|
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
i posted an experiment earlier - what other sort of physical output are you looking for? A new cellphone? Why are you so concerned with 'physical output'? don't you think that as a species we have come to a point where we are advanced enough to realize other less gross forms of scientific output and human progress? What about understanding, ethics, philosophy, ecology? |
Firstly, no, I don't think we have progressed beyond physical output. There are people starving around the world, pollution is growing more intense and there are diseases still unconquered. Pondering the intricacies of philosophy and ethics are not going to solve these problems, at least not directly.
Once we have solved these problems we will have all the time in the world to consider the nature of our existence.
As for your experiment:
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
'essentially'
read this
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9903047v1
In layman's terms - this experiment allowed the observers to affect events in the future even after they should have been, for lack of a better term 'fated' to result in a certain way. The delayed choice experiments, variations on the original double slit experiment, show that there is a tangled relationship between the observer and the observed, that their boundaries dissolve, one might say 'there is only the observing'. It is impossible, on the quantum level, to observe something without affecting the observed. This is essentially 'monism', and by that I don't mean your philosophy textbook definition, but just literally that there is only one truth from which any semblance of dualism is merely a latent effect or epiphenomenon of perspective or scale. |
That relates to advaita only in an incidental way. Advaita is a mystical/philosophical world view which deals with concepts and ideas. The above experiment has to do with quantum physics, which:
a) Deal with physicalities and mathematics, the traditional opposites of what you're talking about (BUT THERE ARE NO OPPOSITES, ONLY WHOLES!).
b) Recognise that objects or events can influence one another in intrinsic ways we do not yet understand. The theory does not presume that the objects or events are part of a greater whole, or not fundamentally separate from one another. If you believe that experiments such as the one above and the 'double slit' experiment are proof of non-dualism, then that is just your interpretation, because of a majority of the people conducting the experiments would not agree with you. Keep in mind that these people understand the experiments, they're not just faux-intellectual reading PDFs about them on the internet.
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
The industrial revolution took place in the 19th century, not the 21st. |
Yes, and we're still trying to correct that mistake. You can't reverse physical mistakes with philosophy.
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
Developments in science originating from the perspective of nondualism will be of a fundamentally different character than that of a dualistic science. It does not mean that we can't have both. They are both 'useful' in their own ways, and that 'use' is completely dependent on one's own perspective. If you care about cell phones and keeping your muscles toned, or otherwise...
in any case these are cutting edge movements in science (despite being decades old), and with all of the red tape involved in the academic process and scientific method it will be some time before we see lots of 'concrete' results of this mode of science. But as I said, it's very likely that the results will be of a fundamentally different character that will have more to do with the changing inner landscape of man's understanding of himself and his relationship to the world than the discrete, 'physical' achievements of yesterday, and so it may prove difficult in to grade them as 'achievements' according to the existing industrial-corporal rubric.
It would be similar to asking a caveman the worth of the iphone to him in his daily life and context.
in other words, nondualistic approaches to science will become more apparent and 'useful' as mankind grows (and develops the faculty to perceive the changes and develops the uses themselves!) |
Don't try and paint me as someone obsessed with superficiality such as the size of my muscles and owning the newest cell phone. Reading books on Indian mysticism doesn't suddenly increase your moral clout; on the contrary they make you look like someone struggling desperately for identity within their own culture.
I ask for physical examples because I am a positivist. As I said, philosophy is useful for changing man's social organisation and improving our interpersonal relations or views of the world. However, in regards to science, a wholly physical discipline, I fail to see what philosophy offers.
"fundamentally different character that will have more to do with the changing inner landscape of man's understanding of himself and his relationship to the world than the discrete, 'physical' achievements of yesterday." Can you please provide an example of this?
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
reminds me of a great quote by Muhammad:
"if i had two loaves of bread i would trade one for hyacinths to nourish my soul." |
Reminds me of another great quote by Muhammad:
"float like a butterfly, sting like a bee."
He's trying to express the non-dualism of the world and how we should be able to maintain two states at once, though still remain as a whole ourselves.
___________________
Mix archive | Melbourne club guide
Last edited by Domesticated on Oct-27-2009 at 22:15
|
