It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

page: 90
39
<< 87  88  89    91  92  93 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   


I think this dude sold me acid once. Seriously.

I can't make any sense of it though. Admittedly, I am no mathematics expert, but I don't understand the application.

I'm seriously trying to find how his... whatever... works. But I really don't think he knows all that much about math. Probably more than me though.
edit on 14-5-2011 by GringoViejo because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 14 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

. Western science makes somewhat arbitrary decisions all the time about what is permitted within the purview of science and what is considered pseudoscience. . . .
The only arbitrary example that comes to mind is string theory. For some reason it was studied for decades as a branch of physics without proof. To me that seemed somewhat arbitrary that string theory should get preferential treatment over any other theories which lack proof. That may be changing as I've already seen talk about moving string theory from the physics department to the mathematics department of some universities.

So if we set aside string theory, (and if there are other examples like that, someone will have to tell me what they are), I don't see it as all that arbitrary. If there's no proof, then the decision to not accept is isn't arbitrary, it's based on the lack of proof, right? I can't even say that string theory was ever really "accepted", just that it wasn't rejected as pseudoscience merely because it lacked proof.

Here's a snapshot from a presentation on string theory by a string theorist (David Gross):

Source: www.youtube.com...

When string theorists characterize their own work in this manner, maybe they don't need anyone else calling it pseudoscience?


Originally posted by Americanist
Apparently Arb didn't catch the memo...

Discovery that quasars don't show time dilation mystifies astronomers
And what does that have to do with light leaving the Andromeda Galaxy?

I read that article before. The first thing I do in any study is question the observations. See the second post here by Vanadium 50 who comments on some of the concerns with observations and interpretation:

www.physicsforums.com...

Also, note that we have observed time dilation in type 1A supernovae, which are more consistent than quasars:
www.astro.ucla.edu...

a supernova that takes 20 days to decay will appear to take 40 days to decay when observed at redshift z=1. The time dilation has been observed, with 5 different published measurements of this effect in supernova light curves.
This leads me to believe that the lack of observed time dilation in quasars is unique to quasars and not a general issue with time dilation.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Western science follows the scientific method. Eastern "science" is more like philosophy than science.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 03:57 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 


What we need now on planet earth is a new paradigm for understanding and improving our reality which encapsulates both the scientific method and philosophy/spirituality/wholeness.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 04:18 AM
link   
This quote is from the website Life Physics Group and it's referencing David Bohm's 1980 book Wholeness and the Implicate Order :


. . . Bohm (1980, p. 11) said: "The new form of insight can perhaps best be called Undivided Wholeness in Flowing Movement. This view implies that flow is, in some sense, prior to that of the ‘things’ that can be seen to form and dissolve in this flow". According to Bohm, a vivid image of this sense of analysis of the whole is afforded by vortex structures in a flowing stream. Such vortices can be relatively stable patterns within a continuous flow, but such an analysis does not imply that the flow patterns have any sharp division, or that they are literally separate and independently existent entities; rather, they are most fundamentally undivided. Thus, according to Bohm’s view, the whole is in continuous flux, and hence is referred to as the holomovement (movement of the whole).

Bohm employed the hologram as a means of characterizing implicate order, noting that each region of a photographic plate in which a hologram is observable contains within it the whole three-dimensional image, which can be viewed from a range of perspectives. . . .



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 04:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Also:



SUPERIMPLICATE ORDER AND BEYOND

The hologram analogy gives only a limited view of the implicate order because it is a metaphor derived from a classical treatment of the transformations within a light wave. To delve more deeply into the implicate order, Bohm developed a causal interpretation of the quantum field theory.

