Dear DK & Friends:

I have some minor and some significant comments on the HQR Glossary as described below:

Phenomenon of spontaneity: The individual act of will, happening or arising without apparent external cause or force.
Singularity: a point in space-time at which gravitational forces cause matter to have infinite density and infinitesimal volume, and space and time to become infinitely distorted. Big Bang is one such singularity.

Quantum theory: a physical theory that certain physically measurable properties occur only in discrete amounts (quanta)
Observer's Paradox or quantum measurement: refers to phenomena where the observation of an event or experiment is totally dependent upon the consciousness of the observer/investigator.
Heisenberg's uncertainty: is a mathematical limit on the accuracy with which it is possible to measure the smallest possible physical properties there is to know about a physical quantum system or phenomenon.
Non-locality: a theory in which states that all events, things, and phenomena in the universe are interconnected at the non-manifested level and it is not possible to treat widely separated systems or events as independent.

Super luminous inflation: The Inflation Theory, developed by Alan Guth, Andrei Linde, Paul Steinhardt, and Andy Albrecht, proposes a period of extremely rapid (exponential) expansion of the universe leading to the Big Bang expansion, during which time the energy density of the universe was dominated by a cosmological constant term that later decayed to produce the matter and radiation that fill the universe today.

Dark energy: a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and has strong negative pressure causing the observed expansion of the universe.
Dark matter: the hypothetical matter that is not directly observed and has unknown composition, that does not emit or reflect enough electromagnetic radiation to be detected directly, but whose presence is only inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter.
Paradox of time and evolution: Time, although widely used in physics as an independent parameter, cannot be proven to have a physical existence. Time is often inferred as the increasing entropy reflecting the changing (evolutionary) state of a material entity that can be observed or measured.

nature: the material world with all its phenomena, things, and living beings – plants, animals, and humans.
Space-time: The fabric of the universe; the 4-dimensional coordinate system (3 dimensions of space and 1 of time) in which physical events are located.
Relativity (Einstein’s theory): (physics) the theory that space and time as well as mass and energy are relative concepts rather than absolute concepts.
Relativity: a state of connectedness or dependence in which the existence or significance of one entity is solely dependent on that of another.
Newtonian physics: three physical laws which provide relationships between the forces acting on a body and the motion of the body in fixed space and time, first formulated by Sir Isaac Newton.

Love
Avtar

Dear Syamala:

Your comment from the previous DK post on Spooky Action: “So, I do not see QM as being inconsistent with Adwaita because of having different interpretations. Similarly, quantum entaglement is a reality observed by the instruments. Einstein has every right to call it spooky but that is reality in Einstein's mind showing that reality inferred by mind's logic need not be the same as the physical reality. So, I think according to Adwaita, an inconsistency in the logics of Relativity and QM should not make either of them a better or worse candidate in HQR.”

Let me first state that the reality of QM is not only inconsistent with the reality of Adwaita, but exactly opposite – the Mithya or Illusion, as explained below:

Adwaita is non-duality between the observer and the observed; A quantum observer on the other hand is a separated observer from the quantum system being observed and hence, opposite to Adwaita. If there is no separated observer, the wave function cannot be collapsed to result into a perceived quantum reality. In fact, if one believes in the authenticity of QM observation and quantum reality, the universe cannot exist or be perceived by a human observer, since he/she is part of or within the universe. This is a major unresolved and embarrassing paradox of quantum cosmology.

Adawaita’s reality is the eternal one wholesome non-dual truth or consciousness (Holistic Relativity’s zero-point energy with fully dilated mass/space/time). Quantum reality, on the other hand, is the Mithya or Illusion of Adwaita signifying the temporal reality of a (less than fully conscious) materialistic observer or a quantum measuring device.

The Quantum Observer’s Paradox or the Quantum Measurement Problem is the major unresolved paradox of quantum mechanics, which requires a separated observer whose consciousness collapses the wave function being observed leading to the perceived classical reality. No QM expert or theory has yet been able to describe why and how this collapse occurs and appearance of classical reality gets created from the potential wave functions. The foundations of quantum reality are pies in the sky lacking any mathematical or mechanistic physical explanation that could be called scientific, and no better than metaphysical or philosophical fluff. QM is a black box to its experts totally relying on the Quantum Observations fraught with the fundamental paralysis of the Observer’s Paradox or the Measurement Problem.

Einstein’s theory of relativity that led Einstein to refer the “Spooky Action at a Distance” only lacks inclusion of the phenomenon of spontaneous decay of particle mass to transform to energy, signifying spontaneity and consciousness. This is what the Holistic Relativity or GNM formulation in my book achieves leading to resolution of the Observer’s Paradox, Non-locality while still maintaining the maximum speed limit C, and resolution of all other paradoxes of QM and cosmology. Moreover and amazingly, this insight of the spontaneous decaying of mass to energy comes from the essence of the Adwaita message of non-duality between the material observer and the observed – truth.

I am sorry that I have to keep beating this dead horse of quantum mechanics that nobody can expect to ride on the journey to and reach the destination of Adwaita or spirituality. The very foundations of QM are inconsistent with and 180 degrees opposite to Adwaita and wholesomeness of spirituality. The tens of unresolved paradoxes of QM are not accident but are there for a reason – its fundamentally incomplete, fragmented, and misleading formulations that can only be appropriate for pursuing matter that is also equally fragmented and temporal fraught with time and evolution.

Some might say that I am allergic to QM; What I see, on the other hand, is an uncontrollable virus that is infecting the QM riders and no anti-biotic seems to cure it. I will keep showing the light, hoping that someday the eyes would open. The biggest misfortune is the apparent lack of mathematical and physical understanding of the deep concepts of the theory of relativity, which one has to realize to be the language of the spiritual masters’ teachings.

Only the grace of the spiritual masters and a deep compassion inside keeps driving me to illuminate the right path to spirituality. It seems to be harder to awaken a seemingly awake than the one who is really sleeping.

Based on the Holistic formulations of GNM, I would suggest the following important inclusions into the definitions of Truth, Reality, and Consciousness:

The truth is what does not change in space and time. The truth is consciousness, the expansive energy in the so-called empty space in the universe as well as in every atom that is causing the expansion of the universe (giving life to the universe and living things in it) and keeping the universe and atom (unit of body) from collapsing. Faith is not the truth; it is only a positive attitude towards truth. It is not faith but this consciousness energy that is keeping things from collapsing due to gravity, moving, and alive in the universe. Consciousness represents the wholesome energy of the universe that is eternal (beyond time, never born never to die) and omnipresent (beyond space). There is no duality (good/bad, day/night, birth/death etc.) in consciousness. It is a total free will representing the universal laws of the universe. It is pure existence that always has been there (never born or created) and will always be there (never die). Truth entails the cosmic law. It is beyond evolution.

Realities, however, are different from truth in that each reality represents only a small part of the truth. Reality is relative to the observer’s state of the mind and can vary in space and time. A common mistake one makes is to assume that a relative reality is the truth. Realities are many, but truth is one. Truth has no Duality (or relativity), which is property of unconsciousness or inanimate matter (body). Duality exists for matter because matter is bounded in space and time. Anything that is bounded has a boundary that separates it from the wholesome unitary consciousness causing the duality or relativity in Einstein’s words. Since matter (body) is bounded in space and time, it is afflicted with time (birth & death) and evolution, and hence it represents a relative reality that changes in space/time as opposed to the truth, which is eternal and omnipresent. For example, evolution is a relative reality for the material body but not for consciousness, the truth. Truth never evolves, realities do.

Consciousness represents unity (yoga) or oneness (Ek Onkar), has no boundary, and hence no relativity or duality. That is the reason it cannot be seen or measured. What can be seen or measured explicitly, such as the matter, is constrained in space/time separated with a boundary, and hence, measurable or observable. What sees cannot be seen, just like the eye cannot see itself. Consciousness is the observer itself and so it cannot be seen or measured, but can be experienced by being conscious or aware.

Love
Avtar

Do you have the word 'Agyat'The unknown in the glossary ?as this is a very important term which is always going to exist,how so ever we solve the mystry.:)

Quite the list everyone and it is still growing some interesting thought around some subjects.

This really could have it's own hosted wiki which might help it to evolve. It is starting to look more like an encyclopedia rather than a simple glossary. In some cases almost becoming a chapter in a book. I suppose though that is part of the process.

I differ one some things but don't have the time at the moment to articulate them. I am not sure about the "beliefs" or "theory" or "illusion" creeping into the mix. Although in some cases it may be necessary, since we may be defining "beliefs" or "theory" or "illusion" so people can understand them since sometimes they are stepping stones to understanding.

For example in “spirit” we have the phrase “body of light” I think this is really a perceptual fiction.

Some things have become confusing.

I think the product of this exercise is really to define the symbology to be used for communication regarding these subjects. So simplicity is important, some elaboration to convey an understanding is good, but extensive elaboration on the terms should occur elsewhere.

I suppose this will come in the period of refinement and discovery.

Keep up the good works.

Hello DK,

Should "Amen" be the part of the Glossary?

Lots of Love
Rajesh

I would also venture that the same "old content" is not going to lead to any new advances in humanity.

Some of this information has been around thousands of years and yet look at the current state. Obviously these old forms best served the "frame of mind" of humanity in the past. For example the Ten Commandments and certain aspects of religion worked for humanity at a certain stage.

We are at a new stage and ability for comprehension.

I would stress the importance of "new content" and understanding it should also be concise. In other words the "truth" and insights that the "old" were trying to convey could have an improved delivery system for the "mind sets" of today.

It is true that "English" may be lacking terms (symbols) for certain concepts which why we would use certain Sanskrit words which can work quite well because in reality English, especially American English is already a conglomeration of terminology and words borrowed from different languages in many respects.

What I am saying is if we simply repeat what was already; consciousness may not evolve as quickly as it could.

Obviously we seek unification between consciousness and the physical realm and the resulting experience.

One of the things I have been working to develop is a method / model / system / approach / experiment / observations to establish that there is an all pervading intelligence operating behind the scenes, one that holds up to scientific scrutiny. I think this “knowing” is crucial for people to be able to free themselves from fear and operate in harmony with each other.

Dear Richard, with another perspective; to the old regimen of reorganizing old systems; is that in this particular case; this HQ was built by people, taking effort; from across many miles.

THis is, perhaps a first-ever approached internet-gathered collection?

with loving kindness, I hope I expressed what I mean.. as to the difference.. for to myself personally, I believe this aspiration, to be a giant leap for humankind.

North

I would also like to suggest; that any existing slang terminology used from across the globe in reference to any word referenced thus far; be included in bracket beside the formal word?

As, in going through the pentagram 5-wordplay site.. this is where I thougth finding sights like that useful; to find ancient slang, and recent, and new?

To me, this increases the expansion of the internet library, world power, the difference!

However, being searchword-deficiant, have not been successful finding wordplay for words 6-up, but there should be.. shouldn't there up to twelve??

OH dear me, dont mean to spam here, but my thoughts are flowing... should also the wisdoms of north american first nations people be included in the same collective way? After all; they are the ancient ones in their own right; and they are the bearers of knowledge, to medicinal plant-healing, meditation through "sweats" of which I had the honor and privileage to participate in 3-4 in the past years. It is quite an experience; and purification of body and mind from negative influence, with a good sweat-lodge guide; is an absolute must--with fasting, etc.

Any thoughts on including native american(Canada & US) native indian, ancient wisdoms?.. or am I taking this off-coarse?

My sister has been an addictions councelor since her school years, and now a sexual assault councelor; for a womens shelter... she has always, since her young years; offered her pure compassion to the native women/men/children; whom are absolutely lost out there in the big world.

She may be able to offer suggestions to look for; as their are so many native tribal customs which segregate ceremonial unity among them??

North,

Wikipedia is such an endeavor. However what makes this different is it's focus and intent. Which I agree does not seem to have been attempted before as a collaberation.

That being said I can ask this question here.

What is the Sanskrit word for synchronicity, if there is one, and where in the Vedas and such is this concept explained? What is the explanation in English, if there is one.

The reason I ask is this concept plays I think in using statistical probability for establishing the existence of an all pervading intelligence.

every word has a root. it's a matter of exposing the root

this multi, global-conjoined effort is increasing in size, but to be all-accomanying; it would be it's only imminent direction; as such, is growth?

I am not familiar with most languages here; but am no less intrigued by this most brilliant aspiration which DK has inspired us all, to corraborate; with every door and window swung open on a global input; the knowledge base, can only grow in leaps and bounds.

Dear DK

I think syamala's proposal to partition the glossary into main HQR terms, with subsidiary glossaries for deach of the main spiritual / religions traditions, takes away the need for me to categorize the first 20 terms as an example.

As built a list of terms from the Christian tradition last night, I began to realize that the task was more complex than I'd imagined. My relationship to Christianity is sect-delineated. In order to represent Christianity with proper breadth, research that cuts across sects is needed. Since I'm still working on Chalmers summaries, I'll leave off working on Christian glossary terms until I'm done with that.

Others may want to contribute glossary terms related to Christianity, Judaism, etc. Early next week, I'll begin to make contributions of that type, too.

love, Heath

Richard,

Thank you for articulating the "what's new" predicament.

The kids think we already have it all figured out.
Their pioneering spirit awaits the discovery
of a new frontier. Hopefully, it's somewhere out there.

What's new? Nothing. We only wish to uncover what's already there.

It is easy for me to see how an original idea quickly
turns into preferences for different perspectives.
One religion becomes two, then four, etc., and we find that agreements are rare cookies, indeed!

Master Kirpal, Adwaita, Harb and Avtar do not completely agree
on everything. His Holiness states that God creates
each and every soul. Some say it is un-created, immortal.

If there is only one substance, one mind, one consciousness,
one spirit, one soul...then there is only free-will
for God, not for us, not for humans being puppets.

Non-locality states that nothing is independent.
Spontaneity must have a cause.
The first moment in "Time" started the ball rolling,
there is no need for disruption from the order.(?)

What's new is what has yet to be accomplished.
Maybe we should just come out and say it,

"We're not positively certain we have The Truth."

Come...won't you help us find it?

All we know is that The Truth exists.
And in all likelyhood, it's no where.

Luvs to all, Keith~

Keith, [His Holiness states that God creates
each and every soul. Some say it is un-created, immortal.]

Both are right. There is a Hindu saying: "To know God is to be God." Changed a bit for our purposes here it can also become "To begin from God - immortal spirit - is to be created by God." Master Kirpal says soul is created by God in the second sense."

Harb

None has free will, not even so-called God. Certain laws govern all and everything. Indeed our - all evolving entities - goal is to achieve freedom but before we reach total freedom we again get bound to matter/bodies for next cycle.

From within expanding or evolving universe contracting or devolving universe begins and from within the contracting or devolving universe the expanding or evolving universe begins. God is just a name embracing the whole of this phenomenon.

Harb

Keith, you say "Truth is nowhere." I say "Truth is everywhere," or, "There is nothing but truth."

It alludes us because it is always changing forms but we can see through these changing forms and then we will see nothing but aways present truth. With ourselves being an indistinguishable part of it.

Harb

Dear Avtar,
Re #2. You are right about everything you said.
Then, why did I say that QM fits in holistic science: In my comments, by Adwaita, I did not mean just non-duality but Vedanta and probably should have used the word Vedanta instead of Adwaita because Vedanta explains both Adwaita and duality. For all practical purposes, duality is our experience. Duality is what we observe and deal with. Only the Masters have the experience of non-duality. Duality is all mithya says Vedanta meaning that something is appearing as something else but mithya is also reality, only it has no existence independent of the Absolute Truth. So far, what science (including Relativity and QM) has investigated is duality. Science uses logic to understand the external world. Somewhere I read, Godel's Law implies, to put it in simple terms, that there is no logical system which can include all information regarding all things, while at the same time, there is no logical system which can be developed which is not paradoxical. Vedanta talks about the nature of non-duality as well as duality and the limitations of duality, logic, and mithya etc. QM, which is a study of duality but not a perfect logic can also be a part of holistic science just like Relativity, which probably is a better logic.
As to your claim that Relativity can describe non-duality in its language because you have constructed the GNM model but QM cannot, may be someday QM will also invent a way to do that, who knows.
BTW, as always, you used the right word mithya for illusion. Maya actually has a broader meaning than just illusion.

Dear Avtar,
Re #2. You are right about everything you said.
Then, why did I say that QM fits in holistic science: In my comments, by Adwaita, I did not mean just non-duality but Vedanta and probably should have used the word Vedanta instead of Adwaita because Vedanta explains both Adwaita and duality. For all practical purposes, duality is our experience. Duality is what we observe and deal with. Only the Masters have the experience of non-duality. Duality is all mithya says Vedanta meaning that something is appearing as something else but mithya is also reality, only it has no existence independent of the Absolute Truth. So far, what science (including Relativity and QM) has investigated is duality. Science uses logic to understand the external world. Somewhere I read, Godel's Law implies, to put it in simple terms, that there is no logical system which can include all information regarding all things, while at the same time, there is no logical system which can be developed which is not paradoxical. Vedanta talks about the nature of non-duality as well as duality and the limitations of duality, logic, and mithya etc. QM, which is a study of duality but not a perfect logic can also be a part of holistic science just like Relativity, which probably is a better logic.
As to your claim that Relativity can describe non-duality in its language because you have constructed the GNM model but QM cannot, may be someday QM will also invent a way to do that, who knows.
BTW, as always, you used the right word mithya for illusion. Maya actually has a broader meaning than just illusion.

Keith,

You are onto it, the children have what we have lost, and there is a clue in the Religious Texts that we must become like children to know heaven. A child needs to gain one thing really from the adults and that is wisdom, instead we warp them with our illusions and fictions, shame and guilt.

Children know the art of living, we should study their art. All of us once knew the art we must rediscover.

In each of us that child self, the true self, is still there, buried and layered with crap. We need to dig them out and save and heal the children inside.

A best practice is to see the child self in all others, their true self, to see through the adult mask.

Devolving, is the opposite of Evolving? Checked wikipedia, it shows a political meaning and another biological, but it is not contracting. Involution is more appropriate as the opposite of evolution. (Involution of the petals in a flower)

Syamala in her #18 has almost ended the discussion for me on the need of including both relativity and quantum theories in Holistic Quantum Relativity. It is Vedanta, the end of the vedas.

The clues are all there; they have been provided and laid down so that we would find them, so that we may solve the mystery of life and the universe. We need to do the Sherlock Holmes and Watson routine. We need to become detectives with discerning and open minds, free from beliefs, embracing knowing, possibility and probability.

"It" has always been right under our nose perhaps to obvious to be seen. There are signs showing us the path to self discovery we simply need to look for them.

There are even clues buried and hidden in our language, the relationships between words and the meaning which lies under the surface. In our glossary of terms are many clues.

Scientists are discovering new clues every day.

Many individuals and sources including ancient texts hold different clues, like puzzle pieces, when we bring them all together we see the entire picture.

Ricky Ponting, spot on! Involution may be a better term...especially as it means entanglement. Only I find myself more comfortable using the word devolution and I use it because its meaning too is not very off the mark. Thanks.

Quantum Physics and Relativity are like oil and water they don't mix as they are. There is something missing that links the two.

We are searching for the detergent the surfactant which allows them to mix.

on their own, oil and water don't mix. When even a very small amount of detergent is added, there is an immediate change in the degree to which the oil and water mix. If you look closely, you can see that an amount of oil still remains separated from the water in small droplets. But you can also see that the colored water is much more thoroughly surrounding the oil droplets and that much more mixing has occurred with the detergent than without it.

