|
|
Post by cvsaragrahi on Jul 23, 2011 14:51:30 GMT -6
Malati, your statement "There you go again with your forced definition of atheism. Get over it. If you want to start a new system then do so. We live in a democracy afterall. But dont pretend that it is GVism. Try to be intellectually honest. Sheez, I'm bored rehashing this topic." makes it sound like you are the one needing intellectual honesty or some kind of reaction management. I left ISKCON years ago to avoid this kind of attitude. This is a free expression forum, by the grace of Nitai, where I can voice my thoughts, isn't it? If you don't like my non-intellectual drivel, then show your superior status with a little more class. If you are bored rehashing then don't rehash and try to refrain from acting out as if others who are trying to express their ideas are some sort of moron in your view. Sheesh!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Sept 13, 2011 11:32:52 GMT -6
Here is another interesting discussion about free will that takes into account some of the most recent research in the neurosciences. Have a look. Free will appears to be an illusion. Here. |
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Sept 13, 2011 13:42:48 GMT -6
Here is a paper by Dr. Henry Stapp, whom we have heard from before on this forum, that Vivekji forwarded to me on the question of free. He argues for the possibility of free will on the basis of an interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Here.This should serve to balance the views expressed above against its possibility. Vivekji, if you have more to add to this please do. |
|
|
|
Post by vkaul1 on Sept 13, 2011 14:48:48 GMT -6
Yes so Amit Goswami and Henry Stapp are among the few people who have written articles that are not completely "pseudo-scientific" on this issue.
So by free will, Stapp means that physical determinism cannot completely account for human consciousness or even nature at the quantum level. It does not mean that there is no determinism but algorithmic determinism does not complete define human consciousness though it does do a good job of explaining a good number of things.
This is what Stapp had written to me:
I believe in the "principle of sufficient reason" which says that at
some cosmically basic level there is something like determinism,
but certainly not physical determinism, nor anything like algorithmic
mathematical determinism, where, in principle, some process beyond full nature herself, could simulate evolving nature. The number of possible
states of the psychophysical quantum universe is infinite in a continuum sense that precludes its ever returning to a previous state.
|
|
|
|
Post by vkaul1 on Sept 20, 2011 23:35:37 GMT -6
www.newstatesman.com/blogs/helen-lewis-hasteley/2011/06/physics-theory-ideas-universeIn this interview, Briane Greene makes some statements about free will that I copy below. I did not understand how his idea of multi-verse (I put his statement in bold) in which all five choices in front of the individual will be tenable given that the number of universes will continue to expand exponentially as the choices do. He does point out to the quantum measurement problem as the only place for free will and that is where Henry Stapp is working. So Stapp in that sense is working in the area where Greene is pointing to. Where does free will affect where they will be in five minutes? We do not see free will in the equations. I think that you and I are just particles governed by particular laws. In Newtonian terms, it is very clear, there is no free will. The quantum mechanics comes along and people think that maybe that is where there is free will because, now, there is a fuzziness, there are many possible outcomes. Maybe free will enters there, but it does not, because, in the Quantum equation, there is still absolute determinism of what will happen in a probabilistic sense: the equations say, with absolute certainty, there is a 30 per cent of this, a 20 per cent chance of that, 50 per cent chance of that . . . Nowhere does free will come in into those equations either. The only place where free will may still have a last fighting chance to emerge, is in something which we do not yet understand: how, in Quantum physics, do we go from this many possible outcomes to the one definite outcome that we observe. In that so-called Quantum measurement problem, which is still a puzzle, you could imagine that, maybe, free will emerge. I doubt it, but the standard free-willer could say that is where it will happen. In the many worlds approach to this world which I describe in this book, certainly there is no free will happening, as I can see it. Every individual, when faced with five different choices, if each are allowed by the laws of physics, in quantum physics, each of those outcomes would happen. The individual would make all five choices, one per universe. And it would not be that the individual has had the choice to make one choice more real than the other, all of the choices would be as real as the others, they would take place in the different universes. There would not be any volitional choice involved in what happens.
