sohaila,

Yes I agree we were trained to view everything as separate and we learned how to use language to label.

I would like to see a documentary that strated out revealing that and then unteach it.

But like you said is there something in our psyche that is afraid of it?

Is that conditioned into us as well?

Can it be unconditioned?

Discoveries in science are coming very fast conneting the tangible and intangible.

"today's spirituality is tomorrow's science. the quantum theory is beginning to prove that."
_____________________________________________

Ms Sohaila Kapur,

Where did you see this proof? In Deepak Chopra's quantum things?

What quantum theory you are referring to? Please cite the proof here. And if you do not know what you are saying, do not mislead others. What is "beginning to prove to that?"

TS

What a piece of crap!!

Ms. SK,

Go and tell your guru what you learnt from him is nothing but crap. You can believe in anything but do not mix spirituality with science. Science does not need it. But you go after science to justify your crap. You have no other way to support your speculations and "skyhook" theories.

TS

Tanzan,

I can't speak for "today's spirituality is tomorrow's science" but I can definitely vouch for "yesterday's Spirituality is today's science”. I don't know about Quantum theory, but a lot of modern scientific practices especially in medicine have roots to Indian/Chinese spirituality. For ex the ancient spirituality story of pepal tree in India to help pregnancy and modern day Clomifen citrate. There are hundreds of documented evidences in reputed journals on old yogi theories that have been proved by science today.

Science can take help from everything, including Sprituality. I have heard that before a mission in NASA there is group prayer and mass, in ISRO in India, a small model of the rocket is placed in front of Ganesha to seek his blessings. Probably spirituality is the only thing that is applied in every profession in the world.

Tanzan,

Here is a start: http://www.integralscience.org/ConsciousQM.html

But I guess nothing will convince a skeptic like you so what's the point? I'm just curious, what do you know about science? Maybe you can "enlighten" me and Ms. SK and others.

-- daDevil

Why is there such a need to corelate science & spirituality, anyways.

We all seem to be dependent on this term "science" to get our views acknowledged & registered. Thats such crap.
That itself demeans the essence of spiritualism.

People who profess by science, and who debunk other branches of logic as nonsense, must remember this: today's science is tomorrow's superstition. Just remember, earth was the center of the universe until 16th century, at least in Europe, and they were as logical as you are today.

Scientists and fans should not forget that today's theories are only approximations of reality. Many of them are pure conjectures with no realistic ways of proving them. So to go and claim that they hold all the keys to the truth is no different than a god-man saying he is the god incarnate and all must go through him to heaven.

Regards,

Ravi Kulkarni

hey Ravi

i don't think that Its in our hands to judge & place statements as profound as "today's science is tomorrow's superstition" or "today's spiritualism is tomorrow's science" as the fact remains that both the objects of our discussion are subjected to grow & evolve, thats a law. They aren't even on the same ground & not comparable in any ways.

We all owe to this "science" to be able to communicate this moment & owe it to spirituality to be able to comment this way. Both are essential, however, there significance might differ from person to person.

Dear M,

I pay my respects to science, as a regular user of its products and comforts. I am not against science, just want to put scientific dogma and The Establishment in their place.

Regards,

Ravi Kulkarni

I like this idea. I have thought about this before. If the two get closer to each other then so be it.

Ravi, people who profess science don't call others nonsense. They call it only if it is really a nonsense. It is only the spiritual folks who try to couple their theories to science in order to get legitimacy to their theories. The scientists are correct in calling it crap because such "spiritual theories" doesn't follow the scientific methods of investigation (should I say any logical method of investigation?). Your rambling just proves that you lack a clear understanding of what science it. Scientists don't claim that they hold the key to the "ultimate truth". They only give an explanation to the nature USING CERTAIN RIGOROUS SCIENTIFIC METHODS. They are pretty clear about what you are doing. People who are not clear are people like you, the author of the post and many other spiritually blinded people.

Whether you like it or not, it is the spiritual crap which will be put in their place. How about taking my challenge to all ye spiritual yearners.

How about shunning everything that is science and go by what your spirituality has given you. How about running to spiritual gurus instead of doctors. How about walking instead of driving a car? How about shunning everything science has given to make your earning? How about just relying on everything spirituality to live your life? If you do all this and then say I want to put the scientific establishment in place, I will respect your words. As long as you don't do it, your words just represent hypocrisy to me.

Dear Sohail Kapur, I am sure that if you will browse through my recently published book "Self Designed Universe" or will just have a cursory look at its website (www.selfdesigneduniverse.com), you will at least partly begin to understand the universe and our role in it.

In brief, first, our evolving universe has an eternal background which may be called the Universe or One or God or Father or What Is Is or what you have. It cannot be explained it can only be personally experienced by those who are ripe enough for the purpose. Our evolving universe begins from it through big bang and ends into it through big crunch though to begin again and again. When the Creationists say that our universe was created by God they in fact mean that our universe began from the above described One background. There is a Hindu saying "To know God is to be God." Reversing and modifying it a bit for our purpose here we can say that "To begin from God is to be created by God." It is in this sense that the original sages of the Creationists said that our universe was created by God. Religious language is full of symbolism and we need to understand such symbolism to really understand them. Watch my word. Someday the world will understand what I am saying here for the first time. For, God is not some super human being out there to create our universe in any other way.

Then coming to the evolution of our universe from big bang to big crunch I may just repeat a few paragraphs from my website here:

At the most fundamental level all we need to explain the 'evolution' of the universe and of every system within including the system of species on earth is what the physicists call four basic forces or interactions of nature, i.e., gravitational, electromagnetic, strong and weak interactions. Call it design if you will. But Darwinism is definitely secondary. This is Self-Designed Universe in a nutshell.

The universe gets wound up into and unwound from four basic forces on its eternal cycles of contraction and expansion or devolution and evolution just as, to a certain extent, a tree gets wound up into and unwound from its seed to become the next tree.

In getting unwound, which begins with and thanks to the force of the big bang, the universe goes through four basic interactions in the order of gravitational, electromagnetic, strong and weak in its every minute space-time accretion, every grouping of minute space-time accretion, every atom, every molecule, every grouping of molecules which may be called a sub-system, every grouping of sub-systems which may be called a system and so on finally embracing the whole universe. For the scientists it will be the separating away of four basic forces at all these levels.

In this process, which manifests itself in quantum jumps or phase changes, the universe goes through mutations at all the above levels, from where then Darwinian mechanisms of variations, selection and survival take over in the case of species on earth. Forget that chance causes mutations

So no more heated arguments on design and evolution or rather design and Darwinism! Both are like two sides of the same coin of the universal scheme of ‘evolution’ here on earth. The universe’s going through four basic interactions and consequent mutations provide it with basic and design part. Taking over from there by Darwinian mechanisms of variations, selection and survival in the case of species provides it with the secondary and evolution part.

No more heated arguments on determinism and free will! The universe’s going through four basic interactions till it gets unwound from four basic forces completely provides it with purpose, determinism and arrow of time. While Darwinian mechanism of selection provides space for the operation of the correspondingly gained free will on it in the case of species on earth.

Sorry fellow men!, we are as much a product of the same simple laws of physics in the form of four basic interactions as minerals, plants, animals and in fact all the other entities in the universe are. All we did with our famous free will was just to play the reaction part to the action part of the interactions. Again, in fact, as all the other entities unconsciously or subconsciously did at their own levels! Of course we need to re-apprise our understanding of the mere “matter” which we study with physics. For, at its ultimate level of oneness, it has all the properties which we usually attribute to God.

----

Now coming to your question of science and spirituality, science and spirituality are the products of the left and right hemisphers of our brain/minds in understanding our universe. The right hemisphere of our brain/minds intuites (things through the One background)while the left hemisphere understands which is intuited scientifically or rationally. The right intuites our next destination as individuals, or as a cultural unit, the left scientifically or rationally takes us there. From which then right agains shows or intuites our next destination. So you are right on the point that today's spirituality is going to become tomorrow's science. Spirituality intuited at the very beginning of our AD era cultural cycle - through Christ's saying that all is one though he phrased it as "I and my father are One" in the West and through Bhagvad Gita in the metaphor of Krishana as One or God in the East - that all is one, and science came to realize this oneness some 2000 years later best explained first by Fritzof Capra in his book The Tao of Physics.

Science's quantum theory just points towards this very fundamental oneness intuited by spirituality long time ago.

In fact, again reverting to the metaphor of a seed bearing tree, science's relativity thoery explains the expansion of the universe from its singularity like the expansion of the tree from its seed while science's quantum theory explains the contraction of the universe again to its singularity like the 'contraction' of a tree into its next seed.

Harb.

I am of the opinion and agree with the contention that science and spirituality are basically one and the same; i.e. assuming "spirituality" refers to "personal or generally- accepted CONVICTIONS, considered to be "FACT", derived from the bible and religious beliefs. "Science", however, looks at the same phenomena, but sees them as reflections of "Natural Law", of physics, chemistry, math, etc.;. each presumed "FACT" , for "science", arrived at through the process of "CONVICTION" but as a conclusion based not on the bible, but upon current logic, experience, examination and testing called, "The Scientific Method".
While the term, "Natural Law" may be mutually acceptable, I suspect those of religious bent would prefer: "God's Law". To me it appears a case of one scene, two conclusions.
ted shrader

"Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it."
-Niels Bohr

Hey Krish,

I don't quite understand the need to explain the nature by "USING RIGOROUS SCIENTIFIC METHODS" if science doesn't aim to discover the ultimate truth then why is there a need to deconstruct???

The initiation of spiritual theories into the band of so called "SCIENTIFIC/ LOGICAL" was only a method of education to educate people like you, who want things arranged in a mathematical equation to be able to believe it.

In reply to you proposal for shunning science n living solely on the theories of spiritualism, I wish to inform you that there are millions of people in India, who live without the gifts of science but not without their daily prayers. Your science has not reached out to them because science lacks the apt mode of communication while spiritualism has the capacity for a broader approach.

Miss SK shouldn't have named her blog has "Today's spirituality is tomorrow's science"........we are in no position to discover which of the one is ahead of the other one but it is rather important to find a mode to corelate the two because both are strong branches that can do wonders if combined on a platform.

Sohaila,

Would really appeciate your expanding on "the quantum theory is beginning to prove that." As detailed as you can get on this the better, and references also work well.

M, I didn't say they don't aim for the truth. I just said they don't claim that they hold the key to truth in reply to Ravi's comment. I suppose the difference is clear.

A.K., None of these guys can prove that. They themselves know that. I will bet my money that they cannot show a single scientific theory (by scientific, I mean it literally folks, not definition of science by spiritual gurus) to support their claim.

Krish,
Help me a little....how does science score over spiritualism when both the branches are looking for truth, as you put it, but unlike the latter, science doesn't claim to hold the key to truth.

Correct me if i am wrong, but, according to you, spritualism & science are two boys moving towards the same destination but one of them doesn't claim that he'll reach there whilst the other one does authenticaly claim & knows the appropriate path as well....

Also, please tell me that as spritualism cannot afford to "scientifically" explain then does your science, dare to "spritually" explain its theories ??

Know squat about the quantum theory but the comments here raise one observation that intrigues me:

I know more people who delve in spiritually and respect science and as Ravi said make use of it. On the other hand most people who swear by science heap scorn on spirituality. Baffles me as to why they can't both co-exist in tandem and act as catalysts to each other?

Thanks Dara,

Your comment marks the necessity of bringing science & spiritualism together, without defending or protesting either of the branch.

They can act as catalyst for each other but the representatives of both our branches would need to think out of the box to really understand how well both the branches can compliment each other.