HERE IS A NEW DISCOVERY - Looks good for the environment maybe even helping energy. I wonder if there isn't something like this that could get QM and Relativity to work together.

Oil and water can for the first time be mixed and separated on demand thanks to a new, reversible surfactant.

The liquid molecule could prove invaluable in mitigating the environmental damage caused by oil spills, such as the one currently spreading along the coasts of Lebanon and Syria.

Such a chemical could also simplify commercial oil extraction from currently inaccessible deposits, its designers say. And it would prove equally valuable in the food and cosmetics industries, simplifying processes and products which rely on the mixing or separation of oily and watery components.

The genius of the new surfactant lies in its reversibility. Unlike existing ones, it can be switched "on" or "off" repeatedly. The switches are very simple too: carbon dioxide and air.

Bubbling away
“Bubble carbon dioxide through a solution and the surfactant switches on, leading the oil-and-water mix to form an emulsion,” explains Philip Jessop at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who led the research team that developed the new surfactant.

“To switch it off again, you bubble air through it, and the oil and water separate again,” he says.

Surfactants must have two ends – a water-repelling hydrophobic bit that binds to the oily substance; and a water-attracting hydrophilic bit, which has an ionic charge that binds to water.

An example is a soap or detergent, says Jessop, which enables oily grime to mix with water when you wash. But a mixture held together by soap can only be separated by adding other chemicals such as acids, which are “messy, expensive and hazardous”, he says.

Temporary separation
The same is true of most surfactants in current industrial use, Jessop adds. So, while it is easy to use a surfactant to bind oil and water into an emulsion – so they can be transported more easily through a pipeline, for example – it is difficult to re-separate the oil and water once they reach their destination.

To get around this, the team fashioned molecules called long-chain alkyl amidines which consist of a long, stringy alkyl chain of hydrocarbons that bind to oils. At the other end of the alkyl chain is an amidine group which also binds to oils.

But on exposure to carbon dioxide, the amidine end changes into a bicarbonate salt, which is hydrophilic and binds to water. This makes the long molecule into a functioning surfactant that binds oil and water.

Simply bubbling air through the liquid reforms the amidine, reversing the process – the oil-water mixture separates again.

Oil mush
Jessop and colleagues have demonstrated the surfactant’s effectiveness by using it to mix and separate mixtures of water and the oil, hexadecane. It also worked with a mixture of crude oil and water, and enabled polystyrene to be formed and separated in water.

The surfactant could be invaluable for extracting abundant but relatively inaccessible oil deposits, such as those in “oilsands” found in Venezuela and Alberta, in Canada, the team says.

These mushes of oil, water and rock are very difficult to handle. But the surfactant could be used first with carbon dioxide to emulsify the oil and water, making the mixture easier to extract. Then, on exposure to air, the oil and water could be separated, enabling the oil to be extracted and the water re-cycled, Jessop explains.

Another important advantage is that the surfactant is not likely to be environmentally hazardous or long-lived, because air will convert it to the inactive form which then breaks down, the researchers say.

Relativity theory when complete will end in the holistic common ground of all there is, also called One, all-encompassing consciousness, indestructible soul or spirit etc; and quantum theory when complete will begin from there. Thus holism should be and is the common meeting ground between them.

Both apply to me, so both should have the common meeting ground in me as a whole. And they have, as simultaneously as I am disentangling from my previous karma in the form of particular arrangement of forces in this life (to be described by relativity theory), I am also entangling in my next karma as well (to be described by quantum theory).

Same goes for the whole of the evolution/involution of the universe.

Harb,

Thanks for your efforts, brother! My desire to
grasp your meaning is another attachment, so I
promise not to try. If it happens, it happens.

Here we are.

God, Intelligent Mind, has no free-will.
That's just very funny to me, right now.
Excuse me for that, please.
Freedom must belong to Divine Mother.
I should have known it!

Dear DK & Friends:

Based on the Holistic formulations of HQR, I would suggest the following important inclusions into the definitions of Truth, Reality, and Consciousness:

Truth

The truth is what does not change in space and time. The truth is consciousness, the expansive energy in the so-called empty space in the universe as well as in every atom that is causing the expansion of the universe (giving life to the universe and living things in it) and keeping the universe and atom (unit of body) from collapsing. Faith is not the truth; it is only a positive attitude towards truth. It is not faith but this consciousness energy that is keeping things from collapsing due to gravity, moving, and alive in the universe. Consciousness represents the wholesome energy of the universe that is eternal (beyond time, never born never to die) and omnipresent (beyond space). There is no duality (good/bad, day/night, birth/death etc.) in consciousness. It is a total free will representing the universal laws of the universe. It is pure existence that always has been there (never born or created) and will always be there (never die). Truth entails the cosmic law. It is beyond evolution.

Reality

Realities are different from truth in that each reality represents only a small part of the truth. Reality is relative to the observer’s state of the mind and can vary in space and time. A common mistake one makes is to assume that a relative reality is the truth. Realities are many, but truth is one. Truth has no Duality (or relativity), which is property of unconsciousness or inanimate matter (body). Duality exists for matter because matter is bounded in space and time. Anything that is bounded has a boundary that separates it from the wholesome unitary consciousness causing the duality or relativity in Einstein’s words. Since matter (body) is bounded in space and time, it is afflicted with time (birth & death) and evolution, and hence it represents a relative reality that changes in space/time as opposed to the truth, which is eternal and omnipresent. For example, evolution is a relative reality for the material body but not for consciousness, the truth. Truth never evolves, realities do.

Consciousness

Consciousness represents unity (yoga) or oneness (Ek Onkar), has no boundary, and hence no relativity or duality. That is the reason it cannot be seen or measured. What can be seen or measured explicitly, such as the matter, is constrained in space/time separated with a boundary, and hence, measurable or observable. What sees cannot be seen, just like the eye cannot see itself. Consciousness is the observer itself and so it cannot be seen or measured, but can be experienced by being conscious or aware.

Love
Avtar

Dear Syamala/Richard/Harb:

Syamala’s comment: “Vedanta explains both Adwaita and duality………..
So far, what science (including Relativity and QM) has investigated is duality………
may be someday QM will also invent a way to do that, who knows…”

I totally agree with your comments above. However, you are missing the crux of the major difference between Vedanta versus QM. Vedanta not only describes both Adwaita and duality but also the path or link between the two. This path is the dissolution of the observer or mind into one wholesome Adwaita or consciousness. The formulation of QM is founded on the rigid separation of the observer from the quantum system being observed, since no quantum observation is possible without a separated observer. Hence, the very foundations of QM have to be uprooted and rebuilt to allow a path to Adwaita, consciousness, or spirituality.

Relativity, on the other hand, has built in dilation or dissolution of the observer via dissolution of space/time. The only missing equation is to allow spontaneous dissolution of mass (ego) to energy (consciousness), and that is conveniently and perfectly provided by GNM or the Holistic Relativity that makes it fully consistent with Vedanta via providing a continuous link between duality and Adwaita. In this formulation, GNM also provides an automatic link for all quantum particles (fragmented masses) to spontaneously transform to energy, and hence it fixes all QM deficiencies and paradoxes that delineate QM from Vedanta.

Bottom line, until QM provides the missing link for spontaneous decay of particle mass to energy and dissolution of the quantum observer, it will remain stranded in the well of duality that is a path exactly opposite to Adwaita. As you say, may be some day QM will provide such a link, but let us not advise or mislead others to hold their breath until it does. I guess that the day QM gets to that point, if ever, it is possible that it looks more like the GNM or Holistic Relativity.

Another important conclusion from this discussion is that Vedanta and GNM’s Holistic Relativity are consistent with each other as both of them describe duality, Adwaita, and a link of consciousness between them, while QM or relativity alone do not.

Richard’s comment: “Quantum Physics and Relativity are like oil and water they don't mix as they are. There is something missing that links the two.
We are searching for the detergent the surfactant which allows them to mix……………. I wonder if there isn't something like this that could get QM and Relativity to work together.”

The GNM equation 3-2 in my book allowing a spontaneous conversion of mass to energy is the detergent that you are searching for and that allows them to mix without any separating boundaries. GNM or Holistic Relativity thus encompasses the gross behavior of all QM particles extending QM formulations beyond the limits of the classical or Newtonian matter behavior governed by four forces alone.

Love
Avtar

Dear Harb:

I totally agree with your comment- “"Truth is everywhere," or, "There is nothing but truth."

However, I regretfully but respectfully disagree with your comment – “None has free will, not even so-called God. Certain laws govern all and everything. Indeed our - all evolving entities - goal is to achieve freedom but before we reach total freedom we again get bound to matter/bodies for next cycle.”

I recently sent you, Syamala, Heath, and DK a copy of my paper entitled – “Science of Kenosis, Compassion, and Free Will as Foundations of the Universe” that provides a scientific basis for Free Will or consciousness to be the basic foundation of the universe and life.

By your statement above denying free will, you are not only denying the message of the spiritual masters to realize free will or liberate oneself via self-realization but also the very existence of consciousness as the free-willed or spontaneous energy powering the observed expansion of the universe. Hence, your statement is both scientifically and spiritually inconsistent.

The deterministic laws represent the Free Will, since they are spontaneous and self-existent at their own. When we dissolve our ego, we become the free will and merge with the universal laws – The Hukum of Guru Nanak.

If anyone is interested in receiving a copy of the paper, please e-mail me at avsingh@alum.mit.edu.

Love
Avtar

Richard,

You are so very hard to figure out. And even tho
I'm a Watson, up a Crick with no Sherlock to paddle...
as I told Harb, I'm about done trying, period!

You are a man to watch!

And even tho I know you could do this yourself,
I will post C.G. Jungs definition of 'synchronicity'
since he is the gentleman who brought it up.

.

A term coined by Jung to designate the meaningful
coincidence or equivalence (a) of a psychic and a
physical state or event which have no causal relationship
to one another. Such synchronistic phenomena occur,
for instance, when an inwardly perceived event (dream, vision, premonition, etc.) is seen to have a
correspondence in external reality: the inner image
of premonition has "come true"; (b) of similar or
identical thoughts, dreams, etc. occurring at the
same time in different places. Neither the one nor
the other coincidence can be explained by causality,
but seems to be connected primarily with activated
archetypal processes in the unconscious.

.

Synchronism means the simultaneous occurrence of two events. The difference here being the word 'meaningful'.

Peace, Keith~

Avtar,

Isn't radioactive decay spontaneous conversion of mass to energy ? Isn't there already equations for this?

Dear friends,
Some holistic relativity , in between the serious talks,hope you all pardon me for interruption

To have an understanding to understand the reality is only the truth
So wait, till the mystery solves, pertaining to QM with patient and ruth
The dissolution of mass with energy was seen in truth
When Meera drank the poison, delightfully with ruth
No one was there in her being as quantum observer other then Krish! In truth
I wonder the same poison released the great thinker Socrates ruthlessly
Said he, while savouring, ‘‘how singular is the thing called pleasure, and how curiously related to pain, which might be thought to be the opposite of it, because each pleasure and pain is a sort of nail which nails and rivet the soul to the body’’
A pain, which dissolved the form of Jesus, into energy to get one with the Cosmo,
Isn’t that a truth?
If dissolution or it synonym evolution is only the solution then I guess, is some virus as poison lurking as truth?
The detergent that you thinking of, as an abrasive, to oil and water to make them one is, too, a rude in nature, isn’t it a truth?
And dear, the machines are beyond pain and pleasures, does it make your job easier?
To understand the truth?
A blade of grass ,trying to reach the sky ,will die many death to be one, with sky.
This is also a truth .

Dear D.K. and friends:

Here we are, taking a voluntary time-out to recuperate.

I hope everyone else sees what I see happening here.

We are wrestling with our angels whilst asking the
'biggest' questions ever put to the heavens.

Is there a God or Law that stands outside the physical plane
of existence? As in a transcendent, eternal,
benevolent, intelligent, omnipresent Deity?

Did Man fall or get kicked out of the heavens for
practicing with the power of free-will? Is it a
crime against the Cosmic Laws that we have termed 'EVIL'?

Evil: yet to be defined or reasoned out of existence

History shows we have gone back and forth from
monotheism to theosophy many, many times.

Okay...if we see ourselves as anything more than 'energy',
we still have something to lose, something to give up,
something to which we are attached and cling to for dear Life.

Surrender: yet to be defined as a positive action
as opposed to giving up 'trying'. Only the Ego 'tries'.

Isn't that the paradox? We know what we need to do
but we can't get there by imposing our 'will' over
and above our idea of 'self' on this plane.

Let's say for the moment that we do have free-will.
Now I want you to give it up for the good of the family.
Now I want you to give it up for your own good.
Now I want you to give up on the idea that you are an individual,
separate, distinct, special or otherwise.

This body, this personality has it's own life to live.
Let it be.
It is not you or yours to master.
The program has been written and it must play out to the finish.

Fulfillment: yet to be defined as a way of attaining desires
or goals just so we can rid ourselves of them.

If there is something you feel compelled to do then do it!

It won't be enough. It never is.
There is always another mountain to climb.

Less is more. Again, it is said,

"Less is more". The less there is of me,
the more there is of God.

Empty yourself of your idea of yourself.
Do not let the world's opinion of who you really are
make any difference in your struggle to become.

Nobody ever said this was going to be easy.

Easy: having to do with the conservation of energy

Take a breather and think about what it is you are
supposed to be doing.

Says Rumi, we come here to do one thing.

I wish someone could tell me what that one thing was.

I forgot. You?

Keith, irrespective of whether one forgets it or not, one is doing what one has come to do. There is no escape.

And yes, no need to TRY to understand anything. Though a part of you cannot stop. Something of whatever you read but do not understand must have got entangled into your consciousness and will do its work till your consciousness gets disentangled from it at due time. Nothing to hurry or worry. This game is for ever. And in fact from the bottom of your heart you already know it, as does everybody else.

Dear Avtar

I'm most grateful to you for forwarding copies of some of your writings, and I'll read them with great interest.

love, Heath

Dear Keith

I see easy as inertia.

About giving up free will, we can't. When we give things up, it's an expression of free will itself. Holding back is an expression of free will, and cutting loose is an expression of free will. We are allowed to make choices, but we're not endowed with pure knowledge, thus we stumble and feel our way through scarves of darkness. Some of us strive for liquid grace and clarity, some for the fire of pure love. And so on. Each of us is completely unique, as both an expression, and a modifier, of the complexity of the universe. We have to play the hands we were dealt. The hands preexist, and our play develops as we go.

Collaborative projects are by their nature difficult to manage. To manage one that's sprung from the ether of the web is even harder. All stepping back at once is a good thing right now. The material is so complex and the tasks need real concentration. (Just looking through a list of a few Christian glossary words a day or so ago took 3 hours of time before I realized it would need way more time to do it fairly.) DK is doing a superb job of watching the fire, adding fuel, banking coals, removing spent ash, and so on. The guardian of the project, amazing. Avtar, Harb, syamala have important things to say here, as do you, Richard Thomas, Mieke and many others. Avtar is presenting a paper at a conference later this year, and I wish him the best of luck. It's a priviledge to participate in this dialogue. (It's saved IB from the vapidity of old age. Imho. Bluntness seems to have invaded IB dialogue these days, and it's icy and refreshing. Imvho :).)

If I sound tres serious this morning, please forgive me, it has to do with being tired, and with balancing love and dharma, which seems to be my task for this life.

love, Heath

Avtar says, we have free will. My book too is actually based on this very theme. Having experienced Oneness - Avtar's Consciousness - and having known about four fundamental forces, one fine day I heard one voice within me asking:

"Mystics, philosophers speak so highly of freedom, liberation, nirvana, ULTIMATELY for whom and from whom?"

And an other replying:

"For Oneness (Consciousness) and from those four forces."

And immediately I saw the whole universal panorama of evolution unfolding before my mind's eyes in terms of those four forces.

Further reflections made it clear for me that this process of getting freedom etc goes on right up to the end. This further made it clear for me that no entity in the univrse was totally free though all were evolving towards freedom. So none has total free will.

Yes Universe as a whole may be said to be totally free, but then what is the meaning of the whole universe being totally free? Where and how it is to test/apply that freedom?

The fact is that the whole of the Universe is always there yet always evolving from Big Bang to Big Crunch to Big Bang in cycles. So that no entity in it is totally free or has total free will. Just when one is at the verge of total freedom one gets totally bound to begin the next cycle.

Heath above says we have free will yet a little below also says we have to play the hands we were dealt, thn how we are free. We are only playing the hands we were dealt. At some point of time the hands were in the form of a blue print for minerals and we acted like minerals. Then they were for plants, animals and we acted like plants and animals. Now they are for Homo sapiens and we are acting like Homo sapiens. We feel we have free will because we do not see the subtle threads in our minds in the form of deep-seated thoughts, memories, wishes, desires which make us do whatever we do. We do according to them but think we do freely. Now-a-days it is becoming increasingly clear that we are in fact here to obey the orders of our genetic makeups. No doubt our goal is freedom and we are gaining it proportionately as we progress on the evolutionary ladder, but that does not mean that we have had total freedom or free will. If we had gained total freedom or free will even as angles why we would have had to become minerals, plants, animals again??

Some food for thought...

Harb

Dear Harb

We are instances of matter and energy, born with a unique pattern. That is the hand we are dealt. We continue to change throughout our lives. That is our play. Our play starts from a point of reference based on our origination in this life, our place in the universe. Within the structure of that space, we have free will, but so does the universe, and everyone around us. Between these things are multiple interactions, including plenty of conflicts, that cause us to change our play as we pass from this moment to that, in our lives.

Your last para presumes a hierarchy starting from minerals and moving up to people. But I disagree with that, I think that individual classes of objects have their own different spirits and intelligences, and that they should be understood as having their own sub-unities, not value-judged.

I would opt to be a river stone in another life, or maybe an Irish wolfound, or a salmon, or a lichen a stony outcrop on the Isle of Skye. Or maybe a drop of spring water on the Isle of Skye, to become distilled into a half-drop of Talisker, then wait a dozen years in an oaken cask, and finally slide with golden fire down someone's throat.

love, Heath

An interesting article on free will from http://www.ethicalfocus.org/index.php?mpage=34/Free_Will.htm

And now to the business at hand. Free will. Just what do we mean by free will, and what evidence is there that we have it?

Let’s start by being clear about what free will isn’t. We don’t think that earthquakes are the result of free will, no matter how unpredictable earthquakes are, because earthquakes are so obviously the result of a chain of physical causes and effects, blindly obeying the law of physics. If it turns out that the strength of the various desires we have, and the choices we make as a result of those desires, are all merely physical events, chains of causes and effects, the result of natural law, that would not be free will. If our minds are merely brains containing electrochemical signals buzzing mechanically back and forth – and that’s certainly how our brains appear to a neuroscientist – then we don’t have free will. Our brains are simply computers built by genes and programmed by our experience of our environment from conception onwards. Our brains are constructed of synapses that each absorb a pre-set level of input and then release a signal. They have no more free will than a Game Cube. We have desires because those desires have been brought into existence by mechanical causes. We may have a general desire for food because of evolutionary hard-wiring, for example, and a specific desire for pasta because of a TV commercial we saw a moment ago.

