[FairfieldLife] Re: Einstein was a man of faith !
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anatol_zinc anatol_z...@... wrote: OK, Hugo, You are entitled to your POV, just like the rest of us. If it makes you happy, more power to you. If not, maybe go outside your fixed POV and explore a little; that's what real scientist do; get a hug from Amma or whatever. It does make me happy old chap, but I still like to get out of my POV which is why I joined the TMO as a live-in psyche explorer, I still meditate but wasn't convinced that MMY had the answers I was looking for. For many reasons that I'd be happy to explain, I see the TMO as dogmatic rather than open minded and definitely not scientifc in any meaningful way. But it was great fun finding that out and fun is what life is fundamentally all about if you're doing it properly. Maharishi encouraged physicists in the 70's and 80's that it should be possible to fulfill Einstein's dream of formulating Unified Field theories. And they did come up with what are called string theories, if I remember correctly. Actually I don't think any one ever came up with a theory because MMY asked them to. Interestingly the string theories are about as much use as theology because they are unprovable, there are as many different versions as there are atoms in the universe making which one you're in tricky to pin down experimentally. And they aren't fundamental as they require a background to operate in and so aren't UF theories at all. In fact it was the hubris of string theorists with their belief that the universe could be explained mathematically that held back physics, no experiments = no certainty = no Nobel prizes. The LHC at CERN is more a kind of hit and hope machine than a way of testing a particluar thoery. Fun to see what it comes up with though And it's interesting that the attributes of the Unified Field string theories basically was/is the same as the attributes of the God of the mystics or even that of the core essence of religions if you know where to look ~ a field of seeming unmanifest nothingness with attributes of omnipresence-omniscience-omnipotence in which and from which all manifest creation arises. I think you muddy the waters here with this same as the mystics argument, that the universe may have started with a unified field isn't the same as MMYs field of intelligence as that is supposed to still be active in the world in an actually intelligent way, but no one ever explains why the quantum world appears essentially random which it surely wouldn't there was a god controlling it, epecially as that makes gods job of intervening in the world a tricky business. Add to that the conceit that we can affect the world at this level by meditating and it's clear they are two totally seperate concepts and that the quantum mystics are mis- appropriating the lingo to make everyone think they are the same thing and that TM science has a parralel at CERN. Or as many current teachers say, by giving up all definitions, all preconceptions, self-realize the awareness which may seem initially as total emptiness/nothingness and then observe that it contains everything. In other words, don't juts rely on science and scientist external to yourself, become a real scientist yourself and experience truth rather that try to define it, which of course you can always do later for the fun of communicating. Observe, record, reason, take a break, allow thoughts to stop, allow intuition, have confidence in your own intuition, observe without thoughts, repeat, have fun, be happy, get a hug once a year; this is my science. Mine too actually, except for the hug part, sounds like fun though..
[FairfieldLife] Re: Einstein was a man of faith !
Tell us what kind of experiment is needed to prove String Theories.? You don't seem to have much confidence about the LHC.? --- On Mon, 6/14/10, Hugo fintlewoodle...@mail.com wrote: Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Einstein was a man of faith ! Date: Monday, June 14, 2010, 8:20 AM It does make me happy old chap, but I still like to get out of my POV which is why I joined the TMO as a live-in psyche explorer, I still meditate but wasn't convinced that MMY had the answers I was looking for. For many reasons that I'd be happy to explain, I see the TMO as dogmatic rather than open minded and definitely not scientifc in any meaningful way. But it was great fun finding that out and fun is what life is fundamentally all about if you're doing it properly. Maharishi encouraged physicists in the 70's and 80's that it should be possible to fulfill Einstein's dream of formulating Unified Field theories. And they did come up with what are called string theories, if I remember correctly. Actually I don't think any one ever came up with a theory because MMY asked them to. Interestingly the string theories are about as much use as theology because they are unprovable, there are as many different versions as there are atoms in the universe making which one you're in tricky to pin down experimentally. And they aren't fundamental as they require a background to operate in and so aren't UF theories at all. In fact it was the hubris of string theorists with their belief that the universe could be explained mathematically that held back physics, no experiments = no certainty = no Nobel prizes. The LHC at CERN is more a kind of hit and hope machine than a way of testing a particluar thoery. Fun to see what it comes up with though And it's interesting that the attributes of the Unified Field string theories basically was/is the same as the attributes of the God of the mystics or even that of the core essence of religions if you know where to look ~ a field of seeming unmanifest nothingness with attributes of