Can Religion and Physics Find Common Ground in Universal Ethics?

[Canute]

I wouldn't say they were mystical, unless by mystical you mean baffling. I'd rather say that they were not mystical in any way, but just fairly conclusive proof that the mystics were right all along about reality. It's just too much of a coincidence that their doctrine states that reality has only dual aspects whichever aspect one chooses to describe, measure, conceptualise or include in a theory. The first good physicist to fully grasp why this is and build it into a quantum-cosmological theory will win a Nobel prize in my opinion, and probably the gratitude of the rest of humanity.

On the idea that reality is inverted or inside-out rather like a Klein bottle, you may like this description of passing through the inner gate to hyperspace, known in Taoism as the "gateless gate".

"As one goes through it, one sees that the gate one went through was the self that went through it."

R.D. Laing
The Politics of Experience

Disclaimer: I haven't read this book so don't know the context. He may have meant something other than what I've guessed he meant.

 

[the_truth]

"The Truth

You say that "rational debate is the only way to determine whether something is true or not." Unfortunately this is the opposite of the truth. Aristotle concluded that "Actual (true) knowledge is identical with its object", and this still apears to be the case to philosophers. This is precisely the reason that solipsism is unfalsifiable, and why Descartes chose 'cogito' as an axiom. Don't be too quick to dismiss religion - in with the bathwater there is a baby."

You say that "rational debate is the only way to determine whether something is true or not."

Reasonning and logic used to prove or determine rational hypothesis, interrogated in a rational debate, is the only method of determinning reality that has occurred. When you work and live your everyday life you use reasonning to interact with your environment and make predictions etc, if you did otherwise you would be a madman and history has proven this time and time again.


"Unfortunately this is the opposite of the truth."

This is a very ambiguous statement. I have provided 4 retorts (including the claim that you are quibbling) to prove this wrong, which ever definition you meant.

Next time you have a cold, slit one of the veins in your arm and bleed 2 pints of blood into a bucket to balance your humours then.

There may be other ways of determinning the truth and indeed scientific method and such methods of reasonning are hugely varied and often corrupted by people who wish to pass fallacy off as the truth, however rational debate is the only way to determine the truth.

By rational debate I implied the usage of reasonning in a free debate concerning important issues which people disagreed apon, I have been talking about reasonning for some time now.. I did not imply that the only way to find the truth was via discussion and thus that it was impossible to do so via individual thought. Discussions however usually have the effect of correcting people's personal thoughts as certain fallacies they picked up may be crushed in the debate.


"Actual (true) knowledge is identical with its object", and this still apears to be the case to philosophers. This is precisely the reason that solipsism is unfalsifiable, and why Descartes chose 'cogito' as an axiom. Don't be too quick to dismiss religion - in with the bathwater there is a baby."

Elaborate. I assume this has something to do with sentience and the fact you are stuck in your own mind and cannot experiences the thoughts of others.

 

[Loren Booda]

Canute

On the idea that reality is inverted or inside-out rather like a Klein bottle, you may like this description of passing through the inner gate to hyperspace, known in Taoism as the "gateless gate".

"As one goes through it, one sees that the gate one went through was the self that went through it."

Coincidentally, you describe the duality common to the perspective of reciprocal (inside-out) space and that of juxtaposed superstring dimensions. For instance, try moving your eye towards the focus of a large concave mirror.

 

[Canute]

I don't get that I'm afraid. Is 'reciprocal' space a common concept and term? I haven't come across it.

The Truth - The difference between knowledge by identity and relative knowledge (gained by reason alone or by from our physical senses) is that the former can be certain and the latter cannot be. That's not to say that relative knowledge has no value, it's very important. But when doing philosophy, especially metaphysics or ontology, it is crucial to distinguish between what we can know, with certainty, and what we cannot. This is why descartes chose 'cogito'. He knew that to find a certain starting point for his deductions he had to start with self-knowledge, knowledge by identity, for all other knowledge is not certain knowledge. Note that no amount of debate, rational or otherwise, can establish 'cogito'.

Canute

 

[Loren Booda]

"Reciprocal space" is found foremost in crystallography; I use the terms "reciprocal," "inverse" and "inside-out" interchangeably in regards to a possible dual geometry of spacetime or phase space.

 

[Dr.Yes]

The unifiying religious tenent:

Take the path of least resistance.