Until the last century, Western scientists assumed that the whole universe was a matter of cause-and-effect, rattling down from the beginning of time to the end of time. Everything ticked away under the unchanging laws of physics in a manner that was wholly determined and, in principle, predictable. If there were certain things we could not predict – the weather, say, or criminal conduct – that was not because there could not be a science of weather or a science of criminal conduct. It was just because the human race hadn’t yet mastered those particular sciences. Within that worldview, which is called the determinist worldview, there was no room for free will, and many progressive thinkers began to have doubts about the free will hypothesis.

“The mind is determined to this or that choice by a cause which is also determined by another cause, and this again by another, and so on ad infinitum,” Spinoza wrote. “This doctrine teaches us to hate no one, to despise no one, to mock no one, to be angry with no one, and to envy no one.” Let’s suppose some unpleasant person accosts you and starts talking about your mother. Instead of letting yourself get riled up, Spinoza would advise you to remind yourself that the person who is bothering you has no more free will than, say, a hurricane.

This was also the doctrine of David Hume and of John Stuart Mill. It is the view expressed in Mark Twain’s What is Man?, where Twain writes, “We are mere machines. And machines may not boast, nor feel proud of their performance, nor claim personal merit for it.” It may come as a surprise to learn that Lincoln not only agreed with this form of mechanical determinism, but acquired quite a reputation in Illinois for arguing with everyone about the topic. “The human mind,” Lincoln wrote, “is impelled to action, or held in rest by some power, over which the mind itself has no control.” Ironically, Lincoln cited the specific example of Brutus and Caesar, and said Brutus’s decision to murder Caesar was simply the mechanical result of laws and conditions over which Brutus had no control. Disbelieving as he did in free will, Lincoln consciously swore never to act out of revenge, deciding he would literally have “malice toward none.”

Clarence Darrow, of course, spoke against the idea of free will again and again, most famously and effectively at the trial of Leopold and Loeb. Einstein was a determinist, bringing up the topic of free will with reporters in order to ridicule it. Bertrand Russell, as usual, managed to present the matter clearly and be funny at the same time:

“When a man acts in ways that annoy us we wish to think him wicked, and we refuse to face the fact that his annoying behavior is the result of antecedent causes which, if you follow them long enough, will take you beyond the moment of his birth, and therefore to events for which he cannot be held responsible by any stretch of imagination. When a motorcar fails to start,” Russell says, “we do not attribute its annoying behavior to sin, we do not say, you are a wicked motorcar, and you shall not have any more gasoline until you go.”

According to this traditional determinist view, then, the universe is nothing but a big pile of causes and effects, one mechanical result triggering the next. If you add one even number to another, you know in advance the answer must be even – because every even number is a pile of twos added together, and, when you add together two piles of twos, you know you must get a bigger pile of twos. In just the same way, the traditional determinist argued that, no matter how complicated the human brain was, it was assembled from causal building blocks, and so, in the end, it could be nothing but a big pile of causality, lacking in free will.

Then, with the advent of Heisenberg and the uncertainty principle, there was a shattering change in the philosophy of science. It now appeared that the hard experimental evidence about subatomic particles could not be explained solely on the basis of mechanical causality. It turned out that, in some ways, subatomic particles were like dice: you could predict, with great accuracy, what proportion of the time they would roll sevens, but you never knew, on any particular roll, whether they were going to come up sevens or not.

The arrival of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle and quantum mechanics represented the acquisition of fresh evidence requiring a new application of Occam’s razor. The universe was no longer just a pile of causality. It was now a mixture of causality and blind chance. Was there room now for free will?

Let us suppose, for example, that we build a robot pre-programmed to roll dice and fire a gun whenever the dice come up snake eyes. Would we say such a robot had free will? If our dice-rolling robot wound up shooting someone, and the police arrested the inventor, would it be a defense for the inventor to say, “I didn’t know my robot would shoot anyone. My robot’s actions are unpredictable, the result of blind chance. Therefore my robot has free will, and I certainly am not responsible for what my robot chooses to do.” I can’t believe that anyone would buy this for a moment. No one would dream of holding the dice-rolling robot personally responsible for what it had done. I think it’s clear to all advocates of free will that they don’t mean falling dominoes – that is, causality – and they don’t mean rolling dice – that is, blind chance. They mean something else – something that would somehow connect to ideas about personal merit and personal evil. And they would certainly hold the inventor responsible for unleashing this dice-rolling robot upon the world.

So the real question boils down to this: can you build that something else – that third thing which is free will -- out of a pile of falling dominoes mixed with a pile of rolling dice? Remember, that’s all you have to work with. Modern science acknowledges the reality of causality and chance, but nothing else. Is that enough to allow for free will? Assuming you can’t build free will out of dominoes and dice, Occam’s razor places the burden on the advocate of the reality of free will come up with evidence that requires us to add a third principle beyond dominoes and dice, a second revolution in physics on the scale of what Heisenberg brought about. I can only assume that Spinoza and Hume and Mill and Lincoln and Twain and Darrow and Einstein all experienced having desires and making choices the same way you and I do. But everything each of us experiences within his or her own mental operations can be explained as either dominoes or dice. There is therefore no reason to clutter up our theory of the universe with talk of free will.

Each of us is free to do what we want. But we are not free to want whatever we want. We do, in fact, want certain things as a result of prior causes. If we want to want something else, we have to move to new environments that will re-program us. That is why some alcoholics, for example, get help from Alcoholics Anonymous.

Our minds are governed by the same laws of physics that governed the quasars thirteen billion years ago and will still govern the universe thirteen billion years from now. Our glory is to be a part of this eternal and infinite universe, not something apart from and in contrast to the remainder of creation. As Dr. Chuman has put it, “Our sense of connectedness and participation in the fabric of nature” inspires us with feelings of wonder and awe. The atoms that make up my brain were forged billions of years ago in the heart of an exploding star. In strict obedience to the laws of physics, these atoms have journeyed across the light-years and across the eons. In strict obedience to the laws of physics, these atoms are now giving you a lecture on free will. But these atoms are no more free now than they were when the supernova went off five billion years ago.

It’s time to accept and to welcome our membership in the universe. No one has reached into the brainpan of this particular pitiful species of primate, orbiting a tiny star in the suburbs of an insignificant galaxy, and said, “There! I have inserted something that allows you to transcend all prior influences in a manner that is not merely random! Congratulations!”

Look to your left: for thirteen billion light-years, there are no exceptions to the laws of physics. Look to your right: for thirteen billion light-years, there are no exceptions to the laws of physics. And there are no exceptions to the laws of physics in our immediate neighborhood, either.

I would argue that any pile combining causality and blind chance can only be the equivalent of our dice-rolling robot, and that the application of the scientific worldview therefore casts doubt on the reality of free will. Just as we should not make any serious decision based on the assumption that God exists, or the assumption that we live forever, so we should not make any serious decision on the assumption that people have free will. The obvious and substantial emotional benefits of belief in free will should be junked in deference to the principle of the simplest hypothesis. One last time, we have to choose between science and a comforting lie -- this time, it is the lie of free will -- and we must choose science, and forget about free will.

The Ethical Culture movement is rigorous in its application of Occam’s razor to God and immortality, and then throws the razor away when it’s time to confront the third and final dragon of free will. This is absolutely self-contradictory. If we are willing to apply Occam’s razor to the attributes of God, we should be willing to apply it to our own attributes. Any other approach smacks of favoritism. Furthermore, as we have already noted, free will is part of a narrative involving God and souls. If there is no God, passing out souls, how did we get our hands on free will? Why is it that only people are alleged to have free will, and that no one feels the need to busy himself running around wreaking revenge on misbehaving tigers and polar bears? Once we realize that God, immortality, and free will are all part of the same story, we can see that rejecting God and immortality, but holding onto free will, makes as much sense as understanding that Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia are fictional characters, but holding to a belief that there really was someone called Han Solo.

As Spinoza and Lincoln tried to teach us, when we discard free will, we are discarding hatred, anger, envy, malice, guilt, and anxiety. So the next, and very practical question is this: Can you run a society without hatred, anger, envy, malice, guilt, and anxiety?

Lincoln did. He ran our society much better than the many presidents we have had since who have believed in free will, hatred, anger, envy, malice, guilt, and anxiety. Indeed, in general, the pioneers of liberal democracy – Locke, Voltaire, Jefferson, John Stuart Mill, Lincoln, Darrow, in more recent history, Abe Fortas – are all people with conspicuous doubts about free will.

Many people think that, when you give up God, you have to give up ethics. The whole point of the Ethical Culture movement, of course, is that this is not true. God is a factual claim – an allegation about what is. Ethics is a matter of what should be. We can make our own ethical commitments without God telling us what they should be. Indeed, if God should, in fact, appear and tell us what our ethical commitments should be, that wouldn’t prove God was giving us the right advice. Many religious people, of course, simply assume that what God says to do is the right thing to do, but, if you define “good” as simply whatever God says, then the difference between good and bad loses all ethical content. Doing the right thing merely means doing what you’re told. I won’t spend anymore time on this point, as I assume everyone here agrees that ethics can exist without God.

I assume we all also agree that we can have ethics with being immortal. We just have to decide that we wish to be good for its own sake, as opposed to being good because we wish to avoid hell.

In just the same way, ethics can exist without free will. We can make ethical commitments even though we are not, in some ultimate sense, free to choose what those commitments will be. In fact, we do make ethical commitments when and only when we are caused to make them. When you consider the matter properly, we are gathered here today, and gather here weekly, to be caused to make ethical commitments. To the extent that religion has any value at all, it is because it sometimes causes people to make ethical commitments. And, by the same token, the reason why religion is so often dangerous is precisely because it so often causes people to make wrong ethical choices, such as punishing others for failing to follow God’s orders.

In just the same way that people can be caused by advertising to desire particular products, people are often caused by ethical indoctrination to believe in justice, equality, and kindness. Once they have been so indoctrinated, they will often go out and practice justice, equality, and kindness, even in the face of howling mobs. There is no conflict between disbelief in free will and belief in ethics. Indeed, for hundreds of years, it has usually been the skeptics on free will who have provided moral leadership for our society and fomented the forces of social reform – people like Jefferson and Lincoln. We can have ethics without free will as long as we are willing to wish to be good for its own sake, as opposed to being good because we hope to take personal credit for it.

An ethical nation that had discarded the idea of free will would cease to hold executions. Execution is an act of revenge. It goes beyond what is necessary to incapacitate the offender or deter other people. We have an ethical duty to protect society from bad people, by locking them up. We have no ethical duty to make people suffer simply because the doctrines of free will and retribution tell us that certain people deserve to suffer.

An ethical nation that had discarded the idea of free will could no longer blame crime on criminals. It could no longer hide from itself its responsibility to provide all children with proper homes, food, medicine, schools, economic opportunity, and ethical training. Its emphasis would be on preventing crime by justice, as opposed to revenging crime by cruelty.

We would start by giving all children a decent chance. We would offer people rehabilitation programs for drug addiction, instead of filling our prisons with drug addicts. We might be forced to lock up certain dangerous people, but we would do so under the most benevolent possible conditions – we wouldn’t stuff people into hellholes that make them worse, as we do today. And we would never execute people.

If we could just give up this idea of holding people responsible for what they do, we could, at long last, start to behave responsibly in what we do.

I am well aware that most of you here probably agree with most of the social program I just outlined. What I’m trying to explain is how all these different parts fit together – our disbelief in God, our disbelief in Heaven, our progressive social program, and what should be our skepticism concerning free will. It’s all one story, founded not upon dogma, but upon scientific skepticism.

For the last hundred years, the evidence against free will has piled up higher and higher, as we have uncovered more and more about the physical structure and function of the brain. Using positronic emissions or radioactive xenon, we can now map which individual areas of the brain process mathematics, assemble words, or access visual memory. It’s becoming harder and harder to doubt that our minds are just physical processes. Ironically, during the same period, in our country, the reality of free will has been questioned less and less.

A hundred years ago, Mark Twain’s What is Man? was published. The reviewers of the time had no problem understanding that Twain was criticizing the idea of free will. They just said that criticizing the idea of free will was not a new idea. Today, when Twain’s work is discussed, virtually no one mentions Twain’s attack on free will. What was once a cliché that everyone knew about has been transformed into a non-topic that no is allowed to know about.

During the Leopold and Loeb trial in Chicago eighty years ago, the judge allowed Clarence Darrow to talk for four days about the fact that free will is an illusion. In New Jersey today, it is against the law for a lawyer to make that argument in court. You can argue that your client is insane, and therefore lacks free will, but you’re not allowed to argue that no one has free will. You can’t even bring it up. This is a violation of the constitutional rights of the citizens of New Jersey to free speech and representation by counsel. It’s also an unconstitutional imposition of the religious dogma of free will upon the courts and defendants of New Jersey. But no one questions it.

Fifty-five years ago, Daniel Boorstin, Librarian of Congress and winner of Bancroft, Parkman, and Pulitzer Prizes, published a book, The Lost World of Thomas Jefferson, discussing Jefferson’s disbelief in free will. Many people here studied Jefferson in high school and college, even graduate school. Did any of your faculty mention this point?

Fifty years ago, the courts of the District of Columbia, on the advice of Abe Fortas, established a definition of criminal insanity that did not assume the reality of free will. Later on, the courts threw out that definition and went back to a definition relying on the assumption of free will.

I went to law school at Columbia and Yale in the 1980’s. When I raised this issue, my law professors told me, “Everyone used to talk that way in the 60’s.” Obviously, no one talks that way anymore.

We are now under the rule of a political party that calls itself the party of Lincoln. Do you think that there is one person in the White House, or the Congress, or the Supreme Court who is familiar with Lincoln’s disbelief in free will? As LaGuardia once put it, these so-called Republicans know less about Lincoln than Henry Ford knows about the Talmud.

Darwin agonized over introducing the idea of evolution, because he knew people would realize that Darwin was saying that people were animals, devoid of free will. Nowadays, the latest polls show that only one out of four Americans still believes in evolution; and of those few who do believe in evolution, few realize, as Darwin did, that evolutionary theory casts doubt on free will.

George Orwell warned in 1984 that the ultimate way of controlling thought was to train people to realize they were about to think about a forbidden topic, and then stop themselves. The forbidden topic was never to have a specific name – allowing it to have a specific name would prompt forbidden thoughts. Anything off limits was simply to be swallowed up under the name, crimethink. The thoughts I have been sharing with you today are crimethink. They are thoughts that newspapers and magazines and historians have trained themselves to edit out of the record, or obscure under misleading terminology. If you doubt this, try publishing an Op-Ed piece on the topic we have been discussing. Try raising this topic at a law school.

As Christian fundamentalism seizes increasing control of our society, it is harder and harder even to find a forum to raise this issue for intelligent discussion. I am personally grateful to the Ethical Culture Society of Bergen County for generously offering me this forum.

Spinoza and Lincoln and Einstein were not the common victims of some logical fallacy that led them all astray. They were people of uncommon courage and independence of mind. They understood the importance of scientific analysis and were willing to stand by the outcome of a scientific analysis, even it led to uncomfortable results. Their ideas have drifted in and out of fashion, but these ideas remain the most likely working hypothesis. It is time for all of us to catch up to Spinoza and Lincoln and Einstein. It is time for all of us to bear in mind that Spinoza and Lincoln and Einstein were not only skeptics concerning traditional notions of God, and not only skeptics concerning traditional notions of Heaven and Hell, but were also and for exactly the same reason skeptics concerning free will.

Dear Harb

The materialist POV. I so disagree, ad infinitum, and perhaps ad nauseum. Sorry to read it, even only pasted, here. Writing this with a smile, but my disagreement is serious.

love, Heath

Heather and Harb,

I'll admit it, whether I have a choice to or not.

I believe, or have faith...actually, I don't know,

I might have a nervous breakdown if it was totally true.

I need my free-will, darn-it-All anyway!

Maybe I'm weird, but I love the idea that there is

no one else like me in the world, except Me2.

Free-will is not a given fact anymore, but I'm

innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Those words are so funny nowadays, aren't they?

Why do we need jurors or courts of law?

Why do we need hard evidence to convict?

It's not their fault...

"...loose them and let them go."

Or just kill 'em, there's nobody 'in there' anyway.

Harb, I hate to discriminate or judge. I will only say,

this is why I was brought to look at Eastern Religions

as actually atheists in disguise.

It doesn't really bother me now and I'll try to

restrain myself from 'saving your soul'. But not soul

as you see soul. You see, I am awaiting evidence

for my rational mind so I can come to terms with it.

The again...I don't 'need' it.

I'm not sure if you do or not.

I don't think Heather needs it, either.

I could be wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.

I'm still exploring all this. Some of my experiences

don't fit into the scheme of things the way they're supposed to.

It's a bad time here. Better go, bye! Luvs, Keith~

"Maybe I'm weird, but I love the idea that there is no one else like me in the world..."...sayeth the TREE...dont worry ole bark, u are safe!

nice to hear from u! not much has changed, i see? damn...how's the wind out there?

Dear Keith

Free will is a basic concept in Episcopalian Christianity, free will is God's compassion and gift, that's always how I've always understood it. I've lived within my own sect most of my life, and see parallels with physics, chaos theory, and eastern religions. And then this past year, when I stepped those boundaries for the first time, I met up with things hard to explain, that I'm glad of, anyway, from other religious traditions. For an old paper (written in 1876) that talks about free will, by Anglican theologian James DeKoven, see http://anglicanhistory.org/dekoven/relation.html (or click my name).

I love the Episcopalian approach to Christianity because it is a child of the English reformation, and the will of men during the English reformation to know what the Bible really said was so strong that they risked death rather than be forced to know it only through the mediation of Latin-reading priests. This church represents the people going to meet the words of God, with great love, for me.

love, Heath

love, Heath

Dear Diablo

The extra love is for you.

Dear Richard:

Your question:” Isn't radioactive decay spontaneous conversion of mass to energy ? Isn't there already equations for this?
No. Of course, Einstein’s relativity equation E=mC2 gives the end states of the process. There are equations for various types for particle decays converting to other particles, such as the alpha or beta decays. But, as far as I know, there is no mechanistic equation describing the detailed physics of the conversion of mass to the kinetic energy. Mainstream science considers the radioactive decay a random event i.e. a matter of chance (In other words, a Free Will)– not knowing how to describe it as apparent the following definition in the Wikipedia:

“Radioactive decay is the set of various processes by which unstable atomic nuclei emit subatomic particles (radiation). Decay is said to occur in the parent nucleus and produces a daughter nucleus. This is a random process, i.e. it is impossible to predict when an atomic nucleus will decay or which nuclei in a sample will.”

In fact, it is surprising that there exists no physical and mathematical description of the process as to how a radiative photon is born from stationary matter and acquires the speed of light to radiate away. The GNM model in my book and papers provides this physics and derives an equation for this process using the relativity theory. This equation 3-2 in my book forms the fourth equation and fills in the missing representation of spontaneity observed in natural phenomena such as the wave-particle duality, dark energy or the cosmological constant, and mass-energy equivalence etc. – the commonly well-accepted physical phenomena.

The GNM model also resolves the infamous dilemma of physics as to whether a photon has a non-zero mass. The current physical assumption used in the Standard Model is that of a zero photon mass. But we all know that all photons have energy, and hence, an equivalent non-zero mass. But physics world has a cardinal rule that a photon has a zero mass; if not, the standard model would be in trouble. It is almost a religious principle than a scientific reality.

Love
Avtar

Dear Richard:

Your question:” Isn't radioactive decay spontaneous conversion of mass to energy ? Isn't there already equations for this?