omnipresence-omniscience-omnipotence in which and from which all manifest creation arises. I think you muddy the waters here with this same as the mystics argument, that the universe may have started with a unified field isn't the same as MMYs field of intelligence as that is supposed to still be active in the world in an actually intelligent way, but no one ever explains why the quantum world appears essentially random which it surely wouldn't there was a god controlling it, epecially as that makes gods job of intervening in the world a tricky business. Add to that the conceit that we can affect the world at this level by meditating and it's clear they are two totally seperate concepts and that the quantum mystics are mis- appropriating the lingo to make everyone think they are the same thing and that TM science has a parralel at CERN. Or as many current teachers say, by giving up all definitions, all preconceptions, self-realize the awareness which may seem initially as total emptiness/nothingness and then observe that it contains everything. In other words, don't juts rely on science and scientist external to yourself, become a real scientist yourself and experience truth rather that try to define it, which of course you can always do later for the fun of communicating. Observe, record, reason, take a break, allow thoughts to stop, allow intuition, have confidence in your own intuition, observe without thoughts, repeat, have fun, be happy, get a hug once a year; this is my science. Mine too actually, except for the hug part, sounds like fun though..
[FairfieldLife] Re: Einstein was a man of faith !
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo fintlewoodle...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anatol_zinc anatol_zinc@ wrote: snip And it's interesting that the attributes of the Unified Field string theories basically was/is the same as the attributes of the God of the mystics or even that of the core essence of religions if you know where to look ~ a field of seeming unmanifest nothingness with attributes of omnipresence-omniscience-omnipotence in which and from which all manifest creation arises. I think you muddy the waters here with this same as the mystics argument, that the universe may have started with a unified field isn't the same as MMYs field of intelligence as that is supposed to still be active in the world in an actually intelligent way, but no one ever explains why the quantum world appears essentially random which it surely wouldn't there was a god controlling it, epecially as that makes gods job of intervening in the world a tricky business. Wow. That's your notion of what MMY meant by the Unified Field?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Einstein was a man of faith !
I don't want to get into any of the knee-jerk defenses of faith vs. reason or God vs. things-just-happening; there is a place for both points of view in the world. I'm merely reacting to the oft-repeated-as-if-it-were- true claim that Einstein was a religionist or believed in God, almost always repeated by God freaks. T'ain't true. He said some things that mentioned God, usually as a metaphor for the laws of nature as he perceived them. These quotes have been touted by people with a God to sell, doing the same thing Maharishi did, trying to use a public figure to sell their ideas. But the vast majority of Einstein's quotes in letters and talks dealt with his *lack* of belief in any kind of sentient God. His daughter in recent years has released a number of these letters into the public domain, with the effect that Einstein's overall position as a rational humanist with an astounding sense of wonder about the universe, but without the need to project some kind of sentience guiding and controlling it, is clear. Here are a few balancing quotes from him. Those who feel that they need to become angry or lash out at either him or at me for pointing them out, please read my recent post on Faith before doing so to get a feel for what you look like, and what you are demon- strating about the nature of your faith when you do so. http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/einstein.htm http://www.atheistempire.com/greatminds/quotes.php?author=9 http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Religions-Atheist-Atheism-Agnostic.htm Now, that taken care of, as to the question of intuition. I for one see no problem with intuition being both a valuable and a valid mechanism, in both life and science. Having a feeling for how something works sometimes leads scientists to deeper and fuller understanding of the thing, and how it indeed seems to work. Sometimes it doesn't, and leads down a blind alley. The issue, in my opinion, is which one owes allegiance to the most -- one's intuition, or the facts. If the latter, you're a scientist, and will have no problem shrugging your shoulders, saying Ooops...wrong about that one, and moving on. If the former, you're a religionist (or a solipsist), and choose to disregard verifiable, demonstrable facts so that you can persist in believing the things you want to believe. While the latter approach is as old as humanity, and seems to be the Operating System du Jour on this dumb- and-dumber planet, you're never going to convince me that it's either a rational approach, or a spiritual one. My notion of spiritual most closely maps to the Buddhist one of trying to suss out What is, without a lot of What I've been told is or What I'd like to be in the way. Your mileage may vary. And that's OK, if you want to live your life that way. But don't think for a minute that you choosing to live your life that way sets any kind of standard.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Einstein was a man of faith !