|
|
|
|
Post by vkaul1 on Sept 21, 2011 8:58:42 GMT -6
www.newstatesman.com/blogs/helen-lewis-hasteley/2011/06/physics-theory-ideas-universeIn this interview, Briane Greene makes some statements about free will that I copy below. I did not understand how his idea of multi-verse (I put his statement in bold) in which all five choices in front of the individual will be tenable given that the number of universes will continue to expand exponentially as the choices do. He does point out to the quantum measurement problem as the only place for free will and that is where Henry Stapp is working. So Stapp in that sense is working in the area where Greene is pointing to. Where does free will affect where they will be in five minutes? We do not see free will in the equations. I think that you and I are just particles governed by particular laws. In Newtonian terms, it is very clear, there is no free will. The quantum mechanics comes along and people think that maybe that is where there is free will because, now, there is a fuzziness, there are many possible outcomes. Maybe free will enters there, but it does not, because, in the Quantum equation, there is still absolute determinism of what will happen in a probabilistic sense: the equations say, with absolute certainty, there is a 30 per cent of this, a 20 per cent chance of that, 50 per cent chance of that . . . Nowhere does free will come in into those equations either. The only place where free will may still have a last fighting chance to emerge, is in something which we do not yet understand: how, in Quantum physics, do we go from this many possible outcomes to the one definite outcome that we observe. In that so-called Quantum measurement problem, which is still a puzzle, you could imagine that, maybe, free will emerge. I doubt it, but the standard free-willer could say that is where it will happen. In the many worlds approach to this world which I describe in this book, certainly there is no free will happening, as I can see it. Every individual, when faced with five different choices, if each are allowed by the laws of physics, in quantum physics, each of those outcomes would happen. The individual would make all five choices, one per universe. And it would not be that the individual has had the choice to make one choice more real than the other, all of the choices would be as real as the others, they would take place in the different universes. There would not be any volitional choice involved in what happens.
BTW, Brian Green is the brother of one of Bhaktivedanta Swami's disciple. I think his name is Yogeswardas- Joshua Green.
For what its worth: Many physicists, Peter Woit for one, hates the String Theory. He said its not even wrong because it lacks testable prediction. What a put down!
And you two, Vkaul and Nitaidas think science is neat and clear cut. Many of "scientific truths " are truth because they are sufficiently probable. Cosmology is inferences upon inferences upon inferences and cosmology is science. I want you both to know, truth is not only accessed through the scientific method. Prove why Britain is called Britain?
I was reading an astronomer and he was saying that when Sean Carroll said that the law of nature (law of physics) is just is (we don't know it's nature); it is not any more valid than saying that the law of nature is a provenance from God.
I have just read this quote and I love it, so I must it here for posterity.
by physicist John Wheeler:
Never has physics come up with a way to tell with what initial conditions the universe was started off. On nothing is physics clearer than what is not physics: equation of motion, yes; initial position and velocity of the object which follows that equation of motion, no. (from At Home in the Universe) Thanks Malati ji. I never said science is clear cut www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeBkMzSLA8w&feature=related as this video will illustrate. However, the God of gaps idea always gets one in trouble. Just because the details given by each religion about creation are myths that speak of things differently from the scientific method. Myths have value like Campbell and Jung pointed out, but they are not conducive to experimental testing. Myths may give us access to the Absolute in ways science does not. However, just pointing out deficiencies is science is pointing to the obvious. Science does not work with absolute certainties. Things can be proven wrong but nothing can be 100% true because even after 1000 experiments, 1001st experiment may give you a result that contradicts the present theory. Religious creation theories (for example CM was born after 13 months in the womb) are not falsifiable, so they cannot be tested by the scientific method. That is what I think. |
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Sept 21, 2011 9:10:11 GMT -6
Here is a paper by Dr. Henry Stapp, whom we have heard from before on this forum, that Vivekji forwarded to me on the question of free. He argues for the possibility of free will on the basis of an interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Here.This should serve to balance the views expressed above against its possibility. Vivekji, if you have more to add to this please do.
The founders of quantum mechanics achieved an important advance in our
understanding of nature when they recognized that the mathematically-physically
described universe that appears in our best physical theory represents not the world of
material substance contemplated in the classical physics of Isaac Newton and his direct successors, but rather a world of potentialities or possibilities for our future acquisitions
of knowledge.
It also talked about retrocausation, reverse causality, allowing an effect to occur before its cause.
In my previous posts I mentioned that we should imagine a loop with all the potentialities hanging on it. Obviously if it's on a loop and not in a linear progression, like we would all normally think of cause and effect, then the upper level events can affect the lower level events.
Although I do not really understand his equations which support what he is saying, the ideas I presented on this thread are bizzarely similar to his. Check my posts above, if you want to know if I'm fibbing. The shastras and our Mahajans have/had very interesting imaginations indeed! Of course it also helped that I have read something about this topic somewhere.Just because you have said it and Stapp has said it does not make it true. Surely you know by now that we consider all sides here. Most of the evidence points away from the existence of a free will, as Greene points out. But it is good to consider the opposite possibility. There aren't very many advocates for it in the modern scientific community. It is great to have someone of the stature of Stapp weighing in on the opposite side of the question. But it is still a question. The answers are not settled yet and may never be. |
|
|
|
Post by vkaul1 on Sept 21, 2011 9:10:16 GMT -6
Here is a paper by Dr. Henry Stapp, whom we have heard from before on this forum, that Vivekji forwarded to me on the question of free. He argues for the possibility of free will on the basis of an interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Here.This should serve to balance the views expressed above against its possibility. Vivekji, if you have more to add to this please do.