Dara, very few understand science (quantum theory for one) deeply, and also have a great perspective on spirituality. The precious few who study both, usually come from a theoretical physics background and not the other way around.

It becomes very trite to drop ponderous phrases like quantum theory proves this and proves that when the claim goes beyond the realm of accepted, conservative science. Even Deepak saying it is shallow because he surely has not solved a partial differential equation in his life. And if he is simply reflecting an established view of the scientific elite, it would help to see written references more than name attribution.

One can make comparisons, speculate and present theories, but to disguise it as fact and as something well accepted is misleading. Many "skeptics" will concede that spirituality is fascinating, and important. They revolt when ascribing a superficial scientific or factual veneer to it and rightly so.

I think that sprituality and science co-exist pretty well. Science builds on itself a step at a time. Scientific explanations and justifications of spirituality or consciousness are ambitious attempts at reaching way beyond.

The ambition can be appreciated, but the explanations, incomplete presentation, and rejection of pointed criticism compromise the good in it. And this tension is nothing new. It has been going on with high intensity since the days of Johannes Kepler and his perfect solids idea. Claiming that we are now at the crossroads in some amalgamation of spirituality and science is romanticism, not fact.

I like harb's comments.

This is an interesting topic which I have tried to delve in to in detail on my blog in this section: http://www.dkapoor.com/?q=taxonomy/term/43

I believe that spirituality ... actually LEADS Science in coming up with the answer of the origin.. and the manner in which the Vedantics approach this question ... helped them answer more questions based on intuition and rigor of reasoning .. than modern science has been able to until now.

In my posts on the link above, I have dsicussed:

- How Vivekananda (documented lectures from Advaita Ashram press) had challenged the world on wireless electric signals MUCH before they were "invented"

- How Einstein probably got his "inspiration" from Vedanta for his Nobel Prize winning Photo Electric effect Photon theory.

- How what Vivekananda and Vasishtha (in Vasishtha Yoga) say about Universe... absolutely matches with the most modern scientific thought on its origins!!

The problem we are encountering here in these commentators is the dichotomy between Eastern and Western science approaches. While Western scientists presumed God and Science to be anti-thetical.. Vedantics... presumed the way to God was through understanding of the Natural phenomenon and science!

- Desh
www.dkapoor.com

There is absolutely no disharmony beteen spirituality and science and even between spirituality, philosophy and science in the light of the understanding of the whole universal scheme of evolution.

Let us first understand their harmonious working at our own levels. We are made up of our soul or consciousness, our mind and our body. Suppose we are to go to a destination A. First we move our dhyana or consciousness towards that destination. Or first we bring that destination A into our consciousness. This is soul or spirituality at work. Nothing outwards has happened yet the most potent work has taken place. Then we reflect as to why we have to go there and how we will go there. This is our mind or philosophy at work. Again visibly not much has happened yet we have made progress towards reaching our destination. Then lastly we actually go there in small, continuous steps. This is our body or science at work. To the shallow watcher it will seem that everything, all progress has happened only now. But going by the above it is only the third step of the process of going to our destination A. Is there any disharmony in any of the above three steps?

Similar, in fact is the case with our universal scheme of evolution. Like us the universe's scheme of evolution too has three dimensions which I have named Mosc, Movc and Mopc - Matter of spiritual category, Matter of virtual category and Matter of physical category in my book. These represent universal Soul, Mind and Body. The overall universal story begins from Big Bang and is in fact to again end at the possibility of the next Big Bang. So it is its eventual destination A. And likewise Universe's Soul or Mosc has set its consciousness to 'go' there at its very beginning. It is its spirituality or spiritual dimension at work. Then this goal or information is given over to its second dimension of Mind or Movc or to which Aristotale called the world of potentia. Here various permutations and combinatins are tried to realize the above goal. And finally this goal is given practical shape by universal Body or Mopc. Spiritualists, philosophers and scientists in fact only represent and explore these three dimesnions respectively and in the proces further universe's above goal.

One may ask, while we go somewhere (destination A) in actuality where likewise the universe does go? To understand this imagine ourselves in our dreams. We are to the universe as our dream entites are to our dream. While our dream entites seem to be going places in the dream the dream world as a whole does not go anwhere. Similarly, while we seem to be going to various places our universe actually does not go anywhere. Just as our dream just changes shapes accordng to us in the dream similarly our universe just changes spacetime according to our moments and our evolution. Agan, just as finally we wake up to ourselves, similarly, our universal Soul just wakes itself to itself.

Deepak has rightly said that quantum theory is yet incomplete. The limitations of science cannot be caught or explained by or in terms of science itself. Only philosophy or spirituality can do that. So it is no wonder that many non-scientist spiritualists see these very clearly. I have already explained in my book how quantum theory is in fact incomplete. Imagine cyclical moment of our one 'day' of 24 hours comprising our usual day and night of 12 hours each. In this one day and night we experience sleep/night once in mid day in the form of our sudden nap and then reach actual sleep/night once again but only at night. This experience of sleep/night in the form of a nap is akin to science's experience of or finding of quantum theory or phenomenon. But just as nap is yet incomplete vis-a-vis actual sleep/night, similarly, understanding of quantum theory is incomplete vis-a-vis actual what David Bohm called Quantum Potential and whch we may as well call actual Oneness or Soul or Spirit.

Actually all systems progress in cycles in the above manner and experience 'sleep/night' representing underlying soul or oneness once in their day part and then again finally at actual 'sleep/night' part. When science as a system reached its nap stage it actually found its quantum theory or phenomenon and just experienced the oneness which is to be actually reached only at final grandunification which will be like its actual reaching oneness or 'night'. The reason it has failed to reach this grandunification is the same as we cannot reach or study actual sleep or night by placing it in front of us, that is objectively. We can only self experience that state of 'night/sleep'. Similarly, final quantum phenomenon and grandunfication can only be reached by spirituality and not by science. Because here all will becoome one. I have experienced this oneness and have in fact started my story in my book from here. Grandunification could only be explained in this way and of course by joining of science on it which I have done in my book Self Designed Universe. Science in its grandunification theory aimed to unite all the four basic forces into one single Superforce. I did the same in reaching oneness and then looked back and saw the whole universal evolutionary process as only the separating away of those four basic forces once again.

Thank you desh kapoor. I will have a look at your link.

Harb.

PS: Sorry for the long posts but then, we are trying to explain the universe not some small village.

"today's spirituality is tomorrow's science. the quantum theory is beginning to prove that."

Really??? Where???
I'm sick of this hijacking of "quantum theory" by new age pseudo-scientific spiritualvangelists.

Please re-start your study on the basics of science and scientific thought.

The more science progresses, the less room fro spiritualists. Now, they have no mind space left...so they are hiding behind the Atom.

Krish,

I was once like you my friend. I shunned "spiritual" stuff in favour of "science". But I came to realize the dogma that plague "spiritual" or "religious" stuff plague "science" as well. The moment you become attached to your beliefs and start defending them you're trapped; e.g. the earth is flat, the universe revolves around the earth. Ever wonder why those viewpoints persisted for so long even though we know today they do not 'accurately' represent reality (the earth appears flat as far as the eye can see, and the movement of stars, the moon and sun around the earth gives the illusion that the earth is the centre of the universe)? What other illusions are we living in? So instead of defending or critizing why don't we start looking? Why don't we try to investigate (the way in my view 'true' scientists behave) if there are anything behind any claims and still leave additional room for future investigation. (Someone living on a flat island, walking the entire island might still conclude that the world is flat whereas if they were in space they will think differently). You might be surprised what an "objective" investigation reveals. BTW, have you seen the movie, "What the bleep do we know: http://www.whatthebleep.com/". It's definitely worth watching and keeping an open mind about what "scientists" are saying based on their 'beliefs' and work. One of those scientists Dr. Amit Goswami posted recently on this blog.

Take care my friend and keep an open mind.

-- rajK

Krish,

You said:

"How about shunning everything that is science and go by what your spirituality has given you. How about running to spiritual gurus instead of doctors. How about walking instead of driving a car? ... snip"

Ok here is my challenge to you. Give up everything that is not scientific. Let's start with your mind. Science has yet to understand that there is something called mind. How about giving up love? There is a lot of "junk" DNA that's lurking around, how about getting rid of all of it? I can go on and on.

I need both science and spirituality. They both have their places. When I said scientific dogma, I meant beliefs such as "drugs heal", "children don't start learning until they reach school", "root canal is the only solution to your teeth problems". The Establishment won't entertain any other ways of thinking. I want to put that kind of thinking in its place.

Why do I need spirituality. By the nature of our existence, some questions can not be adequately answered by thinking alone. Many of the big questoin of humanity, including the scientific ones, have been answered by not-thinking (remember Kekule and Einstein). Spirituality is one way to develop not-thinking and it is a powerful way to understand the world and myself.

Regards,

Ravi Kulkarni

Ravi,

This is going off on a tangent, I'm interested to learn more about the scientific dogma that "root canal is the only solution to your teeth problems". Can you provide me with some links.

Many thanks.

-- rajK

Quotable Quotes at Intentblog

The more science progresses, the less room for spiritualists. Now, they have no mind space left...so they are hiding behind the Atom.

~M. Krishnan

Tanzan,

Since you're so against spirituality you must have heard of the fallacy: Appeal to Authority. If not read about it here: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

Why quote M. Krishnan? Are you hiding behind him and at the same time accusing spiritualist to be hiding behind the Atom? This does seem like hypocricy to me, don't you think? Are you afraid to present your arguments in a clear, logical manner? Or maybe there are too many holes in them. What kind of science are you talking about? Do you even know what science is?

Sorry to be so hard on you my friend. But you seem like you're grabbing at straws.

-- rajK

´Today's Spirituality Is Tomorrow's Science´

´Today´s Pacebo effect Is Tommorrow´s Science..?´

´and the day isn't far when we begin to understand the universe and our role in it. i, for one, look forward to that day, even though i will not live to see it...not in this life at least.´

The fundamental question being asked here is do we live in a universe of freewill or determinism? The answer is we live in both simultaneously. In the state of avidya (arrogant ignorance) we are functioning in a completely deterministic world. In the state of vidya (enlightened awareness), we have complete freedom.

http://www.intentblog.com/archives/2005/07/deepaks_qa_life.html

Love, Passion and good spiritual vibrations,

M, whether you accept it or not, science scores over spirituality through its rigorous scientific methods. In most countries, spirituality will not stand in a court of law against science. But it is not my argument at all. Also I suspect whether you understand what it means by "scientific explanation".

Dara, it is funny that you claim people in spirituality coexist in science. Trying to use science to justify spirituality is not coexisting. In fact, it is the people in scientific world who coexist with spirituality. They just don't bother about it and leave it alone (unlike spirituality guys). In fact, even Deepak has said in one of his previous posts that people in science don't have problem with religion whereas reverse is not true. Same applies to spirituality used in the non religious sense. You have quoted Ravi as an example. It is a wrong example. In his comment he claims to put scientific establishment in place. Using science and oppossing it is hypocrisy. It is not coexistence.

rajK, in my opinion, the movie is a piece of crap. Just because Amit Goswami is a Physics professor doesn't mean that whatever he says is right. He is more guided by his eastern philosophical ideology than science. I don't have respect for the words of such people. It is just not science.

Ravi, who said mind is spiritual. It is your interpretation. I don't believe in the spirituality crap of mind. I believe in the "brain theory". In fact, I don't use anything that is spiritual.

My namesake, well said.

I want to make one thing clear. I don't have a problem with spirituality. Let it be the belief system of people who believe in it. I am ONLY against the justification of spirituality using the half baked knowledge of science. I am just saying that you mind your own business and we will mind our own.