No. Of course, Einstein’s relativity equation E=mC2 gives the end states of the process. There are equations for various types for particle decays converting to other particles, such as the alpha or beta decays. But, as far as I know, there is no mechanistic equation describing the detailed physics of the conversion of mass to the kinetic energy. Mainstream science considers the radioactive decay a random event i.e. a matter of chance (in other words – A Free Will) – not knowing how to describe it as is apparent the following definition in the Wikipedia:

“Radioactive decay is the set of various processes by which unstable atomic nuclei emit subatomic particles (radiation). Decay is said to occur in the parent nucleus and produces a daughter nucleus. This is a random process, i.e. it is impossible to predict when an atomic nucleus will decay or which nuclei in a sample will.”

In fact, it is surprising that there exists no physical and mathematical description of the process as to how a radiative photon is born from stationary matter and acquires the speed of light to radiate away. The GNM model in my book and papers provides this physics and derives an equation for this process using the relativity theory. This equation 3-2 in my book forms the fourth equation and fills in the missing representation of spontaneity observed in natural phenomena such as the wave-particle duality, dark energy or the cosmological constant, and mass-energy equivalence etc. – the commonly well-accepted physical phenomena.

The GNM model also resolves the infamous dilemma of physics as to whether a photon has a non-zero mass. The current physical assumption used in the Standard Model is that of a zero photon mass. But we all know that all photons have energy, and hence, an equivalent non-zero mass. But physics world has a cardinal rule that a photon has a zero mass; if not, the standard model would be in trouble. It is almost a religious principle than a scientific reality.

Love
Avtar

Keith,

It will all make sense, all part of the prep process and setup.

Avtar,

So are we saying we don't know what triggers this random process? Something must trigger it, or maybe not. Does that mean that understanding this might provide a clue?

Hi All!

There is a need for courts, punishments and all that. It is the way to freedom, it is the way of evolution.

I am dealt a hand, given a pattern at my birth as heath says, I make a choice, if it is on the wrong side of law, I am punished, I suffer, suffering makes me more aware, more awareness makes me outgrow or break a part of the pattern which actually forced me to make that choice, breaking all patterns entangling the soul or spirit or unified force of the big bang is my final goal.

Emotional entanglements in youth (our so-called free choices in youth - though now many will admit that they were not our free choices but choices made under the sway of emotions, same is the case with reason though people will admit it only when they are as far advanced from reason as they are now from emotionalism of youth) made us suffer but helped us outgrow emotions and enter the phase of reason. Reason made us suffer in many other ways and brought us to anxiety but is helping us to outgrow it and enter the phase of intelligence/intuition. And thus the story goes.

Harb

Dear friends,
A big bang or a big crunch, what so ever can be the reason
of having the possibility of multi universe has been well season
like a bubble or atoms they are connected to each other, cannot be out reasoned
Or may be two universe one of mass and one of energy, as x and y got fusioned
And there in multiplying, can be one reason
The man, a part of this whole, with the intelligence of universe is perceived! in all fashion
the theory of multi universe confirms the finite nature of, our universe,
The matter contained in the universe is sufficient to achieve the gravitational force is an assumption
and so the expansion contraction, connection ,or say a pendulum nature of universe suggest
the repetition of human spirit ,its coming and going ,transcending, evolving and again
devolving can be ascertain
coming to any conclusion is a bit misty ,as a cause is followed by another cause, and the human nature of never ending quest justify the enigma, which can be taken as a lesson
Possibility of QM of, such intelligence as being think of, is not far off
As when Lord Krishna opened his mouth the whole universe was seen within him
Oh man of today, great mystic and scientist you are the potential of that universe
As seen in the man of much yesterday some 5000years back to date ,
Their clairvoyance, and their intuition, not to mention!
The conception of human from Surya devta as Kunti putra Karn can be perceived too.
Memorising of the Vedas(eastern mystics) by mere Glance, is what our quantum computers are doing in a single qubits with speed and retrieval is almost instantaneous
The entanglement, ability of quantum matter and its interchanging state of particles and bla bla…..(lol,lol) can give us intelligent talking robots.
But scientist bear this in mind, you have to evolve to the point
Whatever you come with, robots, nuclear power, or quantum machines
Give it a heart with responsiveness of love and compassion and not destruction
Assert that they do not destroy the tiny blade of grass, of mine.
Then only shall man of today will be called as a new evolved Man of yesterday.
love
Prams

Dear Harb

Beautiful comment, beautfully structured. (And I wish life were so neat, emotion still holds me in its sway sometimes.)

love, Heath

Ramana Maharshi often said :" What will happen will happen."

Here is a relevant extract from an other well-known personality:

The following is extracted from the book, 'The Wisdom of Balsekar, edited by Alan Jacobs, the chairman of the Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK.
_________
Nobody likes being told that he has no free will. And yet look at the state of the world at the present time. The world is on the brink of disaster, where it has been for many years now with one crisis after another. The question - the big question - therefore remains: The human being certainly has tremendous intelligence (to send a man to the moon); he is also supposed to have free will - then why has the human being been unable to combine his intelligence and his free will to make the world a better place?!

There is also another aspect. There are so many intelligent people, leaders in their respective fields, who are very much interested in knowing their future. If they really believed in their own free will, why would they be so interested in astrology and similar phenomena?!

If you think along these lines, the only reasonable conclusion you will arrive at is that the human being has been acting in this fashion because he has no control over his thoughts and emotions. What he considers as his actions are in fact only reactions of the individual organism to an outside impulse: a thought which occurs, an event that he sees or perhaps what he happens to hear. Each organism reacts according to the natural characteristics with which it has been programmed: physical, mental, intellectual, temperamental.

Another difficulty about truly accepting this teaching is the argument that it leads to a 'fatalistic' attitude. The fatalistic argument translates itself into the question: 'If I am not to be motivated by the fruits of my action, and, indeed, if I have no free will over my actions, why should I work at all?' The answer is astonishingly simple: you will not be able to be inactive for any length of time because the energy within the organism will compel you to act: to act according to the natural characteristics of the organism. In other words, whether to act or not is itself not in your control.

The essence of the ultimate understanding is the ineluctable fact that the individual human being, as such, does not - cannot - have any volition. He is without any independence of choice of decision and action, for the simple reason that the human being is not an autonomous entity. The human being is merely an infinitesimal part the totality of manifestation. That the human being can see, hear, etc, through his senses is merely because he has, like any other sentient being (insect or animal), been endowed with sentience. That he can think is merely because he has, in addition, been endowed with intellect In the absence of consciousness, there is no sentience, no intellect, and as far as the human being is concerned, no manifest world.

The Final Truth p. 215

Knowing that he cannot live according to his will or volition, that he is in fact 'being lived' (as an instrument of the Totality), he also knows the futility of 'intentions'. By abstaining from volition the man of wisdom is free of anxiety and misery, because then he transcends conceptualization which is the basis of volition and intention. Knowing that he is being lived, the man of wisdom transcends both volitional action and its counterpart, volitional non-action: volitional non-doing is also doing. It is for this reason that the man of wisdom goes about his business in the ordinary way without any intentions, without any lime of doership.

It is only the 'me'-concept that can have intentions because 'will' and 'ego' are synonymous terms. Thus the absence of volition in the case of the man of wisdom does not mean phenomenal inaction but the absence of volitional action (positive or negative). The absence of volitional phenomenal action can only mean the presence of noumenal action. In other words, the non-volitional action of the man of wisdom (whether perceptive, conceptive, or somatic) is noumenal action, the non-action of the sage (because the 'me' and his intention are totally absent).

__________

Outside impulse is ultimately given by four basic interactions-based design a person has to go through in his whole life. And our reactions are described by so-called evolution through Darwinian theories, which are basically to adapt ourselves to that outside impulse so as to save ourselves - Harb

Dear Heath, we all are alike here to a great extent, but advancing towards our goal. This is our life and along with long stairceses of suffering it has lots of landings of happiness/enjoyment too.

Cheers and Love, Harb

Avtar, don't worry, you too are right, but just for the sake of discussion:

In a previous post you said: "Only the grace of the spiritual masters and a deep compassion inside keeps driving me to illuminate the right path to spirituality"

If something is DRIVING YOU how you can claim to have free will?

I have dedicated my book Self-Designed Universe thus: "To the perfect Scheme of Things which literally forced me to write this book."

Can I yet claim to have free will?

And in fact all knowingly or unknowingly are likewise driven by the evolutionary scheme of things of the universe, none has free will.

Harb

Avtar too is right, if we just go by the following words of our God-friend Natraja (Shiva)as per my book (though where the problem arises I will describe at the end - which I have explained in the book in a footnote.)

Quote
`But pray, Nataraja, why did you allow yourself to be entangled in Parbati - in those four forces - in the first instance?’

‘Ha, ha, ha...’ Nataraja, perhaps, would laugh his heart out on hearing this question.

‘Entangled! Entangled he says...hooooh! Who says I’ve been entangled ever? It’s the vested interests of the people like you to first show me entangled and then struggling to get disentangled. With what else will you, you funny scribblers, otherwise fill your books?’

‘...But...but...those tears in your eyes… Your accusing finger towards Parbati...’ Now it was my turn to shed tears.

‘Oh, that...I see...one of those stormy visions of yours...!’

‘.....?’

`You dream all sorts of dreams and then you say I, who am to you as you’re to your dreams, am entangled in them? Are you entangled in your dreams? You are not entangled my child, though you may feel so while dreaming. Wouldn’t you yourself laugh if one of your dream creatures were to ask you questions involving your first instances? First go and exhaust your dream, go and write your dreamy book, go and win your dreamy name, fame, and fortune, only then you will know of my first instances. While dreaming ye may not talk of first instances, lest talking of first instances ye may lose your dreaming mid-way through’.
Unquote.

So Nataraja - Avtar's Consciousness - says I am never entangled, am always free or have free will....

But now here is a comment in the form of a footnote from my book:

Quote

36. Here I am reminded of our debate of Determinism Vs Free will. As they say, God made man in His own image. Perhaps that is why neither God in the form of Nataraja nor man ever admits that he is bound, that he is acting under the principle of determinism. Ask anybody this question and he will say: ‘Just see, I can do what I please, that means I am free.’ But leave him alone and the next moment you will find him behaving almost like an animal, that is to say, in as deterministic a manner.

There are two explanations concerning this behavior of man.

The first is that the question reminds him that he is ultimately Mosc (pure Consciousness), may be even sub-consciously if he is not yet conscious of the fact, and accordingly he recognizes his real identity with Mosc which is ever free, and accordingly acts free (in howsoever limited an extent). But otherwise he is as bound by the forces as anything else. His goal is rather freedom. We can even complement both the notions of Determinism and Freedom in one sentence as: Man is determined to be free. And this would almost sum up our whole debate.

The second explanation is related to man’s goal which is freedom. To the extent he has advanced towards his goal he has become free, has developed his free-will. And to the extent he can say that he has free-will. And thiswise Nataraja is justified in saying that he is ever free, that he is never bound, for, in fact, he is always there where man is finally supposed to reach to gain his full freedom.

Harb

Hi DK!

I have been feeling of late that ATCA should also have a philosopho-spiritual wing. Many cataclysmic events may happen in the not so distant future over which we will have no control. All we will be able to do will be to be prepared to bear them stoically.

For this we will have to be prepared philosophically as well as spiritually.

Philosophical preparation will comprise our knowing why they will be inevitable, and why there is more chance of their happening at this time/Age. And the spiritual preparation will comprise inculcating in us, by increasing our wisdom-based knowledge, full faith in the fact that whatever is happening is happening for our and our planet's best.

I may also add that at identical times to the present on the previous cultural cycle (BC era) there came into existence the philosophy of stoicism and for similar reasons. More details have been given in my book Self-Designed Universe.

Harb

Terrific suggestion Harb!
I see you have the ability to read my mind!
The Earth's Magnetic Field
Every few hundred thousand years on this planet the Earth's magnetic field reverses. I did a research project years ago on this phenomenon. It seems the planet is already undergoing what are called mini-reversals whic the field polarity attempts to reverse put is pulled back into it's existing state. This is a warning sign that a full reversal is inevitable. Patches of one polarity meld into the other when these mini-reversals occur. When a full reversal of the Earth's dipole axis occurs devastation (chaos) sets in until the reversal is complete. The event itself takes approximately 1,000 years to complete. Earthquakes, Tsunami's, volcanic eruptions and massive land mass changes are everyday events. Scientists believe it is even possible the alignment of the Earth with the massive black hole in the center of the Milky Way Galaxy in 2012 may trigger a field reversal. Magnetic anomalies already exist in patches around the globe. Take into account the Bermuda Triangle for example. If an event like this does occur imagine the shift in consciousness on this planet. Edgar Cayce and many other seers have foretold this event and the Earth changes accompanying it. Ego consciousness pervades the planet now. Massive changes such as these would affect human consciousness in ways unimaginable. When it comes down to it we are Planet Earth. Maybe we have forgotten that to some extent!
Todd

Well said, Todd. I am fully with what you say. I also envision many such change in the years to come. Slowly we will be drifting towards dark periods again.

Here is a relevant paragraph from my book, though more details are somewhere else.

Quote

With the science of Prigogine and his collaborators, of David Bohm and other ‘philosophers of science’ I mentioned in a previous chapter, with the intuitions of Fritzof Capra and the like, we as a global culture are moving beyond even the range of these strong interactions. Thenceforth, we will be entering the realm of the weak interactions, where instead of alienation, suffocation we would be experiencing wholeness, freedom, spontaneity. Where the science, the philosophy of ‘to be’ would direct our actions rather than, as of now, the science, the philosophy of ‘to know.’ Our culture then will not be the scientific culture in the real sense of the word, would not be the intellectual culture so to say, but would be the culture of intelligence. Which has known, seen life inside-out and now enjoys it within its limits - and would even be ready to pass out when the time comes which is inevitable a la the coming of the Dark Periods after the Golden Period of the Greeks some two thousands years before.

Dear Harb
Re #54. I agree. We are talking about submitting once ego to the Divine power here. It is interesting that we often think that ego has free will don't we? - because ego makes decisions. Ego keeps saying "I want this, I will do this, I know what to do, I, I, I..". Ego does make decisions; for example, in #50, you yourself have asked scientists to make a choice: not to destroy the tiny blades of your grass but to put compassion into robots. Quite to the contrary, what we see is rulers of North Korea making nuclear weapons while its people do not have food to eat, and the US govt undertaking to build more powerful weapons at the same time talking about containing nuclear proliferation by others. The most powerful in any country are the ones that make such decisions. My point is that ego does make decisions particularly the dangerous ones. So, it is difficult to see that ego does not have free will. Such decisions made by ego are not "free" because they are the result of fear, distrust, and greed for control and controlled by these emotions. If Free Will that is in the inner most heart of everybody decides to intervene and act then it would conquer all such emotions in one and fill his/her heart with love and compassion. So, submitting one's ego to Free Will is to become one with it.

Continuing #60. I do agree with Avtar when he says: he disagrees with your comment – “None has free will, not even so-called God. Certain laws govern all and everything." I agree with him in that by denying free will, you are not only denying the message of the spiritual masters to realize free will or liberate oneself via self-realization.

Dear Harb:

Your question: “In a previous post you said: "Only the grace of the spiritual masters and a deep compassion inside keeps driving me to illuminate the right path to spirituality"
If something is DRIVING YOU how you can claim to have free will?”

Compassion is consciousness, which is spontaneous, free willed, and pure kinetic energy (as I explained to you earlier) needing no external force, and hence, self-driven. The teachings and grace of the spiritual masters are the consciousness and compassion – self-driven and Free Will.

These are very deep rooted concepts of Holistic Relativity or GNM, which I gather from your questions that you have yet to grasp and I encourage you to keep asking questions.

Your statement: “The fact is that the whole of the Universe is always there yet always evolving from Big Bang to Big Crunch to Big Bang in cycles. So that no entity in it is totally free or has total free will. Just when one is at the verge of total freedom one gets totally bound to begin the next cycle.”

The above statement has a fundamental flaw that it fails to consider the vacuum energy of space as the most significant (96%) entity of the universe and recognizing only the inanimate matter (4%) as the entire universe. Only the matter (4%) can be subject to time and hence the cycles of Big Bang or Big crunch. So your statement is at least 96% incorrect as far as the universe is concerned.

If you correct your statement appropriately considering the vacuum energy as the significant entity, you would conclude that at least 96% of the universe is eternal and beyond time with no cycles of Big Bang or Big Crunch. This implies that you must correct your entire theory of the Self Designed Universe to reflect this crucial fact, eliminating the cyclic universe with Big Bang, Big Crunch, and evolution, since the universe is dominantly eternal.

Love
Avtar

Dear Richard:
Your question:” So are we saying we don't know what triggers this random process? Something must trigger it, or maybe not. Does that mean that understanding this might provide a clue?”

Yes, you got it and that is what the GNM – Holistic Relativity model is all about as described in my book.

The fact is that when it comes to the triggering or initiation of any new event (time t=0), such as the Big Bang, or the acceleration of a photon from a stationary atom, the science of the inanimate matter fails to describe it mechanistically and that is where the consciousness or free will comes into the picture as well as the bridge to spirituality.

The mainstream science, especially QM and particle physics, have hidden this very natural phenomenon of spontaneity existing in nature under the rug of random quantum fluctuations or Heisenberg’s uncertainty. Now probably you can see the virus in QM I have been talking about to Harb and others. It is a virus that has killed QM’s capability to bridge with consciousness or spirituality.

Relativity on the other hand provides an easy framework to integrate this spontaneity leading to my equation 3-2 of GNM in my book.

Love
Avtar

Dear Harb:

May your fifth force be with you to save you from the demon of ghostly Free Will.

May your un-free will (mind or ego) grow by leaps and bounds by the grace of your un-free willed God.

May your God exit everywhere and in everything, but stay un-free willed forever.

May your un-free will spare you from the assault of the free will and consciousness teachings of the spiritual masters.

May your self-designed universe not be construed as the Free Willed universe by people of common intelligence.

May your self-designed universe be full of an infinite number of Big Bangs/crunches and evolve to its ultimate entropy death, and still be eternal – a miracle that only you but not even your un-free willed God can perform.

May the goddess of evolution evolve you as you age, into the increasing complexity, chaos, entropy, and uncertainty, what you call the peak of spirituality.

May the goddess of evolution fill your genome with God-genes so as to allow you to become a perfectly spiritual ape having 99% of the genes of a perfect human being.

May the spirituality of Darwin shelter you from the materialism of Guru Nanak.

May the mathematical genius (symmetry and anti-matter) of Dirac enhance your hate for mathematics so as to not hinder the experience of your absolute mystic spirituality.

May the castle of spirituality you are building on the sand-particles of the QM beach not get washed away by the tidal waves of Holistic Relativity.

May your reverence for the unquestionable and popular conclusions of the mainstream scientific materialism grow day by day so as not to create any unnecessary doubt or need for its independent critical review and validation.

May the metaphorical and metaphysical fog grow denser and denser so that the clarity and 20/20 vision of spiritual masters not inadvertently enlighten you and your followers.

May the free-willed God provide patience and strength to all IB’ers to bear the inconsistencies, inaccuracies, paradoxes, and lack of specificity/validity in your arguments, howsoever appealing to the like-minded.

I pray and pray (fortunately or unfortunately that is all I can do).

Love
Avtar

Will it change?
Maybe maybe not
More than likely not

Can the horse be made to drink water?
It can only be taken to the river

Some are just Egoistic pigs. They will die like that, but will not change to preserve their ego. Pigskinned don't change, and there are quite some ignorant blind supporters of this priggish piggy.