(This requires being knowledgeable of your environment so - bone up!)

NB: Also remain naked under your clothes.

 

[yokebutt]

Personally, I think the simple fact that humans don't have a universal religion is a fairly strong hint that there is no omnipotent god or equivalent entity. But, then again, -without any preconceptions -try defining god. (And what about all the other creatures in the world, I'd think it not too controversial to point out (at least here, shudder) that all life on Earth is related, so do we still have the gall to think we're special and "chosen"?)

Yoke.

 

[Canute]

Fair points. But God does not have to be defined as omnipotent, and perhaps all life is special. The fact that human beings have a variety of beliefs implies simply that knowing is not the same thing as believing. In the "mystical religions" there is no God and belief is not considered knowledge so these logical problems don't arise.

 

[Dr.Yes]

"Reciprocal space" is found foremost in crystallography; I use the terms "reciprocal," "inverse" and "inside-out" interchangeably in regards to a possible dual geometry of spacetime or phase space.

This is cool stuff Loren! And it is mystfying since, as you say, there have been none too many accounts of exploring the dual world or the inside-out... unless you look at Ken Kesey, Jack Kerawac and Richard Alpert... not to mention Allan Watts and Timothy Leary.

The inside out and the mirror worlds are hard to study because its hard to know when your in them and when you're not. Comparisome studies are difficult in that sort of amalgamous environment where each state has as much influence as the next.

I would also propose that these variations of realities are not bound by simple mirrored or reciprocal boundaries but that there are as many worlds as there are combinations of molecules in this dimension today. There seems to be an infinite individuality which creates and is created by a uni-model of utmost efficiency and ethicality...(NB: the "universe".) Rather striking, I must say!

 

[Loren Booda]

Dr. Yes,

It's mystifying that no major physics about spatial inversion symmetry (other than crystallography) has been explored before. Superstrings comes close with its "T-duality," but my approach (pursued in my website below) would apply semiclassical likenesses to both quantum mechanics and relativity. There "phase duality" is the simplist symmetry that my ignorance could think of to modify physics universally.

Awareness of "true" environment is often difficult and often requires a paradigm shift. Yes, I speculate that curvature of relativistic spacetime affects dynamics of quantum phase space (and vice versa), according to cosmos focused from beyond conventional limits.

Thank you for your insights. As for religion and physics, neither is complete and beg to be studied beyond a lifetime.

 

[Dr.Yes]

Dr. Yes,

It's mystifying that no major physics about spatial inversion symmetry (other than crystallography) has been explored before. Superstrings comes close with its "T-duality," but my approach (pursued in my website below) would apply semiclassical likenesses to both quantum mechanics and relativity. There "phase duality" is the simplist symmetry that my ignorance could think of to modify physics universally.

Awareness of "true" environment is often difficult and often requires a paradigm shift. Yes, I speculate that curvature of relativistic spacetime affects dynamics of quantum phase space (and vice versa), according to cosmos focused from beyond conventional limits.

Thank you for your insights. As for religion and physics, neither is complete and beg to be studied beyond a lifetime.

An excellent area for further discussion. Spacial inversion reminds me that there are as many dimensions/worlds as there are degrees between 359º and 360º... the number of micro degrees is infinite. But, as is true with all states, .1 degree also holds the potential to be simply .1 of a degree.

If you are trying to find the unifying theory, the commonality between quantum and relativistic realities, I have observed that rather than using sequence to compare quantum states, one can use a regional system. Its still formulating There has been some some success with using quantum gravity as an adhesive between quantum and relativistic theories. Gravity is suspect because it seems to be the effect that offers complete conservation of energy. Since gravity is not an energy expenditure, as far as I know, it offers an effortless path for the least resisitance. Without it , things just wouldn't work in a quantum or relative manner.

One by-product of the universe is a complete system of ethics, built out of the efficiency models it has created. The way the universe is constantly correcting its course and its ballance is an offering of great importance to the way humans conduct their affairs with one another and their environment of truth.

Huge topic, what what?

One thing to remember about quantum physics. What is studied here is on such a scale as to be so minute that it appears to act in an "unreasonable" manner as compared to what we are used to. The changes seem so random and fast... even simultaneous, that it also seems alien to our sensibilities. What may be true is that it too is exhibiting a sequence of events but, because of the scale and "timeframes" involved, it appears to be simultaneous activity. Food for thought.