Spiritual Forums

Home


Donate!


Articles


CHAT!


Shop


 
Welcome to Spiritual Forums!.

We created this community for people from all backgrounds to discuss Spiritual, Paranormal, Metaphysical, Philosophical, Supernatural, and Esoteric subjects. From Astral Projection to Zen, all topics are welcome. We hope you enjoy your visits.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to most discussions and articles. By joining our free community you will be able to post messages, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos, and gain access to our Chat Rooms, Registration is fast, simple, and free, so please, join our community today! !

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, check our FAQs before contacting support. Please read our forum rules, since they are enforced by our volunteer staff. This will help you avoid any infractions and issues.

Go Back   Spiritual Forums > Spirituality & Beliefs > Science & Spirituality

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 01-10-2016, 09:43 AM
Gem Gem is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 16,726
  Gem's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7luminaries
Scientists won't actually ever be able to apprehend dark energy and the dark matter associated with it, regardless of how they may ultimately measure or describe it. They won't ever divine "its" true nature unless they approach it with the "blind" sight of the mystical heart.

Peace & blessing
7L

I thing any physicist will tell you that dark matter/energy is only an mathematical description that accounts for the 'missing' mass/energy.

One day they will detect something, probably (that's a key word in particle detection), but physics is really only abstract descriptions, a sort of concise language that makes some sort of meaning of human experience. That's not really my view, but the widely accepted philosophical basis for scientific epistemology.
__________________
.
Check out my signature.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-10-2016, 07:52 PM
Kontufuto Kontufuto is offline
Experiencer
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: As of the moment: 3rd Dimension
Posts: 387
  Kontufuto's Avatar
Anyone vagely interested in this subject should go to the Starseeds.net site. There is a very high quality level of threads and discussions on this Simulation topic. And its varied with spiritual and scientific approaches filled with serious talk!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gem
I thing any physicist will tell you that dark matter/energy is only an mathematical description that accounts for the 'missing' mass/energy.

One day they will detect something, probably (that's a key word in particle detection), but physics is really only abstract descriptions, a sort of concise language that makes some sort of meaning of human experience. That's not really my view, but the widely accepted philosophical basis for scientific epistemology.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-10-2016, 08:21 PM
7luminaries 7luminaries is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,588
  7luminaries's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kontufuto
IMHO I strongly disagree with you 7luminaries. What you say makes absolutely no sense. To diss a profession who spends their life on facts and analysis and then to shovel it off is extremely careless and naive. To say that scientists won't ever figure it out is rather an extreme supposition on your part wouldn't you say? "Ever" is infinity. Though 50% is not 0% I trust their analysis over yours. I think you should apologize to the scientific community for your statement.

Hahahaha....LOL...first of all...let's all relax please...
This is not a scientific forum...it is a subforum of Spiritual Forums.

There's nothing wrong with science...the scientific method outlines a process for establishing basic benchmarks for our material world and those are important, even given all constraints and caveats and unavoidable biases.

But its scope is limited to the measurable material universe, broadly speaking, including indirect measurement (in some extremely limited way) the very small bits and all other non-measurable bits which are either observed or as yet are just theorised to have impact on the measurable universe in some way.

The enormous "remainder" of infinity and nonmateriality unlimited by time or space is largely outside the scope of measurable science, by definition.
That is neither right or wrong, good or bad. It simply means that all that is cannot be known or truly apprehended simply by that which can (even theoretically someday) be measured within our material universe. That's known as material reductionism, and the point is that material science based in a material reality (even the very small bits and particles) cannot apprehend that which lies beyond its scope.

Even that which is commonly known in the material sense cannot be fully apprehended or known from the material measurements at hand. For example, your brain in its mass and composition and function, etc. As opposed to its individuality and its unique spectrum of thought and memory and intention and emotion. Which is like no other. None of which can be found or located in any one dissected or measured or scanned piece of it. It's not simply because consciousness is non-local. It's also because sentience exists at every level and also because your individuated "collective" consciousness (what we think of as the self) both exists and interacts with sentience at every level of your physical being.

