Science finds the Tao

[JackSquat]

Edited October 12, 2008 by JackSquat

[.broken.]

You are by no means the first person to have thought along these lines, and nor shall you be the last.

 

The problem with spiritual experiences is that they are inconceivable to those that have not yet experienced them. Throughout the majority of history one can see attempts to theorise such mystical experiences - astral travel, telepathy, auras... Generally speaking, each uses the latest and most new fangled ideas, which have yet to be fully understood by the professionals, let alone the masses, to bring their experience into something that is conceivable... something logical.

 

People use what they know. Like you, I have a background in physics, mathematics, computing... and have come up with the same idea as well as other that are similar.

 

The only verification the spiritual aspirant can have is to experience such things for themselves. However, this is where the tides are turning - science is all about experiential results. Scientists have to see to think something is possible, and then see it again and again until the odds are against any remaining stuck-in-the-muds.

 

If the day comes where we can actually measure the existence of such energy, and there are no holes in the mathematical theory, then, my friend, I shall be right next to you with the biggest grins on our faces.

 

Yes, the existence of modern theories is exciting, and the possibilities are there. But currently I shall focus my energy on cultivating my body, mind and spirit.

 

Yours humbly,

James

[JackSquat]

You are absolutely right to caution against over-enthusiasm. It is all too true that poorly understood science is often pimped out by the philosophers and theologians and turned into something it is not. Think of this as my guilty pleasure.

 

I also believe as you do that realizations are always personal, that there are as many ways to approach the unspeakable truth as there are intelligent life forms. However, I think that we can and do fool ourselves with the utter vastness of experience into believing things that are convenient or apparent rather than accurate. As I have mentioned before on this forum, I believe it is all important for us to share our experiences with each other to see how they mesh with a larger view of reality than our own private perspective. Science, although pig-headed, slow-witted, untrustworthy, and superfluous, is one of the many ways in which we verify our collective sanity. It is by no means a replacement for cultivation, and if I unintentionally implied that I apologize.

 

What I was really wondering was if anyone had any opinions or specific reasons for believing either that science is still fumbling in the dark trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, or that we are finally approaching an understanding of the physical that supports the main points of spirituality. I feel that if science discovers spirituality of its own accord in its own peculiar way we will be miles closer to a planet that believes in the incomprehensible. If I read you correctly, .broken., you are hopeful but guarded. Personally, I am pretty convinced, but not so much that I couldn't be talked out of it.

 

Anyone else want to weigh in?

[agharta]

Moore's Law, if it only continues for 6-8 more years, is going to give us absolutely tremendous computing power. This would probably give us enough to test the predictions of string theory, and, if it doesn't work, keep immediately testing new theories until we find something that is true. It may be coming very, very soon as in the next 8-15 years. I don't know if there really is a "spirit" or "soul" aspect to existence that truly is permanently beyond prediction via math, but, assuming Moore's law continues to hold true, I'd say we'll know soon, maybe within the next 20 years. That's my guess on the time frame. Until then, I make no guesses about the absolute nature of the Universe (that I'd stake anything major on, )

[Guest artform]

Hi All

 

This is a copy of most of my post in a similar currently active thread.

 

<<<If Roger Penrose (The Emporer's New Mind and Shadows of the Mind) is right about the microtubules and quantum entanglement as yet another and the fastest pathway for the mind-brain, even into the timeless now, as seems to be being experimentally supported currently, then doesn't that open new doors?

 

My own experiential paths suggest that uncovering the techniques of mitochondrial group/masses communication is crucial and that they may also be microtubule sourced similarly; the reason being I'm inclined to think that chi may be a mitochondria-based physical pulsed phenomenon when we get right down to it. Mitochondria are our crucial energy converters, an originally independent life-form with complete communication capabilities as well as its own DNA, now fully integrated co-beings in the totality of us. The whole body mitochondrial hive-mind as an integral dimension of our sensory apparatus and hovering web of electrochemical/electromagnetic/quantum-entanglement mentality/consciousness: that is the working Artform Hypothesis.

 

What do you think and how?

 

artform>>>

[doc benway]

I also have a scientific background (chemistry, medicine). One of the greatest things I recall was first reading Bell's inequality in a Scientific American issue in the 70's. More recently, string theory (although I'll admit i have to read pop versions like Brian Greene - I don't have the math background to really read string stuff). I do think there are marvelous discoveries that allow science to continually refine an approximation of reality but the image is NEVER the thing. The word, thought, and concept apple have no taste. The word knife cannot cut. The word God is not God, it's just a visual and auditory representation of a set of conditioned responses that allows us to think we know God (or apple or knife). If I know what a knife is, I can choose not to stick it in my eye but I can never cut anything with the word.