Superquantum Potential

Quantum field theory is the most general and sophisticated form of quantum physics. The primary physical reality is assumed to be a continuous field, and the discrete, particle-like quanta are viewed as mere epiphenomena. Hence, rather than taking the particle as the starting point, the field is taken as the fundamental reality. In parallel, rather than postulating a quantum potential that acts on the particle, Bohm postulates a superquantum potential that acts on the field. This superquantum potential is far more subtle and complex than the quantum potential, yet its basic principles are similar, and its net effect is to modify the field equations so as to make them nonlinear and nonlocal. Hence, the superquantum potential is responsible for the perception of discrete quanta because" it can "sweep" energy from the entire field into a tiny region of space, thereby creating the appearance of a "particle," or of a quantum jump in a particle's energy state. In this way, a continuous field can behave as if it were made up of discrete elementary particles. . . .

Superimplicate Order

This leads to the most general formulation of Bohm's theory, presented in his 1987 book Science, Order, and Creativity (co-authored by David Peat). . . .






posted on May, 15 2011 @ 06:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Another quote from the Life Physics Group summarizes well what is limiting scientific progress at present:


In neoclassical physics – the post-Einstein physics still ruled by the Standard Model – the means are theory and model-making, and the method is an empirical one: experimentation. . . . The key to science done within the Standard Model in physics seems to lie in what is admitted in as data: it must be “physical” and be propelled by theoretical requirements prompted by the Standard Model.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by 547000
 


What we need now on planet earth is a new paradigm for understanding and improving our reality which encapsulates both the scientific method and philosophy/spirituality/wholeness.



Eastern mysticism will not create a utopia. It will just increase sophistry ten-fold.

Or do you think crap like the Law of Attraction or Deepak Chopra is not sophistry?
edit on 15-5-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Here is an example of an initiative that I suspect is helping in this regard: From the website SEED Graduate Institute, SEED meaning Source for Educational Empowerment and Community Development:


From 1999 until the present, SEED has sponsored the annual Language of Spirit Conference, featuring quantum physicists and Western scientists, Native American elders and linguists. The Language of Spirituality Conference is an international conference conducted primarily in a talking circle dialogue format, and has included moderator Leroy Little Bear, former Director of Native Studies at Harvard University, Nobel Laureate physicist Brian Josephson, as well as physicists Amit Goswami, William Tiller, Fred Alan Wolf, David Peat and Phillip Sakimoto, astronaut Edgar Mitchell, philosopher Ashok Gangadean, and Native American participants Linda Hogan, Nancy Maryboy, Gregory Cajete, Joseph Rael, and Paula Gunn Allen, among others. The history of the conference goes back to 1992, when Leroy Little Bear first approached David Bohm, and initiated a dialogue with Bohm, David Peat, Sagesh Youngblood Henderson, Dan Moonhawk Alford, and others, sponsored initially by the Fetzer Institute and then MIT.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
What we need now on planet earth is a new paradigm for understanding and improving our reality which encapsulates both the scientific method and philosophy/spirituality/wholeness.
What about the following quote from Carl Sagan? It seems to use science to promote a spiritual viewpoint:
www.goodreads.com...

"The earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that in glory and in triumph they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of the dot on scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner of the dot. How frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity -- in all this vastness -- there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. It is up to us. It's been said that astronomy is a humbling, and I might add, a character-building experience. To my mind, there is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly and compassionately with one another and to preserve and cherish that pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known."
— Carl Sagan
I have his other quote in my signature, that

"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality."
That longer quote gives at least some insight into what he meant by the shorter quote.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 04:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Those are philosophical quotes about the awesomeness of the universe as compared to the pettiness of human nature.

Sagan doesn't say anything there about the scientific method as utilized by the West and the limitations placed on progress because of what the scientific establishment will not allow in to the discussion.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Those are philosophical quotes about the awesomeness of the universe as compared to the pettiness of human nature.
I think the message about "our responsibility to deal more kindly and compassionately with one another and to preserve and cherish" our home, the Earth, are very profound spiritual messages, underscored by an astronomer's perspective that if we screw up this home we don't have another one which is one of the primary messages in the SEED Native American organization you mentioned, that we need to respect our environment.


