Is Mysticism Necessary for Advancing Modern Physics?

[Philocrat]

Physics logically gives up at COP (Critical Observation Point) and Mysticism is mistaken to begin at COP where physics purportedly ends. This loss of breath and sense of direction at COP amounts to what one may call 'INTELLECTUAL LAZINESS'. For there is no (and there has never been any) causal relations between Physics and Mysticism. The Former is real and the latter is pure fiction, something equivalent to absolute nothingness. The fundamental questions that I have repeatedly asked are these:

1) When you visually track a given object of perception from one scale of reference to the next up to COP, does that thing stop being physical or what it has always been both in strtucture and in function?

2) When you visually track a given object of perception from one scale of reference to the next up to COP, does that thing suddenly turn itself into 'NOTHINGNESS'?

3) When something moves at a vanishing speed such that it becomes visually unobservable, does that thing stop being physical or whatever it has always been?

4) When something moves at a vanishing speed such that it becomes visually unobservable, does that thing suddenly manfest or turn into 'NOTHINGNESS'?

These are the questions that need HONEST and PRECISE answers. We can continue to pretend as much as we like, sooner or later the scientific communities must confront these questions head on. At the moment everyone is busy intellectually escaping. This disease of 'INTELLECTUAL ESCAPISM' must eventually come to an end one way or the other. Physics and science in general must now answer the following two fundamental questions:

(a) Is it these things that are making themselves unobservable by the humans (hide themselves from human perception)?

Or;

(b) Does the problem of Observation or perception rest in the humans themselves? That is, signaling the hard fact that the humans are perceptually or visually limited?

If we cannot give honest answers to these questions, then we might as well call it a day, intellectually, and kiss goodbye to the notion of 'CLEAR HUMAN SENSE OF DIRECTION'. Physics that this concerns the most must answer these questions if it is to give Mysticism a good kicking in the backside!

NOTE: When these things start to behave as if they are mystical as they approach COP and beyond, should we take them as losing their logical directedness and preciseness? Why should the eratic behaviour of physical things at COP and beyond suddenly amount to mysticism? Are we losing the plot here? Most importantly, note also that there is nothing fundamentally wrong or mysterious about things behaving magically, provided we fully understand and appreciate that such MAGIC IS FULLY AND INESCAPABLY PROCEDURAL AND LOGICAL IN SCOPE AND IN SUBSTANCE.
---------------------------
Save our Planet...Stay Green! May the 'Book of Nature' serve you well and bring you all that is good!

 

[Philocrat]

If we accept that humans are perceptually or visually limited, then the next and most important question to confront and give a coherent and logically precise answer would be:

CAN THE HUMANS BE PERCEPTUALLY OR VISUALLY IMPROVED, LET ALONE PERFECTED?

If we can do this, then the days of mysticism should be construed as numbered! We shoud start saying 'AUFWIEDERSHEN MYSTICISM!"

 

[Canute]

The inability of humans to decide metaphysical questions has got nothing to do with our perceptual or visual limitations. It to do with conceptual limitations and the limits of formal reasoning. This is why metaphysics is part of philosophy and not part of physics. If we could see all the way to down to the level of quarks and all the way out to the boundaries of the universe it would not help us answer any questions about the underlying nature of reality.

I don't understand your view of mysticism. Do you think it involves abandoning reason, or has something to do with magic?

 

[Philocrat]

The inability of humans to decide metaphysical questions has got nothing to do with our perceptual or visual limitations. It to do with conceptual limitations and the limits of formal reasoning. This is why metaphysics is part of philosophy and not part of physics. If we could see all the way to down to the level of quarks and all the way out to the boundaries of the universe it would not help us answer any questions about the underlying nature of reality.

I don't understand your view of mysticism. Do you think it involves abandoning reason, or has something to do with magic?

Well, the so-called 'Analytical Philosophers' in the like of Logical Positivists tried to playdown and completely analyse Metaphysics out of Philosophy and hence out of existence, but failed. They failed becuase they naively tried to destroy Logic with Logic? Metaphysics, by proper definition, is Logic. How can you destroy logic with Logic? When I sometimes talk about metaphysics being able to continue to explain things logically where physics or science in general purportedly stops, I am merely paraphrasing the fact that something that is structurally and functional logical at the surface macroscale level must continue to be logical as it is being visually tracked from one scale of reference to the next, right up to COP and beyond.

So, things must continue to be logical, regardless of their scales of reference!

Here, I am only talking about BAD HABITS in the scientific observations and measurements, and I have no stamina of logging my self onto the stalmate of fruitlessly and endlessly trying dicide whether Conceptualism has its origin in the physical or not, or whether something is physical or non-physical. My last posting is only asking specific questions that demand specific answers. I know my own position on all these questions, and anyone that wants to have ago at answering them are very much welcome. This does not mean that I am not open to a wide range of options if something concrete turns up.

NOTE: People often pride themsleves of being versed in formal logic, or different forms of Logic, without the slightest realisation that it is the persistent and careful study of Metaphysics in Philosophy that systematically exposes the finner and clearer formal structures of Logical Space and the Physical World. And as soon as they see the practicality of any aspect of it, they hastily rush to the betting office for a bet!

 

[Philocrat]

Mysticism, if it exists at all and whatever it means, must be wholly and inescapably Logical in scope and in substance!

 

[Canute]

How do you define 'mysticism' and 'logic'? All these pronouncements don't mean much until you clarify those definitions. At the moment it seems as if you're using non-ordinary definitions.

It may be just me, but I've read all you posts here and I still don't know what you're saying about metaphysics and logic, (except that nobody understands it as well as you do). I'm not even sure whether I agree or disagree with you.

 

[quantumcarl]

physics, inside out.

How do you define 'mysticism' and 'logic'? All these pronouncements don't mean much until you clarify those definitions. At the moment it seems as if you're using non-ordinary definitions.

It may be just me, but I've read all you posts here and I still don't know what you're saying about metaphysics and logic, (except that nobody understands it as well as you do). I'm not even sure whether I agree or disagree with you.

Metaphysics means "beyond physics". This implies that the study of metaphysics is outside the physical. This doesn't mean its the study of the illogical as may well be imagined but that the study is outside of the gradient boundary between the physical and the metaphysical.

Mysticism means the study of the mysterys. This implies studying the unknown. It is understandable that we, as physical entities, are unable to fully comprehend the non-physical or metaphysical laws since we are physical and governed by physical laws.

We tend to interpret non-physical constructs (if these are possible) as being governed by certain laws that intersect with the physical. Take for example the old mystical and metaphysical law that you get out only that which you put into a project. Whatever you put in is what you'll pull out of the effort. Or another, similar metaphysical law is like Karma where one's actions determine one's fate hence forth from the action. Simple axioms if you will but they are considered metaphysical and of a certain type of mystery.

These metaphysical and mystical laws have qualities that match physical laws. Take, for example 'for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction'. This is a physical law that has perhaps been used to interpret what is considered a metaphysical law like Karma. It doesn't mean that this is how Karma works, in a physical sense. The two princibles simply tend to harmonize in terms of cause and effect.

To really see those worlds beyond the physical world the blinders need to be removed. Our physical bias and our constant, exclusive clinging only to what we can see and touch and so forth needs to be questioned or let go.

It doesn't mean discarding the physical laws, moreover, it means incorporating these laws perhaps analogically (does this mean without logic!?) or metaphorically in order to see, perhaps, a bit beyond this physical sphere... this mortal coil!