Religion and Science Unification

Posted Nov. 19, 2011 by Spiros Kakos in Open

Anonymous Icon

commented on Feb. 4, 2013
by Bibhuti Swain



Some time ago I wrote an article about the philosophy of religion and science [see http://harmonia-philosophica.blogspot.com/2010/08/religion-and-science-unification.html]. What I would like to do is discuss here about the main points of my beliefs which are:

Exact science is good for many things, mainly things which are measurable and can be experimentally tested.
Exact science has limits. There are many things which cannot be measured or written down using mathematics. And these things are the most important things in life.
Intuition is as much as good a tool for learning about "reality" (if such thing even exists), as is logic. And there are many great scientific theories that have come out of the blue based on instinct.
The logic of many people (including many great mathematicians) tell them that a First Cause exists. The fact that the logic of other people does not lead to the same conclusion, does not negate the logic of the abovementioned people.

Religion should learn its limitations and scope, but so must Science...
And Science should stop from being dogmatic as it is now. Everything in science is based on axioms. And axioms are based on instinct and change constantly (see what happened with Eucledian Geometry). Stating that ideas like "materialism" are "scientifically correct" is pure and crude DOGMATISM.

If you think "logic" is the way to go and that logic is against God, think twice. Aristotle (the founder of Logic) and Godel (the second greatest logician after Aristotle) had logical arguments IN FAVOR of God...

Science and Religion are both tools to reach the "truth" (if such thing even exists) and should be used together to understand the cosmos.

I would love to hear comments or your opinions.

  • Anonymous Icon

    Bibhuti Swain Feb 04, 2013

    Science is certain and is certain for all leaving creature of the earth. Any mathematics and physics theory will be same for all irrespective of different religious.

    Whereas Religious/ Spiritualism is not certain as it varies from religious to religious. Religious / Spiritualism makes group even though our destination is same.

    Up to now as per my both are not unify.

    The day we will show our intellectualism by building one unique Religion/ Spiritualism i.e. (Humanity), there would not be any difference between Science and Religion.

    We can see both Science and Religion in the same pipe and we will get peace/pleasure/love , which is not possible by anyone to imagine now.

    Most of the definition will be changed like Religious, Spiritualism,Love,Pleasure,Peace etc.

  • mrmathew1963 Feb 03, 2013

    G'day Spiros

    I believe science & spirituality are one of the same thing they just use different deductive reasoning processes. Science derived from philosophy & mysticism so reunifying science & spiritualism would have to be a good thing as they both balance each other out within their reasoning. I know there are spiritually aware people who say true spiritualism has nothing to do with reason because reasoning is of the mind not of feelings.

    There have been tests performed while in a meditative state that showed conclusively that the brain is reacting to the meditation so if it’s reacting in a state of a supposed non-thinking mode of thought why did the brain react? How would one know if one was spiritually aware in the first place? Reasoning which is thought of course.

    Both science &spirituality have become dogmatic within their own views but like I said it wasn’t always like this, if it wasn’t for mysticism & philosophy in the first place we wouldn’t have modern day science I believe & we wouldn’t have closed minded religious doctrines.


  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Jan 30, 2013

    You write, "I have the science to show that emotions are guidance " but do you understand the science? Have a research does not mean have comprehended it. Please explain the "science" to us.

  • Jeanine Broderick Jan 24, 2013

    I was once a rather ordinary--well, I felt ordinary--woman. Then, 17 years ago a shrink said to me, "People like you do not put them selves through college and graduate with honors, they do not have successful careers, and they are not good Moms. They live in boxes under bridges. How did you do it?"
    I think his question began my quest for an answer for the "How." Eventually I found myself on an accelerating spiritual path. By accelerating I began having epiphanies as I found just the right teacher for what I was ready to understand. I found a teacher whose work answered every question I had ever had, that empowered me and has given me the knowledge and tools to create a life that far surpasses even the wildest dreams of just a decade ago.

    With that understanding grew a desire to help others feel & live wonderful lives. But I live in what is called the "Bible Belt" of the USA and I had learned my truths on a spiritual path. So I set out build bridges to provide the knowledge in the dogma-infested Bible belt where "spiritual truths" would be anathema. I looked at all major areligions-- for passages that supported what I had come to know. I found much of it in the texts. I also explored great thinkers words--Aristotle to modern era. Mmuch of the same wisdom was there. Then I stumbled upon positive psychology. It was an amazing experience. I would read the research & the books and already know what they had "discovered" from my spiritual path & when they would say, "We also noted but cannot explain...." I would want to jump up and down with my hand raised saying, "I know!!!" I reached out to some of them but they were not interested in knowledge gained on a spiritual path. But the science was sufficient to allow me to develop programs to teach the truths in secular environments.