Krish,

I'm just curious ... why do you visit this blog then? If you don't use anything that is spiritual why even argue with us? You must have a reason, don't you? Instead of saying that something is crap why not say why it is crap! Isn't that the same as spiritualists making wild claims? Isn't logical reasoning followed by explanations/discussions part of the scientific method of inquiry? If you think we are living in ignorance why not enlighten us. You speak of hypocrisy as if you're beyond it!

Take care

-- rajK

rajK,

This blog doesn't claim to be a spiritual blog. Please read the intent of this blog.

It is not the scientists who try to combine theirs with spirituality. it is the other way around. people in spirituality wants to take science to get legitimacy. I know quantum physics enough to understand that the movie is a crap. I don't want to give a lecture on quantum physics to show the movie is crap. If you want to show that the movie is indeed a great piece, the burden is on you to prove the essense of the movie in the scientific literature.

Krish,

Whether mind is spiritual or not, it is definitely not a scientific concept. Show me one peer reviewed article that has discovered mind and demonstrated by physical evidence that it exists. If not, then you are relying on anecdotal evidence that it exists.

Regards,

Ravi

Krish,

So are you saying everything about the movie is crap? Or just some things. I understand partly what you are saying. While I don't wish for you to give a lecture on quantum physics at least give a few examples/points to back why you say it's crap. I really think it's unscientific to make vague claims ... and sceptics seem to be good at doing this. They always want others to prove what they are saying but they themselves don't want to offer any proofs.

-- rajK

Ravi, the research on brain is just starting. Hang on my friend, you will know. You can find MANY peer reviewed articles in neuroscience journals which link stuff like emotions, pain etc to patterns in brain. It is naive to claim that science has no connection to mind.

rajK, As I said, the burden of proof in on your side to show that the movie explains spirituality in terms of Quantum theory. You need not explain quantum theory. Just show me the scientific literature in this regard.

Krish,

I'm not making any claims against or for the movie. I look at it with an open mind the same way I view most things. However, I do find it interesting. Since I don't know much quantum theory/mechanics and as you claim you know enough quantum physics, why not give one point/example why you say it's crap (is this so hard to do?). I'm quite ignorant why you say it's crap. Do you want me to continue living in ignorance? Show me the light my friend. And don't feel your explanation using quantum mechanics would intimidate me. I think I have a solid foundation in the sciences, especially physics and mathematics, to comprehend what you say. And if I don't I promise I'll go learn/research it and or bug someone who can explain it to me.

I really can't understand why it's so hard to give one example/point to back what you're saying. Or are you just full of crap??

Take care my friend.

-- rajK

I think many people, are missing the simple point Kapur is trying to convey....and I definitely smell religion in the air.

Spirituality is not bound by Religion!

We are in the midst of fierce and relentless battle between Science and Religion - the press reeks of it. "My belief is better than yours" and "We have proof you don't". All this is being screamed at us from people drunk on their ego and in the mindset that we have to live according to their expectations.

One thing is for sure, we are all here in this universe and forever in the search for an answer to the eternal question, "Why are we here?"

We feel a bond to every living creature on the planet and we are connected via an invisible force (perhaps even a 'spiritual' force), which at the very moment when we feel we are a part of something bigger than ourselves, can feel it's energy flowing through like a warm breeze;
It's the moment when you want to reach out and help the hungry children in Africa, it's the moment when you watch tens of thousands of people gather to celebrate, or grieve, and you feel through you television that you are there with them. It's the moment you look at the sky and gaze in amazement at the stars and the moon...it's any time you experience that warm, fuzzy feeling or that pang of the heart.

Our most creative thoughts come from this place and we are all in awe at it's power, scientists and spiritualists alike. It goes without saying that both sides of the fence are trying to unlock it's brilliance and understand it's majesty and they will endeavour to fathom it for millenia. But can we really decipher that force?

Science and Spirituality walk hand in hand together down that cosmic path and it takes a scientific spiritualist and a spiritual scientist to admire that.

Quantum theory(scientific term for spiritual philosophies) or Vedanta philosophy...it doesn't matter what you label it. It is what it is and that's what it is.

rajK,

If you have solid science foundation, how about taking your time trying to REALLY understand Quantum physics. I haven't seen the movie. But from the link you sent, it appears to be some sort of science fiction mingled with spirituality. My argument is that there is nothing in the scientific literature which shows this link. From what I see in that website, the movie is no different from what all these spiritual people blabber. So I don't really want to waste my time trying to see the movie and explain what is wrong in it. I know enough of quantum mechanics to understand that this movie is crap. I don't have to prove my knowledge to anyone as I don't gain my knowledge so that other people will appreciate me. I gain the knowledge to have a better life for myself. If you really have the basic science foundation as you claim to have, why can't you take up a quantum mechanics text book (If you want, I can suggest you one of the bext books in this topic. Principles of Quantum Mechanics by Dirac) and try to understand what quantum mechanics is. If you think you are ignorant to claim this as crap, I would say just be ignorant and suck up to the spiritual gurus. It doesn't bother me. I don't care either. But any relation to Quantum Physics and spirituality is non existant and all the claims by these people are utter bullshit. Any justifications given by people like you are bullshit too. I refuse to prove my point but I challenge you to prove with scientific literature that such a link exists as you are the one who seem to support such theory.

If someone needs to prove something, he needs to believe that certain thing exists. I don't believe that there is a link between Quantum Physics and Spirituality. So I don't have to prove anything. It is people like you who claim such a link exists. So it is upto you and your group to prove that such a link exist in science. As long as you guys don't prove it, I can call it crap and need not give a proof. I don't know if your science foundation will help you understand what I am talking about. If it helps, it is good. if not, I don't care.

Rita Raju, nice joke :-)

Hi Krish,

You made your point. I DO think I understand what you're talking about. Initially I thought you were an authority on Quantum Mechanics from the way you speak, little did I know you were an IT person. Thanks for the suggested Quantum Mechanics reference book though. BTW I don't belong to any group. I'll leave the rest to other observers/participants to draw their conclusions from.

Take care my friend.

-- rajK

I wouldn't call myself an IT person. I am a physicist by education but now I own an open source company. I wouldn't like myself to be clubbed with the regular IT groups though. I have used quantum theory extensively in my research. But my field of study was not quantum theory per se but I have used and understood enough of quantum mechanics and quantum field theory to know that there is absolutely no link and such a linking is pathetically wrong information spread by people who had only superficial understanding of quantum theory. There are a few who had used Quantum theory but they are blinded by their bias towards eastern philosphy and hence interpret quantum theory to suit their arguments. But there is absolutely nothing in the scientific literature which makes this link. It is nice to know that you are not one of those people who ignorantly think that there is a link between quantum mechanics and spirituality.

Read the following link

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1126751,00.html

Replace "Intelligent Design Theory" by "Spiritual theory" and it is my view on this subject. As I have told several times in my comments on different posts, let spirituality and science exist independent of each other. Any attempts to link both is just nonsense.

Dear Krish,

You write:

"Ravi, the research on brain is just starting. Hang on my friend, you will know. You can find MANY peer reviewed articles in neuroscience journals which link stuff like emotions, pain etc to patterns in brain. It is naive to claim that science has no connection to mind."

I am aware of the research that takes place in the neuroscience and other areas, at least at a high level. Connecting the brain structure and events to emotions and pain is one thing; demonstrating that a mind truly exists in a physical form is quite another. Until that happens, if you believe in mind, then you are going by anecdotes and not by science.

My point was not that. I intended to say that we are all confronted with two kinds of questions: the first one is the easy one: what is nature? why does earth go around the sun? why does water behave in a certain fashion? These are the questions that we try to address through science. Science has made an admirable progress on these fronts, but of course there is still a long way to go.

The second set of questions are much harder to address: what is life? why life exists? what is awareness? why do morals matter? As you can see they are much harder to anwer and I do not truly believe that science can answer them. Ever. These existential questions can only be answered by philosophy and spirituality. Science is not equipped to answer these questions.

Regards,

Ravi Kulkarni

It depends on how you want to define "mind". Regarding your next point, what is life and why life exists has been explained by science. Even here, it depends on what you mean as "life". Do you want to define life as one that will suit philosophical explanations or materialistic explanation? Whether science explains or not depends on how you want to define the very term "life". Science explains or attempts to explain everything in this world. The only thing it doesn't bother to explain is god. It doesn't do that because god need not fit into its scheme of things. If people who talk spirituality are clear about this, then there is no problem at all. But unfortunately, there seems to be lots of confusion in their ideas.

Sohaila Kapur headlines:

"Today's spirituality is tomorrow's science."

Science is a method for developing consensual truth, and spirituality is a state of symbiotic being.

Humankind will not attain spirituality until science ceases to neglect spirituality.

i am muslim and i am a physics graduate science. and the more i study the more i feel close to god. people just need to open their eyes and they will see, fell, believe that there is a god.
in addition the first word ever spoken from the koran is "ikra" wich mean read, learn, study.
so for me science is one of allah's road, and the scientists that don't believe are just to arrogant to accept that there a greater force that knows it all.

Well I would just say that you all take that route and go to wherever your god takes you. I am happy and proud to be an arrogant scientist than an ignorant spiritualist.

i can be spiritual and scientific. if somebody can't handle it, than there is nothing to be proud of.
i would discuss quantum as much as scriptures. to all scientist you should know better

Science is a method of placing things 'in front' of us and examining them.

But when we go beyond a certain depth we find that things have become so subtle that we just cannot place them in front of us.

Then we begin to examine the things in our head only. Thus enters into the field what is called philosophy.

But as we go still further deeper into things we find that not only have they become subtler and subtler they eventually end up becoming just one with our knowing consciousness. So that now we cannot see them separately even in our heads. We now know about them not by examining them as separate from us but by BEING them, by being one with them. This is spirituality at work.

Which is why some wise man said "Where science ends philosophy begins where philosophy ends spirituality begins."

The reason spiritual persons sometimes seem to use science's terminology is because it is former's task to life the latter to itself. A teacher can use a student's present understanding (terminology) to work upon it and show it in a new light. A student cannot do it. A father can show his child's concept in a new light, a child cannot. Similarly, a real spiritual person can show science its quantum theory in a new light while science cannot.

Harb

A.K.,
Thanks, was relieved to read your assessment of quantum theorists, am in good company then :)

It was also nice to find that you - more scientifically inclined - and Harb - more the spiritualist - are in agreement that spirituality and science can and have co-existed. Somehow I got a different impression when I first went through this blog. It seemed to have become an 'us vs them' issue. Obviously I was wrong.

Dara, thanks for recognising some worth in our comments.

In fact, at the end of the day, all 'us vs them' are complementary and only further the ONE universal scheme of things at many levels.

It is just as our two apparently competing feet (competing to move ahead of the other)are in fact complementary and only help us to move ahead as a whole.

Seeing all 'us vs them' in this way is a gift of a unified vision. Spiritualists may call this a spiritual vision, scientists may call this a grandunified vision lol.

Harb.

I think words such as science, spirituality, etc. have different meaning to different people. And that causes confusion sometimes especially in debates/discussions that take place on blogs like this. Maybe that's why philosophical discussions start with a definition of key words.

Very interesting points raised by many
Krish-the 'Allknowing' man seems to have answers to everything, he is as much blinded by science as he accuses others of being blindby spirituality.

while many decent folks here are agreeing a true seeker whether its a scientist or spiritualist are no different from each other as both are in pursuit of truth while goes deep within the other goes to material world.

i complitely agreed with you ganesh
what exactly is a scientist or a spiritual looking for?
i believe it is the same thing: a way to comprehend our envirenment, and that includes everything.
it is the same goal just different roads, as curious human being we just want to KNOW.
i also believe that some times these two roads meet and the path from there is only can be up up and up

I think that science is on one hand proving out what at one time had been a purely Spiritual realization. While the same time Science is moving Spiritual practice into new realms.

