Should a Taoist Forum focus primarily on Taoism?

[~jK~]

I would more say put out of reach, into unconscious potentiality.

Yes, my Mother is a PHD as well. I also experienced spontaneous meditation as a young child and experienced the first few jhanas spontaneously as a kid. My first movements were hatha yoga body postures, due to the fact that my mother would do hatha yoga pregnant with me, and these were the strongest and most deep impressions on my psyche so they were my first movements as a baby. Pretty cool, eh? So, get your wives to do yoga when they are pregnant, because it's very peaceful and releases very good energy into the womb.

Interesting - no such thing as yoga where I was born - a little town between Hickory & Asville, N.C. Town had more cows than people - come to think about it ~there were more pigs too.

Did you ever notice that there are no flowers in the cow pasture? It's their favorite food. I became famous for talking to cows... All I did was put a few honey suckle flowers in my shirt pocket. It was an interesting childhood. I think the clouds were what taught me to meditate - that and the clean air.

When I left to go to the U, The first roommate I had would meditate - I asked him what he was doing, he told me, I asked him to teach me and he told me to wait for his brother to come back from India in a few weeks... I spent 6 years total - learning mainly the Savasana.

[Marblehead]

Energy can be spontaneously created and destroyed in minute quantum time periods as long as the energy debt is repaid quickly.

 

May I suggest that it moves from point A to point B in a manner that is yet unobservable to man and his instruments of measure? But it is never really created or destroyed?

 

Be well!

 

 

Sorry to perpetuate off-topic-ness, but I'm on a bit of a crusade to right the wrongs of popular science writing.

...

 

Hi Creation,

 

Thanks for the post and the info.

 

Be well!

[Creation]

By the way, I should warn everyone that my views about modern physics are not a majority view among actual theoretical physicists. Most physicists would tell you that vacuum fluctuations are real, period. And that modern cosmological/astrophysical models are basically correct, with only a few kinks to be worked out when quantum gravity comes along.

 

OTOH, there are string theorists who will dismiss a new theory because it only has 3 spatial dimensions and no supersymmetry. Experiment being so far behind theory for so long will do that. Look at the Greeks... Oh the irony.

[Marblehead]

Back to the original question.

 

... and besides, it there were no Buddhists here I would have very few people to disagree with. Now that wouldn't be much fun, would it?

 

Be well!

[~jK~]

Back to the original question.

 

... and besides, it there were no Buddhists here I would have very few people to disagree with. Now that wouldn't be much fun, would it?

 

Be well!

 

The Physics question s interesting in a different perspective as well as the original.

It illustrates how a topic can devolve into a subject totally unrelated to the intended.

Answering the original - must include the deviation as well as adherence to original ?

Extremes?

Boredom?

Neither?

All of the above?

Initial topics seem to go through an evolutionary stage and then a devolutionary stage as a point of developing.

 

We are born, grow up, reach our peak, then begin to decline until death.

This is nature of all.

 

One enemy is extremes of cancers trying to take root in an effort to devolve a topic before it goes to full term.

It would be wrong to eliminate a topic because of the method one abusive poster uses.

Although - it would be to the point to eliminate the abusive nature.

 

Quite possibly the original intent of the abusive one.

 

Is to eliminate Buddhism.

 

The root of Evil ?

Maybe Yes.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9002284641446868316

Edited August 22, 2009 by ~jK~

[Vajrahridaya]

LOL! The God delusion, eh?

[Marblehead]

I think I will withold any comments on this one.

 

Be well!

[Sunya]

I think I will withold any comments on this one.

 

Be well!

 

I just wanted to say that I read your post.

 

 

 

[Pietro]

I just wanted to say that I read your post.

I acknowledge that you read Sensei!'s post.

[Mal]

what happened to the heated discussion? Come on fight!

 

[Marblehead]

what happened to the heated discussion? Come on fight!

 

 

Chuang Tzu said that if you are not contentious no one can contend with you.

 

Be well!

[Ya Mu]

Sorry to perpetuate off-topic-ness, but I'm on a bit of a crusade to right the wrongs of popular science writing.

 

About mass being created and destroyed on small time scales: These "zero-point" fluctuations are not observable. They were first hypothesized held to "exist" because of the great confusion that is the philosophical and mathematical foundations of quantum physics, and are thought to be "proven" because assuming they exist predicts the (experimentally verified) Casmir effect and accurately describes certain properties of electron orbits that quantum theory without the fluctuations cannot account for. Now these effects can be predicted with other models that don't have these unobservable fluctuations (fluctuation-dissipation theorem). So their "existence" is dubious.