Sagan doesn't say anything there about the scientific method as utilized by the West and the limitations placed on progress because of what the scientific establishment will not allow in to the discussion.
I'm glad you included the "there" in "Sagan doesn't say anything there" because he does write about the topic. Here's an interesting article discussing some of his writing and a small excerpt from the article:

Carl Sagan's Religion of Science

Sagan has arrived at a particularly interesting view of science's traditional companion, religion. He reinterprets the meaning and role of religion from the viewpoint of science. One would think that Sagan would prefer to tear down religion as an obsolete social construct; on the contrary, Sagan respects religion for its roles both past and present in our society. He explicitly states that his discussions are intended as "constructive" criticism for the refinement of the institution to twentieth-century standards. (3, p. xiv)

Sagan considers religion to be sociological in origin; it is a construct created to bridge the gaps in our understanding of our world and ourselves. (3, p. 287) Religion has three dimensions in which it bridges gaps. First, it is a cultural mortar manifesting itself in a spectrum of benevolent and malevolent social influences. Second, religion contains a resonating mystic core, a touch reaching to the depths of every human's inmost self. Third, religion provides a means to explain the great mysteries, from the mechanisms of nature to the purpose of humanity.

However, the development of science has shed new light on if not entirely changed the nature of each of these dimensions....The difficulty with religion is that it doesn't critically review its evidence--"every idea is as good as another." (10, p. 24) The basic tool for the evaluation of science is skepticism, and likewise should it be for religion: "skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both religion and science, by which deep insights can be winnowed from deep nonsense." (3, p. xiv)

There is, however, a certain level at which religion is not subject to this skeptical analysis--the core of religion is very "resistant to rational inquiry." (3, p. 284) Here Sagan makes a distinction between organized religion and the "mystic core" all religions share. Sagan maintains that religion has something which resonates deep within us.
Since science is based on the scientific method, we can't expect science to allow non-scientific methods to be labeled as science, so I'm not sure what you mean by "limitations placed on progress because of what the scientific establishment will not allow in to the discussion." The scientific establishment will allow anything based on the scientific method into a discussion about science, even if the topic is prayer as in the Harvard-affiliated study I cited.

If on the other hand the topic has nothing to do with the scientific method, I don't know what you expect scientists to do with it. They can't call it science, if it's not science, right? But what they can do, is what Carl Sagan did, in that quote I excerpted, which is to recognize that spirituality can and does have value to us even if it's not based in science.


So what is left for religion? Is science the ultimate evolutionary mutation that will inevitably squeeze religion out of humanity? On the contrary, Sagan's point is not that religion has been outmoded by science; he does recognize that religion still retains much power. However, religion needs to adapt if it is to continue to have significance. (3, p. 288) It must yield the final say on knowledge about the physical universe to science, abandoning its deceptive, stubborn history.

The remaining legitimate function for religion in our culture is to continue to provide social benevolences such as emotional support and ethical lobby. Science for its part must regard religion as a social leavener to keep the pursuit of knowledge ethically focused.
Ethics is something science doesn't give us, and scientists like Carl Sagan appreciate that fact. Our ethics and morals come from a spiritual source, not science.

So you can't accuse Sagan of not letting religion or spirituality into the discussion as he talks about them at length. I don't know if there will ever be any science behind the role of spirituality in ethics and morals, and I'm not sure there needs to be, but ethics and morals will continue to be important (I hope). Just because there's no science behind it doesn't mean scientists won't or can't talk about it....Sagan certainly did. He just didn't call it science if it wasn't science. And not everything needs to be science, right?

Sagan's point was that the spiritual views that we take from whatever religious or spiritual sources we use, need to be more progressive in not denying what science has learned. The Catholic church has been criticized for being a little slow in this regard:

Galileo Galilei

On 31 October 1992, Pope John Paul II expressed regret for how the Galileo affair was handled, and issued a declaration acknowledging the errors committed by the Catholic Church tribunal that judged the scientific positions of Galileo Galilei, as the result of a study conducted by the Pontifical Council for Culture.
I've heard the expression "better late than never", however since it took over 300 years for the church to apologize for denying science's (Galileo's) claim the Earth revolved around the sun, it's hard to argue they aren't slow.

