--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "hugheshugo" > <richardhughes103@> wrote: > > > > I don't look down my nose at them at all! Not even a little bit, I > > think their achievement in mapping the heavens is amazing, I agree > > the motivation is the same, the thing is science progresses, that is > > the whole point, it's an ongoing attempt to explain our experience. > > > > And as the universe has got larger with ever greater discoveries and > > our understanding of it more refined, previous innaccurate theories > > have to be abandoned, that is how it works. Someone has an idea > > which > > is put out for criticism and it stands or falls depending on whether > > it is a more accurate description of reality. > > > > Astrology as a "science" of human understanding fell by the wayside > > a long time ago, as long ago as Copernicus in fact. It's > > anthropomorphism, you say so yourself and very eloquently I thought. > > I'm an incurable romantic and have often wondered how the universe > > must have seemed to ancient man, imagine being at least as smart as > > people these days but not actually knowing anything about how the > > world is. Of course things like astrology evolved, any framework is > > better than none, they just didn't have the tools to work out it > > wasn't true. > > > > Someone else on here uses the idea that because it has been around > > so long "it's stuck to the wall" it must be true. This is faulty > > reasoning. Sooner or later every culture has to accept that the > > earth > > isn't flat, counter-intuitive though it is the weight of evidence > > eventually becomes overwhelming. > > > > So the question is not "is astrology an accurate descritption of > > reality" but "why do so many continue to believe in it?" I think it > > sticks to the wall because it's such a seductive idea that we can > > see the future and avoid returning karma, it can even help with > > relationships and tell us how wonderful we are! I also think there > > is a fear of loneliness or that we are truly responsible for > > ourselves and all that happens in our lives, blame is better to > > give than recieve. > > > > So the meme continues to propagate to every new generation. Most > > people encounter astrology in some form long before they come across > > physics or cosmology but they have taught us much more about the > > universe and ourselves than jyotish ever could but as you say that > > was the starting point. > > Just to have fun riffing on your ideas, and NOT > to argue, here's another way of looking at the > situation. > > Is it possible that science is *just* as much a > "seductive idea that we can see the future and > avoid returning karma?" While it may be more > verifiable within a certain range of states of > consciousness than astrology or Godthink or > those other belief systems, isn't it -- like all > of the others -- somewhat of an attempt at hubris? >
I would say that it isn't hubris because it only accepts as true things that can stand up to a bit of experimantal probing. I doubt anyone could have guessed where our view of the world was heading when Einstein started work but as it became obvious that ideas needed to be overhauled that's what happened. And then came quantum physics which is surreally counter-intuitive, but is it like that simply because we don't understand it fully or is the universe actually stranger than we CAN suppose? And that I think is another way of asking your question, can our brains, our maths and science really explain what's going on or are we just kidding ourselves that the model of reality we've constructed is accurate. I was reading in New Scientist that new evidence has come to light "proving" that the universe only exists when we look at it, which is as bizarre an idea as you'll get. I don't think it will stand the test of time as there are other theories that explain the same thing but without contradicting anything else we know. The favourite being the idea that there are an infinite number of universes sharing the same space, even the same electrons. Apparently that is the simplest explantion for the quantum paradoxes. Just think, every possible version of me, you, Laurel and Hardy, aardvarks, everything, all possible combinations all existing somewhere on the continuum in slightly different universes, and it can be proved with a simple experiment involving a laser and a piece of cardboard (seriously). I'm out of time tonight or I would really go into it, another time. > That is, isn't the idea of science based on the > assumption that we *can* "figure it out," and > come up with definitive reasons why things are > the way they appear to be, and thus to predict > what might happen in the future, given a similar > set of inputs? > > From my point of view, science -- like most forms > of Creation Science, Western or Eastern -- are > predicated on the acceptance of how the world > appears from one state of consciousness -- MMY's > waking state. From that state, it appears that > time is a given. But all of us here have heard > talks about states of consciousness in which time > is not a part of the operating system; time does > not exist in those states. > > Science seems (to me) based on linear thinking, > start and stop, cause and effect. This is merely > assumed as a baseline for all other assumptions > that are predicated upon it. So-called rational > thinking *depends* upon time, and upon the accept- > ance of cause and effect within a linear timeline. > Thus the whole term "non sequitur." It "does not > follow," and thus it is not rational. > > I guess my question is, would its findings of a > "science" based on the assumption of linearity and > time still be "true" when viewed from a state of > consciousness -- and thus a state of reality -- in > which time was no longer a factor? I guess if you were in a state where time had no meaning it would be tricky to set up experiments! I would say time is real as there is too much evidence at the macro level we live at, things like evolution, the expanding universe must have started somewhere. So I would say that enlightened states, like all states are "just" a personal viewpoint. Unless they somehow see their whole lives as happening at once which sounds like a sort of controlled schizophrenia that someone not sharing wouldn't be able to understand. But who would be right? I think you would have to take people out of the equation which quantum physicists will tell is impossible. I'm sure time flows on regardless of whether we perceive it as doing so. Don't the enlightened perceive both states simultaneously though? How could they function if they didn't. > > Just questions to play with. I agree with most of > what you said above; I'm just riffing on the idea > that science is that much more evolved than > astrology. They're IMO both still based on the same > assumption, which I don't necessarily believe is > a given. I think that there is a possibility that > basing one's entire world view on the assumption > of linearity -- and thus the theoretical beginning > and end of the universe -- may be as much of an > anthropomorphization as projecting the images of > Gods onto star patterns. > > Could it be that the projection of linearity -- of > birth and death -- onto the universe is just another > way of anthropomorphizing our fear of death? "Yeah, > I'm gonna die, but so is the universe, so it's all Ok." > > :-) I'm not convinced it's projected. I would have thought that a fear of death would lead to the opposite of linearity and we invented religous concepts like heaven and hell, reincarnation etc to sweeten the hideous truth a bit, who really knows? Not me. > Just stuff to think about...not a declaration of How > Things Work. I *don't know* How Things Work, and that > provides as much enduring pleasure to me as trying to > figure out How Things Work seems to provide for others. > I don't think anyone really knows how things work, yet....but they assure us it's nearly complete but then they said that after Newton and probably after the first horoscope. For me, the whole joy of it is there is plenty of room for a paradigm shift or two.