Dear Avtar,
Re #27. I like all your definitions. Currently there are two words in the glossary: reality and Reality. I think yours coincides with the former, i.e., reality. I want to propose a small addition to this if you would agree. In the phrase "inanimate matter (body). Duality exists for matter because matter is bounded in space and time.", I would replace "matter" with "matter and mind" because I think you would agree physical matter and thought are different. For example, time is only in our minds, it is not matter and cannot be perceived by physical senses. I think you would also agree that thought is a reality and not Truth.

Yes dear Waylay, ther was a whole blog dedicated to that question;

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

and wash it off, was the laundry, duty..
;)
but than women, don't get the yin/yang thing,
but maybe thats another, universe

love, passion

Well Said Ricky and Avtar! Indeed the piggish egotism is difficult to overcome.

Waylay, your memory is correct. Deepak says what you said, freewill and destiny both exist. Syamala has brought it out well in one of her posts above.

mule's are very diffucult to make to,
a horse is a bit easier,
a capriorn woman, that like, double the stubborness..
;)
ah,
don't get them anyhow,
love, passion and gyan shakti

Avtar,
I am still reading the papers you sent us. Since the zero-point-energy is the fundamental concept in all your papers, I want to ask you this question. You define it as the energy of the universe when all the mass in the universe has decayed spontaneously into energy. So, its magnitude is really infinite and not realizable in any finite part of the universe. That is fine. What about its dimensions (of Physics like ergs)? Does it still have the dimensions of kinetic energy

Dear Syamala:

I agree with your comments #66. Mind (thoughts, emotions, judgments, morals) is just a biological entity based on the neuron firings in the brain and hence an extension of the body limited in space and time. Mind is just an imprisoned consciousness in matter (body) bounded in space/time.

#73: The zero-point energy is equivalent (E=mC2) to the total mass of the universe, whatever that is. Since, our telescopes can see only a limited distance, we do not exactly know the extent of the universe and the total amount of matter in it. At this point of time, what the telescopic surveys of the universe can see, the appox mass of the visible matter is 2x10**30 kilogram, but that could only be a very very small fraction of the total mass in the universe that may extend far far beyond what we can see. Bottom line, our telescopes may never be able to see it all, hence it may remain indeterminate.

Love
Avtar

Dear Avtar

My interest in this project has its basis in an attempt to understand the positioning of phenomena that seem to be outside space and time, or are perhaps sensings of non-locality events. Such phenomena are experienced completely within the mind, but they exhibit an extent and validity that's unlimited by the apparent boundaries of conscious mind. My intuitive explanation was that mind is more than an individual biological entity, that it participates directly and sensibly in the unity that underlies the universe.

How does a view of mind as limited and imprisoned explain such phenomena?

love, Heath

"Such phenomena are experienced completely within the mind, but they exhibit an extent and validity that's unlimited by the apparent boundaries of conscious mind."

No scientific evidence. Parapsychology has failed to provide any credible scientific evidence although they have been trying to do that for centuries now. The Random Number Generator studies at PEARL Princeton Univ. recently closed the labs after decades of hope which ended in failure.

Human mind is very complex and it has many evolutionary drawbacks which forces it to deceive itself.

We all want to believe in the magical but the mere belief doesn't change the reality which Dr. Avtar is attempting to explain.

Dear thangaraj

Months ago, I'd have accepted your response as-is, but I've been reading some philisophy recently that gives me a sense that logic can contribute to solving puzzles that can't yet be solved empirically. Phenomenological events have a validity simply due to their widespread occurance, that requires them to be taken seriously.

I do not "want to believe in the magical." Rather I have experienced things that others might term magical, yet due to aspects of these events being observable by others, I know for a fact that these events are as real as the ground beneath our feet. Their instantiation is unpredictable and personal, which makes proving them difficult, but not impossible.

Something like this: A competitive event is going to happen in two hours time. I have no understanding of any of the competitors in the event. I'm given a list of the names of those who will compete, and I write down who will win first, second and third places. I give the paper to someone else. After the event, we find that the names I chose won, in the order in which I chose them. How did my mind do that? Was that magic? I think it was a poorly-understood dynamic, that's all.

Prior to reading philosophy of consciousness papers, I had neither the vocabulary, nor the logical approach and precedents, to discuss things that are primarily phenonological with confidence, but reading philosophy has removed some of those obstacles. If you click on my name, you'll find a list of David Chalmers' papers, I've been reading his work, mostly.

love, Heath

"Months ago, I'd have accepted your response as-is, but I've been reading some philisophy recently that gives me a sense that logic can contribute to solving puzzles that can't yet be solved empirically. Phenomenological events have a validity simply due to their widespread occurance, that requires them to be taken seriously."

I don't think you would have accepted it. Anyway, this will also pass.

Don't read too much philosophy. Philosophy is philosophy. Science is science. there is a difference there. We can both argue philosophically(improvising our arguments with better vocabulary and new ideas over time) till one of us die. Science, on the other hand seeks evidence. Although it is a baby it is fun to have its company in the short span of our lives.

Dear thangaraj

You can choose to accept my word, or not, about what I believe would have been my old reaction to that particular comment.

I haven't yet read enough philosphy to prove what I'd like to prove, that philosophy can contribute as much to solving a puzzle as scientific theory and proofs can. However, that is what I believe at this time. I believe that modern philosophy can contribute powerfully to an ongoing dialogue that leads to answers for, and better formulations of, old questions that humanity has wrestled with for eons. Ah, such a dramatic statement :). Anyway, that's what I believe.

love, heath

Dear Avtar,
If zero-point-energy cannot be measured, that is not a problem for it to be the same as Consciousness. From your answer, I infer that it IS kinetic energy and therefore Consciousness has the dimensions of energy.
What is the difference between spontaneity that you talk about in your papers and randomness?

BTW, as far as I know (and by no means I claim to be an authority) Vedanta considers mind as different from physical matter. It is called a sense also but it is the 11th sense besides the five physical senses and five subtle senses which motivate the five physical senses. According to Vedanta, the subtle body is not destroyed by the death of the physical body.
Did Guru Nanak talk about reincarnation? I do not know much about his teachings, I only heard a few things about Sikkism, one of them being that Sikkism accepts the reincarnation concept. That is why I am asking.

Hey Avtar,

#64 is a bit over the top, imho, but it's good
to see you have a sense of humor, like it or not.

As far as my mind is concerned, I'd best stay out of my own way.

Nobody also has more questions and I wonder if you have
addressed these in your book. Sorry to ask you to repeat yourself.

Do you agree with the idea of implicate order whereby
there are no random events, mishaps, mistakes or accidents?

Do you agree that the Universe is perfect, whole and complete
and that all the existing creatures, flora and fauna
consist of matter and energy variously arranged?

Apocalypse...metaphor for a psychic event or a physical forecast?

Do you believe in different states or planes of consciousness?

Do you think that unexplained phenomena only occur in the astral planes?

How do you interpret lucid dreams that have meaning
and relevancy in one's daily life of mundane activity?

How do you feel about the legitimacy of prophesy
and where lies the event horizon in relation to
the zero-point energy field?

Does the Earth and it's inhabitants need saving
from any forthcoming global disaster? I mean...
if we are immortal souls what does it matter where we exist?

It's all-important! It matters, or else it would not be.

I think we'll find, maybe not, that the Universe
is full of itself. Thus the arrogance implicit in
it's Nature is only to be admired and imitated.

The Year of the Guinea Pig squeals in De-Deo-Light!

The grunt runt, Keith~

Tangaraj,
On the one hand, you say science is science, philosophy is philosophy and on the other hand, you quote Avtar as though he is doing pure science when in fact, he is mixing science and philosophy and believes in doing so unlike you. Your logic is not as sound as you think it is.

From a spot on the earth, the earth is stationary and the sun revolves around the earth. From Pluto the sun is stationary and the earth revolves around the sun, from a galaxy far away both the earth and sun revolve around the center of the Galaxy, and neither is stationary. What is true depends on which perspective you are looking from.

Perhaps free will is also relative.

"You can choose to accept my word, or not, about what I believe would have been my old reaction to that particular comment."

There is "evidence" in archive "months ago".

Similar if not the same "explanation" which wasn't accepted.

"I haven't yet read enough philosphy to prove what I'd like to prove, that philosophy can contribute as much to solving a puzzle as scientific theory and proofs can. However, that is what I believe at this time. I believe that modern philosophy can contribute powerfully to an ongoing dialogue that leads to answers for, and better formulations of, old questions that humanity has wrestled with for eons. Ah, such a dramatic statement :). Anyway, that's what I believe."

Mathematical Logic(meta mathematics/logic of mathematics) which is intuitive in its concepts is one of my special interests and I am aware of the inherent paradoxes at the most fundamental level of mathematics. If you are reading logic you might have heard of Godel's incompletness theorem. Kurt Godel who is also a philosopher is a friend of Einstein and at Princeton used to go for long walks together. That's one time when philosophy met science and Einstein listened, having nothing to say. Intuitive or mystical solutions to problems will help build the rational explanation to the problem. Science doesn't abandon logic(intuitive or otherwise) when it sets out to test a theory. None of the theories ever proposed for any paranormal phenomena stood the test of scientific investigation. Let me also tell you that philosophy of mathematics which is concerned with math logic is a kind of dead subject since mathematical philosophy, modern logic has reached its stagnation point after Plato to Godel and his incompletness theorem. Modern science on the other hand is as real as it can get and is silently marching ahead.

"On the one hand, you say science is science, philosophy is philosophy and on the other hand, you quote Avtar as though he is doing pure science when in fact, he is mixing science and philosophy and believes in doing so unlike you. Your logic is not as sound as you think it is."

Paranormal phenomena have to be explained by science not by philosophy. That was what I meant.

What does it mean to unify science and spirituality? Does one have to prove by logic or experiments that Consciousness, Love, God, or Whatever exists and creates and actively participates in evolving the universe? Is not the universe around us an infinite reality? Can any one or a few of us create such infinite reality?Do we want to prove by scientific reasoning that this infinite reality is not Truth but only an illusion? Are science and spirituality at odds if we cannot do so? Is it not enough if science explains parts of this infinite reality one piece at a time? Can we explain in our own words of even English, what spiritual Masters have experienced without experiencing the same? Then why try to explain their experience using the language of science which is much more limited?

Unifying Science and Spirituality is not to accept pseudo-science and not to abuse science. If this unification implies that science is a subset of spirituality, fine. Science is the practical end and our outward reach. Spirituality is our inner bliss. In unification, philosophy is the bridge for our existential quest.

A scientist can be spiritual. A real scientist's discovery process begins with intuition, which is to somehow see the reality underlying an observed process of nature. The idea just strikes from within or from nowhere in the sky and for no reason (that is spiritual). Being a scientist he/or she does not take the intution for granted, scientists know that mind is illusory and that is what I call spirituality. He/she verifies it using logic and gathering physical evidence and to be sure of its validity, seeks review by others. By the same token, a real scientist would not reject a popular belief unless it is disproved; that it is not proved yet is not enough grounds for rejection. Physicists gave up on classical mechanics to study the atom only after they found that it does not apply there. Open mind (that is spiritual) and clear thinking together are the key to discovery. Clear thinking and open mind are needed by a spiritualist also to discover Truth. Otherwise, people who go to temples think that God is only in that temple and that the idol in the temple is God which is not Truth. A scientist who calls a spiritualist foolish a spiritualist who calls a scientist foolish are both fooloish.

"A scientist who calls a spiritualist foolish a spiritualist who calls a scientist foolish are both fooloish."

A scientist who calls a spiritualist "foolish is science" need not be foolish because he knows his science.

on the other hand, a spiritualist who is not a scientist calls a scientist "foolish and ignorant in science" is in all probability foolish.

read it as "foolish in science"

Hi Syamala, Hi All!

Syamala, re your #60

Post 50 was not mine, it was prams. But even if I had asked scientists to make a choice it does not alter our story. My point is that our choice is dictated by the "hand we are dealt with" in Heath's words, because of which we ultimately suffer, become more aware as the consequence and thus advance towards our evolutionary destination.

Submitting my ego to Free Will for me means submitting myself to the Grand Universal Scheme of Things, to which Nanak says Hukam or God's order. When I surrender to the HUkam or Grand Scheme of Things I cannot be said to have free will of my own. I flow with the flow of the Grand Universal Scheme of Things. I am no longer there. As for Free Will or God's Free Will, that to me is nothing different from the Grand Scheme of Things because of which the universe eternally moves in the cycles of evolution/involution and of which I am a part.

I agree with the messages of the spiritual masters - my own message is also the same - to realize our free will but that does not mean that I HAVE ALREADY REALIZED IT. I am inching towards it through suffering right from minerals, plants, animals, apes but by now I have also known that it will go on like this till the end/big crunch for, this IS THE GAME. Otherwise, as there is no dearth of time, people would have realized their complete free will eons ago and would have brought all suffering to an end by now. If the spiritual masters of the calibre of Socrates, Jesus did not have free will enough to alter their fates what is the meaning of the so-called FREE will for us? They knew that everything is happening according to a Perfect and Grand Scheme of Things or even Divine Plan and so they should rather submit to it than project their own so-called free will. That to me is, in other words, flowing with the flow, and that is what I believe in doing. Let me know if any of you can defy your death through free will, or defy inching towards it each day through your free will, or defy advancing through childhood, youth, middle age to old age then I will admit we have free will. Otheriwse no doubt I will make my chocies but knowing that they are programmed to take me to a certain destination of their own as part of the Grand Scheme of Things and not free, not as I want them to. My happiness will come rather from the knowledge that I am part of that Grand Scheme of Things.

We began evolving from big bang through clay, minerals, plants, animals, apes etc by throwing out 1% of universe from so-called vacuum, then 2%, then 3% now we as humans have thrown out 4% and this story will go on till the end when we would have thrown out full 100% of universe, after which the new cycle will begin. It is like our dreams. We throw out a certain percentage of our wishes and desires through each dream, exhaust them or actualize them and then throw out more step by step.

Jumping from 4% straight to include 100%, denying 93% of embedded wishes and desires, denying 93% of unexplained dark energy or vacuum energy in the case of the universe, the domain of quantum theory, is not knowing things but rather avoiding them, like a child who is eager to lap the reward much before reaching the real final line. It may be an awakening of sorts but there are many more awakenings to go before we can really claim the prize. By which time we may rather be silent. Why take support of spiritual masters at every available opportunity, why are you not sure of your knowledge yourself? Why not think on your own, why not think of when and where you yourself will become one?? It will take many more lives by which time one will not remain a scientist or a philosopher or this or that but he himself. One will feel no need of basing his arguments on famous names even if they are spiritual masters. Past is past, we belong to the present and future. How far Einstein could go were he to limit himself to the understanding of Newton? No doubt spiritual masters are different to the extent that they experience the common ground of everything which is FOREVER THE SAME yet no body could not avoid speaking about it or explaining it in terms of the vocabulary/knowledge of the day. We should be able to understand that in terms of our present knowledge and not in terms of the knowledge of hundreds or thousands of years
before.

Bottom line, surrender and carry on with your life, you will do what you are supposed to do and that will be the best for you and finally for the whole world. That is enough. Don't bother about the free will, you can't have that till you have any body attached to you/your soul and which will remain attached for ever.

Harb

Karma is the "hand we are dealt with" in Heath's words. We make our choices in accordance with and on it, suffer as a consequence and in the process change it, also gaining proportionate freedom or free will.

The "hand we are dealt with" is part of the design, our response to it is part of Darwinian evolution, amenable to Darwinian explanations and contains in it already gained free will. Where they are collectively taking us is our destiny.

More a simpler life man live, more shall he be towards it centre. That shall be harmonizing with the centre of The universe, where one may feel the least force of any kind.
And I guess the most hunted or sought answer of his origin, shall he get only when he is in his centre, the time he lost the contact from their, again he start searching for it, irrespective of having known once, twice or not at all .
A scientist tries to find his centre in his theories, a philosopher in his thinking and a spiritualist in his own being. if they truly content with their respective search (a person knows himself better, as no one can decide for anyone)then nothing like that
And with that limited power of our telescopes, it better that each of us make our own universe, first shoot the arrow and then circle the point ;}

love
prams

Beautifully said prams! I don't think anybody can add to or substract anything from it.

Love, Harb

Quote CG Jung:

"Philemon....brought home to me the crucial insight that there are things in the psyche which I do not produce, but which produce themselves and have their own life. Philemon represented a force which was not myself.....I observed
clearly that it was he who spoke, not I."

Dear DK, refer to your [Also, we need to think about how do we condense HQR to one sheet of paper and it still carries the entirety of the HQR Socratic Dialogue's key tenets.] Here is my effort. There are many errors and omissions but I am sure you will set them right if at all you are to use it in any way.
******

The Holistic Quantum Relativity (HQR) Socratic Dialogue is an effort to present humanity with the possibility of an indestructible and immutable spiritual dimension underpinning all changing phenomenon, long professed by spiritual masters of various traditions in various Ages. When this truth is really understood it is hoped that it will provide humanity with much sought for certainty, immortality, eternal reality and Truth.
The dialogue began with 13th century mystic poet Maulana Rumi’s poem “I Died as a Mineral.” In this poem, Rumi in effect says that he is the same one soul, which beginning from All Soul or God (spiritual dimension) takes various forms such as minerals, plants, animals, man, angels and will eventually again merge into It/Him.
This truth of Rumi was further seized upon by Harbhajan Singh, author of Self-Designed Universe. He said that he has already written a similar paragraph to Rumi’ poem in his book (“Yesterday we were animals, a day before, plants, a couple of days before minerals….”), which actually shows all such forms evolving from a single Unified Force when it separates into four basic forces of gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak. He further added that this happens because of every system having to go through four basic forces or interactions of physics relevant to its level in the course of it evolution.
Four basic forces or interactions brought physics, unified force and finally the Unified Force of Love (again spiritual dimension only in an other way of saying it) into the picture. They also showed that thanks to them all systems had four basic phases in their lives. This drew participants’ attention to four basic elements of earth, water, fire and air of the Greeks, as also to the supposed fifth element of akasha or sky of the Orientals. Efforts were made to integrate them also into the above picture of unification of forces.
Socratic dialogue’s peculiar open mindedness regarding the use of scientific findings in relation to arts and spirituality brought some people to say that it was pseudo-science, non-science, bad-science or even non-sense. This turned Socratic dialogue to strike at the root of all boxed thinking and eventually towards the synthesis of science and spirituality or towards holism.
Holism brought into focus its past in 19th century Hegelian philosophy. Which in fact too was an effort to unify science, art and spirituality of the times into one whole. Soon it was discovered that efforts at such holism were made in every cultural and religious tradition of the world and not only in western philosophy. This introduced many symbols in the form of figures, pictures, and diagrams such as triangles, pyramids and charkas, depicting such holism in various ways into the dialogue. Here Richard Thomas, Mieke Vander Poll, Syamala Hari, Todd made their seminal contributions in thought and deed.
Unification of science and spirituality brought into focus the complete unification of science first, and in this regard Dr Avtar Singh, author of The Hidden Factor: An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, Cosmology and Universal Reality presented his newly developed concept of Holistic Relativity, which according to him unites science to Consciousness through the observable spontaneity in nature and thus solves all modern paradoxes of science, especially of quantum theory, such as dark energy, dark matter etc. Harbhajan Singh opined that if we were to take science along, we would have to take note of their present problems and efforts at uniting Quantum Theory and Relativity, that ignoring Quantum Theory will mean ignoring major part of present science and so it will not be advisable. This led DK Matai, the initiator and overall coordinator of the Socratic Dialogue to name this dialogue, or now rather the project based on it, as Holistic Quantum Relativity.
Because of the open nature of the dialogue it was found that different people were using certain terms differently. This led to the need of developing a common glossary, which is continuing alongside the development of dialogue.
After science, attention naturally turned towards masters of spirituality as also of other fields. In came dialogue of Einstein and Tagore on Music, quotes of Einstein having bearings on science and mysticism and of Master Kirpal on Unity of Man etc.
Dialogue once again turned towards science when it was found that certain key findings of hitherto neglected Quantum Theory such as Dr David Bohm’s work about the universe being made up of an “interconnected unbroken wholeness”, The Non-locality phenomenon related to Bells’s Theorem, and The Observer’s Effect implying that consciousness underlies all reality, led one to believe that we were advancing towards a holotropic state, strikingly resembling timeless spiritual concept of all reality being the manifestation of one infinite singularity, various named as Creative Principle, Self-Designing Source, Supra-Universal Consciousness, Divine Principle or God.
Harbhajan Singh added that universal evolution in fact comprised two parts, the one, described by the Quantum Theory in which the universe gets wound up or entangled into forces – Einstein’s spooky action at a distance - and the other, described by the Relativity Theory, in which the universe gets unwound or disentangled; that thus, Quantum Theory describes a universe contracting from many to One while Relativity theory describes a universe expanding from One to many, and so, it was no wonder that Quantum Theory was leading us to the Holotropic state, a state of Oneness. He furthered opined that it may be good for us to help science further explore the Quantum Theory rather than prematurely discard it in favor of Holistic Relativity.

