Physics, Metaphysics, and Singer/Songwriter Lana del Rey

[Sunstone]

...a rather contentious post...

Please bear in mind this is a discussion thread, not a debate thread.

 

[atanu]

Yes, I'd say so. So does "yogic perception" mean things perceive in altered states of consciousness achieved through meditation and yoga?

Okay friend, for you I will bite the bait. I wrote something in another thread. Allow me to reproduce that.

Essentially, the spiritual traditions teach that the mind can be seen as bipolar to start with -- an individualistic mind-intellect that suffers from desires and pain on a continuous basis and another calm-peaceful seer of the desiring ego-mind. You may or may not believe it. But most spiritual traditions further suggest turning the attention of the desiring-troubled ego-mind to the seer mind. This can happen in two ways: by devotion and surrender or by conscious meditation/attention on the movements in the mind. The latter is meditation, wherein essentially one tries to be the seer of the monkey mind thereby detaching from the notion that "I am troubled".

Now. There is enough scientific data that show that with time not only the pattern of brain waves change on a continuous basis but that actual physical changes take place in the brain. The plasticity of the brain is documented.

But I do not go only by literature support. I have my own experience. Does that constitute evidence or no?​

Hope this is of help.

I hope that I was clear that yogic perception is not about seeing forms-objects. Yoga calls seeing forms and objects wild imagination that must be avoided at cost. The very basis of yogic practice is to be able to experience awareness without its contents -- consciousness sans objects of cognition. In other words, this is also called waking sleep.

...

 

[atanu]

Please bear in mind this is a discussion thread, not a debate thread.

Noted. Thank you.

 

[Polymath257]

An observable effect without a cause would be an instance of true randomness. Some folks tell me there is true randomness in quantum mechanics, others tell me there is none. Whether or not there is such a thing is above my pay grade.

Not quite sure what you mean by 'true randomness'. For example, quantum events are indeterminate: you cannot tell ahead of time which of several possibilities will actually happen. But, the *probabilities* of each possibility can be determined.

It's sort of like having a pair of dice that are 'truly random'. You can't determine what happens for each individual roll, but you *can* determine what will happen if you roll them 1,000,000 times to pretty good accuracy: how many snake-eyes, how many box-cars, how many 7's etc. Hence, randomness become deterministic in the mean.

A lot of people think 'random' means having no order, while in many ways the exact opposite is the case.

We have observed 'effects' without 'causes' in the sense above.

 

[Sunstone]

Not quite sure what you mean by 'true randomness'. For example, quantum events are indeterminate: you cannot tell ahead of time which of several possibilities will actually happen. But, the *probabilities* of each possibility can be determined.

It's sort of like having a pair of dice that are 'truly random'. You can't determine what happens for each individual roll, but you *can* determine what will happen if you roll them 1,000,000 times to pretty good accuracy: how many snake-eyes, how many box-cars, how many 7's etc. Hence, randomness become deterministic in the mean.

A lot of people think 'random' means having order, while in many ways the exact opposite is the case.

We have observed 'effects' without 'causes' in the sense above.

The sort of randomness you are talking about is the kind that I have always suspected is at work in QM. As opposed to pure, uncaused randomness -- which now and then someone claims is what "randomness" means in QM.

Randomness in the sense that events are indeterminate, as opposed to randomness in the sense that events are unpredictable because they are causeless.

 

[Polymath257]

A miracle is supposed to be a violation of natural law. But how is that determined?

So, if a scientist sees something unusual or even extraordinary, the immediate response is to figure out how and why it happened. Is there a general pattern that this event fits into? Hypotheses are made, experiments are done, and sometimes things are a mystery for years or decades.

This is part of the normal activity of science.

Even if there is ax example of a violation of conservation of energy, scientists will attempt to understand it and to fit it into a more general pattern.

At what point can you actually say you have a miracle? When can you positively say there is no natural law involved (possibly one we just haven't figured out)?

 

[Polymath257]

The sort of randomness you are talking about is the kind that I have always suspected is at work in QM. As opposed to pure, uncaused randomness -- which now and then someone claims is what "randomness" means in QM.

Randomness in the sense that events are indeterminate, as opposed to randomness in the sense that events are unpredictable because they are causeless.

I'm not sure how to tell the difference. QM is not a causal theory. But it is, by far, the best physics theory we have ever had. The individual events are indeterminate. But we can compute the probabilities of the different possibilities for each event. In what sense is that different than 'uncaused'?

At least part of the problem is that I haven't found a workable definition of the concept of 'cause'.

 

[Sunstone]

At least part of the problem is that I haven't found a workable definition of the concept of 'cause'.

That makes two of us, bro. I last took that up about a year ago -- still no luck. I am positive though, absolutely positive, that if can figure out a workable definition, I shall have unlocked the secret to turning myself into a babe magnet. Quite possibly, it's my one and sole chance at dinner and a movie with Lana.

 

[Polymath257]

That makes two of us, bro. I last took that up about a year ago -- still no luck. I am positive though, absolutely positive, that if can figure out a workable definition, I shall have unlocked the secret to turning myself into a babe magnet. Quite possibly, it's my one and sole chance at dinner and a movie with Lana.