 

Similarly, scientific representations of reality remain representations. The image is never reality. It may accurately represent reality to a certain degree but it is never the truth. Special and general relativity had people feeling the same way as did quantum theory in the early days. Even if string theory (or M theory or some other variant) results in a fully unified theory, it's still our finite capacity for thought representing reality in the form of an approximation.

 

All science is based on thought. Thoughts represent knowledge - memory of experience, comparing of experiences, and the projection of past experience into the future. Thoughts are basically our internal experience of time. There is past (memory), future (projection of memory), and present - awareness. The big question, it seems to me, is - what is it that is independent of time, that is, eternal? The ever present NOW moment, not the moment an instant ago that is already memory. The moment NOW that is awareness, consciousness if you will (but by consciousness I don't mean the content of consciousness, I mean the experience of the present instant). Now is reality. Our thoughts always pull us away form that.

 

There is something in the quality of experience, awareness, and being that transcends thought and time and therefore is outside the realm of science, IMO. I don't think I explain myself very well but I find it hard to put this in words. You can tell me why red is red and what makes it red but I will never understand red until I see it for myself. A blind person will never understand red. You can explain an orgasm to someone - every physiological and anatomical subtlety. You can write volumes about it and fill a library but unless you have one, you'll never have any idea of what the reality is.

 

A moment of being has still never been captured in an equation. We may be able to discuss an approximate representation or image of reality but not it's essence. Daoism and Buddhism is based on experience, not image. When I first started to study Daoist meditation I asked my teacher what translation of the Dao De Jing I should read. He told me to read nothing, just to sit.

 

An hour of Jing Zuo is worth a lifetime of reading in terms of understanding reality.

 

Just my limited view.

[.broken.]

You are absolutely right to caution against over-enthusiasm.

 

No, no. Not caution. Simply no more need for intellectual masturbation, my intellect glimpsed it's own demise and, as such, I just focus on practice. It's just my current situation - in time, I may return to theorising, or I may not...

 

Yours, in great appreciation,

James

[Ian]

What say you?

 

I think the main obstacle is that science tries to be objective, but reality is subjective.

[Stigweard]

I think the main obstacle is that science tries to be objective, but reality is subjective.

 

True it is ... however the mind has an amazing knack of being able to emesh itself in totally delusional realities. So the occasional healthy dose of impartial objectivity can be a wonderful salve.

[JackSquat]

The idea that science, by being logical and based on thought, is by definition out of touch with a subjective reality is something I struggled with as well. Eventually, it came to me in a fierce bout of intellectual masturbation that perhaps both approaches are equally valid.

 

It is my opinion that mathematics is the language of the universe. To quote Neitzsche, "Where force is, there becometh NUMBER the master: it hath more force." This does not, however, mean that reality is not subjective. In a way, science itself is subjective! Relativity and quantum mechanics are both based on the assumption that observed reality depends on the state of the observer.

 

If everything were absolutely subjective and contained no qualities that could be considered objective, where could "truth" or "meaning" reside? Do we create a universe of our own design every time we have a thought? Is existing as simple as dreaming? Personally, I think we come to this universe of solidity to learn a lesson in humility and enterprise, that the ability to interact fully with a reality other than your own private one can only be won by combining subjectivity and objectivity into one mode; perceiving what exists because it is part of the Tao rather than because we chose to perceive it, living in the now and yet still following the rules of whatever game you should find yourself playing. The enlightened must still be able to comprehend the plight of the unawakened in order to be useful.

 

Oh, and I agree that it may be very soon that we will be able to find a mathematically and theoretically compatible version of string theory/M theory. It will, of course, only be a representation and not the reality itself, but perhaps it will help guide those of us who are not yet fully awakened to a frame of mind that is more conducive to gaining understanding from our experiences rather than more self-delusion.

 

So, does reality have an objective component, and is science now approaching a representation of it?

[doc benway]

So, does reality have an objective component, and is science now approaching a representation of it?

In the sense that "objective" refers to "(adj.) undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena" then I would answer NO.

Reality does not have an objective component. The separation of subject and object is illusory and Heisenberg was correct. The observer influences the observation, they cannot be independent.

On the other hand, we are approaching a more comprehensive mathematical approximation of our observations. It's exciting but I don't think it'll change much (other than with respect to continuing exponential technological advancement).