Please excuse the inconvenience. The paragraphs were not broken at proper places in my first post.

Dear DK, refer to your [Also, we need to think about how do we condense HQR to one sheet of paper and it still carries the entirety of the HQR Socratic Dialogue's key tenets.] Here is my effort. There are many errors and omissions but I am sure you will set them right if at all you are to use it in any way.
******

The Holistic Quantum Relativity (HQR) Socratic Dialogue is an effort to present humanity with the possibility of an indestructible and immutable spiritual dimension underpinning all changing phenomenon, long professed by spiritual masters of various traditions in various Ages. When this truth is really understood it is hoped that it will provide humanity with much sought for certainty, immortality, eternal reality and Truth.

The dialogue began with 13th century mystic poet Maulana Rumi’s poem “I Died as a Mineral.” In this poem, Rumi in effect says that he is the same one soul, which beginning from All Soul or God (spiritual dimension) takes various forms such as minerals, plants, animals, man, angels and will eventually again merge into It/Him.

This truth of Rumi was further seized upon by Harbhajan Singh, author of Self-Designed Universe. He said that he has already written a similar paragraph to Rumi’ poem in his book (“Yesterday we were animals, a day before, plants, a couple of days before minerals….”), which actually shows all such forms evolving from a single Unified Force when it separates into four basic forces of gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak. He further added that this happens because of every system having to go through four basic forces or interactions of physics relevant to its level in the course of it evolution.

Four basic forces or interactions brought physics, unified force and finally the Unified Force of Love (again spiritual dimension only in an other way of saying it) into the picture. They also showed that thanks to them all systems had four basic phases in their lives. This drew participants’ attention to four basic elements of earth, water, fire and air of the Greeks, as also to the supposed fifth element of akasha or sky of the Orientals. Efforts were made to integrate them also into the above picture of unification of forces.

Socratic dialogue’s peculiar open mindedness regarding the use of scientific findings in relation to arts and spirituality brought some people to say that it was pseudo-science, non-science, bad-science or even non-sense. This turned Socratic dialogue to strike at the root of all boxed thinking and eventually towards the synthesis of science and spirituality or towards holism.

Holism brought into focus its past in 19th century Hegelian philosophy. Which in fact too was an effort to unify science, art and spirituality of the times into one whole. Soon it was discovered that efforts at such holism were made in every cultural and religious tradition of the world and not only in western philosophy. This introduced many symbols in the form of figures, pictures, and diagrams such as triangles, pyramids and charkas, depicting such holism in various ways into the dialogue. Here Richard Thomas, Mieke Vander Poll, Syamala Hari, Todd made their seminal contributions in thought and deed.

Unification of science and spirituality brought into focus the complete unification of science first, and in this regard Dr Avtar Singh, author of The Hidden Factor: An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, Cosmology and Universal Reality presented his newly developed concept of Holistic Relativity, which according to him unites science to Consciousness through the observable spontaneity in nature and thus solves all modern paradoxes of science, especially of quantum theory, such as dark energy, dark matter etc. Harbhajan Singh opined that if we were to take science along, we would have to take note of their present problems and efforts at uniting Quantum Theory and Relativity, that ignoring Quantum Theory will mean ignoring major part of present science and so it will not be advisable. This led DK Matai, the initiator and overall coordinator of the Socratic Dialogue to name this dialogue, or now rather the project based on it, as Holistic Quantum Relativity.

Because of the open nature of the dialogue it was found that different people were using certain terms differently. This led to the need of developing a common glossary, which is continuing alongside the development of dialogue.

After science, attention naturally turned towards masters of spirituality as also of other fields. In came dialogue of Einstein and Tagore on Music, quotes of Einstein having bearings on science and mysticism and of Master Kirpal on Unity of Man etc.

Dialogue once again turned towards science when it was found that certain key findings of hitherto neglected Quantum Theory such as Dr David Bohm’s work about the universe being made up of an “interconnected unbroken wholeness”, The Non-locality phenomenon related to Bells’s Theorem, and The Observer’s Effect implying that consciousness underlies all reality, led one to believe that we were advancing towards a holotropic state, strikingly resembling timeless spiritual concept of all reality being the manifestation of one infinite singularity, various named as Creative Principle, Self-Designing Source, Supra-Universal Consciousness, Divine Principle or God.

Harbhajan Singh summed up that universal evolution in fact comprised two parts, the one, described by the Quantum Theory in which the universe gets wound up or entangled into forces – Einstein’s spooky action at a distance - and the other, described by the Relativity Theory, in which the universe gets unwound or disentangled; that thus, Quantum Theory describes a universe contracting from many to One while Relativity theory describes a universe expanding from One to many, and so, it was no wonder that Quantum Theory was leading us to the Holotropic state, a state of Oneness. He furthered opined that it may be good for us to help science further explore the Quantum Theory rather than prematurely discard it in favor of Holistic Relativity.

Harb,
Re #91. Vedanta has a lot about liberation from the Karma bondage. Consequences of past Karma have no effect upon a spiritually enlightened person because he/she is able to look upon pleasure and pain with detachment and with no preference; he/she is happy in all places and at all times, no matter what. His/her physical body may still undergo consequences of past Karma but what the physical body experiences does not bother that person once he/she is enlightened. That is the meaning of freedom from Karma. It is similar to the phrase "conquest of death". Conquest of death actually means conquest of fear of death, not that the physical body lives for ever. A physical body is a part of the dual universe and subject to its laws. On the other hand, Consciousness is NOT subject to any laws including the law of Karma and it has NO death. Free will is to be free from all laws and Consciousness is Free Will. Can Consciousness change the consequences of past Karma of an individual, yes it can; otherwise why do you think people pray? Are all prayers guaranteed to be a waste? Consciousness can listen to prayers; it listenes without ears and understands all languages and can change consequences of one's karma if it so choses. Fulfillment of one's desire can happen in two ways: either by achieving the object of desire physically or by losing the desire itself. Consciousness also decides which way to fulfil the desire of the one who is making the appeal.

Continuing #99. There is also another explanation of why a prayer seems to yield the desired result when it does. Prayer is also a karma and that it has its consequences that try to nullify already existing results of past karma, Consciousness simply being a witness all the time. Does God change karma is one of the fundamental questions in spirituality and there are various answers in the related literature.

Syamala, only enlightened persons can speak what is what for them. Same goes for Consciousness.

Harb

PS: Karma are like water flowing from higher level to lower level. None, no body can escape them. If it was possible for spiritual masters, our friend Rumi would not talk of becoming angel after man. It means karma are passing right through since he began from minerals and right up to man and beyond. If his were exhausted what was the need for him to become an angel? And what will be the need for him to some day become mineral again??

Thangaraj,

Are you from Chennai? Will you be doing lot of thanga like before? where is your other friend Alex? You both remind me of Shiva's dance (Shiv tandav)

Waylay,

You seem to have a good grasp over both science and spirituality. Do you like laying the way?
I don't think you can lay the way, as you don't have any freewill. So, there is no way for you. LOL!

Dear DK

A comprehensive glossary can not coexist with a consise one, when the number of entries is 334 and counting, unless the list is organized in a tree-like manner, or it's published in Wiki format. If you are opposed to a single glossary list, then Wiki format would be most helpful, allowing multiple editors, discussions, edit history, and the ability to link to a definition from within any other HQR post. The tree-like (network) structure of the web evolved to support the complexity and interconnectedness of content. This project now needs to make use of that structural support.

The glossary is a path, at the end of which is the rest of the project. The path is growing longer, with no end in sight. Everyone here has other tasks in life, that take up most of their time. Their participation and contributions here are an act of love. Please do find a way to make the way softer for these people of heart and mind, who are walking this path with you.

love, Heath

Please do find a way to make the way softer for these people of heart and mind, who are walking this path with you - Heath

Or do employ them. I am in search of a job!

Harb,
Re #101. "only enlightened persons can speak what is what for them. Same goes for Consciousness". I agree. Actually in # 98, I wrote what Krishna said about enlightened persons in Bhagavadgita - "samata" is the nature of "sthitaprajna". I am humble enough not to claim that I am enlightened.

I am now reminded of other very well known verses from Gita, in which Krishna says that He takes the form of a life in this world ("avatar") to set things right, whenever He thinks necessary to do so, the necessity being decline of justice and fairness in the world. So Gita talks about willful intervention of Consciousness in the affairs of the world.

Dear Heath
Re #103, You have my vote.

Dear thangaraj

You have a characteristic style of rebutting others' comments. It consists of quoting their words, then cherry-picking phrases or ideas you're comfortable opposing, or trying to show the weakness of, then issuing a closing proclamation that's supposed to be the ribbon on the package. Whether you mean it to be so or not, the effect is often patronizing.

My #75 to Avtar, and my #77 in response to your comment contra my #75, are totally sincere and open. Yet your #76 is patronizing, as is your #78. You're actually telling me what to do in #78, in an almost intimate way; yet you don't know me at all.

In none of your comments to me, do you address my central premise: That I have had experiences that seem to show that consciousness extends beyond the individual. Your statement about previous experiments that tried to capture the existence of such phenomena doesn't apply to my case. If you think a little, you're likely to see that it's possible that such events have a quantum nature. If that is true, the presence of observers will change the nature or even initiation of the events.

In my case, the experiences I referred to happened over a three year period, during the Triple Crown horse race season in the US. The races of the Triple Crown, and their order, are: the Kentucky Derby, the Preakness and the Belmont Stakes. In each year, my prediction rate for win, place and show horses, based on seeing a list of runner names only, was 100% for the Kentucky Derby, about 66% for the Preakness, and 50% for the Belmont Stakes. Each year, as the race season advanced, two things were added to my connection with whatever was giving me a sense of winners. One was information about the horses, jockeys and trainers. The other was a sense of anticipation and possible success. Each year, the accumulation of facts and expectations increasingly interfered with my ability to sense a truth that was beyond time and space. As it now stands, the expectation of being able to predict winners accurately is now so strong that I can't do it any more. In my strong expectations, I have become my own observer. I may try meditatation, to disconnect myself from that way of thinking, this year, and see what the result is.

love, Heath

Dear syamala

Your comment last week suggesting splitting the glossary into categories seemed like an intuitively effective solution. Keith's recent comments, and the general slowdown in contributions directly related to the glossary, may be a reflection of similar concerns from others.

Dear Harb

Bon chance!

love, Heath

Syamala, once a child asked his mother, "Mom, how I came into this world?

"Some huge bird threw you on earth and I picked mp over you up," replied Mom.

Some years later the child grew up and asked the same question of his mother. By chance he was then in a wild-life park with his Mom. The mother replied, "Look at that Lion trying to jump over the Lioness from behind. You came into this world in the same way." The child was not fully satisfied but remained silent.

Many more years passed. Then one day, the child now a young man again asked the same question of her mother. "Go and get you a girl, and then you will know yourself." replied Mom.

Moral: You know the real answer only when you get one yourself. And you can recognize the real answer only when you will be left with no further questions, or when you will no longer feel the need to go to any body to ask them.

And I may also add that so long one supposed God to be like a huge Human Being who can interfere in the affairs of the world at his own sweet will, as long one is as far from the real answer as the child was when he asked his question for the first time.

Yet prayer has efficacy but that has an other explanation. You do some work with your body alone while your mind is somewhere else. Then you put your mind too into the job and accordingly you accomplish greater work. With prayer you put even your soul - your deepest self - into the work too so that it can effect the whole nature to help you in your work with the result that you can accomplish much more. God or One or All Nature is invoked through prayer in this way to help you and not that some Huge Human Being is listening to your prayer and then decides to help you.

"Dear thangaraj

You have a characteristic style of rebutting others' comments. It consists of quoting their words, then cherry-picking phrases or ideas you're comfortable opposing, or trying to show the weakness of, then issuing a closing proclamation that's supposed to be the ribbon on the package. Whether you mean it to be so or not, the effect is often patronizing.

My #75 to Avtar, and my #77 in response to your comment contra my #75, are totally sincere and open. Yet your #76 is patronizing, as is your #78. You're actually telling me what to do in #78, in an almost intimate way; yet you don't know me at all."

----I was right about your insincere statement in #77 of you accepting my explanation in #76, which you would not have accepted in all probability. Actually you Did Not in a similar situation, just to refresh your memory. Thanks to InnocentVictim #102 for reminding us about Alex. In one instance, you were arguing about your personal paranormal experiences with Alex, and I remember he presented a similar explanation as mine which you did not accept. I may be patronizing in #78 when I pointed out this but you are insincere again in #79 by dilly dallying and pointing out my right to believe whatever I choose. Yes, I agree I may be patronizing in my comment but that doesn't take away 1% of truth in my statements.

"In none of your comments to me, do you address my central premise: That I have had experiences that seem to show that consciousness extends beyond the individual. Your statement about previous experiments that tried to capture the existence of such phenomena doesn't apply to my case. If you think a little, you're likely to see that it's possible that such events have a quantum nature. If that is true, the presence of observers will change the nature or even initiation of the events."

Qunatum physics is a science and non-local quantum phenomenae like "quantum entanglement" have been "studied" by experiments. That is how they are accepted as science. If there is a "quantum" basis to any phenomena as you explain - they can be "studied" again "studied" by science. Didn't scientists observe "quantum entanglement" by indirect means in laboratory? Quantum Entaglement is not just a theory. It has been observed. Similarly any phenomena and the related theory which might have a basis in quantum physics can be studied, albeit by indirect means to counter the observer effects. this kind of experimentation is common and is part of scientific method in sub atomic physics. By the way Logic is not abandoned in theoretical physics and Astro-physics where one cannot go back in time to test the big-bang theory or build a laboratory in the galaxies .

About your experience, ever heard of sports betting and sporting odds? The results generally follow the odds over a large enough sample space and iterations over extended trails. Remember the Bayes theorem in Probability? It helps the human mind to take decisions based on the available information. The more info the more your chances of being correct. Although you don't do this all consciously. Biases are ingrained in the human mind. Belief bias is one such thing.

Innocentvictim, haven't heard from Alex lately. Guess he keeps away from meaningless discussions and the pseudo-scientific fluff. I liked his quantum computer model for the Universe, which he wrote about lengthily in Deepak Chopra's threads a few months ago. I thought he would chip in when there was a soctartic dialog recently about the human mind being a quantum computer, but he did not. I guess he may have felt that it was a waste of time to talk about quantum computer and computation to people who misinterpret quantum physics and don't really understand what a quantum computer does.

I am also wondering where is your new found friend Rajesh Sharma? He brightened the IntentBlog scene for a while with his charm. He seemed to represent the quintessential Intentblog audience.

Dear thangaraj

You support my argument. You say "The more info the more your chances of being correct." Please read #107 again, and you will see that as I accumulated more knowledge I became less accurate.

thangaraj, why do you spend time focusing on what I write?

love, Heath

Dear Harb,
You did not address my #105 at all. Coming to #109, so, first you said effectively that I am not enlightened so how can I dare to say anything about how the enlightened are free from the karma bondage. Then I quoted from Bhagavadgita, the well known authority on Vedanta, where Krishna, the most enlightened one, talked about what it is to be free from karma. Now you say, quoting from Gita is useless unless I see it myself. So, you are so enlightened now that you reject Gita. None of the upanishads are saints of India including Ramana Maharshi ever said that there is no liberation from the karma bondage. Refresh your spiritual knowledge.

Thangaraj, you are doing a wonderful job trying to defend truth, reason and rationality.

You say:
“Paranormal phenomena have to be explained by science not by philosophy”.

Why is this so hard to understand for so many?

"You support my argument. You say "The more info the more your chances of being correct." Please read #107 again, and you will see that as I accumulated more knowledge I became less accurate."

Info works either way. Your mind has to properly apply the Bayes theorem of course! Odds of predicting a sporting outcome generally holds.That's how so many book keeping businesses make profit and are stable. If you know that in the morning of the race a horse fell sick, its chances of wining comes way down. I can see a kind of bias working here in the way you are looking at your predictions. That kind of situation can be easily studied scientifically, logistically and statistically. Eliminate the observer-expectancy effects, hindsight biases, probability related biases etc and see that there is nothing supernatural in it. Of choose we can choose to be in denial of this forever. It could be a kind of beginners luck, a bias where you think you are good at predicting having not much info but then you find more info and you anticipate and you find that you are no good than the general odds and feel that you have lost your touch. One can easily test these predictions in various scenarios and if studied without bias in well formulated experiments, the results will not be so surprising. It's the way a individual looks at things that makes him/her believe in their paranormal abilities.

"thangaraj, why do you spend time focusing on what I write?"

If someone asks me a question I generally reply. Even otherwise I focus on the content of a post which interests me.

I am sorry for reposting this, again,

http://beyondbelief2006.org/Watch/

but there is so much wonderful stuff on this site for anyone who wants to hear what is going on in some of the greatest minds of our time.

Thanks Skep and thanks for the link. You ask an interesting question in #114, and one for which I have been trying to find an answer for.

Does evolution prefer the irrational? Possibly. That may be the reason why we have a small percentage of "brights".

Dear Skep and thangaraj

After you've read http://consc.net/papers/knowledge.html (or click my name), please tell me if you'd like to revise your positions about the validity of modern philosophy as a tool that can tell us something about the phenomenal aspects of consciousness.

Dear thangaraj

I asked you no questions. You began to talk directly to me, ad hoc. Moreover, you recall past conversations, and even apparently researched some.

Your paragraph 2 in #115 presents zero valid arguments that can knock down my phenomenal experiences. You again ignore that I had absolutely no prior knowledge of anything about who or what was running in the Triple Crown races each year. I do not follow sports. I have no knowledge on which to base a sense of who or what would win or lose. I simply looked at a list of names and had a strange sense of which name was most important, then second most important, then third most important. The sense was accurate for the first race each year, and became increasingly less accurate as the race series continued, because I gained information. Three years in a row following the same pattern is not beginner's luck. There are more details (which I haven't shared) that point to a real connection with future events, outside space/time or non-locality or both. There is no easy way to prove or disprove phenomena like these, scientifically or otherwise, or it would have been done already. The events are both personal and unpredictable, and thus hard to capture, much less measure.

love, Heath

"Your paragraph 2 in #115 presents zero valid arguments that can knock down my phenomenal experiences."