Measurement (of any kind) captures only the most superficial aspects of the actual quality and experience of your life, your being, and all that attend your existence.

The same goes for dark matter and dark energy. Mystics have experienced a great many things relating to what we divide up as dark matter and dark energy. But none of it is any more relevant to what these are than a CAT scan is to who you are and the individual quality and experience of you in this moment, or of what you are thinking and feeling.

Science is great...and greater precision and clarity in concept and expression are good things all round, and not only within scientific contexts.
But science is extremely limited and any honest discussion must recognise that -- at least in its present form. To the degree its scope is ultimately is defined by the measurable, physical universe -- well, then it may always be so. That remains to be seen, of course.

There's serious talk all round. But that's not "measured" simply by the degree to which we engage with the current paradigms.
As Einstein famously said (about problem solving)...well, you know what you he said

Peace & blessings,
7L
__________________
Bound by conventions, people tend to reach for what is easy.

Here we must be unafraid of what is difficult.

For all living beings in nature must unfold in their particular way

and become themselves despite all opposition.

-- Rainer Maria Rilke
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-10-2016, 08:36 PM
7luminaries 7luminaries is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,588
  7luminaries's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gem
I thing any physicist will tell you that dark matter/energy is only an mathematical description that accounts for the 'missing' mass/energy.

One day they will detect something, probably (that's a key word in particle detection), but physics is really only abstract descriptions, a sort of concise language that makes some sort of meaning of human experience. That's not really my view, but the widely accepted philosophical basis for scientific epistemology.

Agreed on all points.
Except that IMO, it's precisely BECAUSE physics is a sort of concise language that makes some sort of meaning of human experience that it's among the most important and far-reaching of the sciences.

Nonetheless...it too is ultimately limited in scope...and most physicists today will immediately agree -- even as many seek for ways in which they can free themselves of the need for material "measurement" or proof. As I see it, much of groundbreaking and theoretical physics ultimately yearns to be metaphysics, and this is purely in search of or in service to truth.

Because much of What Is and thus of truth cannot be measured materially in any sort of meaningful and substantive way. It can only be experienced, known, and apprehended.

Peace & blessings,
7L
__________________
Bound by conventions, people tend to reach for what is easy.

Here we must be unafraid of what is difficult.

For all living beings in nature must unfold in their particular way

and become themselves despite all opposition.

-- Rainer Maria Rilke
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-10-2016, 06:57 PM
Gem Gem is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 16,726
  Gem's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7luminaries
Agreed on all points.
Except that IMO, it's precisely BECAUSE physics is a sort of concise language that makes some sort of meaning of human experience that it's among the most important and far-reaching of the sciences.

Nonetheless...it too is ultimately limited in scope...and most physicists today will immediately agree -- even as many seek for ways in which they can free themselves of the need for material "measurement" or proof. As I see it, much of groundbreaking and theoretical physics ultimately yearns to be metaphysics, and this is purely in search of or in service to truth.

Because much of What Is and thus of truth cannot be measured materially in any sort of meaningful and substantive way. It can only be experienced, known, and apprehended.

Peace & blessings,
7L

I have philosophised much about symbolic representation of the real and considered how the function of the universe is necessarily the same as the function in perception. If we assume there is a universe which is perceived apart from the perception itself, we have assumed separation between 'the mind' and 'the universe'. I find that there is no rationale for mind to be other than the universe, and it seems to me that 'my' is the object between who perceives and what is perceived. The early psychoanalysts, particularly Lacan, wrote at great lengths about 'the other' and how it signifies the self. This contextualisation of self and other is a very deep fundamental for the symbolic. The real has no other because it quite simply is what is prior to any definition at all and the fundamental awareness of motion is not known. 'It' changes is knowable, because 'it' is other than change - 'it' is what changes, lending an artifact that endures change. 'It' is therefore other than change contextually, and context is symbolic, not real. 'It' is not realised, but actualised, which is to say, thought to be, which is why the notion is so pertinent to psychoanalysis. I don't know if I expressed this clearly, but what it implies is, what we identify as objects are 'its', and as such, are not objective in the sense that they are other than the perception of them, but manifest in the mind rather than perceived by it - i.e. 'it' is all thought.

