Scientific knowledge as a projection of Spiritual Knowledge

[renuka]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

I will talk about the relationship between the spiritual truths and the scientific truths. I propose the following to start with:

1. Knowledge exists as a complete whole in the spiritual reality
2. There is no distinction between the perceived and the perceiver in the spiritual reality
3. Knowledge needs to be synthesized in the physical reality
4. Knowledge that already exists as synthesized needs to be analysed in the physical reality

I will try to present the basis for making the above claims in the coming posts.

Dear Sravna,

Whatever said and done...I have to salute you.

You must be having a real long and good attention span.

I can not hold so much "heavy duty" stuff at one time in my brain with my short attention span.

I can't even sit through a class lecture without being distracted and can only study if I take short breaks every 15 minutes.

I also can't converse with anyone too long cos I will get bored after 10 minutes.

I also can not read about religion only without taking breaks by reading hot juicy cinema scandal gossips.

Even though I can not make out head nor tail of what you listed above wonder if it is logical or not but I am still going to salute you anyway for your long attention span.

Let me relax a while seeing a few patients and will get back soon trying to figure out something in this thread.

 

[sravna]

Dear Renuka,

But the other side is I have to coax myself very hard to start a heavy duty stuff. Once I start I will be sincere to it.

 

[renuka]

Dear Sravna,

1)Knowledge exists as a complete whole in the spiritual reality.

I take it that you mean in the spiritual realm.

Ok if we are going to be Advaitic here..in the highest state there is no such thing as this and that..there is only Brahman.

So for all practical purposes in the highest state its "Ekam Advaitam Brahman".

If you are still seeing knowledge persisting in some form or the other that means some amount of dualism still persist.

2)There is no distinction between the perceived and the perceiver in the spiritual realm.

Ok fair enough..but I would like to add here that in the spiritual realm as in the highest state there is no perceiver nor there is the perceived.

Remember the famous Upanishadic stanza (which I have made it into a rhyme)

Two little birds sitting on a tree
One eats fruits but the other just sees
One knows all but the other doesn't know
There's only One though two are in a row.

Ok in the so called physical realm where we humans have not transcended the state of "inability to perceive the truth" we perceive things through our senses.
We have yet to reach the ultimate state hence still perceiving through our external senses eating the fruits on the tree of existence.

God on the other hand is the One that knows all and watches us just like the bird who observes us eating away happily totally oblivious that we are being watched.

In reality we are no different from the other bird(God) but we still see ourselves as a separate entity.

Ok in the spiritual realm you have mentioned...technically when there is only One Supreme State..nothing else exists..so when there is only One how can there even be a perceiver or perceive anymore??

So I would like to rephrase your statement as "In the spiritual realm the concept of perceiver and perceived ceases to exists.

3)Knowledge needs to be synthesized in the physical reality.

Sravna..according to what I have read before that knowledge for mankind is actually in the cosmos which only needs to be uncovered..so when only uncovering needs to be done..where is the question of synthesis??

I am talking on grounds of philosophy here.

4)Knowledge that already exists as synthesized needs to be analysed in the physical reality.

The analytical ability is the main reason we are called humans.

That is how we humans learn by trial and error and also by analysis of our experiences in life.

A child might not know a pot on the stove is hot..he touches it and burns his hands...then it registers in his brain that fire can cause burns and avoids touching hot items in future.

To a certain extent even animals learn by analysis and that develops into basic instincts over time.

So there is nothing really to analyse here as " Knowledge that already exists as synthesized needs to be analysed in the physical reality"

 

[tks]

Here is one, "The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos"

Sri Sangom -

This is one of the book I was going to suggest. Sri Nara beat me to it.

I am not sure how appealing it will be if someone did not have strong background in physics to begin with though it is written for laymen.

A brief history of time by Stephen Hawking is a better readable for background before reading Brian Green's book on Hidden Reality.

A simpler starting point be watching this video

Stephen Hawking - The Expanding Universe - YouTube

If you have specific question you can pose in a different thread

Regards

 

[auh]

Ok, will wait for you to elucidate your points.

 

[sravna]

Premise 1: A fact may be only universal in scope or both universal and timeless in scope.

Logical Proof of Premise 1

Premise 11: The universe i.e., space, time , energy and matter had a beginning.

Proof: Assume there is a beginningless past and assume that the present may be reached. Then you have to conclude that the time span of the past is finite. You have to conclude this because a definite period of time has elapsed. But the fact is past has no beginning or it goes infinitely backwards and thus the time span of the past cannot be finite. So the assumption that present can be reached cannot be true and the hypothesis that the universe had no beginning is false.

