Hey all, just after reading some recent posts with a few undesired conflicts, i realised there seems to be an interesting division here at the nexus regarding people's scientific points of view clashing with other people's spiritual/mystical ways of viewing things.

I just thought i'd create a page where people begin to expand knowledge and provide examples on where these two can bridge together to create a more digestible understanding of each. Personally, I tend to look at things in a more mystical way these days - however in my younger years I possessed quite an atheist attitude, but still fairly scientifically uninformed. I was always interested in experience over the 'gospel truths' of textbooks from a young age and am amazed at where i have ended up as a result- especially once being introduced to the molecule.

I have realised that I do need to expand my scientific knowledge in this day and age and would love for some scientifically inclined people to get involved. I don't want this to be a thread where people battle it out over why their belief system is more "true" or "real", I would just like people to elaborate on how these two can be complimentary in a way that is digestible to both edges of the sword, and particularly ellaborate on some/any scientific methods that could measure the experiences in someway. Obviously this is easier said than done when it comes to subjectivity, but for example I remember reading about phosphenes in relation to psychedelic experiences.. I don't totally subscribe to the whole theory as it does not address the deeper aspects of mystical experiences, however it is interesting how it attempts to explain spiritual phenomena within a scientific framework without just claiming it to be imagination

Go

Have you read Fritjof Capra's the Tao of Physics? I have seen some members here comment negatively on it, but I enjoyed it. Its a good introduction to mysticism and modern physics for the layman, and it discusses many of the parallels between the two world views. The path that led me to go back to school for a degree in physics was largely influenced by this book, along with The Search for Schrodingers Cat. Ive seen folks here say the two should be kept separate, and I agree about the subjects themselves, but for me as a person, both views contribute to my beliefs about the universe.

We also like to say that science is verifiable, which it is, but for most people believing in science is an act of faith. How many people actually understand anything about physics, biology, or chemistry? To actually understand the subjects, you have to spend years in school studying them, which is exactly what most mystics say. Read almost any book about zen and the message is the same: study under a zen master, follow the practices, and after many years of hard dedicated practices you too will understand what they understand.

I am trying hard to be the bridge myself, in my own life.

In principle I think science has no bearing on the mystical or spiritual. Isn't it funny how we have more words for that side of the coin then we have for science? We have science, maybe logic but many words for the other side...

Likewise, intuition has really no description for the scientific model. I have said before that you do not go to a paranormal or spiritually inclined person to prove 2+2=4. And you don't go to a scientist to explain telepathy.

However, when combined there comes into being a synergistic model of reality. We know we can look at things differently. We can observe a phenomenon standing side by side and still perceive the event or object differently.

Over the course of a year my mind has changed considerably in thinking about these things under heroic doses of dried psilocybin ally. I tend to have more this double vision nowadays where I can see both the logical interpretation and the mystical. So this integration is something new to me. It is no longer a switch between the left and the right brain hemisphere so to say. It is more of seeing something in this double fashion at once now.

I think that is where we need to be. It is the alchemical reality McKenna describes and that sure showed me the possibility.

Another thing that seems to ring true to me is this fractal aspect of awareness that in this discussion boils down to the idea that within every logical and factual phenomenon there is the mystery present and vice versa. So a fractal vision is one way to describe how I see things now, and try to see things. I am excited by this.

"Although you do not presently understand the true meaning of indeterminacy, what you refer to as quantum physics offers a useful partial view of the inner workings of the physical world. Quantum instruments of communication, as your scientists now understand them, depend upon the entanglement of particles. You think now that you must separate two photons physically for them to be entangled, so your faster-than-light communications are limited by how far apart you can physically place the photons you entangle. But there was a time when all particles were in communication and so all are entangled. When you realize this, it will also be true that your quantum communication devices will be able to communicate instantaneously across all worlds. But until you realize it and understand it, it will not be true for you. Vision, in the manipulation of quantum reality, as in the perfecting of your being, is everything.

You seem to be referring to scientific progress and spiritual growth in the same breath.