The affect of 'it': the enduring, albeit abstract object, gives rise to the notion of the objective reality, where in fact, the perceived, identifiable object is contextualised by 'it', and the world of objects we know are not actual, but virtual. When 'it' is thought to be, there is no question of believing or not believing or willing it into existence. 'It' appears as it is thought - 'it' is not 'imagined into existence' whimsically, but thought to be in the sense that it is undoubtedly and unquestioningly believed: Simply true as the experience is validated by the experience itself.

From this, the very fact I see a chair convinces me completely that a chair is there. I know there is a chair there because I'm staring right at it. But is it 'real'? The chair is what seems like it is the substance that changes. As it does, it becomes less-chair, but this appearance of form which endures long enough to be indentified is embedded with the presumed 'it'.

"Symbolic represetation" in the sense I use it is 'meaningful' (different to an emblem, say, which is just a sort of iconography). Symbolism represents something other than itself within itself in order to contextualise itself as a complete symbol. Simple example: 'up' signifies 'down'. Up has no meaning in itself, so symbolism is never unitary, yet it is complete unto itself. Never unified, always opposed, but whole none-the-less. It emerges from the primal reality, which is ineffable, meaningless and unknowable (as knowledge). In this sense the real is embedded in the symbolic because up necessitates down. Meaning, therefore, isn't 'made up' but directly applicable to what is 'thought to be' (as I termed it). The meaning is dual, as the symbol is 'othered' within itself, but the symbol doesn't pertain to reality directly; it pertains to that more primal other 'it' - 'it', essentially is other than reality. Reality can not be symbolised, but becuase the actualised (manifest) is itself 'it' (that which changes which is other than change) the symbol up/down, for example, relates not the the reality, but the fundamental othering of it within in the immediacy of formal perception, or the actualisation itself - Or this most peculiar relationship between the ineffable real and the abstract 'it'. The latter defined against the undefinable.

Mathematics which is so effective at describing observable phenomena functions so well because it is extrapolated from not actualised forms, but from the relationships that together construct them. For example, we say "there are "2". We know one of the articles refered to isn't the other one. It doesn't matter what shape these articles are. "2" simply says, "this and that". It expresses the relationship which implies the form. Form is defined by describing the underlying context that constructs it. As I tried to explain, observable objects are 'actualised' by the contextualisation of 'it' - Math articulates context; math goes behind 'it' and talks about the abstract 'it' in context with an ineffable other. The ineffable party of this relationship is utterly unapproachable because hasn't any item to approach. 'It' is approachable because it is abstract. The context between them is a direct relation, but one which is not quantifiable. The real can not be defined by 'it' because 'it' never even existed. It seems to because 'it' is contextually real.

In this way, math isn't invented (though axioms are assumed) but involves the discovery of relationships which actually already exist in the immediacy of perception, and because the experience of things is 'thought to be' (as I put it), conceptually constructed objects are brought into being in precisely the same way, so when I say "the function of the universe is necessarily the same as the function in perception" I could equally say the function of form is the same as the function of the symbol.
__________________
.
Check out my signature.

Last edited by Gem : 05-10-2016 at 08:15 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-10-2016, 07:35 PM
7luminaries 7luminaries is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,588
  7luminaries's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gem
The reality of the experiece is then the coscious awareness if the motion and the codification of it and the conveyance of that symbolic representation. The symbol indicates the real.

philosophers of truth have acknowledged that when immediate subjectivity is described, as that description becomes more elaborate, the less accurate it becomes, but a map which is not the landscape in that is bears no subjective resemblance to the landscape, is still extraordinarily useful for navigating the landscape because it is a 'true statement' about it... it is a meaningful symbolic representation of the real - but looks nothing like it.

The imagination sees the landscape in the map.

The landscape is understood though the mapping of it

Agreed...science seeks to represent What Is in relationships or measurements of relationships which bear no direct resemblance to What Is.
And which never can, because symbols can never substitute for experience and reality.