May be maybe not. I only say there are rational explanations. coincidences tend to mislead the mind. Why are the eye-witness cannot be relieved upon even though the subject believes so strongly about their personal experiences? why do the alien abduction cases don't hold any water and that there are many alternate explanations which aren't paranormal?

"There is no easy way to prove or disprove phenomena like these, scientifically or otherwise, or it would have been done already. The events are both personal and unpredictable, and thus hard to capture, much less measure."

People have all kinds of subjective experiences which are not true just because they attach a strong sense of reality to it.

Again predictions can be studied statistically, and scientifically if there is any truth to it.

"I asked you no questions. You began to talk directly to me, ad hoc. Moreover, you recall past conversations, and even apparently researched some."

I QUOTED PART OF COMMENT #76(WHICH WAS ADRESSED TO DR. AVTAR) IN MY FIRST COMMENT. IT DID NOT ADRESS "HEATHER" OR TALK TO HER IN FIRST PERSON.

IN REPLY TO MY POST #76 HEATHER ADRESSED ME AND ASKED ME QUESTIONS IN #76.

ALL MY OTHER POSTS ADRESSED TO HEATHER ARE IN REPLY TO THE POSTS SHE ADRESSED ME FIRST.

HEATHER, YOU ARE MAKING UNSUBSTANTIATDED ACCUSATIONS.

I am reposting my very first comment in this thread#76 below:

"Such phenomena are experienced completely within the mind, but they exhibit an extent and validity that's unlimited by the apparent boundaries of conscious mind."

No scientific evidence. Parapsychology has failed to provide any credible scientific evidence although they have been trying to do that for centuries now. The Random Number Generator studies at PEARL Princeton Univ. recently closed the labs after decades of hope which ended in failure.

Human mind is very complex and it has many evolutionary drawbacks which forces it to deceive itself.

We all want to believe in the magical but the mere belief doesn't change the reality which Dr. Avtar is attempting to explain.

Heather, I am sorry for posing a question before answering your question:

Do you agree with, “Paranormal phenomena have to be explained by science not by philosophy”?

Reading Chalmer won’t do me any good since Daniel Dennett and his reasonable explanations make sense to me. His major work, Consciousness Explained, posits a theory that consciousness is an abstraction built from a linear narrative of one's life, based on a functionalist view of cognitive science.

In the end the survival of the human species depends on us accepting and building on truth and knowledge of those smart minds that were before us, and not by dreaming and making up our own truths.

One of those minds belonged to be Charles Darwin.

"Moreover, you recall past conversations, and even apparently researched some."

I did not research anything. I have a good memory. You might rely upon your false memories and false perceptions. I don't.

Dear Skep

Here's my answer to your question: I think that sooner or later (what we will then call) science will explain much more than we now know, including at least some of what are now termed paranormal phenomena. Modern philosophy will contribute to helping science evolve its viewpoints and approaches to such a stage where those phenomeno can be grasped more materialistically than they can be now. That future science will incorporate methods and concepts derived from branches of modern philosophy. A dynamic interchange between science and philosophy has already been happening for 20 years, and will continue to happen, as it's beneficial to both general disciplines.

To not read Chalmers because you already agree with Dennett is like me saying I won't walk south today because I walked east yesterday. Isn't the scientific mind a curious one, by definition?

I absolutely agree with Dennett's view of consciousness, but I also believe there are aspects of consciousness that are beyond the individual, that are non-local.

love, Heath

Quoting Heather #122

"I absolutely agree with Dennett's view of consciousness, but I also believe there are aspects of consciousness that are beyond the individual, that are non-local."

If some one uses the word "absolutely" they are generally talking in extremes.

If you absolutely agree with A and believe in something that is contrary to A then that is a fallacy.

Hey! I absolutely agree with Richard Dawkins, but I also believe that Jesus is the son of God and died on the cross to save us. How about that?!

Dear thangaraj

I absolutely believe the peel of an orange has two layers, one of skin and one of pith, and the pith is normally white, and the skin is normally mostly orange, and the skin also contains fragrant oils. I also believe that within the orange are segments of fruit that contain a lot of juice. What's so extreme about looking at multiple aspects of a single entitiy, and holding strong beliefs appropriate to each aspect separately?

I submit you're so eager to knock me down that you're using your very fine mind in a somewhat foggy manner, as your emotions are getting in the way. The question is, why? Who am I to you that you should have such a focus?

love, Heath

Actually my daily walks are all over the place and some were done on Chalmer Street, not since I found Dennett Way though.

Let’s agree to disagree the way our respective philosopher do.

I am cherry picking when reading IB comments so I don’t really know where you are coming from. Do you want to make a comment about Darwin, or Dawkins or about ID (intelligent design)? Or “The God Delusion”?

Or maybe even about ”Life after Death”?

Heath, I entirely agree with post 122.

Those who want to know anything about the unity or non-local consciousness (called consciousness-as-such below)underlying the usual consciousness may go through the following from my book:

quote

An answer based on a quotation by physicist John.A.Wheeler in the last chapter when we were saying something about observation-as-such has already been attempted by us. That it is that basic something which would respond even to an elementary quantum phenomenon in some coherent/uniting/meaning-giving way.

A little more I hope to convey through the following analogy. But the remainder I shall sum up through a parable at the end.

Perhaps the reader knows that were it not for the continuous movement of our pupils we would not be able to see the stationary objects. While we see the moving objects because of their movement relative to our eyes, we see the stationary objects only because our pupils are always in motion and thus create relative motion in stationary objects so as to enable them to be seen by us.

What if our pupils were to be stationary and there were no moving objects?

Then our experience of seeing would be analogous to our experience of consciousness-as-such. Moreover, just as any relative movement then would seem to create both matter and our usual experience of seeing, similarly, any dent, any disturbance in consciousness-as-such would seem to create both matter and our usual consciousness of it at once.

But what needs to be remembered is that this is not THE consciousness; this is not the consciousness-as-such. This is only a superficial manifestation of that basic ‘consciousness’. This is only information collection or data-collection on the base of that mother consciousness, with respect to that mother consciousness. This represents a study only of disturbances on that original consciousness. Which would be meaningless without that original consciousness. Which would be meaningless if not studied in terms of the meaning emanating from that mother consciousness - that of its journey from itself to itself, from oneness to oneness as we explained in the last chapter while discussing the meaning in the response or communication of Mosc.

For example, nothing in our dream creates the consciousness on which that dream is formed. That consciousness is a priori so far as our dream world is concerned. Same goes for the actual world. That consciousness simply evaporates beyond our world, actual or virtual, physical or psychological.

Metaphorically speaking, that is an infinity which cannot be reached from this side through numbers.

With this oneness-manifesting consciousness we are a part of the natural Universal evolutionary process; without this we are only a computer - part of the evolutionary process of the man-made unnatural world. Even then thanks to that mother consciousness, that consciousness-as-such operating through man.

Dear Skep

Thanks for your gracious response about philosophy. I'm not commenting about evolution of species, I see enough validity in Darwinian theory to accept it, with the expectation that it, too, will continue to evolve. The mind, and its connection with the universe, especially as it relates to things we call spirit and spirituality, are all I care about in these discussions.

love, Heath

Heather

The orange peel argument is valid but doesn't apply to this case and you cannot use it to possibly justify your statement.

I can use the same orange peel argument to say - I absolutely agree with Chalmer's view of consciousness, but also believe that all aspects of consciousness are local - none are beyond the individual.

"The question is, why?"

More questions lead to more responses. I don't understand your question as such. May be it is just your perception. As I sad earlier, I tend to respond when someone asks me questions or if something glaringly catches my attention.

Dear Harb

Your #126 makes sense to me. The description of contrast, differences or disturbances being used to delineate boundaries is particuarly interesting.

love, Heath

Dear thangaraj

My statement is valid because I believe there are multiple aspects of consciousness. Some are local and others are not. Dennett's views apply to the local view. Other views apply to the non-local view.

Because I live mostly in a world of local consciousness, I believe very strongly in local aspects of consciousness. Because I have experienced some stuff that simply cannot be explained by local influences, I believe very strongly in non-local aspects of conciousness.

The orange is a whole orange. Dennett may think he's talking about the whole orange, but I personally thing he sees only the skin. I believe in the fruit inside, too, and I think it's the more important part of the orange. The skin is a protective container with its own viable and important qualities, but the juice is the thing. Neither could exist without the other, at least in the form of an orange.

(Is it that there's a tiger in you today? Don't be sad -- joke -- typo in #128.)

love, Heath

“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers.”
Stephen Hawking

In science we don’t have that problem, the self-correcting feedback loop called “the scientific method” will eventually take care of contradiction. :-)

A good weekend to all.

Imgine a cell in your body. At one level it must be experiencing dual or usual consciousness - of seeing other cells, interacting with them and with everything else. Yet at an other level it must also be experiencing unity consciousness of whole of you with all other cells, with all and everything withing you.

Dear Skep

Even in the scientific method, there are conflicts and contradictions, re-thinkings and re-theorizings. Science is mutable and metaphorical, too, though to a considerably lesser degree that philosophy. Have a good weekend.

What is logic?

love, Heath

Heather,

In reply to #130, I wrote quite a lengthy comment which was lost. sad - no joke.

To keep it short

Dennets orange grows on a tree while chalmers orange is Dennets orange as multiple reflections in a set of mirror which will have to break to shatter the make-delude non-local non-sense

"Even in the scientific method, there are conflicts and contradictions, re-thinkings and re-theorizings"

In "scientific method" there are no contradictions, re-thinking and re-theorizing. In "Science" yes from time to time, but it will be taken care of by the scientific method as Skeptisch said.

PS:logic is not to ask questions illogically.

I recommend the book, "The Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle in the Dark". by Carl Sagan to clear the common misconceptions about "scientific Method" and to know what is Science and what is Pseudo-science.

PS: This is available for free as an e-book over the internet. Those who are interested can find it with a quick google search.

Dear thangaraj

Well, you can guess I'll disagree with you on Chalmers versus Dennett, if a versus needs to exist.

Conceptually, scientific method is pure, but when applied it's just a mutable as anything else, and science lives in an applied world.

Your PS is very funny. :) Please feed the tiger well, and stroke its head for me.

I'm getting into a teasing mood, so I'll retire to some work.

love, Heath

Syamala, Not answering you at lest made me "Dear Harb" from plain Harb lol.

I am not answering you because you do not read my posts carefully enough to understand what I am saying. First you attributed a post (#50) of prams to me and began challenging me on that. Then when I pointed this to you, you did not have the courtesy to even say sorry or at least admit it.

Then you go on attributing to me that I do not believe in liberation from karma, while what all I say is that we are never fully liberated, if it were so man would not go further to become an angel which, accepting what Rumi said, he becomes after man. Our story of karma really ends with big crunch and not before. There are only landings on the way which deceive some to think that they have perhaps become fully liberated from karma. Karma to me are not that human as many think them to be but a peculiar arrangement of matter/forces around or entangling one's I", one's core, one's soul, one's organising principle.

Even Ramana Maharshi will have to come again to experience the stage beyond that in which he was and because of which he used to say "Where is the world except in your mind." Ramana here speaks from the point of view of third phase of strong interactions, of end of ego/mind, while there is then the fourth stage where the world again comes into the picture in an other, beyond ego way/form. It is the world which is described by the third stage of Zen which I have already quoted somewhere back, and is being quoted again for your benefit:

Before you study Zen, mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers; when you study Zen, mountains are no longer mountains and rivers are no longer rivers; after you have completed the study ofZen, mountains are ONCE AGAIN mountains and rivers once again rivers.

It is the world which Adi Shankra meant when he said: "The world is unreal, the world is God, the God is real." It is the world seen beyond mind, by BEING ONE with it rather than by knowing it as separate from one. It is the world like the world of a child. It is the world of an accomplished sage, of a Zen master.

Even Ramana would go silent when people proud of their bookish knowledge would ask him questions more to browbeat him than for really learning something from him. Or at the most he will ask to first know what is this "I" which is asking these questions and then you will know the answers.

And Krishna is not weighing on my head as he is weighing on yours. I do not believe in his reality but believe in the reality of the writer of Bhagwad Gita, Ved Vyasa. He himself was Krishna to me. He created the character Krishna to represent himself in the story. And even then why should I learn something from a person some 3000 years less evolved than myself?? We advance in cycles and it is true that those people were almost on the identical position to us on THEIR cycle, yet we are far more advanced in terms of detailed science and so are in a better position to know things now. Greeks speculated some 3000 years ago that all things are made up of atoms, and they were right, yet they knew nothing of the inside of the atom as compared to us and to that extent we are able to know far more about things than them. Same goes for all. No doubt the ground or the spiritual dimension is the same for ever but what matters is how we explain it and its superstructure at any given point of time. This we are in a position to explain better and more deeply now.

Harb

Dear Dr. Avtar and DK

Hello All,

Vedanta suggests that the universe undergoes an infinite number of deaths and rebirths. As in modern physics, Hindu cosmology envisaged the universe as having a cyclical nature. The end of each kalpa brought about by Shiva's dance is also the beginning of the next. Rebirth follows destruction.

Hinduism, according to Carl Sagan, in his book, Cosmos wrote:

"... is the only religion in which the time scales correspond... to those of modern scientific cosmology. Its cycles run from our ordinary day and night to a day and night of the Brahma, 8.64 billion years long, longer than the age of the Earth or the Sun and about half the time since the Big Bang"

Long before Aryabhata (6th century) came up with this awesome achievement, apparently there was a mythological angle to this as well -- it becomes clear when one looks at the following translation of Bhagavad Gita (part VIII, lines 16 and 17),

"All the planets of the universe, from the most evolved to the most base, are places of suffering, where birth and death takes place. But for the soul that reaches my Kingdom, O son of Kunti, there is no more reincarnation. One day of Brahma is worth a thousand of the ages [yuga] known to humankind; as is each night."

Thus each kalpa is worth one day in the life of Brahma, the God of creation. In other words, the four ages of the mahayuga must be repeated a thousand times to make a "day ot Brahma", a unit of time that is the equivalent of 4.32 billion human years, doubling which one gets 8.64 billion years for a Brahma day and night. This was later theorized (possibly independently) by Aryabhata in the 6th century. The cyclic nature of this analysis suggests a universe that is expanding to be followed by contraction... a cosmos without end. This, according to modern physicists is not an impossibility.

(source: Astronomy and Mathematics in Ancient India)http://www.hvk.org/articles/0802/214.html

Dr. Sagan in his book Broca's Brain: Reflections on the Romance of Science, remarks:

"Immanuel Velikovsky (the author of Earth in Upheaval) in his book Worlds in Collision, notes that the idea of four ancient ages terminated by catastrophe is common to Indian as well as to Western sacred writing.

However, in the Bhagavad Gita and in the Vedas, widely divergent numbers of such ages, including an infinity of them, are given; but, more interesting, the duration of the ages between major catastrophes is specified as billions of years. .. "

The Hindu holy book, the Rig Veda (X:129), has a much more realistic view of the matter:

“Who knows for certain? Who shall here declare it?
Whence was it born, whence came creation?
The gods are later than this world’s formation;
Who then can know the origins of the world?
None knows whence creation arose;
And whether he has or has not made it;
He who surveys it from the lofty skies,
Only he knows- or perhaps he knows not."

(source: Broca's Brain: Reflections on the Romance of Science - By Carl Sagan p. 106 - 137).

Since Carl Sagan wrote about the possibility of a cyclical universe as suggested by Vedanta, modern physics has found new insights. This comes with the the better understanding of Dark energy (or the cosmological constant as Einstein called it or vacuum energy as Dr. Avtar calls it).

The modern calculations show that the value of cosmological constant doesn't allow the universe to fall back into a big crunch - the universe will forever expand into an icy death. This thought of the universe expanding forever is a very discomforting one for philosophers but that doesn't make it any less false. Scientists are beginning to comprehend this and there is a huge scientific consensus towards this possibility in the recent years.

I strongly suggest that people take into account the elusive vaccum energy as Dr. Avtar suggests before starting to formulate theories with out taking into account the cutting edge discoveries in modern physcis. The ignorance of the insights of modern science is impalpable and shows when people want to stick to the rigid idea of a cyclical universe.

anbu
love is shiva

People identify spiritual masters with a particular body and say that they have exhausted all their karma.

But masters themselves identify with the universe as a whole or with Unified Force of Love and say with Rumi that they did not began with this body nor will end with this body, but began right from the beginning with clay and passing through minerals, plants, animals, man, angels will finally end in God. That it is only then that their karma will stand exhausted and they fully liberated.

It is in this sense that I feel and say that spiritual masters karma are not exhausted. I felt the same even when I wrote the like paragraph in my book being quoted again:

"Yesterday we were animals; a day before, plants; a couple of days before, minerals; prior to that, Mosc. Tomorrow we shall be supermen; a day after, almost unrecognizable but as superior to man as man is now superior to animals; and then, after a long time, first constantly decreasing corporally but increasing cerebrally, then even decreasing cerebrally and changing perhaps to lumps of pure light or intelligence, we shall merge indistinguishably again into Mosc."

In this paragraph I go beyond even angels and end up rather in some far-off star, which really represents the end and new beginning of the universe as science someday will come to know.

Harb

Dear DK, I feel that there should remain nothing hidden and hence no hidden variable when whole universal scheme of evolution is seen in terms of four basic interactions.

Just as matter and anti-matter annihilate themselves and produce electromagnetic energy at ELECTROMAGNETIC INTERACTIONS LEVEL, similarly, matter and virtual matter annihilate themselves and produce radioactive energy in the form of beta or radioactive decay at WEAK INTERACTIONS LEVEL. Any scientist here would know that beta decay is a form of weak interactions and emit neutrinos - carriers of weak interactions - among other particles.

Only problem with science as of now is that it cannot do anything with virtual particles, just as prior to Dirac, it could not do anything with anti-matter.

Anyway, now reverting to Richard and Avtar's discussion, radioactive decay is not random but a part of pre-determined (of going through four basic interactions)evolutionary process.

Boham's hidden variables can be none else than the entanglement of Unified Force into virtual particles in virtual realm in a special way, and then their manifestation at our usual quantum/physical level and beyond.

So long as there is something random God will be playing dice and Relativity theory cannot be said to be complete. The absence of randomness in the above way though does not take away the phenomenon of spiritual realm - Avtar's so-called Consciousness - underpinning everything. Only it may not be that spontaneous. Big Crunch may just be like a slow wimper.

Harb

#144 Harb
"Big Crunch may just be like a slow wimper."

The value of cosmological constant as calculated in the recent years is not sufficient enough that would result in a big crunch.

"The modern calculations show that the value of cosmological constant doesn't allow the universe to fall back into a big crunch - the universe will forever expand into an icy death. This thought of the universe expanding forever is a very discomforting one for philosophers but that doesn't make it any less false. Scientists are beginning to comprehend this and there is a huge scientific consensus towards this possibility in the recent years." anbu #138

Deepak Chopra agrees with the possibility of the Universe expanding forever. He knows his science.

Hi dude,

A pebble thrown in a sea will create a wave in it. Even though it will merge with the sea somewhere, theoretically or mathematically it will expand to infinity but will not exactly merge with the sea.