If I figure it out, I'll share with you. We can have all the dancing girls we want at that point!

 

[crossfire]

An observable effect without a cause would be an instance of true randomness. Some folks tell me there is true randomness in quantum mechanics, others tell me there is none. Whether or not there is such a thing is above my pay grade.

I would not call an event whereby the conditions in which it arises can be accurately described, along with a correlating trigger event (sugar pill) an instance of true randomness. (Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what true randomness is?)

 

[lewisnotmiller]

PLEASE NOTE: This is a discussion thread, not a debate thread. State your views. Provide your reasons for them. Ask respectful questions of other posters. Discuss your views with them. Even compare and contrast your views with other positions purely for the sake of clarification. BUT DO NOT ATTEMPT TO PROVE OTHER POSITIONS FALSE OR WRONG! Moreover, please report to the Mods any posts that engage in debate, or attempt to.​

At the tender and succulent age of 19, today's internationally popular singer/songwriter Lana del Rey entered Fordham University with criminal intentions.

That is, she had of her own legal will and volition chosen to major in the study of philosophy, a known criminal enterprise. Or, as Spinoza once said, “I do not know how to teach philosophy without becoming a disturber of the peace.” Moreover, Ms. del Rey not only took out a major in philosophy, but she took out a major in philosophy with an emphasis on metaphysics!

I must pause now while I reach for my smelling salts.


I'm back! (and twice as good looking as before). Lana del Rey later on in life confessed to a reporter that she had committed herself to studying philosophy in the desperate and decadent hope of "bridging the gap between God and science"!

Regrettably, during her confession, she showed no signs of remorse.

(In my opinion, which is legally recognized as an opinion in all 50 U.S. states, Ms. del Rey would have been better served to have placed her academic emphasis on the noble and esteemed discipline of epistemology. It seems to me that if there is ever to be a philosophical reconciliation of "God and science" it will issue from epistemology, rather than from metaphysics.)​

With that said, let's compare the epistemology of physics (the realm of the sciences) with the epistemology of metaphysics (the realm of the gods).

In physics, inquiry proceeds via a combination of logical reasoning and empirical observation. Such a method of inquiry can not prove something -- can not prove anything -- is true. At most, the method can only prove something is false. Yet, ironically, the method of combining logical reasoning with empirical observation is capable of arriving at reliable facts and predictive hypotheses and models.​

In metaphysics, inquiry proceeds via logical reasoning with only incidental reference to empirical observations. Such a method of inquiry is capable of generating logical proofs that something is the case. However, these are not necessarily logical proofs that can be empirically tested. Hence, the method of inquiry is (at least in theory) capable of proving something exists that does not actually empirically exist.​

Given those two means of inquiry, how are we to epistemically reconcile god and the sciences?

Or is epistemic conflict inevitable?

And if inevitable, is epistemic conflict fatal to reconciliation of any kind between god and the sciences?

And if fatal, where does the reconciliation go after it dies?


EDIT: Want more information and/or clarification? Please see Post #18 at your leisure.




By the way, if you want my opinion (and what human on earth or god above could possibly not want my opinion), the two -- god and the sciences -- might be epistemically reconcilable. If so, I believe the most promising path at this moment might be over a bridge between the two created by one or more of the various and sundry mystical experiences. That is, assuming such a bridge can be found.

Hmm....I don't know if I've quite caught the thread here.
However, I would think it's possible to reconcile science and that which falls outside science, to some degree.

Determining what it is that falls outside science (as in, what is the unmeasureable agent) appears to be a bridge too far, though.
At an even simpler level, you'd get folks like me who would argue that what falls outside science has more to do with the limitations of our science than the limitations of science per se.

By that, I mean, what we could measure and interact with 500 years ago is less than our ability to measure and interact now.
So I would estimate that the coming 500 years would change that picture, and the 500 years after that would change it still further.

None of that proves or disproves that there is something beyond the borders of theoretical science though. And so I suspect there will always be gaps.
Unless whatever that agent is...the one beyond science...intercedes.

 

[Heyo]

Ahh...but that only means that any final set of laws would have to include anything valid that we now consider to be magic.

More interestingly, how would you determine if any particular event is against those final laws that we don't yet know?

Since we don't know the final set of laws, we can't really really rule out magic or explain within the laws that what we perceive as magical.
What we do for now is to axiomatically rule out magic (as scientists) and axiomatically presuppose magic (as believers). The existence of magic would break science as we know it. The explanation of the seemingly magical would put many belief systems in a crisis.
As of today we can only use the scientific method to decide if an event could be principally explained or if it would break science completely.

 

[rational experiences]

There is only what is created.
There is only what is removed.


To own a discussion to know means it has to be present, and if God exists, then God is created. As you cannot discuss what is removed, when it is gone.

Science invents, and invention is already removing what exists created.

The gap…..created and invention.

Concepts, like God are a discussion first. Therefore you have to identify what the concept is relating inferring what you discuss is God.