I think its okay that we challenege institutions and prevailing laws (Do you know the age of consenst in Vatican city is 12 years old?)--but physics and math are not instituions, they are art and science; they actually exist and we would not be speaking this instant if not for science, nor would our fridges run.

Does one want to find God through science? Practice 20 years 4 hours every day and then maybe something will happen. Because it is not like laws where its obvious to the people that the age of consent in the vatican shouldnt be twelve, or that food cant be taken from our planet and re-sold again to us. Science is different in that it happens somewhere deep and unkown in the brain and takes individual, personal practice, like any craft. In simplest terms what I mean is that a professional snowboarder probably wont see god through science, but that Einstein in his bed in some room did. The difference is the amount of study and love put into it, thus subjective, not objective.

Not considered legit by all is a big generalisation, over exaggeration, and pure assumption. Have you listened to his lectures? I’ve also read the work of physicists debunking some of his theories. His mind is beautiful and he challenges most fundamental concepts that are of consensus. We have to have individuals challenging the norm to create discussion and progress and evolve in a field. If we just regurgitate information we have been taught it doesn’t advance a field very far.

A contradiction, is it not?

A quote by Alan Watts I really like:



So there is no path to unlock it. Doesn't need unlocking I think

Thirty blows with a stick

I guess a better phrase for unlock is ‘we are all on the path’. It’s already there but we just can’t reach it. I’m sure when masters get there they say I can’t believe I didn’t get it, thus laughing at themselves.

I have this recurring phantasy that when I eventually become enlightened (probably in a future manifestation) there will be a bunch of entities that will shake my hand, laugh at me, say ‘it took you long enough’, and I will recognise them.

Hehe, congratulating entities sound fun Yea, the thirty blows of stick line is great, isn't it. Here's some more good stuff from Watts:



Watts calls these "spiritual games" of one-up-manship - trying to get a one-up on oneself and the universe, which continues the illusion of separation. But that's not at all to say that these games aren't fun.

The issue I take is that we've gone too far down the wrong path and require a backtrack in order to make actual progress. What we're currently doing is trying to sure up our prevailing paradigm by adding more sand to the castle. For example, the Higgs Boson.. rather than concede that actually the concept of an aether isn't such a bad idea they've created a quasi-aether (Higgs Field) which gives rise to a particle that gives mass.. such tangled thinking!

We may be making good observations and experimenting, but I can't help feel there's too much reliance on particle physics with mathematics used to support the theory and conclusions. It's too far removed from what we can see, and miles away from what the average man can replicate. Sounds like a priesthood to me..



That statement works only if we can account for everything using our current concept structure - what if there other dimensions, universes, where other laws apply? It also supposes that laws are static when they may be not and that laws don't evolve perhaps.

I don't believe physics can touch God. It is a human system ultimately based around mathematics and measurement - what is the real reference point for measurement when, as you go on to say, 99.999% of everything appears empty and the remainder is composed of fields that rely on every other field for their existence? Can a ruler measure itself? Something that is relative can never define something that is absolute.

We have always struggled with the concept of infinity in science. We don't like it. That's why we can't accept the notion of fields/waves and insist there must be this thing called a 'particle', why the universe must have a beginning in the big bang and subsequently an edge to the universe, why we have time/duration when really it does not exist at all, and so on. Physics can't touch God so long as it can not reconcile the infinite within it's particularised concepts.

Acknowledging the existence of the aether would go a long way to resolving our quandary.

Yes I think we are most definitely going down the wrong path and there will come a time when we realise this with evolution of ideas and further understanding. The whole notion of quantum particles is in my opinion fundamentally flawed. I’m unsure if you are referring to these particles as finite matter. I have two notions to present. Firstly, photons (light particles) and phonons (sound particles) are vibrational waves/frequency and not ‘particles’ as such. Also it is now becoming consensus in theoretical physics that quantum particles used to define matter are constantly oscillating, they aren’t constant static finite bounds. But quantum particles are made up of smaller quantum particles, I find it rather silly how physicists keep colliding particles, find a smaller particle, and keep saying ‘we’ve found the smallest particle in existence’. Can’t they see a pattern of infinite trend, or are they simply in denial like archeologists and historians (I’m writing a book on this, it is quite incredible). That’s why I have an inherent problem with Planck’s Constant.

I do think you’re right about using physics to describe God. You have changed my perspective there.

You’re referring you have an issue with time. I would agree if time was a linear constant. But new theory is suggesting a type of retro causality loop. I’ll explain the presented theory in a second, but don’t forget time isn’t just a measurement, our observation is that it’s relative. It changes its tune with speed. If you’re traveling at light speed, theoretically time is moving so slow that it has subjectively stopped or almost froze. That’s why the speed of light is the fastest observed speed in our universe. Anything faster would be a time travel into the past. Mind my language, this was for an article.

Retro Causality Time Loop Theory
This is a bit hard to get your head around, but basically this theory says that time is not linear, and the fold in space-time backs this up. This theory is nothing new, and has been explained in ancient esoteric texts, but physics is catching up. In a nutshell, the past, present, and future are all happening in the now. The future has already happened based on past actions, however, present actions are continually changing that predefined future, and the ever changing future is influencing the past. Hold on a second, the future has already happened? Yes it is predetermined, but the future is ever changing, it is not totalitarian.