If they are my definitions of the words being used by Einstein in the quotes you've linked to, then he and I exactly agree -- exactly. He speaks pure Advaita. You anti-God-ists refuse to have a legitimate debate and insist on strawdogging by this easily thrashed dead-horse meme of personal God. Every time I use the word God, not a, ahem, soul here has bothered to see if I mean personal God or Einstein's object of wonderment. That's the tell, ya see? You anti-God-ists are out for a fight and pick your issues that you think are your aces up your sleeves. And, bother! if anyone tries to spotlight deeper issues. Anti-God-ists come off as sycophants of Holy Concept -- all bow to the power of concepts! Pray for another concept to arrive. Sickeningly religious if you ask me. Einstein's quotes clearly show his strongest endorsement of awareness and being as palpable memes that cannot be un-included in a scientific summation of the basis of creation. Awareness is required for any religion, but awareness has no need for any particularity when it comes to embodiments. Argue all day long about vanilla or chocolate, get off on it and rouse yourselves to heights of fervor, but let's all agree that there is such a thing as taste -- common ground, eh? That Einstein did not believe in a soul that survives death is the most powerful card anti-God-ists can play -- their faces displaying a proud smuggery that they've got the top trump. Note that Einstein says Buddhism would be a religion that came close to meeting his need for logic and sanity in a relationship with the unknown. Obviously Buddhism's void is a central meme that resonates with science's holy grail of the unified field -- for in such a field, there can be no defining (G. O. D. = Get Over Defining) since all forces would be one -- and where there's solely one there cannot be a second element with the role of observer. There's your Quantum God.pure unified everything more intimate with itself than two entangled photons. Whew, it takes my breath away when I read about today's ESTABLISHED profundities. If I were a Christian, I'd be bad-mouthing quantum physics with every Sunday's sermoning breath. And I suppose many of them do. They'd be the smarties. I haven't googled it, but maybe Einstein can be found opining that this unified field that is so sought by today's (post Bohr) very religious scientists who believe so deeply that it must exist is righteously labeled God, or Being or Awareness -- but always with the dynamic alive being integral to any defining. I see nothing in the quotes provided that would obviate this possibility -- that the unified field is alive and at least 13 billion years old, if not eternal. Alive would mean -- processing awareness that is structured by inviolate axioms of relationship. In this religion, one might say that an electron is being holy when it circles a proton exactly so. It is sinless, ya see? There is your alter, there is your saint with perfect humility. Every time I read about how physics is trending, I never see atheism becoming more solid. I see religion's power rent, but transcendentalism is all the more supported thereby. When I read Einstein's words, I hear a clarion pealing that there is a something which is beyond grasp by concept but which is as deserving of worship which one sees modeled in the electron's constancy as it en-spheres the proton. Indeed, I am humbled thusly, for I have not yet that perfect ability to focus on the centrality of existence -- Being -- in such lock-step resonance with it. If I did, I know I would feel ELECTRIC! Edg -- Priest of the Living Unknown --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: I don't want to get into any of the knee-jerk defenses of faith vs. reason or God vs. things-just-happening; there is a place for both points of view in the world. I'm merely reacting to the oft-repeated-as-if-it-were- true claim that Einstein was a religionist or believed in God, almost always repeated by God freaks. T'ain't true. He said some things that mentioned God, usually as a metaphor for the laws of nature as he perceived them. These quotes have been touted by people with a God to sell, doing the same thing Maharishi did, trying to use a public figure to sell their ideas. But the vast majority of Einstein's quotes in letters and talks dealt with his *lack* of belief in any kind of sentient God. His daughter in recent years has released a number of these letters into the public domain, with the effect that Einstein's overall position as a rational humanist with an astounding sense of wonder about the universe, but without the need to project some kind of sentience guiding and controlling it, is clear. Here are a few balancing quotes from him. Those who feel that they need to become angry or lash out at either him or at me for pointing them out,
[FairfieldLife] Re: Einstein was a man of faith !
