Quantum theory and why scientists still dont put consciousness/God into the equation

[Harini]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

Regardless of what the SV scriptures actually say that is an interesting perspective. Let me explain that if this relative observation is true then we cannot build a verifiable theory at all. Because your theory would be based on your observables. Einstein's theory would be based on Einstein's observables and so on. So if what you say is indeed correct as per SV,, then assuming these writing are true, we have to look beyond Heisenberg's approach. Heisenberg wanted to construct a theory based on observables and a theory is meaningful only when another person find these observables meaningful to him as well.
Nice finding, let me listen to Nara's view on your interpretation of SV text and why he thinks what you have interpreted is not an intended meaning.

The string of theories that will get posted will lead to 'chaos theory' for the administrator to intervene and ensure Order. By our scriptures the administrator is the Generator Operator Destroyer(GOD) trinity who demands Bhakthi for ensuring Order!!

 

[zebra16]

"Possibly I did use this kind of reasoning," Einstein admitted, "but it is nonsense all the same....In reality the very opposite happens. It is the theory which decides what we can observe."

Then, may be we have to discuss theory ladenness, before discussing the theory?

 

[Nara]

....Nice finding, let me listen to Nara's view on your interpretation of SV text and why he thinks what you have interpreted is not an intended meaning.

Well, I have already presented what the early SV acharyas thought the verse meant, it is pretty straight forward. The "understanding" Harini has presented is too abstract for me. To me, like the quote attributed to Sigmund Freud, "sometimes a cigar is a cigar".

If QM is to be found in Azhvar pasurams, then anything can be found there.

BTW, about BG, it is interesting to observe that BG is not mentioned anywhere in all the 4000 +/- verses of Dhivya Prabndham, even though many details of Lord Sri Krishna's life story can be found there, including he having been Arjuna's charioteer, but not a word about BG. So, one can reasonably date BG after the time of Azhvars, which will put the earliest date for BG 9th century CE.

Cheers!

 

[subbudu1]

Well, I have already presented what the early SV acharyas thought the verse meant, it is pretty straight forward. The "understanding" Harini has presented is too abstract for me. To me, like the quote attributed to Sigmund Freud, "sometimes a cigar is a cigar".

If QM is to be found in Azhvar pasurams, then anything can be found there.

BTW, about BG, it is interesting to observe that BG is not mentioned anywhere in all the 4000 +/- verses of Dhivya Prabndham, even though many details of Lord Sri Krishna's life story can be found there, including he having been Arjuna's charioteer, but not a word about BG. So, one can reasonably date BG after the time of Azhvars, which will put the earliest date for BG 9th century CE.

Cheers!

I disagree to your date of BG for the following reasons
1. al-Beruni (973-1048) mentions BG
2. Shankaracharya 7 th century mentions it as a text of importance - means it has gained recognition by then.
3. Ramanujacharya translates BG

So in all we seem to have an evidence which indicates the likelihood of BG to be much earlier. The historically assigned date is 2 century BC.

I would think that date is plausible.

 

[Nara]

....The historically assigned date is 2 century BC.

I would think that date is plausible.

Subbudu sir, I have my doubts.

[1] Al-Biruni's references to Gita are not unequivocally Bhagavat Geeta. Even so, his date seems to be late 10th to early 11th century.

[2] Adi Sankara's commentary on BG shows that BG was part of the scripture by his time, that again puts BG aroung early 9th century, which is consistent with the fact Azhvars seemingly were unaware of BG and that Al-Biruni knew about something similar.

[3] Bhagavat Ramanuja came about two centuries after the Azhvars, middle 10th century.

So, all three references you have cited are consistent with the date I am guessing. I may be wrong + or - a century, but to go all the way back to 2 BCE is a stretch, IMO.

Cheers!

 

[arunshanker]

"Shankaracharya 7 th century mentions it as a text of importance - means it has gained recognition by then"
Is it 7th Century BCE or CE

 

[arunshanker]

I did some post on the historicity of BG inthis forum some time back
here are the links and here are the post verbatim
a.http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/philoso...html#post23001
b. http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/philoso...html#post22998 ( this is a post you sped time reading I took a lot of time in research to write it)
c. Please read this too http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/philoso...html#post23004
The above posts will let you know about my views on Geetha
There has not been a single manuscript of Bhagavad-Gita before Adi Shankara (Now please I don’t want to go into the dates of Shankara but if you do want to know my views go to thread (Adi Shankara-Kumārila Bhaṭṭa and Madana Mishra- Can we see a chronological pattern?)
Hence one is tempted here is to say that it had been passed on thru mouth, although personally I take this an argument only to predate it because I wonder how a composition of this magnitude was not manuscriptised when there were several manuscripts of various other work much before the accepted dates of Adi Shankara.
But I guess there was a commentary on it by Bodhâyana but that is matter of contest
Some research on the text of Gita itself gives us a hint of its time like for example, verse XV, 15
(sarvasya caham hridi sannivisto
mattah smritir jnanam apohanam ca
vedais ca sarvair aham eva vedyo
vedanta-krd veda-vid eva caham)
makes a mention as the author of the Vedanta. Vedantic schools of thought were founded by Shri Adi Shankara, composition of the widely accepted text or version text took place when the doctrine of Vedanta came into prominence. But these are conjectures and possibly one of many methods to date it
Alberuni, (1017 to 1031 A.D), wrote a book Alberuni's Indica, mentions Gita fourteen times but never as Bhagavad Geetha!
The original Geetha has say about 85 verses and mostly dealt on Samkya Phill. A lot of interpolation has been done on this with yoga and vedanta to come up to the present version of Bhagavat Geetha
There has been editing or revising a text based on critical analysis ever so many on this text and Adi Shankara must have done some very significant ones here.
But in general a date between fifth century B.C.E and the second century B.C.E can be accepted for the original Geetha. Note here it is the Geetha and not the Bhagavath Geetha

