dogmatic science or some limited dogmatic religion, or your own > > > unlimited awareness free from dogmas enjoying the best of everything, > > > the best of religion, the best of science, the best of life; and if > > > suffering comes, knowing that too is best for the time being > > > > > > thanks for listening > > > > > > A pleasure. Can I ask you a question? As someone who claims > > a PHD in physics, do you believe there is any possible way > > in physics for yagyas to do what is claimed for them? > > > > And if so, how? > > > > > > > > > Om Namah Sivaya, > > > > Very probably the same to you. > > > > > > > > > > anatol > > > > > >