 

About black holes: A black hole is a region of spacetime from which a massive particle cannot escape. That doesn't mean it is a "void". It's just that something inside is cut off from communicating with the world outside. But life can go on inside just fine. Now, such an object develops a "singularity" in its gravitational field (proved by Roger Penrose, I believe). Hawking reversed this argument and said any universe with enough mass had to have a singularity at its beginning (big bang). (This is the first thing that Hawking got attention for.) These are mathematical consequences of general relativity. Now, is the way that GR models things applicable to these scales? No. Has anyone ever observed a black hole and seen if anyone's theories about them are correct? No. There are just distant objects that, given their observed properties, GR predicts should be black holes. Has anyone solved the equations of GR for a realistic configuration of mass falling into a realistic model of a black hole (i.e. not modeling both by points)? No. So most of the stuff about black holes, white holes, big bangs, universes branching off of each other, etc. is pure speculation.

Hmmm... I was under the impression that Hawking radiation has never been experimentally observed. I mean, how could you observe it? Hawking once lamented that it was too bad it is near-impossible to observe, because if someone observed it he would definitely get a Nobel prize. Actually, since Hawking proved a singularity theorem (see above) I think you are a bit mixed up.

 

Anyone who is interested in a comprehensive look at modern physics that does not confuse what is proven with what is currently fashionable to speculate about, check out Roger Penrose's The Road to Reality http://www.amazon.com/Road-Reality-Complet...7517&sr=8-1.

 

You truly have a gift of insight into physics and explain these things better than my undergraduate physics and graduate quantum mechanics profs. Have you ever considered that you would make a damn good college physics/graduate level quantum mechanics teacher?

[Marblehead]

You truly have a gift of insight into physics and explain these things better than my undergraduate physics and graduate quantum mechanics profs. Have you ever considered that you would make a damn good college physics/graduate level quantum mechanics teacher?

 

Hi Ya Mu,

 

If you are interested, Wayne L Wang has published his own translation of the TTC that "... bringing to light the relationship to modern physics from Einstein to Hawking, revealing a most accurate, consistent and vivid description of Tao philosophy."

 

Info can be found here: http://www.dynamictao.com/project_dynamictao.html

 

Be well!

Edited August 23, 2009 by Marblehead

[Ya Mu]

Hi Ya Mu,

 

If you are interested, Wayne L Wang has published his own translation of the TTC that "... bringing to light the relationship to modern physics from Einstein to Hawking, revealing a most accurate, consistent and vivid description of Tao philosophy."

 

Info can be found here: http://www.dynamictao.com/project_dynamictao.html

 

Be well!

 

Thanks,

There was a time when I would have been keen on looking at this. But for many years now I have enjoyed my own personal explorations into the quantum more than reading someone else's views.

[Creation]

You truly have a gift of insight into physics and explain these things better than my undergraduate physics and graduate quantum mechanics profs. Have you ever considered that you would make a damn good college physics/graduate level quantum mechanics teacher?

Thanks. I do have a large dose of the Teacher in my personality. But as you know, mastering the raging demon that is my mind comes before undertaking the schooling I would need to become a professor.

[Sunya]

Creation, and others here. you will find this interesting

 

From Universe to Multiverse. Are You Ready? (Dr. Michio Kaku)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rg3uNrI8tE

 

Parallel universes, black holes, and big bangs are mentioned.. in response to a question about how the idea of Multiverses rewrites theology and God, the theoretical physicist mentions Buddhism which is interesting. very good talk.

Edited August 23, 2009 by mikaelz

[Wayfarer64]

No, but you certainly talk some truly ignorant bullshit.

This comment right here, is enough for me to call you out, and say that you are a liar when you say you have talked to monks the world over. If you spoke even just to 1 monk in each of the places you referred to, you would have a basic understanding of why the precepts are what they are. Saying that they are childish, just shows that you are too weak to be able to follow some, maybe any, of them.

You do realize that with your posts in this thread, you are now one of those inconsiderate ones you like to use ignore on? Pot meet kettle, etc.

 

Try disagreeing, without being disagreeable.

 

 

Is it not obvious that I wrote what I did just to get a rise out of the Buddhists who have intruded so rudely ?- I meant to offend and show dis-respect and a will to challange you guys as if you are an invading army. This thread has a purpose - that of challanging the Buddhist hijacking of this site...My agenda is to show yr weaknesses by pissing you off and letting yr anger display the lack of calm that I read in the on-going attempts to change this site to suit yr needs.

 

My experiences stand- I do not take most Buddhists seriously- they act badly. The few I know well are as hypocritical as any hate-filled born-again Christian I've debated with over the years...