But it was definitely shruti earlier to that as it was thought to be an important one too even before the accepted practice of manuscripting in palms leaves came about
Note that the Shankara Bhashyam does not have commentary on 57 verses of gita He starts with 11th verse of chapter II
Actually the archaic gita may have mentioned a moola prakrithi ( Kapila’s God ) rather than the God as a creator.
Will post more later. But let me tell you [COLOR=#DA7911 ! important][FONT=inherit ! important][COLOR=#DA7911 ! important][FONT=inherit ! important]History[/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR] was one of weakest points in Ancient India nobody really cared to record and preserver event as we saw being done much much earlier in Rome and Greece . That is one of the shortcomings working as deterrent in dating the gita

The author was vysa and the style difference in it from Mahabhratha was because Vysa poetised it and made it actually a geetha that was what it was and was sung hence the shruthi

Remember here there was no mention of Mahabhrata in Indan History before 4th Century BCE It was originally the Jaya Kavya and pbly composed after 4th Cent BCE and before 2nd Centurt CE
I have got the 85 verses will give you the link actually there was one found in Bali the south china sea island in palm leaves I wonder if they have Carbon dated it
and a similar 85 verse was found in
here are the details
Chapter 1 - 20-37 and 45-47
Chapter 2 10-13, 18-30, 39 and 47-52
Chapter 3 -1-16, 19, 26-29, 33-34 and 42
Chapter 4 16 -19, 23-33 and 37-42
Chapter 5 1-2, 4-6 8-17 1-6
Chapter 6 10-12, 18-28 and 46
that makes it 121 verses in common actually some are combined hence the only 85 in the archaic Geetha
Please note here that I am talking of when it happened I talking of when it was possibly composed

You have gone too far back!The most primitive acknowledged references to the [COLOR=#DA7911 ! important][FONT=inherit ! important][COLOR=#DA7911 ! important][FONT=inherit ! important]Mahabharata[/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR] date back to time of the great Sanskrit lit Pāṇini ( 4th century B.C.E), This suggests that the core verses, were composed by the 4th century B.C.E. The original Jaya purana may date back further but not before 8th Cen BCE[/COLOR]
It reached the final form in in thee Gupta period
One Important finding here is the copper-plate inscription of the [COLOR=#DA7911 ! important][FONT=inherit ! important][COLOR=#DA7911 ! important][FONT=inherit ! important]Maharaja[/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR] Sharvanatha (516-517 CE) from Khoh (Satna District, [COLOR=#DA7911 ! important][FONT=inherit ! important][COLOR=#DA7911 ! important][FONT=inherit ! important]Madhya [/FONT][COLOR=#DA7911 ! important][FONT=inherit ! important]Pradesh[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR]) describes the Mahabharata as a "collection of 100,000 verses"[/COLOR]

 

[subbudu1]

Today we are all used to talking about academics and academy. Long back Plato founded the Academia. This was a public garden within the suburbs of Athens, much like the universities of today.( Ref 17)

The first university in Europe had a diverse curriculam- Geometry, geology, astronomy and religion and even political science.( Ref 18) Far away in India at a similar time we had schools for political theory attended by people like Chanakya who was immortalized in the sanskrit play Mudra Rakshasa.


At that time in North Greece was born Aristotle. He was the son of a court physician to the Macedonian Royal family. He initially studied Medicine and was then sent to School to study under Plato.(Ref 19). Aristotle was a teacher to the famous Greek Emperor Alexander the Great. Aristotle might have been eighteen years when he enrolled into Plato's Academy. Aristotle questioned some of Plato's teachings and he was hence not appointed as the head of Academy. It was then left for him to start his very own school which was called Lyceum.

In the field of Zoology his contribution was immense. He grouped animals together into different species vertebrates invertebrates etc. None other than Charles Darwin was influenced by him.(Ref 19)



I find this far sighted for the times

The same parts of the earth are not always moist or dry, but they change according as rivers come into existence and dry up. And so the relation of land to sea changes too and a place does not always remain land or sea throughout all time, but where there was dry land there comes to be sea, and where there is now sea, there one day comes to be dry land. But we must suppose these changes to follow some order and cycle. The principle and cause of these changes is that the interior of the earth grows and decays, like the bodies of plants and animals. . . .

It might be a news to some that this philosopher was embraced by the Roman Catholic Church and influenced their thinking.

Aristotle also influenced the way we apply logic in Scientific investigations. He prepared a handbook on his understanding of logic.

There is possibly one reason why he must have been considered positively by the Church. (Ref 19)

According to Aristotle there is no such thing as mere being; to be is always to be a substance or object, a quantity, a quality, or a member of some other basic category. Substances are prior to nonsubstances because qualities or quantities are determined by substances. Such substances as God may, however, lack quantities and qualities. Hence an account of beings is, in the first place, an account of substances. Initially, it appears that substances are objects, like the everyday objects, but closer consideration shows that the primary individuals are the forms or essences of particular objects. To understand these it is necessary to realize that they are a particular kind of substance--embodied substantial forms. To understand substance, therefore, it is necessary to consider immaterial substantial forms, ultimately God. Only then can humans understand what it is to be a substance, and what it is to exist.

Ref 17. Academy, The [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
Ref 18 Plato - Greek Philosopher - Biography
Ref 19 aristotle
Ref 19 Aristotle