There was a time when men looked up to the skies and thought that that was heaven (hence the term the "heavens"). Now we know that "out there" is space with planets and suns and moons. Our definition of "heavens" has not gone away, just deepened.

Peace,
Scott.

Ganesh, I am not blinded by science. I am pretty clear. I am saying if you want to have spirituality, keep it away from science. Don't bring in theories that combine each other. This "combo" you guys are creating is what I term as crap. It is a result of absolute lack of understanding about science. As simple as that. Probably you guys will find support among similar ignorant people in this community but definitely not from a serious scientist. You can live happily with such ignorant people. Who cares.

Science alone is like sex without love. Spirituality alone is like love without sex.
We need to combine both to enjoy complete understanding and experience.

Harb

Dear Harb,
Very nice analogy. Interesting.

Cheers!
Navin

Thank you Navin.

Yet here too many do not agree that there is such a thing as love. Sex is all there is, they will say.

Cheering back!

Harb

Harb, here you go. A similar one for spirituality.

Spirituality is sex without orgasm. You go deep down and suddenly find that you are going nowhere.

rajK,

If you are really serious in your assertion that you are not blined by the spiritual gang, I suggest you a popular book (in the sense that it is not a textbook) written by University of Colarado Physicist who explains very clearly how the movie you quoted, Amit Goswami's twisted interpretation of Quantum mechanics and even Roger Penrose's confused interpretations are wrong. Learning Quantum mechanics from Dirac's book will help you learn Quantum Mechanics as a tool to use. This book will explain to you how whatever you see in this post is nothing but nonsense. However I suggest that you learn quantum mechanics from a proper textbook before you read Stenger's book so that you can appreciate and understand what he has written.

You can find the book in Amazon

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1573920223/103-3589962-9818242?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance

You can find the preface and a few sample chapters at his homepage

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/meta.html

If you are not serious in your claim that you really want to understand the truth, then you can buy one of those books written by people like Amit Goswami or Harb or other "spiritual gurus".

Quantum Mechanics is science. Whether you want to believe what scientists say or what pseudo scientists and spiritual gurus say is entirely up to you.

I also suggest you read his article titled "Myth of Quantum Consciousness." which is available in PDF form in his website.

Also while reading contradicting literature, keep in mind that ONLY copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics has EXPERIMENTAL PROOF (which is a pre requisite for scientific analysis) and it is a settled matter that copenhagen interpretation is the correct one. Keep this in mind when you read competing theories. You yourself will then see why I call it crap.

Krish,

Thanks for both recommendations. They are both part of my wish list on Amazon. Will get around to buying them soon and start reading. Thanks for the links also.

-- rajK

´..pseudo scientists and spiritual gurus say is entirely up to you..´

Ever heard the diagnose/prognose ´incurable´ or ´terminal´..
And people live, recover, or go into ´spontanous´ remissions,

´it´s a miracle!´ you hear ´medical scientists´ say, or ´unexplainable´!,
..are those ´medical´ terms? or ´scientific´?

now that´s what I call pseudo scientists!
one dimensional beings..

Love, Passion, loose the indoctrinated judgemental attitude, Krish, will make your incarnation a lot...enjoyabale.? easier..? or spiritual? but thanks for the book titles, ;)

I've read the entire acrimonious debate right from the time of my first post. As someone else pointed out, some of you people (like Tanzan and Krish) have missed the point. This is not about religion or spiritual gurus. It is about discovering nature.

Whether we discover her through science or spiritualism, she already exists. Five thousand years ago, if you showed a glowing electric bulb to a resident of Mohenjo Daro, he would consider it a miracle and cower before it. Somebody could have called it spiritualism in the language of the era and the ones with a scientific temper may have pooh-poohed the entire episode and pretended it never existed. But today we know better. We know that electricity is nothing but the harnessing of nature's power. And so on with all our other `discoveries' and `inventions' that have ushered in the modern era. None of them could have even been imagined by the cleverest of scientists from the Renaissance era, which is also known as the age of scientific reason. That's just the point I am making.

How many other forces of nature lie there, waiting to be `discovered' by science? Does that mean they do not already exist? Or are we taking relativity to its extreme by declaring that only that which is physically observable exists? By that argument electricity, electromagnetism, thermonuclear power, even the quantum theory (the cause of so much acrimony in these posts) ought not to have existed a couple of centuries ago!

The misunderstanding comes from the use of terminology like `spiritual' and `scientific'.... which come with their own baggage. But can we communicate any other way, except through language, which necessitates definitions? Unfortunately, that is where the conflict begins.

Language should be used to share ideas and not to confront. I think strong, dismissive terms like `crap' and `rubbish' are used by insecure individuals, unused to peaceful debate and the sharing of ideas. This also reinforces what I have always felt...science, for all its contribution to the material progress of mankind, is ultimately destructive...the better way to put it is that we, as a race, are making it destructive. Look at our wars, the way we are ruining our environment, and now, as in this blog...the bad temper that is turning a peaceful and informative debate into a bunch of egoistical arguments.

Cheers!

Sohaila Kapur

Sohaila, it would still help if you can clarify what you meant by 'quantum theory is beginning to prove that' in your initial message. If the words or the phrase you used is irrelevant then lets ignore it, but please suggest or direct a few of us to what you believe is most impressive or authentic work/s that show science and spirituality coming together right now. While I am skeptical, I am genuinely interested in what you consider as serious work that helped mould that opinion. Thank you.

Krish, spirituality is not sex without orgasm but, at the end of the day, that which triggers the orgasm. No spirituality, no orgasm, no awareness of it.

Harb

Well said, Sohaila.

Sohaila,

Words like crap or bullshit is used to describe what one feels about the theory that is being discussed. It is not directed at the individuals who put forward the theory. So you don't have to take it personally. Having said that "If someone says that Quantum Mechanics proves the existence of god" without any SCIENTIFIC proof, then there is nothing wrong in dismissing it as crap. You don't have to take it personally. It is not directed at you but at the statement (given above).

Also regarding your query regarding a force that might exist but not known today, I would like to point out that no one is discounting that. What I am arguing is that "Quantum theory doesn't prove the existence of god or any godly force". Thatz all. We are not talking about something that is not known at this point of time. We are only discussing about some theory which is known at this point of time and WHICH ONLY DISCUSSES MATERIAL FORCES and not godly forces. I hope you are properly following what you said and our discussions about it.

Just a suggestion. When you enter the public debate, you shouldn't take anything personally. Whatever language is used in the debate is only about the substance of debate and not the persons who are debating.

Harb, I am pretty contented with the orgasm I have through sex. I really don't want to have orgasm through spirituality. Probably it may help people who can't have sex :-).

Krish, but you just can't have orgasm through sex without spirituality, that is, without your consciousness or awareness or dhyana into it, which only are different words representing this very spirituality.

What to say of orgasm you may not be able to have even sex, for, if you will direct your awareness or consciousness towards, say, solving a quantum mechanical problem while trying to have sex in all probably you will not have even an erection lol.

Harb.

Harb, your argument will hold true only with an apriori assumption that consciousness is related to spirituality. For me, it is not. So I can still get sexual orgasm without any spiritual viagara.

Krish, there is no need of a prior assumption. We can understand this relationship even now.

What is spirituality? That at the end of the day we all are one. As this oneness is at the level of spirit - science's quantum potential level to borrow the phrase from David Bohm - we call it spirituality.

Now, what is consciousness? It is consciousness or awareness of 'the other'. On subsequent deeper and deeper study we find that 'the other' in fact, has no independant existence of its own but is dependant on our consciousness only. Eventually we are left with our own obviously 'all-encompassing' consciousness or the consciousness of the One or oneness or of oneness of All There is. This is same as spirituality.

In fact, while having sex we are trying to realize this very fundamental oneness but now with only one person of oppoosite sex. And we cannot have it unless we put first bodies then mind and lastly soul or consciousness or eventually fundamental consciousness into it.

Anyway, wishing you a very good sexual orgasm with only a physical viagra lol. But take care of your heart then!

Harb

I agree that sometimes we are too free-and-easy with statements like "today's spirituality is tomorrow's science. the quantum theory is beginning to prove that." .. this is on par with statements like "rockets and nuclear weapons were used in the Mahabharata war."

However there are two specific areas where science and mysticism do come close ..

(a) Godel's theorem : In any consistent set of logical statements, there will at least ONE that is TRUE but NOT PROVABLE. Godel's theorem is hard mathematical fact. The notion of non-provability is straight out of mysticism, where you are asked to believe and not ask for proof.

(b) MMORPGs ( Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games ) are fast approaching the concept of Maya of Advaita Vedanta. Vedanta says that the world is an illusion and MMORPG games are almost similar. The only thing that stand in the way is the irritation of physical user interface. You still have to press buttons and stare at a screen. However with thought controlled computers ( Remember Kevin Warwick's embedded processors ) almost around the corner we will reach a point where we would be hard pressed to distinguish between reality and the illusions

...............................
now i shall wait for the brickbats from the 'scientists'

Harb and Krish, really you make me laugh my heart out :) Do not worry, just be happy and it will all work out.
As far as the last post is concerned from Prithwis Mukerjee: I read about the same games you refer to in a science fiction story in the sixties, where you could enter a cabin, put on a virtual headphone and camera and push a button to choose your own (virtual) reality. Proves once again that everything human beings can think or dream of already exists in the universe (or on an unconscious level). We have only to remember. I think this is my believe whether it is scientific or spiritual, it does not matter.
Namaste, Mieke

Prithwis,

Even in some mysticism (or certain groups) you're encouraged/required to question things.

Hi All,

I haven't had time to read all of your posts, but I wanted to comment (hopefull I'm not being redundant).

Science is REALLY good at figuring out the rules. Spirituality's function is to explain WHY the rules are there.

Really, they are children from the same mothers. They come from the human need to understand.

Peace,
Scott.

Mieke, there is nothing which yet remains to be worked out as for as I and the knowledge of things is concerned. If at all, it is the illusion of every man's eternal woman and every woman's eternal man which is keeping me active on the boards. Otherwise I will not be even here. Perhaps this is nature's device to force people like me to share knowledge so that the collective consciousness of an Age is raised. I felt forced to even write my book Self Designd Universe. People write books but here, in my case, the book was rather written (or rather force-written)through me.

Many will think that by saying so I am being presumtuous, egoistic. But I feel myself like that child who also says that he did this and he did that but yet is far from being presumptuous. He is so, because he is yet to develop his ego, I am so because I have gone beyond the ego. Otherwise I would not feel that things are done through me, I will feel that the things are done BY me.

As to being happy, aha, do you know my state of happiness and in fact the only state of real happiness? I will make you understand this. There is a happiness which is relative to sadness and most people only recognise or enjoy this happiness. But in reality this is only a secondary state of happiness. Beyond this there is a real what I call third state of happiness - a happiness beyond both sadness and usual happiness. A true knower of things will always enjoy and value this happiness. It is happiness born out of being one with the flow, to use a Zen phrase.