They are the same. Your science progresses toward communication with all worlds only as fast as your spirit evolves. Animals may not leave their worlds, because they lack the ability to see the needs of others.

We are animals?

A true human being has four levels of mind. Most of you have only three, and perhaps a vestige of the fourth. Your destiny is to enter the humanity of the universe. But you may not fulfill it.

Let me go back to the quantum issue, because I see that as something concrete that we can understand. You started by talking of using superposition as a means of communication, then changed to talking about entangled particles. What role does superposition play in higher communication?


The tiny layer of electrons that lies outside of the skin is an organ in itself just like the eyes or the blood. It is a sensory organ, but not one that operates naturally, except in a few, as I have stated before. Even in them, it cannot be used very effectively without higher consciousness. It is the organ of higher consciousness. You must be able to watch and not watch at the same time. When you learn this, it will stay in superposition even as you take the imagery that it is receiving into your brain and process it.

You are speaking of opening the third eye?

The nervous system delivers these impressions to the area of the brain closest to the pineal gland, which is where this organ is centered."


-from The Key, by Whitley Strieber

Makes sense to bring out entanglement here. Maybe along with holographic properties, it's one of the concepts in physics that seems to point to a new paradigm. It's not intuitive, it doesn't make sense according to our intuitive view of the world, because it implies an instant form of communication, or a different way of understanding cause and effect. Yet it completely agrees with experiments so far.

IMO, the bridge bricklaya asks for is convenient and positive, but at the same time, the fact we need to work such a bridge out is a symptom of how far we are, at a global level, of understanding the universe. Because science and mysticism are ultimately describing the same thing. They might be doing it from two different points of view, the objective and the subjective, but both perspectives are essential in order to understand reality.

I think that what has been often referred to as "spirit" will be eventually understood as a folded dimension within ours, and that reading the universe as information will give those dimensions a whole new meaning. And eventually, I think science and mysticism will converge. That is, there will be experimentation and an empiric understanding of the mystical experience.

In the meantime, both need to coexist because they both have unique insights to the pattern of reality. Mysticism cannot use its perspective to refute well established science, and science cannot refute the mystical experience using objective empiric methods.

They are complementary, and I think that's where the bridge has to be made.

Let everyone believe what they want. No one can explain "deeper" nature of reality/nature/universe etc anyway with 100% certainty. Even the "great science" has it's boundaries and doesn't explain everything with confidence.. Basically when people are even disrespecting people due to their superstitious beliefs and protecting their great science or logic, how can they be so sure about their points of view when we begin to look at the matter at hand from deeper or totally new perspective?

I am spiritual because of science. Not in spite of it.

I mean what with essentially infinite black dots roaming the universe sucking in all light and matter?
Or particles that seem to alter their behavior based on our observation or lack there of?
Or the fact that in a world based on physical laws we actually appear to have free will...how exactly is that possible?


I used to just be scientific/skeptic. Now I'm mystical/scientific. This whole damn vast creation is completely and utterly mystic. Even if it turns at that this universe did arise from a mathematical null set on a chalkboard with a giant bang it's still freaking mystical. Every last bit of it.

I mean for christs sake our entire perception of 'reality' is totally determined by chemicals in our head. Want everyday reality? Serotonin seems to work great. Want to see a different take on reality? Take a serotonin analgo like psilocin of DMT and SHA-BAM! Different freakign reality....same brain. New world.


What exatly is perception anyway? Does it even make sense to talk about anything existing outside of perception when perception is the only tools we have to talk about reality....and we don't even know what perception is or where it comes from! YIKES!

Science is good, but right now science is undergoing a dogmatic phase. I like to refer to science as the fastest growing religion for a few reasons. 1) So many people take what scientists say on nothing more than complete faith. 2) Many scientists have become so dogmatic in their thinking that they are forgetting to allow for the possibility of anything.




Science and Spirituality will meet when they both embrace the philosophy in those simply words

Peace

All of what has been written seems to bring up one question for me. I have been wanting to ask this to my fellow Nexians and see what you all think, and I think this is a nice place to ask.

Do you think the "truth" can be attainable by human means?

