I respect Farrokh's stand. I'm a little curious,
though, about some of his remarks here.
First, he is apparently of the Brigante school,
thinking that the tomfoolery in the Movement
is purely the fault of its administrators and not
of the founder.
I have an undergraduate background in physics
and math, from MIU during the Hagelin years,
and I am a long way from being able to touch
Hagelin's level of math. It's unclear which works
of Hagelin's Farrokh is criticizing: his two TM
monographs ("Is Consciousness the Unified Field?"
and "Restructuring Physics from Its Foundation in
Light of Maharishi's Vedic Science") or his published
high-energy physics papers.
The former are not particularly mathematics-based,
so a series of courses in math is not really the right
foundation to critique them; a long series of
graduate-level courses in high-energy physics,
for which the math would be a prerequisite, would
be, however. It doesn't sound as though Farrokh
has taken such classes. Even if he had, the
monographs do not attempt to construct a
finite unified field theory, a central point in
Farrokh's critique.
Hagelin's published physics papers, similarly, do
not attempt to construct a finite unified theory,
nor do they discuss Vedic science. Hagelin's most
celebrated mainstream work was in grand unified
theory and superstrings.
Maharishi has an undergrad background in physics,
at least a working knowledge of "Maharishi's Vedic
Science," and the experience of discussing physics
with Hagelin for decades. If Farrokh is correct that
Maharishi is an intellectual superstar, wouldn't
Maharishi himself be the best judge of whether
Hagelin is using his theories correctly?
What does Farrokh think of Schanbacher's work?
Clements'?
Most notably, given that Farrokh has constructed
"wonderfully elegant solutions" to the problems
of "the dimensionality of space and the origin
of the symmetries of the Standard Model," it's
just a matter of time until he wins multiple
Nobel prizes.
That's pretty cool. You get on with your bad
self, Farrokh!
In this battle of crap vs crap, I think that
Farrokh still has the upper hand, 'cause he
makes sense in just about every other way.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "tmforlife108" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My own approach is somewhat different. I applaud those who take a stand
> against the crap and the nonsense we all have to endure within the
> movement but I have chosen to take a stand against a different type of
> crap and the nonsense. I realised some time ago that the supposed
> scientific analysis of the relationships between modern science and
> Vedic science was in fact pseudo-scientific rubbish. Rather than turn
> around and walk away in disgust I resolved to do something about it. So
> I put myself through a series of courses in mathematics so that I could
> acquire the skills required. My reasoning being that although the
> present analysis is total nonsense, if the insights of Vedic science as
> proposed by Maharishi are true then it ought to be possible to use those
> insights to guide one to solutions to the deepest problems of modern
> physics. I've discovered that this inspiration is correct. But in a very
> unexpected way, or rather perhaps in a way that should have been
> expected for anyone who has had any contact with Maharishi's knowledge.
> When cast in mathematical terms the insight that the ultimate reality is
> of transcendental nature suggests that there can be no finite Unified
> Field Theory. Also the insight that this transcendental reality can be
> experienced as if it were a sequence of experiences happening one after
> the other, as expressed in the Apurusheya Bhashya, has very interesting
> mathematical consequences. Taking this point of view, then some of the
> deepest problems of modern physics such as the dimensionality of space
> and the origin of the symmetries of the Standard Model have wonderfully
> elegant solutions. I recently presented a paper outlining these ideas at
> a conference in Europe, (where I took prize for best lecture), and this
> initial paper will be published next year. Though it's nice to get some
> appreciation from experts who are utterly disdainful of John Hagelin,
> much remains to be done. So it will be some time yet before a complete
> analysis will be possible.
>
> The interesting thing is that one can use use Maharishi's knowledge to
> solve these problems and hence give the knowledge true scientific
> credibility while at the same time demolishing just about everything
> John Hagelin has done. One wonders at the intellectual ineptitude that
> has allowed his ideas to gain credence within the movement. The more I
> study this field the more I find that his ideas are packed solid with
> errors of reasoning and elementary maths. I know of many intelligent
> people within the movement who have their doubts about John Hagelin's
> ideas and even more doubts about Tony Nader's ideas but fail to speak
> out for fear of punishment. However I do not think that he and people
> like him are in any way inherently bad people, it's just that the
> organisational structure of the movement discourages intelligent
> thought. It is the culture of fear within the movement that is inimical
> to genuine scientific enquiry and ultimately that culture of fear has
> its basis in Maharishi himself.
>
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