To understand this what I call third and real state of happiness just think of yourself in a normal state of health. You are breathing normally and you are neither sad nor yet happy abut it. You just are not aware of it. Now suppose some day you develop some problem in your breathing. You feel upset and sad. Now suppose you take some medicine and again begin to take normal breathing. You feel happy. This is what I call secondary state of happiness. This happiness is relative to your sadness born out of your previous state of not being able to take normal breathing. It is not real happiness. After some time you will forget your previous sadness as well as your happiness relative to this sadness and will just forget your act of breathing altogether. Now, actually you are most happy now so far as your breathing is concenred, but you are not even aware of this breathing or of this happiness. So that is that. My state of happiness is of this third kind. The obvious difference from others is that while I am aware of it even then, others are not. It is in fact this third state of happiness which is our real goal. Zen people call this being one with the flow but aware of it. Some may een call this mindful living.

rajK, this is an erroneous understanding that mysticism does not encourage questioning. Just as in science all cannot become Einsteins, similarly in mysticism all cannot become real mystics. Otherwise mysticism is as based on questioning as science. And if you will say that people enjoy the finding of science you can see that people enjoy the finding of mysticism as well rather more than science. Only the enjoyments in the later case are less apparent.

Shall write more later.

Harb.

Prithwis,

In essence, the Godel's theorem states that all logical system of any complexity are, by definition, incomplete. But you cannot apply this theorem to spirituality because he meant "logical systems" in a mathematical sense not in a philosophical sense. You cannot take it out of the box and use it in your arguments without proving clearly (in a more scientific conext) how it can be applied to your "spiritual system". As long as it is not done, your argument here is no different from those people who claim that quantum theory explains many of the "spiritual properties".

Regarding MMORPGs, I have absolutely no idea about what it is. I have never played this game. The only game I play on my PC is Madden NFL series. So I cannot comment much on the game. However I want to say that any computer game (at this point of time) can be as good as the programmer who codes it. If these developers believe in a concept like Maya or whatever you want to fill in there, then thatz what you will get. It doesn't give any scientific credence to these concepts.

Scientific theories and theorems are something which can be tested and verified in a "controlled environments". In fact, they are valid only in those environments. You cannot take it out of the box and apply it in "uncontrolled environments". This is the mistake which "spiritualists" commit while trying to get a justification for their theories from science.

Prithwis:

I agree that Godel's theorem is interesting philosophically, but I don't think it is entirely accurate to say that it implies that there are truths that can't be proved. See the following:
http://www.sm.luth.se/~torkel/eget/godel.html
http://www.sm.luth.se/~torkel/eget/godel/truths.html

Of course, it isn't fair to expect someone without a mathematical background to be able to state precisely what Godel's theorem means (and I hope I am not being too presumptuous here). If you are interested in reading a well-grounded discussion of the philosophical implications of his result see the following:

http://moderatesrus.blogspot.com/2005/08/cnn-and-evolution-vs-id-discussion.html

Harb,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and insights with us. It is much appreciated. Just to clarify what I said, I don't think I imply that "... mysticism does not encourage questioning ..." as you said. Rather, the body of thoughts that I've been exposed to seem to encourage/require it. But I cannot make reference to all mysticism since I'm sure there are ones I haven't read about hence my use of "some mysticism".

Hi friends,
The debate between the Pro Science and the Pro Spirituality camps is as old as perhaps, time itself and it's not gonna end anytime soon. I liked Scott's recent comment here, "Science is REALLY good at figuring out the rules. Spirituality's function is to explain WHY the rules are there." It seems to me that Science takes a micro view of things where as Spirituality looks at the Big Picture or the Macro view. Both serve a useful purpose.

To take this debate further, I would like to ask a question here whether the following subjects come under the realm of Science or Spirituality:

1. Astrology - Astrology makes vast use of Astronomy (which is a confirmed science) I personally practice astrology and have successfully made use of it to time my entry and exit in stocks in the stock markets. But still, the results are not always 100% correct (but quite close). Is it a science or mumbo jumbo of spirituality?

2.Creative visualisation - They say that if you can dream about it, you can make it happen. For instance, if you are building a house for yourself, you will first see a faint vision of it in your imagination. Then you will go to the drawing board and make a layout plan. Actual construction work then begins and within a set time frame your dream house becomes a reality! This means desire is the seed. How did the house get built from a mere desire into a reality? Is there a scientific explanation available as of today which can chart out the exact process that takes place between having a mere desire to build a house and the house actually getting built?

Cheers!
Navin

By the way, if you go to the following link you have to scroll down a little to see my comments:

http://moderatesrus.blogspot.com/2005/08/cnn-and-evolution-vs-id-discussion.html

´Is it a science or mumbo jumbo of spirituality?´

Astrology?
Is Astronomie a science?
Is mathematics a science?
Is physics a science?
What is ´cause and effect´ in philosophical sense?
Lets discuss this..endlessly..
Or was the question..;)
To Blog or not to Blog?

Creative visualisation?
Is Q mechanics/physics a science?
Is the Placebo/Nocebo effect ´science´?

Spirituality?
Is religion a science?
Is God a science?
Is Law a science?

Love, Passion and good unscientific Reiki Vibes!
Sue me..;) is that a ´science´?

Hal, thanks for the link. What Yogi says is very true.

Hal, I meant about his views on distinction between science and spirituality and not your discussion.

Krish:

What I was saying was that Godel's result takes you up to the point where you can find it quite plausible to think that
a) A computer could never pass the Turing test
b) There is no "theory of everything"
The remaining step requires a little faith, although not nearly as much faith as an established religion or the types of spirituality discussed here would require. Since you responded to my post, let me ask, do you have an opinion on either of the two statements I just mentioned?

"Scientific theories and theorems are something which can be tested and verified in a "controlled environments". In fact, they are valid only in those environments. You cannot take it out of the box and apply it in "uncontrolled environments". This is the mistake which "spiritualists" commit while trying to get a justification for their theories from science." - Krish

Science does a very good job of defining the rules by which it will play, and doing so in a way that protects it from association with other ways of knowing. I say, why not let it play alone if it wants to? Why do we give so much power to the idea of getting validation from a field that defines itself so narrowly and asserts itself primarily by nihilism? It does not purport to offer "the truth." It simply glorifies what can be known through the physical realm as uses that productively to bring value to our lives. Great. Let it.

Those of us who embrace ways of knowing that go beyond what can be "objectively" known through current technologies that measure physical phenomena are the lucky ones. We get to benefit from the beauty and blessing of science, and it is definitely both, AND from the inspiration, miracle manifestation, and inner peace of spirituality. The only problem we run into is when we try to force acceptance and approval from those who don't want these benefits if they can't be brought by what they already accept as valid ways of knowing. So let them go through life as they will. That is their right. And if ever they change their mind, there will be quite a sizable number of mentors waiting to guide them at that time. When they ask for help, not when they consider it crap.

I agree with "point a" completely. But I am not sure what do you mean by "point b". Are you referring to the theory of everything as called by the theoretical physicists or an all encompassing "theory of everything". If it is about the "theory of everything" in the physicist sense, then it could be possible. But an all encompassing "theory of everything" is not possible as per Godel's theorem.

Indigo, I agree with you partially. It is also my argument that if you have a different way to "study" nature. Go ahead with it and have fun with it. You can also enjoy whatever your "spiritual ways" give to you. Scientists don't want to interfere in your approach. Similarly, they don't want you to interfere in their approach too. I am against those guys who poke their spiritual nose inside the scientific domain. Just keep away and do whatever you want to do.

Yes, Krish. And my way of "studying" nature is to sing and dance with friends beside a natural pond. At some point it is as if the separation between my inner and outer experience disappears. I feel the wind on my skin, I sway with it and sing to it, then suddenly "it" becomes "me." I am the wind. I think of moving to the left, and before I can even move my body in dance, the wind shifts direction and begins moving to my left. I am filled with strong inspiration and the force of the gale picks up so noticeably that I have to tighten my body to remain on the boulder I'm standing on. I notice the communion that is happening and experiement a little. I think, "calm now," and move my mind and energy towards a meditative stance. The wind softens to a breeze. Then there is stillness.

This is not science. I appreciate what science teaches about the wind. I am excited about the possibilities of wind generated electricity. I like being able to predice when a storm may turn into a hurricane (assuming that is a branch of science related to the study of the wind). I love science. In fact, I went to a Science and Math high school.

I also love the "experiments" I run in nature that will never prove anything to anyone. I can't convince anyone of anything sharing a story like this. But maybe I can move something within someone and bring a sense of wonder, or joy, or presence, or who knows.

Sometimes the value of what we share with each other is restricted to just being the wonder of life, not the knowing of it. And sometimes, its just fun to dance as the wind.

rajK, thank you for the clarification. I understand. Just as real students of science will be encouraged to ask questions by their teachers but general public will not be, similarly, real students of mysticism will be encouraged to ask questions by 'real' teachers of mysticsm while general public will not be and rather will be asked to have faith and follow the religion. In fact, religion is spirituality for the general public.

When I had what I call my first experience of oneness of all nature - or of I and universe are one - I was doing nothing else but asking the following questions of me. Who am I? Where have I come from? Where am I supposed to go aftr my so-called death? Has my "I", my being some permanent point of reference or it is merely a chance bubble floating meaninglessly in the wildernes of space? What is space? Where this ends? What is beyond that? Could it be that all this (lluding mentally to the world around) never have been? Were then there to be no..nothing...forever....NEVER???? What great religious men must have meant from God? What is good and bad? What is the best way to live this unimagiably short life? And so on.

Obviously all can not have the experience like me which will satisfy them as to these questions and so they will be just asked to have faith. There time will too come someday for all are on the line. What is required is only a certain ripeness as to one's advanement on the path of evolution.

Navin, Astrology is science yet incompletely understood. And may never be understood with complete accuracy. Spirituality is nothing else but that at the deepest or spirit's level - or where matter rather becomes more like spirit - all is one. Obviously complete astrology or even science will be understood only when we will begin from here, from this oneness. But there we encounter two problems. One is, that from the point of view of the ultimate one or oneness there in fact remains no world of the like of us which we want to study and understand. It is just as there will remain no dream or dream world when we wake up, here we wake up to ourselves, there in the above example we wake up to the One or Oneness of the whole world. Which is why there is a Hindu saying :" Either you see God or you see this world." Which is also why Socrates said: " I kow only that I kow nothing." Or Lao Tze said : " He who knows does not speak he who speaks does not know." The only saving grace is that one cannot permanently remain in that state of oneness and so begins to see the usual world again but yet he cannot but speak now keeping in mind that oneness or experience of oneness. So spirituality in fact contains all and everything even science. Science cannot reach the above oneness because it will be like reaching infinity by 2x2....So science will always remain incomplete as will remain Astrology.

As for creative visualization, it involves all the three disciplines of knolwedge i.e., spirituality, philosophy and science. When we move our consciousness or dhyana towards a desire or a dream this is spirituality at work. Subsequently when we begin to think over it, it is our minds and hence philosophy at work. And finally when we begin to do any physical work in connection with that dream or desire it is science at work. We cannot fulfill all our fancied visulizations through this because basically our spirituality or dhyana or consciousness is directed by the same superforce which initially caused the big bang and has come to become our lot through many many systems on the way. So are our wishes and desires. We cannot draw our wishes and desires out of the blue, these are in built in us from the very beginning. As I have explained in my book all our wishes, desires, discoveries, inventions are bascially our attempts to overcome what scientists call four fundamental forces of nature. Explaining them here will make this post very lengthy.

Well said Indigo.

Mieke, what I really meant from my previous long post was that all we are having here is fun. Othrwise at least so far as I am concerned I am least interested in converting any scientist here to spirituality or vice versa. I know all are right at their places and serving one grand scheme of things of the universe. Though the discussions here too are a part of that service and SOT.