Exactly. The notion of colliding particles to divide and find further smaller particles is absurdity, least not because we can't physically see these particles but only the supposed affect of them via mathematical models in combination with high-tech particle smashers. It requires faith and trust that the experts know what they're doing, that what they're measuring as a new particle is actually a particle and not something else.

As for time, I agree it all happens now, but I don't agree with the notion of past, present, future.. time clearly has no objective existence, it is totally subjective and the result of a confusion of language. It helps us makes sense of our lives so it's not irrelevant in that sense though.

Like the concept of space (spatial), it completely depends on one thing being relative to another. To illustrate, imagine there is a single particle floating in empty space all alone and that we have determined is in motion. How do we find out the direction of motion? How do we determine its speed? It could be moving a million miles an hour in a given direction, on paper, but in reality there is no motion or direction because there is nothing relative to the particle with which to use as a reference.

Space, time, motion.. I'm tempted to say they only exist subjectively.

What if space itself would be a particle? And i mean particle as in pixel, or unit of information.

Where does it end and begin?
How is it distinct from other?
What is other to it?
Aristotle's Categories is incredibly useful and applicable as well as relevant even today.

I just had a really good giggle “is absurdity”. I guess you’re right, past, present, and future aren’t inherent values, they are really, what’s the word...ideologies? Just adjectives to discuss actions. These adjectives help differentiate when an action was done or is going to be done? I’ve often fumbled with the notion that time doesn’t really exist quite regularly in the past (ironically), especially when we experience time-dilation in our subjective time-space on psychedelic experiences, that feeling of “being stuck”.

Motion is relative in my opinion not subjective. But space? That’s tricky, if we say time is subjective then wouldn’t that mean space-time is also subjective? Do we count space as being different from space-time?

And very interesting, how do we know the particles we get colliding particles are really particles. Fascinating statement.

I don't accept that concept of space-time I think it's one of the greatest blunders of science. Again, that statement is not likely to make me any friends in the science community The notion that you can take two abstractions and create a new one that can then 'curve' and 'bend' is just pure metaphysical nonsense to my mind. It may satisfy certain criteria on paper but it just defies logic and common sense.. again it comes right back to the fact that human ego simply can not handle infinity. Connecting space and time, space-time, to the notion of 'expanding space' and the Big Bang, it's all just our human way of not-dealing with infinity in terms of space and time. The notion that space, and by extension cosmic space, may actually be infinite offends the insecure ego. It certainly offends the priesthood of modern science! Infinite space and no time? How else do we strike fear into the hearts of men in order to control them?..

And space is totally an abstraction, a subjective reality. I don't think this is at odds with your original ideas about quantum theory and God, in fact I would argue it actually supports it. Space and time arise out of us (God), figuratively and in an ontological way.

Without a carteasian grid floating in space/on paper, and without the body as your point of reference.. how do you measure/define space? Without the Earth going around the Sun, how do you measure time? One thing relative to another is necessary to define both. I don't think space can have an objective existence because it can only be defined by a relationship (abstraction) between two 'things', one of which is totally subjective (the witness/you/God).

A quick, seemingly relevant, musical diversion at this point:

?
But this is exactly what the definition of what space-time is... It is emergent out of the causal relationship of two massless entities... (which emerges mass itself, which space-time is fundamentally tied to)

This is why by the very same definition, a massless entity such as light, ( a photon), does not experience time nor space. From the perspective of light, it is simultaneously interacting with the electrons in your retina at the same moment it is being birthed in a supernova billions of light years away, at the same time it is simultaneously interacting billions of years into the future and billions of years into the past in every direction. Of course, space-time is meaningless to describe the experience of massless entities, and effectively does not exist. This is well known and has been known for a long time.

You should probably actually learn the physics before formulating your ideas against it, you might find they coincide more with your beliefs than you currently think.

Otherwise, you are just formulating against ideas in modern science or physics that no one actually believes in the first place because they don't actually exist, you are just misunderstanding them. If you are going to argue against something, ANYTHING. You better be sure as hell you understand what you are arguing against.

In the same sense, often when individuals argue against the idea of a God they are arguing against an idea of a god that is so inept and poorly thought through that no one really believes in either, besides maybe small children.

Have you ever been on airplane (or used a product being shipped by airplane from another country)? Are you a flight engineer and understand how it works, or did you put your faith in it?

What about the computer (or phone) you are using to type these posts, do you understand exactly how they work?

So why do you put your faith on some things that science say work the way they work, but not others? Isn't that a little too convenient?

The good thing about science is that it is reproducible...You aren't just relying on faith with something that can never be checked. Sure maybe you (or I) don't understand it right now, but almost anyone who really wants to understand can dedicate a certain amount of time with readily available information and end up understanding it. Not only that, but people can run all sorts of reproducible experiments, as are done all the time all around the world, and see that "it all adds up".