Premise 12: The universe was created out of something whose equivalent is an energy which is constant everywhere in space and always in time because this represents something beyond space and time..

Proof: The defining features of space and time: Two points in space differ in energy and is responsible for movement in space. Similarly two points in time differ in energy and is responsible for movement in time which are measured as frequencies. When the energies in space and time are constant it represents something which is beyond space and time. Space and time needs to have emerged out of something that is beyond them and so premise 12 is true.

Premise 13: Physical reality emerged from the spiritual reality and is a relative reality, based on premises 11 and 12

Conclusion 1: Facts based on the physical reality are relatively real i.e., they can be falsified by the higher reality and hence not timeless.

Conclusion 2: Facts based on the spiritual reality are absolutely indisputable i.e., they are universal and timeless.

 

[auh]

Hi Sravna,

Proof: Assume there is a beginningless past and assume that the present may be reached. Then you have to conclude that the time span of the past is finite. You have to conclude this because a definite period of time has elapsed. But the fact is past has no beginning or it goes infinitely backwards and thus the time span of the past cannot be finite. So the assumption that present can be reached cannot be true and the hypothesis that the universe had no beginning is false.

This proof is like saying that since mangoes are not blue in colour, there is no colour blue. The proof should be something that should logically point out to the conclusion and not just mere assumptions. First of all, I can contradict the above proof by saying that an indefinite period of time has elapsed, and lo, your proof falls apart.

Proof: The defining features of space and time: Two points in space differ in energy and is responsible for movement in space. Similarly two points in time differ in energy and is responsible for movement in time which are measured as frequencies. When the energies in space and time are constant it represents something which is beyond space and time. Space and time needs to have emerged out of something that is beyond them and so premise 12 is true.

This seems to be even more bizarre. Maybe there is something technical here, but I find it impossible to accept that space and time have emerged. What do you think is space?

I am sorry if my replies blunt, but that it is against the posts and not the poster.

 

[sravna]

Hi Sravna,

This proof is like saying that since mangoes are not blue in colour, there is no colour blue. The proof should be something that should logically point out to the conclusion and not just mere assumptions. First of all, I can contradict the above proof by saying that an indefinite period of time has elapsed, and lo, your proof falls apart.

Dear Shri Auh,

You are missing the point. I say a definite period should have elapsed because according to the assumption present is reached. How can it be indefinite? Think about it

This seems to be even more bizarre. Maybe there is something technical here, but I find it impossible to accept that space and time have emerged. What do you think is space?

That language is used even in a scholarly discourse. So I wouldn't bother to offer any explanation on that
BTW you do sound very informed for one who says is ignorant of the field.

 

[auh]

Hi Sravna,

From where, what has reached the present? It is not clear.

No problems if you cannot offer any explanations as that proves that it is difficult to elucidate these things easily, let alone grasp it in scientific terms. If you say that space has emerged out of something, then what was there before? You see, this line of thought would not help. You seem to think that by just saying these words, it would become logical. Sorry, no.

I have my own views on the subject but will keep them reserved. What I said was that I keep my prejudices aside when I parse this thread.

 

[renuka]

Logical Proof of Premise 1

Premise 11: The universe i.e., space, time , energy and matter had a beginning.

Proof: Assume there is a beginningless past and assume that the present may be reached..

Dear Sravna,

Proof has to be a fact and not an assumption.

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,

Proof has to be a fact and not an assumption.

Dear Renuka,

What I am doing here is assuming something and saying that the assumption cannot be true and so the contrary is true.

 

[கால பைரவன்]

Dear Sravna,

Proof has to be a fact and not an assumption.

Dear Doc, The first statement alone is not the proof. The whole argument constitutes the proof. The method employed by Sravna in this case is a well known method known as Reductio-ad-absurdum. Please refer: Reductio ad absurdum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[auh]

Sravna, what if the assumption itself is challenged?

 

[sravna]

Hi Sravna,

From where, what has reached the present? It is not clear.

Dear Shri Auh,

It is the time. from where it reached the present is not necessary since if present is reached the time
elapsed has to be definite. but the other fact that past extends infinitely backwards contradicts this. so both cannot be true at the same time. Thus the assumption is false.

No problems if you cannot offer any explanations as that proves that it is difficult to elucidate these things easily, let alone grasp it in scientific terms. If you say that space has emerged out of something, then what was there before?

If you read my argument clearly, I would have concluded that space and time emerged out of spiritual reality. I have also mentioned the requirements of spiritual reality.