Many may here think that perhaps I am some kind of baba or godman or what you have. I am nothing of the sort. My spirituality is a very very private affair, embedded far deep down in myself. Otherwise I am a very ordinary man, I enjoy my evening peg, I enjoy dabbling in stock markets, I enjoy occasional smoke, I enjoy looking at pretty faces, though sometimes now I look beyond the mere face. Even when I had what I call my first experience of oneness it was followed by a decade of life of total abandon. Perhaps I was enjoying my newly won freedom of choice to use Deepak's words from some other thread. In othr words "I have passed through the inferno of my passions to overcome them," to use C.G.Jung's phrase "He who has not passed through the inferno of his passions has not overcome them." Only who has thus overcome his passions can really flow with the flow. Because now no passion is overwhelming, yet no passion is a taboo. It is now no longer in the mind but in the moment...

Love to you all. Harb.

In response to Krish,

[I agree with "point a" completely.]

Very interesting. I also agree. For me this is an acknowledgment that there is no way to ever completely explain human thought in terms of any scientific theory. This means that human thought (what I call consciousness) comes from a source that we can never completely understand. I think that statement (a) is on the border between spirituality and science. Unlike most religious claims, statement (a) could potentially be negated if someone could program a computer in such a way that it could pass the Turing test. At the same time, statement (a) cannot be mathematically or scientifically established. We can only become more and more certain of it over time as more people try and fail to disprove it.

[If it is about the "theory of everything" in the physicist sense, then it could be possible. But an all encompassing "theory of everything" is not possible as per Godel's theorem.]

As I explain in my comments at moderatesrus I don't believe a "theory of everything" in the sense of physics is possible. This is what I meant for (b). What do you mean by an "all encompassing theory of everything"?

I think your statements on (a) and (b) are inconsistent. If there were a theory of everything in the sense of physics then, given a computer with sufficient memory and speed, human thought could be simulated by computer and the Turing test could be passed.

Dear Harb,
Thank your for sharing your insights about Astrology and Creative Visualisation. I am in agreement with everything you said.

My take on Astrology: It is definitely a science which may never be understood with complete accuracy simply because most of the research data available on this subject has been lost down the years. I rely on the Vedic Hindu Astrology more than the Western form Of Astrology as I think the former is more accurate and covers a wider spectrum. Astrology consists of two parts: 1) The mathematical or calculative part, in which Horoscopes are cast with the three basic inputs required, namely, the exact time, date and place of birth. This part has been taken over by computer programs now.
2) The second part is the Predictive Part. This depends totally on the Interpretation and the Experience of the Astrologer, therefore the accuracy will vary according the skill of the exponent.

My take on Creative Visualization: Desire is the seed. Whatever you desire, you can create. Only the time taken to manifest your desire into the material world would vary according to the nature of the desire. When the desire gets converted into a thought it begins to gather its own energy. And after a requisite amount of time, this whirling energy crystallizes itself into the material form. I can't explain this in scientific terms as I studied physics only uptil my school days; that is something for the scientists to research and find out. But definitely there is some science involved in converting a thought from thought form to the material form.

There is a reason why I brought up the examples of the above two subjects into this debate. As you can see for yourself both science and spirituality are at work in them. In my book, science would be a part of Spirituality, as is everything a part of the WHOLE. Just because Science is only yet a PART and not the WHOLE, it denies the existence of the WHOLE untill it sees it. It will see it in due course of time (maybe after many centuries). It is like a person who lives in America but does not know that America is a part of a bigger entity, which is THE WORLD. Once that person invents an airplane and flies in the skies to actually SEE the entire world he/she will accept that America is indeed only a part of the World. You are only limited by your view. Both science and spirituality actually aim at the same thing, which is to EXPAND YOUR VIEW.

Having said that I support Krish when he calls the callous use of terms like the "Quantum theory" to justify everything relating to spirituality as "crap". It is not his fault. There are too many pseudo spiritualists in the world who don't have a clue what they are talking about when they cite fancy terms like the Quantum theory. Finding a truly spiritual person in the world is like finding a needle in a haystack, so I completely understand Krish's cynicism.

Cheers!
Navin

correction typo: Harb,read "thank you for sharing" and not "thank your....". LOL.

Dear Harb and others, thank you for explaining a lot of things about this, what i think, very interesting subject, of somehow merging science, religion and spirituality into the desire of being human and growing into being human. I first became interested in this subject when reading it in Teilhard de Chardin´s book, actually called The Desire to be Human. I too had an experience in my life that changed my whole approach towards it and since then having so much fun in life and in my way having led, up till now (and it still goes on) a most creative and fulfilling life.
I have read many many books (including all of Deepak´s) and they have always confirmed me in my way of living. This i have been able to express in the 3D Virtual worlds i have made and now i found a new hobby in translating from Dutch into English books that resonate with me and my vision of life. And this is also very fulfilling and gives me even more understanding in my life. And if you talk about flow, Harb, this certainly gives me moments of flow because i can give myself completely to the things i am doing and they come flowing into my life without me having to do that much for it. It just happens. So that is why i feel that your book resonates to me in the same way and i would love to translate it into the Dutch language :)
Wish you all much inspiration, Mieke

Never mind dear Navin, we can correct such minor typos ourselves.

I entirely agree with what you have said about Astrology though I myself do not know much about it. I have a vague idea though that it has a very valid foundation below it which though cannot be understood totally because we cannot begin from the very beginning of calculating everything. It is just like science cannot go to the very beginning of the universe. It can go to the first second, to the fractions of the first second but never to the exact moment of the beginning.

I could not agree more with what you have said about creative visualization. I have written in my book that perhaps scientists of the next cultural cycle (who will be to us as we are to the Greeks) would symbolically if not actually set up their laboratories in the virtual ream - my name for mind - as against now in the actual or physical realm. In fact some scientists like late David Bohm have already said that finally we will have to study the virtual transitions - in fact his scientific name for the objective equivalent of our thoughts - to understand the actual transitions, which is the same as saying that some day we will have to study thoughts to understand things or change in them.

And most of all, I could not agree more with what you have said about Krish's posts. I can well understand and accept Krish I was just having some fun with him.

Hope he re-energized himself well with 'spirituality' in the garb of sleep after his too exhausting sex with mere physical viagra lol.

Harb

lol Mieke, we are writing our posts at the same time. Well met!

Harb

Mieke, I fully understand your experience and what else you wrote about yourself. I have also felt the things happening on their own while I seemed to be a mere spectator to them.

I have not read Teilhard de Chardin but I know a bit about him from here and there. But from even this bit I have always felt myself to be very much like him so far as my insight in my book is concerned and I have mentioned this fact in my book.

I will be sending the book to you in the next couple of days...

Harb.

Dear Harb,
I quote you: "Hope he re-energized himself well with 'spirituality' in the garb of sleep after his too exhausting sex with mere physical viagra lol."

LOL. I hope Krish sees the humor in your statement. Well said.

Cheers!
Navin

Thank you Harb, looking forward to receiving your book. The book of Teilhard de Chardin i have read was in fact an International Teilhard Compendium published in 1983 in the Netherlands in which contributors from all over the world have written articles about Teilhard, expressing their admiration of his work and the way they are dealing with it themselves Among them was also an article of an Indian professor J. de Marneffe called: Teilhardian Thought as a Methodology for the Discernement of Socio-Cultural Options in an Evolutionary World. I personally opted for the article of Marilyn Ferguson: The Mandate of Our Collective Real Self and purchased her book The Aquarian Conspiracy. A also was very much impressed by an article of Elizabeth Kübler-Ross: My Teachers on Life and Living. There are so many articles in it that still are valid for this new Era that I am going to read this book all over again.
Mieke

LOL Navin, over to Krish..

I am afraid that Krish will say that since my comment is based on a prior assumption that he will sleep soundly rather than solve some quantum mechanical puzzle even in his sleep he cannot comment on it.

Hello Mieke, over-reading too is sometimes harmful for spirituality I may warn...lol. Enjoy, I am just kidding...

Harb

:) Mieke

Mieke, there could be no better response!

Harb.

Here is a Santa Singh joke to lighten the atmosphere in this string further. For the uninitiated, Santa Singh is a cult figure in the Indian joke circuit:

There was this case in the hospital's Intensive care ward where patients always died in the same bed and on Sunday morning at 11a.m., regardless
of their medical condition.

This puzzled the doctors and some even thought that it had something to
do with the supernatural. No one could solve the mystery as to why the deaths took place at 11 AM.

So a world-wide expert team was constituted and they decided to go down to the ward to investigate the cause of the incidents.

So on the next Sunday morning few minutes before 11 a.m., all doctors and nurses nervously waited outside the ward to see for themselves what
the terrible phenomenon was all about. Some were holding wooden crosses,prayer books and other holy objects to ward off evil........

Just then the clock struck 11...

and then......

Scroll down.....

Scroll down........

Santa Singh, the part-time Sunday sweeper, entered the ward and
unplugged the life support system & plugged in the vacuum cleaner.

Cheers!
Navin

Navin, hope ths joke does not prove to be like Santa Singh's vacuum cleaner lol.

Harb

again, smile, smile, smile :) you are very funny. I wish you all a very good weekend.
Mieke

Navin, many of us here don't appreciate jokes made about people from certain religion/group. I agree it is a free forum but I suggest that we don't make sardarji jokes or any other jokes of this type. In my opinion, it is not fair. Hope you understand.

Lol Krish, Santa Singh is now rather an avatar of laughter than a Sikh. I too am a Sikh but I don't mind it. It is in the spirit in which someone has told the joke which should count rather than mere physical attributes. (I hope you don't again take it physical vs spiritual thing lol).

Even otherwise, I think this forum is all about transcending all such man-made boundaries and best way to do it is to begin from you yourself. Abolish such narrow-minded boundaries from within yourself and you will not see any Hindu, Sikh Muslim outside.

Harb.

Dear Krish,
Hi. Why are you so uptight about everything in life? You need to loosen up, buds. Don't take life so seriously. Learn to laugh and take things in your stride.

Look at Harb, inspite of being a Sikh himself, he does not mind Santa Singh jokes. It's because he understands me and we have a connection. Santa Singh is a comic character and is a cult figure with the highest popularity rankings in the Indian joke circuit. Just because I told a joke about Santa Singh, does it mean I don't respect Sikhs? LOL. I have the highest regard for them like any other community and some of my best friends are Sikhs. Sikhs in general are courageous and happy-go-lucky people.

There are characters like Santa Singh in every religion. Like there is a funny Muslim character called Mulla Nasruddin and Pedro for Christians, Ajit jokes for Hindus and so on. One should have a big heart and not be bound by such boundries, as Harb correctly puts it. Things like community, religion,nationality, gender, race, color etc. are creations of a narrow mind. I live in India but like to call myself a World Citizen. I was born in a Hindu family but do not identify myself with that. A Hindu is NOT who I am. I am a Human Being first and a Human Being last.

Cheers!
Navin

Good to know that you don't take it as a joke about your religion. But again, I stand by my opinion about these jokes about people from a particular religion. There was an incident in Intentblog in which someone took offense to such jokes in a commentor's blog. My intention was to avoid such issues here rather than a narrow minded view of people based on religion.

Science and spirituality are very much related. Some of you are probably very religious, devout Christians. Do you realize that Ancient Sumerian tablets also show how man was created?

There was a time when 'Gods' lived on earth, mining its minerals. They became tired of their labors and one of them, in sumerian script called Prince EA (Represented by the serpent) proposed the idea of 'binding' themselves with the apemen and apewomen.

In the Hebrew bible (Complete Bible) the story of Adam and Eve consists of a serpent who convinces them to eat the apple. In Sumerian belief man and woman were created "in the image of the Gods" Bible: "in the image of God".

On Sumerian tablets it is said Prince EA who created man, did not like the other way the Gods were treating humans (mining slaves), so he betrayed his brethren and gave man awareness, knowledge basically spirituality. This angered the other Gods.