The founders of quantum mechanics achieved an important advance in our
understanding of nature when they recognized that the mathematically-physically
described universe that appears in our best physical theory represents not the world of
material substance contemplated in the classical physics of Isaac Newton and his direct successors, but rather a world of potentialities or possibilities for our future acquisitions
of knowledge.
It also talked about retrocausation, reverse causality, allowing an effect to occur before its cause.
In my previous posts I mentioned that we should imagine a loop with all the potentialities hanging on it. Obviously if it's on a loop and not in a linear progression, like we would all normally think of cause and effect, then the upper level events can affect the lower level events.
Although I do not really understand his equations which support what he is saying, the ideas I presented on this thread are bizzarely similar to his. Check my posts above, if you want to know if I'm fibbing. The shastras and our Mahajans have/had very interesting imaginations indeed! Of course it also helped that I have read something about this topic somewhere.Thanks Malati ji for your input. In the paper, Stapp clearly states that he is just showing that his formulation of QM (coming from Von Neumann) can accommodate retrocausation, while retrocausation experiments need to be done more thoroughly by scientific community to check its accuracy. There is another thing. The concept of the atom was formulated first in the west by Democritus. However, it should be clear the modern concept of atom is different from Democritus's concept. So we could have called the "atom" "timbaktoo" and it would not have mattered. What is important is the concept not the labeling of the concept. That is why I found that traditional schools speaking about "anu" as if they predicted atoms make the same mistake. Though I would love to see the specific details coming from the scripture/mahajanas exactly matching modern science, I won't try to force fit a generic statement from them and make it correspond to modern science. Also many ideas like those of Democritus and Kannada that speak about atom are coming from non-mahajanas/non-vaisnavas sastra. So we don't know if vaisnavas/mahajanas know more about scientific understanding than vaisnavas. I wish they did, but I am not sure. Can you give exact references from the scripture/mahajans that match with modern scientific theories in specific detail? For example, the concept of multi-verse in SB with egg shaped universe of fixed width (don't remember how many yojanas) is different from the much bigger and expanding universe coming from modern science. Certainly the puranas speak of time frames that are bigger than other cultures and their universe also is bigger perhaps, but still it does not compare with the modern findings. |
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Sept 21, 2011 9:14:37 GMT -6
For God there is no God, so, He is an atheist. If energy and energetic are the same, yet different, then Radha-Krishna are both atheists. The Jiva, being part of Radha-Krishna, can also be an atheist [and get away with it], as soon as the part-whole distinction is vanished by the intensity of love. If one loves Radha-Krishna fully, they are not seen as Goddess/God but just the object of love. In this case, that jiva is an atheist too. Also, God is within the object, God is outside the object and God is the object, so, there is some kind of panentheistic pantheism going on, which would abolish all considerations of religion as delusion, making everything atheistic at the root. How can there be free will if Radha-Krishna is the supreme Author of all pastime? Fee will would be more like "apparent free will" since the words free will are an oxymoron?
Well, you are the one talking here, not God.
God does not have to define himself/herself. God does not have to attach a label to himself/herself. God is just is.
There you go again with your forced definition of atheism. Get over it. If you want to start a new system then do so.tWe live in a democracy afterall. But dont pretend that it is GVism. Try to be intellectually honest.
Sheez, I'm bored rehashing this topic. Now you are talking. You are not God either. Nor do you have any reason to pretend that you know what he or she thinks. What evidence is there that God is? Who cares what GVism was. It obviously is not the same today as it was in the 16th century. Who in their right minds would want to be part of that? |
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Sept 21, 2011 9:30:17 GMT -6
I wasn't going to post this, but since Malati's attack on science, it seems appropriate. It is a good summary of both sides. The critic of science and supporter of religion is John Gray, a British philosophy and the supporter of science is Jerry Coyne. Anyway, it states pretty clearly the arguments of both sides. Here. |
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Sept 21, 2011 9:53:12 GMT -6
Did you really read Stapps write-up? Then why did you say what you said? I did READ it and it was saying what I was saying; exactly the words I used. It's strange but I have never read this paper before.
The founders of quantum mechanics achieved an important advance in our
understanding of nature when they recognized that the mathematically-physically
described universe that appears in our best physical theory represents not the world of
material substance contemplated in the classical physics of Isaac Newton and his direct successors, but rather a world of potentialities or possibilities for our future acquisitions
of knowledge.
It also talked about retrocausation, reverse causality, allowing an effect to occur before its cause.
In my previous posts I mentioned that we should imagine a loop with all the potentialities hanging on it. Obviously if it's on a loop and not in a linear progression, like we would all normally think of cause and effect, then the upper level events can affect the lower level events.