And new better models to explain reality can come up, but that's not a disadvantage, that's an advantage, that's what got us so far, and away from dogma. Also, even you could propose a new model, as long as the model explains the observations better than the old one.

So saying you don't "accept the concept of space-time" and to suggest that this specific model is a problem of "ego", at the same time not providing a better model to explain the results of endless experiments and observations of our universe, that thousands of independent people can attest to every day ... Can't you see the problem there? Don't you think before seeming so sure about what is and what isn't true in physics, it would be better to learn it first and come up with informed rebuttals backed with evidence, on the specific theories you disagree with?



Which logic does it defy? If you study these things you can see a pretty clear logic, even though it's not as easy to understand as 1+1=2. Also, who's to say that the universe must limit itself to the human understanding of 'common sense' ? Isn't that a better example of shaping one's model because of one's ego?






AFAIK that's a common misinterpretation of quantum physics. It seems it has nothing to do with consciousness, but rather with the act of measuring. This could be an automatic measurement for example, it doesn't require an actual conscious person to look in order for the collapse of the wave function. It's because when measuring, something needs to "touch" reality and this will affect it. Imagine you are in a dark room and someone asks you to touch an object to find what it is, and it's for example a fragile house of cards.. As soon as you touch the object to find what it is, you make it crumble down... So after this measurement, you might now know what it is, but at the same time you changed the original object, now you have a bunch of cards on the floor. The measurement itself, and not the consciousness of the observer, has interfered with the object and hence changed it.


As for god, it is such a loaded word with many interpretations, with fights over it, in different levels and contexts being a mix of spirituality, social control, misinformation, mythology, wishful thinking, poetry and symbolic language, mistranslations, etc etc so its hard to have a discussion on it.

For myself, I just see God as the Unity behind the Multiplicity, as the Song that plays across the universe and with which I'm trying to synchronize, as the light at the end of the tunnel where my self-development and evolution leads to. I can only think of it in such more poetic ways which reflect previous experiences I had in life and with psychedelics, that are also connected to a very soothing existential feeling. But then if I start trying to rationalize it and come up with more logical definitions, it doesn't hold up, like trying to grab water with one's hand.

I think the role of consciousness in quantum mechanics is not settled yet. There still is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that allows it (although it is not strongly favored because of points similar to what endlessness was bringing up).

Interestingly, physicists taking psychedelics at the Esalen institute have been a driving force of contributions to work in the interpretations of quantum mechanics. Especially in the 60s and 70s when the mainstream attitude was to "shut up and calculate". Anyone interested in this subject may enjoy reading "How the hippies saved physics". A short intro to the book is in the video below. I consider it an important piece of psychedelic history.



Roger Penrose is one of the professionals that has contributed to the field of consciousness and physics. He has appeared in a Joe Rogan podcast.

Whatever interpretation of quantum mechanics (if any) ends up surviving future experiments, it could have something profound to say about our reality. One of my personal favorites is how quantum mechanics can be interpreted to show that we live in a simulated reality.

This is where our opinions on what consciousness is differs. I think we don’t understand what consciousness is, from a microscopic or a quantum level collective. I think it’s foolish to presume that measurement isn’t as an act of conscious observation and perception. In hindsight, everything, even these chaotic quantum particles without a state, are interacting with their environment well before they are measured. So it’s safe to assume that human interaction creates a quantum state. Isn’t any form of human interaction a conscious action, whether you observe or measure?

Do you work for the priesthood of science? The notion that one has to be fully versed in the subject matter to hold a position against it is nonsense. The layman can often be correct on matters he has no intellectual grasp of through a common sense approach and use of his intuition alone, and more over he is not encumbered by any intellectual superiority or held back by belief of inferiority (he embraces his ignorance).



Not really. The items you mentioned all work because of classical or non-relativistic physics. The plane, computer, telephone, none of those require relativity or space-time in order to function.. classical physics explains their functionality sufficiently without the need for relativity, special relativity, quantum physics etc.

And where is it written that you have to accept absolutely everything science puts forward until someone disproves it? I'm not beholden to that philosophy. If I think something within science is nonsense I'm going to bloody well say so and not wait until I have a PhD in astrophysics or until someone disproves it. Relativity may be proven to be false in 10, 50, 100 years.. you may choose to wait, personally I don't see why anyone should be prevented from having an opinion on any scientific theory now.



Nope. I've heard this argument many times and it does not hold water for much the same reason outlined above. Why is it my duty to become a subject expert and waste my life in order to try and disprove something I intuitively know already is incorrect? Some may see that as a noble effort, I see that as a wasted life.

When it comes to space-time, relativity and special relativity, the bar for refuting these theories has been set so ridiculously high by making an icon out of Einstein that in order to disprove them it is going to take a really significant discovery or for someone to come up with a whole new paradigm altogether which is a ludicrous proposition (and unfair). His theories form one of the pillars of our modern scientific paradigm.. to remove it would cause a collapse and necessitate a new pillar to replace it, or at the very least going back to the drawing board/retracing our steps.

Well satnav is actually based on relativity. Without it, it doesn't work.

https://physics.stackexc...gps-depend-on-relativity

(Thanks for that, I don't use Satnav so I never bother finding out how it works!)