According to the Bible a serpent (Satan) convinced Adam and Eve to take the apple (spirituality, knowledge, awareness) this angered God. So in case you have not understood what happened, God is Satan and Satan is God. Christianity/Islam/Judaism have restricted science and spirituality. Sex playing one of the most important roles.

Ancient Egypt worshipped Prince EA (Satan in Christianity "Prince of Darkness") They harnessed the power of spirituality, the heiroglyphics show Gods in positions that invoke chakra and they also have an erection. Don't believe me just google it.

Don't get confused. These Gods are advanced alien races. These are basically facts and direct translations from the Hebrew and Sumerian tablets and texts that both suggest humans were created by Gods that binded themselves with apemen and women.

http://www.totse.com/en/fringe/flying_saucers_from_andromeda/162861.html

This would explain why the Bible contradicts itself, is full of lies, hate and that sex is a sin. Don't blow it off, research it. You'll be suprised at what ancient cultures practiced. Christianity has turned the orginal creators of the human race into demons and as you can see... These three religions preach fear and that God will save your soul. Ancient religion that followed EA "Prince of the Earth" believed you advance your spirituality everytime you experience life inside a physical body. Or lose spirituality as you would be following Christianity/Judaism/Islam

Yes Krish, I can understand your anxiety too. There are people with malicious intent and there are people with narrowmindedness everywhere. They can spoil any atmosphere. So one would do better to either be careful with such comments or...be prepared for a fight. I say the later because sometimes even a fight is necessary to bring such khooh de dadoos (frogs of village wells)to the openness of the present times.

Jassa, all we need to understand the creation and evolution of the universe is a spiritual understanding (becasue science cannot reach there) of the basic oneness of all there is and the rest should all be science and connecting philosophy. There is no need of invoking any God or religion either directly or indirectly or of any symbolism now. The times of these things have gone past some thousands of years before. If you are interested in knowing more what I have said above just have a a look at the web site of my book Self Designed Universe (www.selfdesigneduniverse.com).

Harb.

I'm trying to understand how the Santa Singh joke is connected to the Sikhs. I'm not from that part of the world so excuse my ignorance. In the culture I grew up in it could have been a Balgobin joke. Or for that matter it could have been any comic character not affiliated with any religion or ethnic group. "As an outsider" it seems quite harmless to me. But then some people do take things too seriously.

rajK, to which part/culture of the world you belong to, if you won't mind my asking?

Harb

Harb, the Caribbean.

Ms. Sohaila:
Your response to the conversations that followed was well said. When I took Chemistry in college, I was in awe of how the atoms, molecules, protons, neutron, etc. worked and it blew my mind that there was an Intelligence out there that created it! When you think that in the field of medicine, there are people who specialize in just one aspect of the human body as a career. The Mind that created this human body is beyond our finite comprehension. The more we discover about science, the greater the reverence for that Intelligence.

And by the way, some of us need to relax and have a sense of humour. I am a sikh and love sikh jokes! And have a repetoire of my own.

Sheena Singh

Hi Sheena, here is a Sikh Joke for you!

An English man, a Hindu and a Sikh were arguing among themselves regarding their respective languages.

The English man was saying that English language was the best. For example, when we want to enter a room we say "May I come in?" And the other teacher says "Yes, come in." See how simple and precise English language is.

The Hindu gentleman said that their language Hindi was even more simple and precise. When we want to enter a room we say "Kaya ham ander aa sakte hain?" And the other says "Aaie shrimaan."

Then came the turn of the Sikh man. "Rubbish!, thundered he. Your languages use far too many words. When we want to enter a room we just say, "warran?" The other says, "warro". See just one word is enough. So our language is most precise and hence simple.

BTW, I too am a sikh. were are you from, if you don't mind asking? "Kithon?" to use one word again lol.

Harbhajan Singh, Harb for short.

Here is one more Punjabi joke since you guys are enjoying them so much. I would request one of the Contributors or Admin to start a separate thread titled JOKES where people can post their jokes to lighten the atmosphere whenever it gets too hot in here. I would have created the thread myself had I the power to create new threads.

SANTA SINGH'S WIFE :- KYON JI,TUSII GADI DII SPEED KYON VADHA DITTI...........?
(Why have you increased the speed of the car, darling?)
SANTA SINGH:- OYE,GADDI DI BREAK FAIL HO GAYI
ACCIDENT HON TON PEHLAAAN PEHLAAN CHETTI CHETTI GHAR PAHUNCH JAWANGE.......!
(Oh! The breaks of the car have failed. We must reach home quickly before we meet with an accident)

Enjoy!
Navin

Hal Knight >>>

I am not a professional mathematician but am acquainted with a reasonable degree of mathematical ideas ...

Being a dilletante in the Godel universe, I am familiar with the first two websites that you have referred to ... and with all due respect I would beg to differ from your observations ...

I quote from your reference ...

"This observation is incorrect as it stands. "Proof", in Gödel's theorem, is always proof in some particular formal system T. Gödel's theorem can be used to conclude that for any such T there is a true G in the language of T which is not provable in T. It doesn't follow that G is unprovable in any absolute sense. On the contrary, G is always trivially provable in some other theory T'. Whether G is provable in some more interesting sense, for example in the sense of being a consequence of axioms which we can recognize as true, is a matter that Gödel's theorem doesn't tell us anything about."

My problem in this paragraph is to the two words namely "proof" and "trivial"

My discomfort with this paragraph is the presumption that if you do not agree with my definition of 'proof' then what you have is 'trivial'

This is a play on words and is dangerously similar to the tone and tenor of the arguments used by the Inquisition in denouncing heretics. If you do not agree with the Catholic Church's definition of Christianity then you are fit to be burnt at the stake !!!!

Are we noticing a severe reversal of roles here ? With our Scientists becoming as fanatical as the Christian Church in promoting dogma ... in this case the dogma of 'scientific logic' ?

Krish >>>

I see that you are a bit paranoid about stepping out of the 'zone of comfort' of a controlled logical environment of logical systems ..

"Scientific theories and theorems are something which can be tested and verified in a "controlled environments". In fact, they are valid only in those environments. You cannot take it out of the box and apply it in "uncontrolled environments"."

But that is the whole idea .... to go forth where no one has gone before ..

If a scientific theory is not brave enough to get out of the controlled environment in which it has been proved then there is something wrong with the theory ..

Anyway ... this whole debate on the contradiction between science and spirituality is of some relevence ONLY to those who have been brought up in the JudeoChristian tradition of duality as expressed in the images of a God as distinct from Man ... Hence we have disputes between God's laws and Man's laws ( or laws of physics ) ...

But in the spirit of Advaita, where man and god merges into the singularity of the Brahman ... it is only a matter of time ( or ability ) before one understands, WITHOUT THE NEED FOR PROOFS :-), the fundamental unity of all existence.

We can ofcourse debate till the cows come home but arguments never convinced anyone .... only realisation does ..

Prithwis:

I would be more comfortable if people would think in terms of computability theory rather than Godel's incompleteness theorem. Most people (at least anyone who has ever written a computer program) have an idea of what computers do at a basic level, whereas Godel introduces specialized terminology that leads to misunderstandings.

I am not sure whether Godel's result is equivalent in some sense to the results from computability theory or whether Godel's results have a wider scope, but the discussion at the following site shows that they are at least related:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computability/

Are you familiar with computability theory? It can be used to show that there is no fixed computer program that can be used to decide whether any given statement about the integers is true or not. The reason is that if such a program existed you could turn the program's code into a question about the integers in such a way that the program could never halt when given that question. You could establish results about the program, such as whether the program always returned a true result when it halted, but the program itself would not be sufficient to answer such questions.

I think that the distinction between "trivial" and "proof" in this context is too hypothetical to be of concern here. What difference does it make to your argument whether a proof is trivial or not? Again, especially in this day and age, it much better to think in terms of computability rather than in terms of a subject steeped in arcane notation and terminology like mathematical logic.

Let me know if you have any response to what I just said. I think I should read more about Godel's result, and I modestly suggest that you read up on computability theory, assuming you haven't already.

Hal :

I agree with you, in your assertion that computability is a key concept here ...

We know that a Universal Turing Machine should in principle be able to find a solution ( or prove the non-existence of a solution ) to any problem BUT we would never know when the machine would finally halt.

As a practical programmer ( who nearly got fired for writing self replicating programs that modified themselves ... precursors to today's viruses ) my take is that a UTM can be viewed as a program that violates one of the canons of good programming .. that of strict separation of data and algorithms.

Realistically this means that a UTM reads data and this 'data' has in it the ability to 'teach' the UTM how to process the data. This means that the ability of the UTM to process ( 'make sense' ) of the data increases with the amount of data that it processes.

Taking this to it 'logical'?? conclusion, one can argue that at some point of time, the complexity of the UTM becomes equal ( 'equivalent') to the complexity of the data in the 'environment' that it is trying to process.

The 'outer' data becomes the same ('similar') to the processor of the data.

If we switch back to the realm of Advaita Vedanta, this means that the 'knower' merges with the 'to be known'. This is also the goal of Yoga ( in case you are not aware, there is FAR, FAR more to Yoga than the contortionist physical exercises and deep breathing that is taught in modern Yoga schools !)

For me Godel is step # 1 : I use it a shield against which my friends from the rational world shiver their lances ! when they keep asking for proofs

The UTM is step # 2 : A little model that tries to give an approximate answer to the question that is posed by Gargi in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad : "how can the knower be known". Or at least if it does not give an answer, it helps me to pose the problem in a manner that programmer-mathematicians can understand.

Step # 3 : The final realisation ... the synthesis or Yoga of the knower and the to-be-known. And in this case, I admit i do not know when the machine will, in my case, STOP !!!

Cheers and may the Grace be with you ...

Prithwis:

Thanks for the Vedanta reference. I know what you mean about separating data and algorithms. In some programming languages it is possible to invoke a method without the method call being explicitly written in code, which makes the language more flexible but can also make things difficult.

The ‘big fight’ between the spiritualists and scientist is not a new phenomenon and I consider it a peculiar effort of a human specie to understand the ‘mother nature’ which like the true mothers get its every parameter unfolded to give a perfect picturesque for the development of life on earth.. Without and beyond humans the stage was already set for the life in general and for this strange thinking animal in particular. In this effort to understand which is beyond us, even beyond our birth many approaches were adopted from time to time. I wonder why Sherlock Homes always ask Watson for the possible reasons and later refute him to give a truer picture of the case. Spiritualist like Watson draw a picture and scientists with there tools gets the picture right. But are the Scientists able to go beyond Spiritualists. I doubt!

Many years back the spiritualists used to base their theories on the religious books like bible etc(still some do). They made everyone to believe that the earth is made in a one go by some supernatural power, they made us to believe the supernaturalness of all the chemistry of life. The science refuted majority of their claims. They showed in details how earth and life evolved in billions of years. Atoms were deciphered. And they set forth a scientific temperament for the society. Spiritualists in their vague and broad Imaginations have claimed which is much beyond their understanding. The Scientist have often refuted their false claims with their hard tools and paved the way to the future. But does this thesis and anti-thesis took us some where. If I say that water is life or God, Scientist will perch into boasting their tools and lab telling me that water is a molecule made of hydrogen and oxygen. If I say Sun is the ultimate source of energy and God they will show me numerous details making me to believe that it is not GOD and made of subtle molecules, but still not telling me what is it beyond molecules? Has that refuted any of my claims that water or Sun is a life and So God or the work of GOD? They have messed with genes and produced varied but undoubtedly abnormal species not set to tune with the surrounding environment but are they able to really unlock the life in the genes? The mathematical calculations could only take us to infinities.