Although I do not really understand his equations which support what he is saying, the ideas I presented on this thread are bizzarely similar to his. Check my posts above, if you want to know if I'm fibbing. The shastras and our Mahajans have/had very interesting imaginations indeed! Of course it also helped that I have read something about this topic somewhere. Thanks Malati ji for your input. In the paper, Stapp clearly states that he is just showing that his formulation of QM (coming from Von Neumann) can accommodate retrocausation, while retrocausation experiments need to be done more thoroughly by scientific community to check its accuracy. There is another thing. The concept of the atom was formulated first in the west by Democritus. However, it should be clear the modern concept of atom is different from Democritus's concept. So we could have called the "atom" "timbaktoo" and it would not have mattered. What is important is the concept not the labeling of the concept. That is why I found that traditional schools speaking about "anu" as if they predicted atoms make the same mistake. Though I would love to see the specific details coming from the scripture/mahajanas exactly matching modern science, I won't try to force fit a generic statement from them and make it correspond to modern science. Also many ideas like those of Democritus and Kannada that speak about atom are coming from non-mahajanas/non-vaisnavas sastra. So we don't know if vaisnavas/mahajanas know more about scientific understanding than vaisnavas. I wish they did, but I am not sure. Can you give exact references from the scripture/mahajans that match with modern scientific theories in specific detail? For example, the concept of multi-verse in SB with egg shaped universe of fixed width (don't remember how many yojanas) is different from the much bigger and expanding universe coming from modern science. Certainly the puranas speak of time frames that are bigger than other cultures and their universe also is bigger perhaps, but still it does not compare with the modern findings. Good points, Vivekji. And nicely and clearly put. I think we can safely say that the authors of the Bhagavata did not have a clue about any of this. Where would they have gotten clues? Yogic vision? Come onnnn! They just took what they understood of earlier texts (which mentioned cosmic eggs) and the little bit of semi-hemi-demi-proto-science in the forms of Sankhya and Vaisesika and as Malati so nicely said used their "imaginations." Still, they were intelligent and thoughtful men (wish there were some women among them too). They reflected on life, they meditated, they expressed their deepest aspirations, their aesthetic sensibilities, and from all of that we can learn. They created an image of Krsna that is truly stunning and if we meditate on that image and on the modified and enhanced images created by the Goswamis we can develop and learn to relish rasa. What more do we need or want? All else is fantasy, conjecture, wish-fulfillment, and the temporal quest for slap down power over others. |
|
|
|
Post by vkaul1 on Sept 21, 2011 13:05:41 GMT -6
Like you said, they created enhanced images that can help us experience rasa. That seems to be the strength of CV, giving value to emotion in the fullest sense, while buddhism does not really value any emotion apart from compassion for every being (correct me if I am wrong). Does Sankara also ultimately take emotion/rasa as a lower level of spiritual attainment which needs to be abandoned at some stage embracing complete unity? I had read that he says selfless devotion leads to krama mukti that eventually leads to videha mukti,while a person in aparoksha jnana (jivan mukta) can directly attain videha mukti at the end of this life. I don't know how accurate is that. The only difficulty is when traditionalists in CV take the details of the images developed about Krsna by the Rupa Goswami according to the rasa theory prevalent at that time and use the clothes etc applicable for medieval Indian times as an Absolute rigid, objective description of Krsna that cannot be moved by an inch. So there are details of eight-fold pastimes that correspond to human times experienced in India (as Norway won't have such time divisions). There was actually a fight where two sects were fighting if Krsna is same height as Radha or taller than Radha or the shape of the tilaka in Goloka vrindavan. Why does everyone become a human-like manjari in Goloka? What can we really make of these fights? I like to see them as good tools and symbols to completely immerse the humans of that time in relating everything they have (clothes, tilaka,seasons etc) to the divine and generate rasa, while obviously Absolute cannot be confined only to those particular cultural details. Given that we cannot know what is a cultural detail not useful to generate rasa and what is not cultural detail, we can use as much as we can while knowing culture is just a means to build a framework for aesthetic experience. Obviously, the rasa theory drawn from Abhinavgupta captures the nayika to the extent possible in medieval Indian times. How do we relate the hero/heroine to modern times without losing the rasa is challenging. Is that accurate Nitai ji? CV gives the maximum credence to aesthetic experience (compared to Buddhism and advaita vedanta) though the details may be anthropocentric. It is hard to believe the details given by traditional CV is what they will get in the next life (dancing with Krsna with drums in a heaven), what else can we do, right? Do you think there will be lesser developed deities similar to Radha and Krsna in other native cultures and they can also evoke the rasa similar to a CV will experience?
|
|
|
|
Post by vkaul1 on Sept 22, 2011 15:18:02 GMT -6
See I don't have the answer to why I chose Krsna among all the other deities apart from the fact that the concept of Krsna seems much more developed to me than others. I maybe wrong.
|
|