 

I mean to be as dis-agreeable as possible -within the limits of discourse here. You are behaving like enemies and will be treated as such by me... We have had many Buddhists who behave well and with respect for the nature of each thread -without pushing their Buddhism in an unwarranted fashion...

 

I will toss any verbal bomb I can think of in yr general direction as long as this attempt to hijack this site continues.

 

I had more to say about conduct in general- but I've had enough for now-

 

Stay awake out there -

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

That's awesome!!

[Creation]

Creation, and others here. you will find this interesting

 

From Universe to Multiverse. Are You Ready? (Dr. Michio Kaku)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rg3uNrI8tE

 

Parallel universes, black holes, and big bangs are mentioned.. in response to a question about how the idea of Multiverses rewrites theology and God, the theoretical physicist mentions Buddhism which is interesting. very good talk.

That brings back memories. That video prompted my first cynical rant about physics on taobums.

http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?s=&amp...ost&p=96018

 

 

 

And Mal, that graphic is brilliant.

[Pietro]

In this day and age there are plenty of people who put their lessons online. There are whole courses being dumped online. Some of the best ever.

SO I would like to know, leaving aside (for now, we recover them later) anyone who is giving us any alternative view, has anyone spotted some really good quantum physics courses online.

 

And I mean real courses. The ones done by students of physics as the prepare for the exams. With the equations and everything else.

 

Pietro

[nac]

May I suggest that it moves from point A to point B in a manner that is yet unobservable to man and his instruments of measure? But it is never really created or destroyed?

How do you know that? Anything's possible, but I honestly doubt that's true. Modern physicists don't believe in conservation of energy as an absolute law anymore. At least, not without a huge mountain of exceptions. Also, there's no such thing as absolute truth and objectiveness in the quantum level. There, the observer and the observed tend to merge into a seamless continuum of the observation phenomenon.

Edited August 24, 2009 by nac

[Marblehead]

How do you know that?

 

I never said I know. I only offered a suggestion of an alternative thought.

 

Anything's possible,

 

I totally agree. But not at every individual moment in time. Changes allow for the impossibles of today to become possibles of tomorrow, or not.

 

Modern physicists don't believe in conservation of energy as an absolute law anymore.

 

I think that is is an incorrect statement. Maybe some don't - the majority still do. Just watched a program last night concerning this produced this year and the theory still stands very strong.

 

Also, there's no such thing as absolute truth and objectiveness in the quantum level.

 

Nor at any other lever of reality. It is my opinion that there are no absolutes nor truths except for the eternal processes of change. (And change negates all other inferred absolutes and truths.)

 

Be well!

[Wayfarer64]

I never said I know. I only offered a suggestion of an alternative thought.

 

 

 

I totally agree. But not at every individual moment in time. Changes allow for the impossibles of today to become possibles of tomorrow, or not.

I think that is is an incorrect statement. Maybe some don't - the majority still do. Just watched a program last night concerning this produced this year and the theory still stands very strong.

Nor at any other lever of reality. It is my opinion that there are no absolutes nor truths except for the eternal processes of change. (And change negates all other inferred absolutes and truths.)

 

Be well!

 

I've heard physisists generally agree that the only constant IS change...

[Marblehead]

I've heard physisists generally agree that the only constant IS change...

 

Yep. And then we (well, those of us who choose to) add the Taoist Philosophical concepts of reversion, and cycles.

 

Be well!

[Creation]

In this day and age there are plenty of people who put their lessons online. There are whole courses being dumped online. Some of the best ever.

SO I would like to know, leaving aside (for now, we recover them later) anyone who is giving us any alternative view, has anyone spotted some really good quantum physics courses online.

 

And I mean real courses. The ones done by students of physics as the prepare for the exams. With the equations and everything else.

 

Pietro

Unfortunately, I don't think the free online courses market is diversified enough to get a good (complete, video) course on advanced physics or mathematics yet. Let me know if you find anything.

 

Seriously though, check out the Road to Reality (make sure to get a hardcover). And throw in the Feynman Lectures for good measure. That will get you the mathematical and physical perspectives (resp) from two masters.

 

So much out there will focus on calculating eigenfunctions, etc. and I don't think that is what you are looking for. But if you are looking for a serious QM text, Introduction to Quantum Physics by French and Taylor is a good start, and if you are comfortable with the math already (functional analysis, etc.) try Shankar's Principles of Quantum Mechanics.

 

Like you said, "alternative viewpoints" and in-depth foundational studies can wait. Just don't let your mind be warped past the elastic limit (as Julian Schwinger would say).