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anatol_zinc anatol_z...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anatol_zinc anatol_zinc@ wrote: Einstein's theory of General Relativity predicted that light would bend bypassing a massive planet like the Sun. That was the only feasible experiment for his untested theory at the time since there were no lasers, etc. Einstein was asked what if the experiment proves his theory wrong? He said that would mean the experiment was not done properly. Amen ! HUGO: Wrong about the faith part I'm afraid. That was a measure simply of how confident he was about his theory of gravity and light. .. OK Hugo, so you see a big difference between the word faith and the word confidence. Not really, but you were implying Einstein was religious about science when he wasn't at all. I guess the difference between faith in god and confidence in his theory is that his theory was always testable when the existence of a god of any sort appears not to be. One can therefore have confidence in one's theories but one can only have faith in god. Well I'm no psychic, I don't believe anyone is. And I am confident about that :-) So let me guess, you might say I have confidence in myself and no-faith in God. Well what if, myself = God and confidence = faith? You can see how absurd the above assertion is. I would say I have occasional confidence in myself and no faith that there is a god. Couldn't see the point really, god is a bit of a failed hypothesis as far as I'm concerned, I've read all the holy books and god seems like a part of cultures that are so distant it's hard to say what god actually was to them. Was he an astronaut or the halucinations from a now defunct part of our brains? Was he an invention by the ruling class to keep the lower orders in line or was he a real live flesh and blood supreme creator being who just happens to not want to have anything to do with us any more? Or was he a name people came up with to explain how they felt in altered states of consciousness bought on by too much mushroom tea or meditation, or both? It's like the atheist said I did not believe in God, until I found out I am God I would say idiot rather than athiest, all they did was change a definition of something to incorporate a change of opinion about themselves. It isn't like thinking you are god changes the meaning of any other discoveries in any way whatsoever, it is merely a religious concept that makes spiritual people feel better about themselves. No harm in it but it's a conclusion based on faith. If you could *prove* you were god, that would be a different matter but I suspect most people would just say that isn't what god means.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Einstein was a man of faith !
OK, Hugo, You are entitled to your POV, just like the rest of us. If it makes you happy, more power to you. If not, maybe go outside your fixed POV and explore a little; that's what real scientist do; get a hug from Amma or whatever. Let me repeat myself from a previous post with a few additions [] : From my observation, people define God in a limited way and say I don't believe in such a God. Well good for them! [but basically they are arguing with their own definitions] 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. May take a little honest persistent investigation, real science free from the limitations of fear [and fixed definitions of science, fixed definitions of religion, fixed definitions of spirituality] Added comment: or we can let go of all definitions, and start observing with our own awareness, our own existence, and see where that leads us; observe and notice without preconceptions not only the forms and noise but also that which is formless and noiseless. Maharishi encouraged physicists in the 70's and 80's that it should be possible to fulfill Einstein's dream of formulating Unified Field theories. And they did come up with what are called string theories, if I remember correctly. And it's interesting that the attributes of the Unified Field string theories basically was/is the same as the attributes of the God of the mystics or even that of the core essence of religions if you know where to look ~ a field of seeming unmanifest nothingness with attributes of omnipresence-omniscience-omnipotence in which and from which all manifest creation arises. Or as many current teachers say, by giving up all definitions, all preconceptions, self-realize the awareness which may seem initially as total emptiness/nothingness and then observe that it contains everything. In other words, don't juts rely on science and scientist external to yourself, become a real scientist yourself and experience truth rather that try to define it, which of course you can always do later for the fun of communicating. Observe, record, reason, take a break, allow thoughts to stop, allow intuition, have confidence in your own intuition, observe without thoughts, repeat, have fun, be happy, get a hug once a year; this is my science. peaceful spacious loving awareness, anatol --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo fintlewoodle...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anatol_zinc anatol_zinc@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anatol_zinc anatol_zinc@ wrote: Einstein's theory of General Relativity predicted that light would bend bypassing a massive planet like the Sun. That was the only feasible experiment for his untested theory at the time since there were no lasers, etc. Einstein was asked what if the experiment proves his theory wrong? He said that would mean the experiment was not done properly. Amen ! HUGO: Wrong about the faith part I'm afraid. That was a measure simply of how confident he was about his theory of gravity and light. .. OK Hugo, so you see a big difference between the word faith and the word confidence. Not really, but you were implying Einstein was religious about science when he wasn't at all. I guess the difference between faith in god and confidence in his theory is that his theory was always testable when the existence of a god of any sort appears not to be. One can therefore have confidence in one's theories but one can only have faith in god. Well I'm no psychic, I don't believe anyone is. And I am confident about that :-) So let me guess, you might say I have confidence in myself and no-faith in God. Well what if, myself = God and confidence = faith? You can see how absurd the above assertion is. I would say I have occasional confidence in myself and no faith that there is a god. Couldn't see the point really, god is a bit of a failed hypothesis as far as I'm concerned, I've read all the holy books and god seems like a part of cultures that are so distant it's hard to say what god actually was to them. Was he an astronaut or the halucinations from a now defunct part of our brains? Was he an invention by the ruling class to keep the lower orders in line or was he a real live flesh and blood supreme creator being who just happens to not want to have anything to do with us any more? Or was he a name people came up with to explain how they felt in altered states of consciousness bought on by too much mushroom tea or meditation, or both? It's like the atheist said I did not believe in God, until I found out I am God I would say idiot rather than athiest, all they did was change a definition of something to
[FairfieldLife] Re: Einstein was a man of faith !