Some of Rodin's writing and ideas that don't shore up with modern science are as bad or worse than the Catholic church hanging on to an outmoded picture of an Earth-centered universe.

Rodin is making up completely new stuff, like claiming that the double-helix of DNA is really a triple helix but the third helix is invisible and he's the only one who can see it. Please tell me this isn't the kind of garbage you want scientists to accept as science?

We need progressive spirituality, that doesn't deny modern science or conflict with it, and that fills in the ethical and moral gaps where science just doesn't have any answers and probably never will. I don't know of a scientific study proving that it's not OK to lie, cheat, steal, or kill, but communicating ethical values related to those concepts is certainly valid. That's the essence of what Sagan was trying to say, as I interpret it. It's not off-limits to scientists, as Sagan did talk about it, but they won't call it science if it's not science.

But if you're claiming DNA is a triple helix instead of a double helix like Rodin, you better have some proof for such a claim if you want scientists to accept it, which of course, Rodin doesn't.
edit on 16-5-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


The scientific method is good for the investigation of how the material universe works, although it is limited in its effectiveness at present because of the Standard Model and the exclusion of information that challenges it.

But the universe encompasses more than the material. And I think the point of science is to understand the universe in its totality, resulting in technology that gives us the best world we can manifest.

We need a new paradigm that combines the material world with the spiritual world so that we can achieve balance. It's sort of like the need to use both the left and right brain.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
The scientific method is good for the investigation of how the material universe works, although it is limited in its effectiveness at present because of the Standard Model and the exclusion of information that challenges it.
Science isn't set in stone. If someone comes up with a better model with better evidence to support it then eventually the better model will be accepted. So if the challenges aren't accepted, maybe they aren't good challenges with good evidence.


But the universe encompasses more than the material. And I think the point of science is to understand the universe in its totality, resulting in technology that gives us the best world we can manifest.
Let's look at the definition of science. How about this:

www.merriam-webster.com...

a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena
I don't see anything there about understanding the universe in totality. In fact the (b) definition specifically refers to the physical world. Perhaps you have a misunderstanding of what science really is.

It's possible that as science improves, the areas to which it can be applied broaden. That's historically been the case. But I don't see it encompassing the universe in its totality. For example, look at the creation of, and the appreciation of, art. Science could examine certain parameters about the field of art as we have with the mathematics of music. But understanding the mathematics of music hasn't really helped my appreciation of music as an art form. The appreciation of music may simply be beyond the scope of science. Likewise, a source of morals and ethics may simply be beyond the scope of science:


We need a new paradigm that combines the material world with the spiritual world so that we can achieve balance. It's sort of like the need to use both the left and right brain.
Galileo had that paradigm and he didn't like it too much, it seems like an old paradigm to me and we're better off without it. The spiritual will always be personal, that's the part that can't be independently verified no matter who does the experiment as with science. That also explains why we have one standard model, but over 100 different religions. We can usually agree on verifiable experimental results for the former, but we can't all agree on the latter.

I'm not sure why you're so anxious to recombine science and religion when the combination didn't work out for Galileo. And some of the churches of science you would have us worship at do just as great a disservice to science as the Catholic church did when it denied Galileo's heliocentric view. Marko Rodin's viewpoint seems to completely avoid the scientific method, so it does nothing to combine science and religion.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So if the challenges aren't accepted, maybe they aren't good challenges with good evidence.


The problem is the established scientific community not allowing research and funding for challenges of the Standard Model, and resisting interpretations that are in the minority.


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I'm not sure why you're so anxious to recombine science and religion when the combination didn't work out for Galileo.


Why did you substitute the word "religion" for the words I used: "spiritual world"?

I'm not talking about religion - especially, organized religion. I'm talking about that which is not perceived by the five senses.



Originally posted by Arbitrageur
And some of the churches of science you would have us worship at . . .





posted on May, 16 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Why did you substitute the word "religion" for the words I used: "spiritual world"?
My dictionary defines spiritual as things of a religious nature as a noun and "concerned with religious values" as an adjective. There may be some different nuances to the words.