 

[renuka]

Dear Doc, The first statement alone is not the proof. The whole argument constitutes the proof. The method employed by Sravna in this case is a well known method known as Reductio-ad-absurdum. Please refer: Reductio ad absurdum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dear Sir,

Thanks...I was not aware of this method.

 

[sravna]

An additional thought. When we say constant energy with respect to space and time, the reality is perfectly interconnected which is the main feature of spiritual energy.

 

[sangom]

Here is one, "The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos"

Thanks a lot, Shri Nara

 

[sangom]

The premises are debatable, are they not?
What is scope of a fact. How can we identify timeless facts, and what comprises universal facts? How can one fact refute another? A fact is something that can only be proved or demonstrated. There are no other facts, and this is a fact ;-). I am beginning to think that these premises are put forward to augment your theories only.

Dear auh,

I feel we may wait for Shri Sravna to come out with his whole proposition. (I wanted to send a pm to you but it seems you have disabled pms. Will you kindly send a pm to me giving your e-mail id?)

 

[sangom]

God on the other hand is the One that knows all and watches us just like the bird who observes us eating away happily totally oblivious that we are being watched.

I think the apt word here is "paramAtma" and not God. But paramAtma or parabrahman cannot know because it is supposed to be "nirguNa" as per advaita; perhaps we can think of it as some force or energy, that's all.

Am I right?

 

[sangom]

Logical Proof of Premise 1

Premise 11: The universe i.e., space, time , energy and matter had a beginning.

If "time" had a beginning, can anything be "timeless" or or anAdyanta as our scriptures describe?

 

[sravna]

If "time" had a beginning, can anything be "timeless" or or anAdyanta as our scriptures describe?

Dear Shri Sangom,

When we say time had a beginning it should refer to the beginning of time as a reality. Time itself is thus only relatively real

 

[C RAVI]

Dear Shri Auh,

You should be more patient and wait till the ideas develop into some concrete and comprehensible form. I think you do understand that we are discussing some really heavy stuff for which there will be no quick answers especially when the perspective is new. I would try to understand the gist first and then try to focus on semantics and other less substantive issues.

BTW I do understand you are new to this topic which makes it extra difficult for you to grasp all the stuff at once. But as I said trying to focus on the big picture will help you anytime.

Very well said Shri.Sravna,


Let us exchange our ideas to the best of our ability without wasting our time. As you said, in such heavy topics its not easy to use the most appropriate terminology instantly by few of us who are not retired at home. As long as we could convey and understand the gist of the past that should be fine.

More over Shri.Sravna, the healthy exchange of ideas are only possible among the people who are willing to grasp the gist of posts on such heavy & deep subjects. Let us continue among the interested parties who all can respect each others contribution in their efforts to understand and elaborate the topic, sparing their time and energy. Let us not get carried away by useless distractions.

 

[renuka]

I think the apt word here is "paramAtma" and not God. But paramAtma or parabrahman cannot know because it is supposed to be "nirguNa" as per advaita; perhaps we can think of it as some force or energy, that's all.

Am I right?

Dear Sangom ji,

Yes you are right..in fact I deliberately used the word God instead of Paramatma etc cos as it is this thread is getting sort of borderline complicatedism..so I wanted to keep things simple.

Did you see how I chose to use the word 'inability to decipher' instead of Avidya?

Cos you see if I use Avidya..then next word to be roped in will be Maya.

In 24 hours..my brain can only handle some simple stuff and not heavy duty 24/7!

Yes you are right about the Force/Energy etc...so all I can say we are still not Jedis yet.

All I can hear in the background is "The Force is with you young Skywalker but you are not a Jedi yet"

May be we should all see Star Wars Trilogy to get a better understanding of Time,Space and what ever that comes in between that!LOL

 

[renuka]

Let us not get carried away by useless distractions.

Especially by post #120.

 

[sravna]

Very well said Shri.Sravna,


Let us exchange our ideas to the best of our ability without wasting our time. As you said, in such heavy topics its not easy to use the most appropriate terminology instantly by few of us who are not retired at home. As long as we could convey and understand the gist of the past that should be fine.

More over Shri.Sravna, the healthy exchange of ideas are only possible among the people who are willing to grasp the gist of posts on such heavy & deep subjects. Let us continue among the interested parties who all can respect each others contribution in their efforts to understand and elaborate the topic, sparing their time and energy. Let us not get carried away by useless distractions.

Yes Ravi, I did suggest that everyone can contribute to the topic and let us see if a consensus emerges.