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anatol_zinc anatol_z...@... wrote: OK, Hugo, You are entitled to your POV, just like the rest of us. If it makes you happy, more power to you. If not, maybe go outside your fixed POV and explore a little; that's what real scientist do; get a hug from Amma or whatever. The first one's free. Find me out by the schoolyard fence if you need another. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Einstein was a man of faith !
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anatol_zinc anatol_z...@... wrote: Einstein's theory of General Relativity predicted that light would bend bypassing a massive planet like the Sun. That was the only feasible experiment for his untested theory at the time since there were no lasers, etc. Einstein was asked what if the experiment proves his theory wrong? He said that would mean the experiment was not done properly. Amen ! Wrong about the faith part I'm afraid. That was a measure simply of how confident he was about his theory of gravity and light. The experiment has since been carried out using a total solar eclipse to reveal that light from stars that should have been behind the sun were bent round by gravity's distortion of space to be visible *next* to the sun. Einstein died before this was confirmed. The experiment has also been carried out with light from distant galaxies being bent round superclusters of other galaxies.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Einstein was a man of faith !
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo fintlewoodle...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anatol_zinc anatol_zinc@ wrote: Einstein's theory of General Relativity predicted that light would bend bypassing a massive planet like the Sun. That was the only feasible experiment for his untested theory at the time since there were no lasers, etc. Einstein was asked what if the experiment proves his theory wrong? He said that would mean the experiment was not done properly. Amen ! HUGO: Wrong about the faith part I'm afraid. That was a measure simply of how confident he was about his theory of gravity and light. .. OK Hugo, so you see a big difference between the word faith and the word confidence. Well I'm no psychic, but let me try to guess what's on your mind: you associate faith with religion and confidence with reason; correct me if I'm wrong. For me no such distinctions exist. Faith and confidence are synonyms; check your dictionary; their meaning does not, or at least in my POV should not, depend on who or what you have confidence and faith in. Furthermore, it is my confidence that each of us( 7billion ) is entitled to our unique POV which may have similarities but are different just like no two snowflakes are alike. On the other hand, there are what I call universal principles of life, which apply equally to everyone and everything ~ religion, science, spirituality, commonsense daily life, all sorts of life-work-styles all are subject to the same universal principles of life. In my 2cents POV, you can have faith/confidence in a theory, in yourself, in God whatever your conception is, faith in no-God, no-faith in God, in your opinion, in math, science, war, peace, your cell phone, your friends, etc So let me guess, you might say I have confidence in myself and no-faith in God. Well what if, myself = God and confidence = faith? You can see how absurd the above assertion is. It's like the atheist said I did not believe in God, until I found out I am God Of course you are aware that a dictionary will have several shades of meaning of any one wordbut a word is always defined in terms of other words and so, we end up with synonyms I won't bother you with detailed dictionary definitions, but just give you a summary of synonyms from looking up the three words confidence, faith, belief : SUMMARY: CONFIDENCE = FAITH = TRUST = BELIEF = RELIANCE = CONVICTION = OPINION Or, faith, confidence, belief, trust are all basically same thing meaning a strong conviction or a strong opinion. One may have to contemplate this a little to realize that what some people die for faith, confidence, belief, trust, conviction may really be just ones stubborn OPINION, a POV ! Like Stuart says everyone's POV is right from their POV http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFFkACy0tcg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFFkACy0tcg enjoy stuart's video, anatol