They can only serve as reminders or pointers in the most finite and "measurable" or concretely symbolic sense, and all experience is only measurable or scientific in the same sense that the scientific paradigm can rigidly and explicitly guide and name and control it.

Still, it is a layer of truth, I agree.

Peace & blessings
7L
__________________
Bound by conventions, people tend to reach for what is easy.

Here we must be unafraid of what is difficult.

For all living beings in nature must unfold in their particular way

and become themselves despite all opposition.

-- Rainer Maria Rilke
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-10-2016, 10:09 PM
TarunP TarunP is offline
Pathfinder
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: India
Posts: 54
  TarunP's Avatar
This thing is taking on a new twist:

Tech billionaires convinced we live in the Matrix are secretly funding scientists to help break us out of it
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...-a7347526.html
__________________
Pure Experiences
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-10-2016, 02:06 AM
Gem Gem is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 16,726
  Gem's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7luminaries
Agreed...science seeks to represent What Is in relationships or measurements of relationships which bear no direct resemblance to What Is.
And which never can, because symbols can never substitute for experience and reality.

Yes, this is what mathematical language does fundamentally, it does not identify anything real, but rather, demonstrates within the mind the dimensional confines inherent to inter-related entities. As it turns out the mind is bound in relationship in the same way the universe limited by relativity. This is where relationship is the affect of any one 'thing' on other and both things inherit each others inter-determined qualities. In so saying, there is no 'one thing' because 'things' are essentially relative, and because they are relative, they are constrained in the limits of that relationship. The math has to start with a assumption, 'let x be...', for example, but the meaning produced by the subsequent statements is 'true' because the expressed relationship coheres to relative nature of 'real things' (i.e the universal relationship). Therefore math can be discovered through the act of imagining because its fundamental operation is universal. It can capture the nature of relationship demonstratably, but it can not describe, quite literally cannot, describe a thing unto itself. Euclid only referred to 'that which has no parts', and represented it as 'a point', but it might then be a corner, a beginning or an end or an intersection and so on... but math is inherently based in this notion of a singularity which itself has no substance, and the most fundamental elements of geometry are literally unimaginable, but still representable as a symbol. This indicates that the nature of mind is indeed transcendent, but also relative, as if by reflection upon itself it relates by both being the same in reflection, and by being whole in contrast. The elements of contrast don't have to be what they are, black could be white as long as white is black, so in the whole universe of change there is this most severe limitation at the relational level, but no limitation as to what 'things' can be ('things' are only constrained by the dimension of relationship). The spacial landscape is dimensionally confined because all things inter-are - yet in themselves ... (well that's an oxymoron).

Quote:
They can only serve as reminders or pointers in the most finite and "measurable" or concretely symbolic sense, and all experience is only measurable or scientific in the same sense that the scientific paradigm can rigidly and explicitly guide and name and control it.

Still, it is a layer of truth, I agree.

Peace & blessings
7L
__________________
.
Check out my signature.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-10-2016, 07:08 PM
Kontufuto Kontufuto is offline
Experiencer
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: As of the moment: 3rd Dimension
Posts: 387
  Kontufuto's Avatar
Spirituality is suppose to be an open pathway to Source. What I am reading here about the structure of mathematics...science... is that there is nothing leading to Source because of the nature of their academics...their encapsulated mind-set that relates to the structure of religion in so many ways. IMHO there is a lot of emphatic reasoning going here postulating the 'way it is' instead of the supposition of theory. To 'lay it all out' as fact pre-disposes Spirituality as structure which again is an open path way to Source. I hope I am not mis-reading these thoughts and ideas and para-phrasing from 'The Masters' here because it all seems like 'this is the way' and Spirituality is far from that!
Cheers!
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-10-2016, 11:55 PM
Kontufuto Kontufuto is offline
Experiencer
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: As of the moment: 3rd Dimension
Posts: 387
  Kontufuto's Avatar
Now isn't this something!

Russian Scientist Photographs Soul Leaving Body And Quantifies Chakras. You Must See This!

http://simplecapacity.com/2016/08/ru...kras-must-see/
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(c) Spiritual Forums