Can us as human beings, perceive the true nature of our world and unerstand it?

Or is the truth very far beyond what we can possibly know?

Like joedirt quoted "Believe Nothing. Allow for Anything. Question Everything."

Could that be the "truth"?

I go with the X-Files model: I want to believe, and the truth is out there. Mulder never stopped looking for the truth, and every time he thought he was close, the truth just grew larger and more elusive.

Mulder & Scully are an excellent example for this thread of science and spirit working together. Now, I know Mulder wasn't into the spiritual per say, but the paranormal in general, all the while his faithful partner Scully acted as the balancing force, tempering Mulder's immediate instinct to go for the paranormal answer by providing a solid medical science perspective.

Though, it must be said, that 9 times out of 10, Mulder was right and Scully ends up seeking Mulder's truth. And, sort or linking to the 2012 thread as an aside, the truth that Mulder and Scully suffered so much for was, in the end, about December 22, 2012, the date of the final alien colonization--in the show, people, calm down. I rewatched the whole series this year having loved it as a teen, but I stopped watching religiously when John Doggett is introduced. And I was a bit surprised that 2012 was the big truth of the whole show. God, that was a damn good show.

beautifully said. thanks for posting

^this is why your posts are among my favorites.

I agree with the sentiment of what you said but I don't think it is practical. Does "let everyone believe what they want" include let people believe they are entitled to kill you for your beliefs? I guess in a sense it isn't about disallowing these beliefs... so it makes sense to "let" them believe it, but I think you would agree that certain beliefs should be challenged. At what point does challenging the beliefs become disrespectful?

Science and logic don't need "protecting", they are just tools, not belief systems. Tools that have been very effective in certain ways. I don't really see how to bridge science with spirituality, I'm not even sure what mysticism/spirituality actually is. In my life all I have ever experienced that could maybe fall into the category of spirituality are drug induced experiences which, as profound as they were, only seem to lead to more questions and not to any answers. As you say science can't give any concrete answers to anything but it isn't really about giving concrete answers, it is about giving the answers that fit in with what is observed. Science will never be able to solve any of the deep questions unless there is some manifestation of the answer which can be observed. Since science deals with the predictable properties of the material realm and spirituality/mysticism seems to be about intangible realms I'm not really sure what they have to offer each other... I could be just narrow minded about it though. I know relatively little about science and basically nothing about mysticism so I'm in the dark if I'm honest.

Does anyone feel like defining what spirituality or mysticism means for them?



^ This for example. I don't know what it means (I liked the rest of the post, just didn't really understand that part). Skepticism is just questioning things... do you no longer do that? Does being mystical just mean being aware of the fact that reality is fucking crazy and really none of us have a clue what it's about? lol... cos if that's the case then I'm a mystic too.

Words like "mystic" are too easily used and acquire ENORMOUS cultural baggage--to the extent that there begins to be misunderstanding.

Wikipedia's definition is very simple, and by it, everyone here is a "mystic."

i think very similarly to joedirt. i mean serotonin molecules in our brain are just some little organic crystals that close circuits and affect the information going through them. you can switch it out for other crystals and it affects the information differently.

our electronic devices use crystals too but inorganic ones.

then there's the fact that colors don't even really exist but they're just our brain's interpretation of a small spectrum of electromagnetism that can be waves and particles that we call light. or how about that all matter is mostly empty space and yet we see it as solid? how does that work?

i think eventually science will prove the existence of things that we consider mystical. i mean they're already starting to catch on to and do studies on things like the collective unconscious

I do realise that it is down to personal belief at the end of the day and that we don't necessarily need one to explain the other, however in this day and age i strongly feel we are going through a spiritual crisis, and that if more people are going to take the subject seriously concerning the DMT experience and other entheogenic experiences which so many of us are passionate about and feel have the potential to have a positive impact on the planet, a scientific and materialistic approach must also be taken to allow the subject to be more digestible to people living in material based cultures who know little of the experiences and feel they need more solid "proof" (for lack of a better word) of the validity of the experience and the ideas that emerge out of it.

yeah i see this happening at the moment too, I will dig up some examples and post soon

yeah i wasn't sure whether I should use the word mystic for the thread title or "spiritual"

[LINK REMOVED DUE TO DUBINESS CONTENT]

I think that they are somewhat similar but still worlds apart. All the more have we seen enthusiasts work close together with this. But there are still dedicated groups which would choose to focus on one method of attack with explanations they hold true off.