I'm not talking about religion - especially, organized religion. I'm talking about that which is not perceived by the five senses.
Religion and spirituality have that much in common at least, of not being perceived by the five senses, but I think that characteristic may also put them beyond the scope of science, especially if it's beyond the scope of scientific instruments also, such as infrared cameras, etc. So again, I'm not sure what you're expecting from this new paradigm. Scientists can't apply the scientific method where it's not applicable.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I have in mind adding something to the mindset of science: Embracing spirituality for hypothesis formation, and, interpretation of the results of experimentation.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I have in mind adding something to the mindset of science: Embracing spirituality for hypothesis formation, and, interpretation of the results of experimentation.
A hypothesis can come from anywhere, a dream, serendipity, a spiritual thought, or even lots of hard thinking, or as Richard Feynman put it, just "a guess".

Sir Isaac Newton , perhaps given more credit for advancing science than anyone else, was a bit of a heretic in that he didn't accept organized religion the way it was being taught in his time, but he still had his own views on spirituality or religion or whatever you choose to call it:

Sir Isaac Newton-Effect on religious thought

Newton refashioned the world governed by an interventionist God into a world crafted by a God that designs along rational and universal principles. These principles were available for all people to discover, allowed people to pursue their own aims fruitfully in this life, not the next, and to perfect themselves with their own rational powers.
This last statement in a way defines science, that people can use "rational powers" "to discover" the "universal principles" of nature, which in Newton's view was God's creation.


Newton saw God as the master creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation.
Einstein and other scientists have similarly said things such as, to understand how nature works is to understand the mind of God, so spiritual inspiration for scientific discovery would not be a new paradigm as far as I can tell.

But how could a scientist use spirituality for "interpretation of the results of experimentation."? The fact that everyone interprets spirituality differently means that we would no longer have a consistent interpretation of results, and science is founded on the principle stated by Newton that people can use "rational powers" to discover "universal principles". In fact I think it's fair to say that many other scientists since Newton have held many other spiritual views, but they have all been able to replicate his experiments.

So if all the scientists agree on the experimental results, but if they all have different spiritual interpretations of those results, which interpretation is correct? If the interpretation isn't repeatable from scientist to scientist, then it's no longer science, is it? (Since science is founded on independent repeatability of experiments and observations).



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The fact that everyone interprets spirituality differently means that we would no longer have a consistent interpretation of results, and science is founded on the principle stated by Newton that people can use "rational powers" to discover "universal principles".


What I mean by embracing spirituality is not that it be added as a separate element per se to the process, but that it be recognized by the scientific community as a valid source of wisdom and perspective. Scientists should simply be encouraged by academia and the workplace to engage in practices such as meditation to tap in to whatever the universe tells us beyond the five senses. This, in turn, would change the culture scientists work in, I think. I believe egos would become less important and the spirit of cooperation would become more important. I believe the spirit of cooperation is a powerful thing. It sparks progress. It's dynamic.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 
Buddhasystem can tell you more about LHC cooperation than I can, but from what I've seen it's one of the most cooperative projects in history with large numbers of people coming together to do scientific work there. So I don't see any problems with cooperation from my perspective.

Some new telescopes go beyond the five senses: the Chandra X-ray observatory is looking in X-rays, the James Webb Space Telescope is infrared, etc. So they're already going beyond the five senses to the extent they can. As long as they can observe it with something, it doesn't have to be the five senses, and it can still be science.

If they can't observe it with anything, and if it's not repeatable from scientist to scientist, then it's not science.

That doesn't mean it has no value, it just means you cant expect science to do anything with it if it's not science. Individual scientists do talk about spirituality, but not as a part of science, but as a part of their personal beliefs. Besides, a few posts back you specifically said organized religion is NOT what you had in mind, but it sounds like you're wanting to see something organized. The individual spiritual beliefs of scientists are not organized as far as I can tell and I doubt they will be and don't think they should be.




top topics



 
39
<< 87  88  89    91  92  93 >>

log in

join