Similarly, now contract this wave, theoretically you will find it contracting infinitely.

In the same way the universe will seem to be expanding infinitely yet from within this expansion it will begin to contract, and will then seem to be contracting infinitely yet from within this contraction it will begin to expand with Big Bang.

Not for nothing, one of the greatest thinkers of the last century, Emerson said, "Everything in nature is in cycles."

Of course, Deepak knows his science better. Otherwise he too will be unemployed like me lol.

Dear Harb,
Sir, Re #137. I did not respond to your correction of the message #s because I did not make a mistake. I referred to #54 and not #50, please check. I did not want to make a big deal out of it to make the message brief.
I did not make a distinction between dear Harb and Harb, I tend to forget to write dear sometimes, you can verify that from my other posts. There, I addressed you dear in #113! In #126 why did you say Heath and not Dear Heath, are you mad at her?

This is from #101.
"PS: Karma are like water flowing from higher level to lower level. None, no body can escape them. If it was possible for spiritual masters, our friend Rumi would not talk of becoming angel after man. It means karma are passing right through since he began from minerals and right up to man and beyond. If his were exhausted what was the need for him to become an angel? And what will be the need for him to some day become mineral again??
What does "None, no body can escape them." mean other than that there is no liberation from karma?
Also please carefully read in #137 your own sentence "Then you go on attributing to me that I do not believe in liberation from karma, while what all I say is that we are never fully liberated". If you think that we are never fully liberated, how can one conclude that you believe in liberation?

Now you are pointing out that Krishna was not the author but Vyasa was. I admit that it is a mistake. However it not relevant to our subject of discussion, enlightenment and karma. Well you have said that too. Anyway, you made it clear that you don't care for what Gita says because you are more evolved than Vyasa. In that case, I have nothing more to argue with you. I hold on to my point of view and you to yours. There is the end of the argument.
About whether there is God that people imagine as a person: I do not look down upon them. Consciousness does not have a body or mind but the point is that it is conscious, it knows, it understands, it is not like a rock. As regards mind, it cannot think of anything without a form and the most conscious forms that the mind is aware of are human beings. So, mind imagines Consciousness as God but Consciousness does not object to it because it is full of Love and Mercy. It equally accepts all ways of addressing it by the mind. That is why in Hinduism, various forms of God include animals and even trees. Hinduism is not foolish to think that God is a plant or an animal or a human being. By describing God in all those forms it conveys that all forms are manifestations of God and no matter in what form Consciousness is addressed, it accepts and responds.

Dear Syamala, I too don't want to make a big deal of it but below are the relevant lines from your post 60 in which you have attributed post 50 of prams to me:
****
Ego does make decisions; for example, in #50, you yourself have asked scientists to make a choice: not to destroy the tiny blades of your grass but to put compassion into robots...
*****

Yes, you are right regarding Dear Harb. I just wrote in a lighter vein.

If Rumi had exhausted his karma why would he become an other individuality in angels which he will become according to his poem? Also read my post 143.

When I have understood that it ALL is my play of going from bondage to freedom to bondage... I am more comfortable playing the spectator-actor in it than believing or seeking freedom/liberation.

Fine for me to end the argument which is to be straight-jacketed by any book.

I do not deny God in all forms, even in rocks though you seem to stop sort of it, and it is because of this that I say that it is also in us and that we pray to "it" rather than to any outside agency. Finally everything is within. One can even go beyond praying since praying represents duality while a bit beyond is non-duality. You just BE and do your work and it will be done to your best benefit.

All said, Syamala, I am sorry I have to reply to your points in the same vein otherwise I have no ill-will against you. Enjoy yourself I wish you all the best. At the end what gives you happiness is right for you even if it may not be right for me or others. All are on the line of this almost endless story, some a bit ahead some others a bit behind, and even nobody knows if those who are thought to be behind are not really ahead lol. Like everybody else I am beating my dhol, may be sometimes it gives a bit louder sound than others, and even that may be because it has the habit of suddenly going silent. Seems it is coming near to this point.

Dear Innocentvictim/Thangaraj/Keith/ Skeptisch/Heath/Syamala:

Dear Heath/Thangaraj:

#75: My intuitive explanation was that mind is more than an individual biological entity, that it participates directly and sensibly in the unity that underlies the universe.
How does a view of mind as limited and imprisoned explain such phenomena?

The powering energy or the spontaneity of the mind comes from the universal consciousness, which is freed when the fixations or afflictions of the mind are removed. Because of this consciousness within the confinements of the mind, the mind as it opens up can comprehend the universe.

A PERSPECTIVE ON SCIENCE vs. PHILOSOPHY vs. SPIRITUALITY:

They look and feel apart so long as they are lost in the fragmented realities of the material world as perceived in fixed space and time. But at the deepest level wherein they represent the ONE WHOLESOME ETERNAL TRUTH, when they are not constrained by the very choice of the chooser to limit them to the measurable inanimate realities ignoring what occurs or may be happening below Planck's scale or beyond the observable universe. Your debate on both sides' arguments is premature, incomplete, and will be conflicting until a unity at the deepest level is seen and realized beyond the measurable or manifested universe. My book - The Hidden Factor is a serious attempt to achieve just that. Realities are many, always evolving and hence, diverging, but TRUTH is One (Einstein's fully dilated space/time, consciousness, zero-point energy, free will etc.) . It is in TRUTH that they all merge and loose their individual identity

Let us not forget that when scientist completes his/her doctorate degree he/she is awarded a Ph.D. or Doctorate in Philosophy. There are more Ph.D.'s in science today than even philosophy itself. When I completed my doctorate in engineering at MIT, I had a choice to choose my awarded degree as Ph.D. or Sc.D. (Doctor of Science). Theur equivalence is well established in the scientific and academic world.

#122: I absolutely agree with Dennett's view of consciousness, but I also believe there are aspects of consciousness that are beyond the individual, that are non-local.
The biological consciousness generated by the firing of the neurons in the brain is local, the free will o the other hand is the universal consciousness representing the zero-point energy, fully dilated space/time, is non-local.

Love
Avtar

Dear Syamala:

#80: " What is the difference between spontaneity that you talk about in your papers and randomness?

Did Guru Nanak talk about reincarnation?

Spontaneity is just commonly accepted scientific term for what I call the inherent universal consciousness or free will. I use it alternatively in my scientific papers or book to communicate with the scientific audiences.

Guru Nanak talks about reincarnation or cycles of birth/death only applying to those Manmukhs (Slaves of the mind or ego) who are under the influence of the Ego. The awakened ones who have dissolved the ego are liberated from reincarnation; hence, reincarnation is a curse of the ego and not a blessing. The purpose of life is to get liberation from the cycles of birt/death.

#86: What does it mean to unify science and spirituality? Does one have to prove by logic or experiments that Consciousness, Love, God, or Whatever exists and creates and actively participates in evolving the universe? Is not the universe around us an infinite reality? Can any one or a few of us create such infinite reality?Do we want to prove by scientific reasoning that this infinite reality is not Truth but only an illusion? Are science and spirituality at odds if we cannot do so? Is it not enough if science explains parts of this infinite reality one piece at a time? Can we explain in our own words of even English, what spiritual Masters have experienced without experiencing the same? Then why try to explain their experience using the language of science which is much more limited?

The language of science or mathematics is the only language thru which one can communicate with others in universal terms. All other languages or communication methods are subjective. Each religion, sect, priest, Sant etc have their own version of what is spirituality. How does one decide who is right? That is where science comes in.

However, the language of the mainstream science is limited to inanimate matter, and hence, incomplete and fragmented. Once, we remove this deficiency via integrating consciousness and dissolve differences in theories and observations, it unites many conflicting realities into One Truth; that is what I have tried to achieve via Holistic Relativity of GNM in my book and papers.

#99: On the other hand, Consciousness is NOT subject to any laws including the law of Karma and it has NO death. Free will is to be free from all laws and Consciousness is Free Will.

Agree. In fact, the universal laws, Nanak's Hukum, are the Free Will itself as they exist at their own free will eternally and omni presently in the universe.

Love
Avtar

Dear Keith:

#81:
"Do you agree with the idea of implicate order whereby
there are no random events, mishaps, mistakes or accidents?"

Yes. Nanak's Hukum is the Implicate Order.

"Do you agree that the Universe is perfect, whole and complete
and that all the existing creatures, flora and fauna
consist of matter and energy variously arranged?"

Yes.

"Apocalypse...metaphor for a psychic event or a physical forecast?
Do you believe in different states or planes of consciousness?
Do you think that unexplained phenomena only occur in the astral planes?
How do you interpret lucid dreams that have meaning
and relevancy in one's daily life of mundane activity?
How do you feel about the legitimacy of prophesy
and where lies the event horizon in relation to
the zero-point energy field?
Does the Earth and it's inhabitants need saving
from any forthcoming global disaster? I mean...
if we are immortal souls what does it matter where we exist?"

Just awaken to the ultimate reality of the Oneness or consciousness via dissolving the mind that raises these questions. The answer lies in the dissolution of the mind, since these questions and any possible answers will evolve and change with time. It is like chasing wild geese. The essence of the wisdom of the spiritual masters is to awaken to the needle and not get lost in the haystack of the ever diverging questions and answers of the mind or ego.

Only a good politician seems to think that he/she has answers to these questions.

Love
Avtar

Dear Heath:

#83: "Perhaps free will is also relative."

All relativity ends in the free will or consciousness. The mistakenly characterization of the so-called desires of the ego as Free Will leads to the confusion you are facing.

Love
Avtar

Dear Thangaraj:

#87:"Unifying Science and Spirituality is not to accept pseudo-science and not to abuse science. If this unification implies that science is a subset of spirituality, fine. Science is the practical end and our outward reach. Spirituality is our inner bliss. In unification, philosophy is the bridge for our existential quest."

Please see my responses above. Thanks

Love
Avtar

Dear Avtar,

Thank you for responding.

I addressed you in the next glossary that has yet to set sail.

If we should all be out in Nature dissolving our minds,

what keeps us coming back here to discuss and cuss

the physical world of pain and suffering?

Maybe we have been to that last door on the highest level

and we chose to come back here out of mercy and compassion

for our loved ones who have yet to see the light.

I'm not losing my mind fast enough.

Will the driver please speed up and put your hands back on the wheel.

Losing control while safe and sound...

I want That! Keith~

For those engaged in the debate on how to unify science and spirituality, below is an essay I wrote earlier:

An Approach to Bridging Science & Spirituality

Avtar Singh, Sc. D.
avsingh@alum.mit.edu

The ongoing debate between science and religion or spirituality over the past few centuries has been led by the basic differences in the methods of science and religion to perceive reality. Science has searched for the ultimate reality by fragmenting the observed reality into pieces or tiny particles of matter. Religion, on the other hand, has ignored scientific observations and relied on faith to propagate the concept of a creator – the God. Science has ignored the inherent spontaneity/consciousness in nature, while religion has ignored the actual observations of the universe.

What is often ignored, however, is the fact that the differences or conflicts between science and religion are nothing but the brainchildren of the inherent deficiencies and inconsistencies within their individual domains. Science fragments reality into pieces, and is unable to put it back together because it looses the glue that seamlessly unites the pieces. Religion covers the reality under the rug of faith, wherein the doubts remain hidden and unresolved. Experiment is the religion of science and faith is the science of religion. Neither the experiment nor the faith is complete in providing the wholesome realization of the universal truth. Each experiment is a blind man’s touch of the elephant of reality and each faith is a tainted image of the truth in its own colored mirror. Unless both the experiment and faith transcend into the direct experience or realization (spirituality) of the truth, the incompleteness, inconsistency, and the ensuing conflict between science and religion will remain.

Modern science, especially cosmology, is paralyzed with unresolved paradoxes (quantum gravity, dark matter, dark energy, and evolution of the universe etc.) and singularities (Big Bang, black holes etc.). The flagship theories of science namely Newtonian theory, relativity theory, and quantum mechanics suffer from unresolved inconsistencies among them that prohibit a generic representation of the observed universe behavior. These theories may explain results of individual experiments, but fail to predict observations at universe scale. Such failures raise doubts if these theories represent the universal laws accurately and completely. Similarly, religion is paralyzed by multiplicity of traditions and beliefs of different sects and ideologies. Even within a given religion, there may exist several sects each with their own sets of interpretations of God, truth, reality, and morals. The tragedy is that such differences have not been subtle and have led to widespread violence, suffering and death. If science and religion are fragmented and conflicting within their own domains, how can one expect them not to conflict with each other? How can they achieve reconciliation? It is important to realize that unless the internal conflicts and inconsistencies within science and religion are eliminated, a bridge between the two cannot be built.

The good news is that there is a common cause paralyzing both science and religion, and it is within our reach to eliminate this cause. This root cause is the ignorance of the inherent consciousness or spontaneity in the universe by both science and religion. The approach that is proposed herein is an enhanced scientific model that integrates consciousness into the current theories of science to address issues dividing science and religion, especially the question of what constitutes the ultimate or universal reality. Devoid of consciousness, the conventional science of today can reveal only relative reality constrained by the limits of the scientific method and not the ultimate universal reality because of the following reasons:

1. Limitations of experiments

Scientific method is designed or biased to reveal only the material reality that can be measured by experiments. Since all scientific experimental setup and instrumentation is situated in the classical fixed space and time, it can measure what is manifested in fixed space and time only, which excludes consciousness.

“Experiment is the religion of science, just as the faith is the science of religion.”

2. Ignorance of reality in any other form than matter

What cannot be observed or measured by experiments is not considered to be a physical reality. For example, pure energy is considered to be a philosophical entity unless it can be associated with a particle of matter. If a particle decays to become pure energy that cannot be represented by some other particles, such a hypothesis is not allowed as a valid physical assumption.

“What is god to a theist, particle is to a physicist. If it cannot be represented as a particle, it cannot be accepted as a scientific reality.”

3. Ignorance of consciousness or spontaneity in nature

Science consciously ignores spontaneity or consciousness in nature as observed in well-known physical phenomena such as the spontaneity of the universal laws, wave-particle duality, spontaneous decay of particles, spontaneous motion in the universe – its birth, evolution, and acceleration etc. Although motion is the key phenomenon investigated by scientific theories, science has yet to explain the origin of the spontaneous motion. The inanimate matter addressed by the scientific theories is incapable of originating a spontaneous motion or change on its own. The physics of spontaneity is missing from the well-established theories.

“There is no ghost but a host (the energy of the empty space) in the atom, which is not just a bunch of probability functions collapsed by a conscious scientific observer.”

“Spontaneity or consciousness is a physical phenomenon and not an epiphenomenon born of matter or brain.”

4. Fragmentation destroys the wholesomeness

Science fragments the reality into pieces in order to describe the building blocks of material reality. During this fragmentation process, it looses the glue that holds the individual pieces together as a wholesome physical entity. For example, a human being can only be described by science as a collection of its body parts made of material particles, such as atoms, molecules, genes, neurons, hands, legs, heart, and brain etc. Science is unable to describe what constitutes mind, emotions, thoughts, and the purpose of being.

“All physical entities are not reducible or divisible to fundamental particles.”

“Gravity may be (??) reducible to gravitons, but consciousness is not reducible to neurons.”

5. Scientific reality is evolutionary and diverging

The conventional science deals with material reality without any consciousness or free will. Since time and evolution are inherent properties of matter, material reality also evolves in time. So long as the theories of science are predominantly concerned with matter alone, they will keep evolving, changing and hence diverging. Newtonian theory that revolutionized science in its early renaissance was superceded by relativity theory and quantum mechanics and so on. Then, is the theory of everything just a pipe dream? Unless the theories of science integrate consciousness, which is a well-observed physical phenomenon in nature and the universe, a time-invariant theory of everything is not possible to be achieved.

Is the “Road to Reality” traveled by the conventional science a road to nowhere? The failure of modern science to reveal the ultimate reality is evidenced by the fact that so far the collective knowledge of science has uncovered only 4% of the universe in the form of visible matter. Rest is unexplained and mysterious dark matter and/or dark energy. Also well known are the irresolvable paradoxes and inconsistencies that persist among the well-accepted theories of science such as general relativity, quantum mechanics, and Newtonian theory.

Approach to Resolve Paradoxes and Unify Science and Spirituality

The questions and paradoxes of science described above are shown [1,2,3] to be caused by the missing physics of spontaneity or consciousness observed in natural phenomena, such as the spontaneous motion or acceleration of the universe, wave-particle duality, consciousness of the human mind, and conscious observations of scientific experiments. An integrated model is proposed in references [1], [2], and [3], which combines observed spontaneity with a simplified model of general relativity, which is shown to provide resolution to many of the questions and paradoxes. The model demonstrates that a common set of universal laws govern the behavior of the matter, mind and consciousness. Consciousness or the spontaneity in nature is shown to be a physical phenomenon and not an epiphenomenon. Its existence is a physical reality and not a metaphysical myth that can be excluded from a rigorous scientific theory. It also demonstrates that the existing paradoxes of the modern science and cosmology leading to an apparent absence of purpose in the universe are artifacts, rather than universal realities, of the missing physics of spontaneity in the modern scientific theories.

The integrated approach, referred to as Scienciousness, also closes the gap between science and religion or spirituality. The integration of consciousness into the physical laws of matter shatters the barriers dividing science and religion, and leads to a natural transcendence between their apparently opposing aspects such as evolution (time) and eternity, survival and revival, chaos and order, and meaninglessness and purpose in the universe. The integrated model demonstrates the inherent purpose and meaning via the prevailing eternity, omnipresence, wholeness, certainty and order in the universe. It confirms that the universe is not born out of nothing and it is not merely going to disappear into oblivion, and that the universe is a cosmos with order and not chaos. The model also unfolds the following universal realities and their apparent purposes:

• The purpose of the material or manifested universe is to provide an objective evidence to human beings to search for and find the un-manifested, eternal, and omnipresent universal truth, referred to as God, love, or consciousness.
• The purpose of human being is that thru it the eternity and truth want to be realized or manifested.
• Relativity, and not uncertainty, rules the universe, which represents relatedness, connectivity, and non-locality with no censorship or playing of the dice from God.
• Simplicity and beauty, and not complexity and confusion, love and not jealousy, are the dominant characteristics of the universe for human beings to enjoy and cherish.
• Time and evolution are relative realities of matter only. Since matter is a small fraction of the total mass-energy of the universe, the universe as a whole has no time, beginning, or ending. The clock ticks in the domain of matter only.
• There is only one single whole universe, which encompasses multiple sub-universes representing various relativistic (matter-energy-space-time) states of the one whole, eternal, and omnipresent Zero-point energy, commonly referred to as God, love, truth, or consciousness.
• What exists now always existed in the past and will exist in future. Nothing can come out of nothing without violating the laws of conservation. Nothing never existed, nor will ever exist.

In summary, science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind, and without consciousness they are both paralyzed.

References:

[1] A. Singh, The Hidden Factor: An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, Cosmology and Universal Reality, AuthorHouse, 2003.
[2] A. Singh, A New Theory of Spontaneous Decay Resolves Paradoxes of General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and Cosmology, The XXII Texas Symposium on Relativistic Astrophysics, Stanford University, CA, December 13-17, 2004.
[3] A. Singh, In Search of the Universal Reality and Purpose – A Scientific Investigation, presented at ‘Science and Religion: Global Perspectives’, June 4-8, 2005, in Philadelphia, PA, USA, a program of the Metanexus Institute (www.metanexus.net).

Love
Avtar