But there are some things that are best explained in scientific means with support coming from the mystic side.

@joedirt:

Yes, I feel very much the same way you do. But this is how many scientists feel about the universe. The mystery is what often makes us do science, and that have made many of our greatest scientists to do it as well. They were in awe at nature, totally perplexed by it. "What is all of this?", "what is going on?", "Are we in the only galaxy in the universe?" and many many other questions have led us to investigate our universe. This is what motivates me to study physics, and most of the scientists and students I see at the university daily are just as much in awe as you and I are. But there is a huge difference between being at total awe at the mystery of nature, and to latch unto unfalsifiable claims, highly debatable propositions, believe in the paranormal, believe in God, believe the autonomous existence of DMT entities and so on and so forth.

You can be perplexed by the mystery of existence to the extent that your heart beats faster, but you don't need to believe in all kinds of things in order to do this. Not claiming you are, because I know you fundamentally aren't, but I just wanted to point out that the conflict between science and the mystical arises because of the metaphysical systems that often accompany mysticism, as well as their claims - that are either unfalsifiable, or that often run contrary to our current knowledge. That is not unproblematic.




Nassim Haramein is highly dubious, and I recommend to steer away from him if you wish to learn some real physics. He even got deleted from wikipedia, you can read a little about why here.

He doesn't have extensive scientific background, he is a self-proclaimed scientist. Anyone can say they are a scientist because it is not a protected title. He clearly doesn't have a very good understanding of basic physics, and his claims converges to the ridiculous. None of his papers have been published in any scientific journal, at least certainly not one with a proper peer review. Scientists seems to treat him as a crank or just dismiss him altogether. Hmm, I wonder why. Could it be that anyone with a good understanding of physics sees that he doesn't know what he is talking about? Yup.

We can, just to take an example, consider his great idea of the "The Schwarzschild Proton". The main idea here is that a proton is a black hole, and that two of these orbiting eachother at the speed of light under gravitation alone gives a model of the nucleus. He tries to dispense of the strong force altogether, and replace it with an interaction based on gravitation and thus uniting general relativity and quantum mechanics. What's wrong about this?

1. He introduces the The Schwarzschild Proton with a mass of 885 million metric tonnes. What do we know about protons? We know that the mass of the proton is about 1.67 trillionths of a trillionth of a gram. Not very compatible with his theory of 885 million metric tonnes, lol. How does he deal with this deviation from reality? He doesn't.

2. The Schwarzschild Proton radiates 455 million watts, enough to supply electricity to thousands of homes. What do we know about protons? They don't radiate. How does Nassim deal with this? He doesn't.

3. The orbit of two interacting Schwarzschild Protons would decay within an incredibly small amount of time. Why? Because general relativity theory says that any two black holes orbiting eachother must lose orbital energy and fall into eachother, merging into a single black hole the minute their event horizons touch. In Nassim's model, the event horizons are already touching. Problem? Yes, huge problem.

4. What happens when we look inside real protons? Our best high energy physics and our best theoretical models gives us three quarks and a measurable quantity of charge distributed among them. What happens inside The Schwarzschild Proton? There is an event horizon there, and nothing that crosses this can re-emerge. We can't look inside. Problem? Yes, a huge one. All of physics today makes it crystal clear that we can probe inside protons.

These things, and others among them, pushes the credibility of Nassim to the point of the completely ridiculous and silly. It is clear he doesn't really understand physics. The conclusions he draws is equally silly. He claims to do serious science, he claims to have unified the forces of nature, he claims to be able to point out where all other physicists are wrong. All of this is false.

Conclusions: Stay clear of him and pick up a physics textbook instead. Quantum physics isn't bunk, Nassim is.