After a brief success the scientists slowly found themselves again in-mess with strings. The dumbfound gave spiritualist a chance. Now Spiritualist find asylum in new age scientific theories and in its perplexities and giving their spiritual fervent to answer the questions where scientists have struck. Hope one day some scientists will collect all the spiritual mesh into his hypothesis by either refuting their claims or excepting God which I doubt earnestly.

That day will be the Next Paradigm Shift!!(like this totally next comment.)

Krish, Tanzan and others,
Can't claim to have understood Quantum theory but do know a few facts about it:
1) One of the experiments (part of Krish's rigorous methods) which prompted scientists to formulate the theory was the double slit experiment, which showed that an electron existed at two places (by logical extension- everywhere) at the same time.
2) Only when a measurement was made, did the electron appear at just one place and disappear from every other - instantly! It is as is the electron 'knows' what is happening..

There are many such other facts that made me wonder why it sounds so similar to the all-pervading consciousness of Advaita (incidentally the discipline which attracted Erwin Schroedinger, who partly invented Quantum Mechanics). I guess Krish and Tanzan believe Schroedinger went nuts just after inventing QM :-).

The way every new finding of science fits in so nicely with Vedanta is really a strange coincidence, if Vedanta is crap!

And coming back to Krish's rigorous methods, all you scientists and spiritualists please don't forget that spiritual knowledge as we know today has been given to us by saints who meditated for years. Meditation is not a stress-busting exercise, but a rigorous scientific exercise in its own right!! The only difference being that the results of that experiment cannot be shown to others. Everybody has to do his/her own experiment.

I think both the camps are going wrong. Scientists in their totally dogmatic denial of everything that cannot be seen and spiritualists in making grand claims without really understanding either spirituality or science!

totally in agreement...to me "all science is mystical and like poetry".....

and i dont say it in any derogatory sense....

all of technology and calculus and the like depends on the concept of "zero" and the discovery of zero is credited to an Indian mystic Aryabhata....

we all know of the discovery of organic chemistry through kekule's dream...

intelligence has levels of manifest...as i perceive it...

Hal,

"This means that human thought (what I call consciousness) comes from a source that we can never completely understand."

Your argument may stand at this point of time. But there is every possibility that with the advancement of research in neuroscience, this will fall flat. You cannot rule out that possibility. Till the time we hear from neuroscientists, you can continue to hold to your theory of consciousness. Even though there is no conrete theory to explain this aspect from the point of view of science, there is absolutely no proof to your claim. This claim can stand ONLY because there is no proof against it.

Regarding your other part of argument in which you say

"As I explain in my comments at moderatesrus I don't believe a "theory of everything" in the sense of physics is possible. This is what I meant for (b). What do you mean by an "all encompassing theory of everything"?

I think your statements on (a) and (b) are inconsistent. If there were a theory of everything in the sense of physics then, given a computer with sufficient memory and speed, human thought could be simulated by computer and the Turing test could be passed"

By theory of everything, I meant a mathematical theory which could combine all the four known forces. I claimed that this mathemtical theory is completely possible even with Godel's theorem.

I just checked out moderates revenge to see what you have told. You have told the same thing as I told over there. I am quoting it below.

"In other words, a theory of everything (in the sense that physicists mean) could exist."

Dude, I am consistent in what I talk.

Krish:

The main contribution I am trying to make to the discussion on the connection between science and spirituality is to suggest some things that one can choose to believe that can never be proved. Instead of being provable they are things that science and humanity can only become more certain of over time.

Here are some examples of things I believe in that fit this description:
a. The Turing test will never be passed.
b. Consciousness (i.e. human or animal thought) will never be completely understood.
c. There will never be a physical theory of everything.

All three of these beliefs can be disproved. You (Krish) keep asking for proof, but the best I can do is say that they could potentially be disproved. I don't think my beliefs will ever will be disproved, but I have already discussed this at:
http://moderatesrus.blogspot.com/2005/08/cnn-and-evolution-vs-id-discussion.html
I think that these questions do have yes or no answers and that scientists and others who are interested in the interaction between science and spirituality should ask themselves what they think the answers are.

Now for one of your comments:

[By theory of everything, I meant a mathematical theory which could combine all the four known forces. I claimed that this mathematical theory is completely possible even with Godel's theorem. I just checked out moderates revenge to see what you have told. You have told the same thing as I told over there. I am quoting it below
"In other words, a theory of everything (in the sense that physicists mean) could exist."
]

I think there was a misunderstanding here on what we each meant by a theory of everything. I definitely do believe that a theory that would combine all four forces is possible. I described what I meant by a theory of everything at moderatesrus, so perhaps you could check again. Basically, I mean a theory from which all laws of physics could be derived, which is not the same idea as a theory that would combine the four forces. What I meant in the quote above was that a theory of everything was not directly prevented by Godel's result, but that I still didn't think it was possible. You said that you didn't think the Turing test could be passed but that you thought there might be a theory of everything. This is what I thought seemed inconsistent, based on my own notion of what a theory of everything would mean. Again, check moderatesrus if you would like to know why.

Hal, yes. We are talking about two different aspects when we mean theory of everything.

"I am trying to make to the discussion on the connection between science and spirituality is to suggest some things that one can choose to believe that can never be proved. Instead of being provable they are things that science and humanity can only become more certain of over time."

I agree with your argument that there are many things which can be made certain over a period of time. With regards to consciousness you tend to believe in the side of spirituality and I tend to believe in the side of "brain theory". Whether my belief in the "brain theory" is valid or not, cannot be said now. Under such conditions, you can keep spiritual theories of consciousness and "brain theory" on the same footing. You can even propose that scientific understanding might even lead towards spirituality based consciousness theory. We will only know after the research has progressed in neuro science. In this case, I completely agree when you say "can only become more certain of over time". However, the ones for which I ask proof are the statements like "quantum mechanics proves the existence of god" and assertions like "astrology is science","science proves theories of eastern philosophies" etc. If you claim that something proves the existence of god or validates some philosophy, then there should exist a proof already. I am ONLY asking proof for these issues where people claim that science proves this, science proves that, something IS science, etc. I think if someone says science proves this or something is science, then I need proof as per the norms of science. Like the case of consciousness where science hasn't progressed much, I wouldn't mind the spiritual thoeries trying to explain consciousness as we don't have a concrete understanding of consciousness based on science. I hope I made my ideas clearly.

Hi
Infact There exist the Science of Sprituality.
This science of Sprituality given by Kabir,followed by Sikhs,Hindus,Christans and Muslims.why it had lost its significant is because we had forgotten the Actual meaning of the Science of Sprituality and had taken the things which were rarely said.
According to Science of Sprituality for every one in this world the GOD is one and one can reach him,by meditation and there are formulas for doing a proper and effective meditation to reach to GOD.
Here is 0ne example how Science And Sprituality are not different ,
According to every relegion one can't see the GOD in its absoulute form but can see GOD in the form of Light and Sound,So coming to the lowest level God Exist every where...
How it exists is that since we can see can't see the GOD in its absoulute form but can see GOD in the form of Light and Sound ,so the lowest level from which this world is made up of is ATOM ,and what we get splitting the ATOM is the form of Light and Sound only ??,
So this is the best example where the Science Meets the Sprituality

Hi Sohaila,
Yes, yes, yes. If people did not exist then the intelligent patterns of the universe would soon produce entities with spiritual aspirations. Check out my book a www.thehumanequationinc.com and click on "models". People with a healthy outlook can contact me to share links. Thanks Don.

ultram online pharmacy

I was particularly disturbed after watching the great Indian Comedy Show Airbed on Star TV Network on February 24, 2006 after viewing a Pot Bellied demented Sikh churning out extremely sick jokes with a popular perception that manifestation of best of comedies is to acknowledge the fact that you shouldn’t how to laugh on your own self in order to make the world laugh but in due diligence of doing so he crossed all levels of decency as well as public morality. What tends to my greatest amazement who the hell gave him the right to carry he burden of the Sikh Community and make fun at the cost of he entire Sikh nation.

My Line of business takes me to several foreign destinations and met people from several of different diversities and cultures. I recall one of my very dear friend asked me how do I feel about Indians being discriminated in different parts of the world not only as being a Indian but a person hailing from the Third World nation. My answer was swift and simple, As a Sikh or a minority community I experience more discrimination in India then anywhere in the world.

Right from the silly jokes that flood websites into the high society coffee tables, sardar jokes as common and as natural as the heat and dust of this country. We Sikhs as a minority self conscience proud and able community have learnt how to adapt and ignore specially knowing that a weak person and extremely low on morality needs to pick on people just to show his or her own illusionary superiority. Well I wouldn’t like to debate on this contentious issue of Public Morality and how our Indian Society have defined how to behave with the Sikh Community specially after the tragic events of Operation Blue star and Riots that followed on November 1984.

Not withstanding the above factors, my intention is brought towards the enemies within. Even our baani states that in order to win over the world we should win over the devil within us. Similar fact remain valid for the enemies within the community by whose actions the entire community suffers and fingers automatically get pointed towards a very serious issue of our able Member of Parliament Mr. Navjot Singh Sidhu belonging a Political party who seem to have championed the Cause of Sikhs (Imaginatory Cause Ofcourse) where he choose to pick up hefty sums for faking his laughter’s on a Network sponsored by foreigners choose to laugh away all the way to the bank when the Pot Belied Sikh from Agra reached the lowest Ebb of his own life on National Television and did nothing about it for a about week when the protests started filtering in and the Star Network had to apologize. But still Mr. sidhu did nothing in exception to hollow and pathetic apologies of Public Morality and receiting verses from our sacred Guru Grant sahib in the very next episode of the in-famous show . The question still remains is that all he could offer, shouldn’t he would have ensured that the Pot Belied Sikh from Agra who I am sure needs at least 4 pegs of whiskey every evening before he finally retires into his Lowest IQ moments of Sikh Baiting Jokes or would have dis continued from the presence at the show. But he didn’t do anything of that sort but continued to provide alibis of innocence simply proved how much of Sikh he truly is. Is Sikh only defined by a beard of the face and a turban of his head, ifs that the definition of being a Sikh then Bin laden would also qualify. My head downs in shame with Sikhs like the Drunk with idiocities Pot belied ___ and our able MP Mr Sidhu who are the role models of he sol called parallel Punjabi’s, One trims his beard and ensures his Son hair are offered as a sacrifice to the so called Punjabiyat.

I am not be a talented cricketer hitting Six or four’s on the Cricket Grounds for the delight of the spectators, I am not be a person sitting on high spiritual ground and I am not be Baton who Judge’s actions of individuals, but I am sure I don’t ensure unlike Mr. Sidhu sit and laugh over pathetic Sardar Jokes who lowest the lowest standard of Public Life or I trim my beard like Mr. Sidhu each morning I see myself in the mirror or choose for my child who is yet to cross 5 years of his innocent life to un cut his hair even before he realizes what he really is all about. However Mr. Sidhu still chooses to call himself as a Punjabi rather then a Proud Sikh. Like lakhs of the silent majority Gursikhs who throngs the doors of our poise Gurdwaras like a great humanity paying obscene, I am proud to be a Sikh and so are my children and no discrimination or actions like that of Navjot Singh Sidhu would bog the Sikh Community without the contribution and sacrifices of our Great Gurus and specially Guru Gobind Singh Sahib I am sure the entire Hindu Population of North India would have been Muslim Converts.

Maybe I forgot in the process Mr Sidhu is a Neta 1st then a Sikh or somebody we are really yet to know

Nice work! -tramadol side effects

Nice work! -atlantic city casino