    I no longer feel ordinary. I feel like someone who went fishing for a Salmon and caught a whale or drained the ocean. When I connect the dots from the various branches of sciences (I have been amazed at how they don't look at what other branches are doing. Is there a rule?) I find that the root cause of illnesses, the root cause of crime, the root cause of divorces, the root cause of mental health issues, the root cause of pretty much every social issue (alcoholism, drug abuse, teen pregnancy, etc.) is the same and that we not only know the root cause (when all the information is taken together) but the solutions.

    I also have seen, very clearly, how the dogma on both sides (science and religion) have slowed the answers coming to mainstream to a crawl and sometimes even takes us backwards.

    The real key is understanding our emotional guidance and I have the science to show that emotions are guidance and I have passages from all major religions that point to our having guidance that make far more sense when interpreted to be referring to our emotional guidance than any interpretation any church has ever ascribed to them.

    ♡ Jeanine

  • Anonymous Icon

    gloriamundi88 Dec 21, 2012

    My evolving project may be of great interest.


  • frequencytuner Dec 16, 2012

    In days past, the Scientists, Shamans, Priests, Magi, Sages, Doctors, Healers: whatever label one attaches to it, the root is Hermes, Mercury. Religion focuses on the moon, the mystery, the inner, subtle and divine. Science focuses on the sun, the observed, the known, the outer, majestic and divine. The left and right eyes of Horus, the twin serpents, the archetypal figure of a hermaphrodite, one is blinding light, the other, a reflection of itself, as science and religion reflect each other, this figure of the hermaphrodite is quite literally within the human heart and mind. Science and Religion united can be called Magic, just as instruments and notes create Music, and man himself is the Composer.

  • Spiros Kakos Dec 08, 2012

    @A I:

    The evolution of our civilization has brought science in the place of religion today. Now it is scientists to whom we believe in, as we once believed in priests. We have scientific announcements we do not understand and yet we believe them. We have un-intuitive scientific results to which we believe, even though we have tons of logical questions to ask. No one dares to ask twice. Let's hope science learns it true place as religion has slowly learned its own...

  • Spiros Kakos Dec 08, 2012

    @Otto Krog:

    Parmenides surely shared the idea of everything being One. We all share the same space and time and if you think about it, all that separates us from the "others" are just definitions we came up with. Who defines "me" anyway? Who defines where "I" ends and where "you" starts?

  • Spiros Kakos Dec 08, 2012


    I agree. Religion is based on the premise that there is meaning in the cosmos. However modern atheistic science starts on the premise that there is no meaning or spirituality anywhere and tries to find out if they are hidden somewhere. But once you start on such premises, you can never discover them...

  • Anonymous Icon

    Otto Krog Nov 24, 2012

    Does anyone share the experience with the oneness in SpaceTime with me? I think that the only thing we have in common as spiritual beings is space and time. What do you think? www.crestroy.com

  • Anonymous Icon

    Otto Krog Oct 13, 2012

    I am sure that it is possible to combine religion, philosophy and science in general.

    I believe that antimatter is the subconscious mind and consciousness of living entities. I have made a video about it, explaining how I came to the conclusion putting it together with scientific observations during the last hundreds of years.

    You can watch it on YouTube on this link:


    Just copy paste the link.

    You can also follow me on my blog


  • A I Jul 11, 2012

    This is part one of two, the one below this is part 2 f the answer....whic his my opinion....

    I spent my life trying to unify the two opposers, religion and science. Which were separated in the west, or was stimualted by dogmatic lteralism in CHirtendom, and upset fellahs lie Galeleo and it created a rift and created a fear, bias and supersticians in both systems.
    They can be repaired and may be, noetic science helps, and advents in quantum mechanics and so forth which alow for threads to be made to repair and pull together the rift. It wil take time as due to cultural evolution of collective beleifs.
    It may be possible soon for these old conflicts to be repaired.
    From what I can tell, psycholgoy is the link, since mind is the event or child of the coming together of the perfect and the imperfect, the world of form and the realm of potential or stasis....or the idea of All worlds theroy.
    Taking the idea of intellgience to be a realtionship of responsiviness to do interconnectedness that tends towards the most concervative action based on the nature of events in any ecosystem. So intellgience can be said to be atomic, as they make choices, albeit, based on natural law, then plants have tropisms, a responsivness which can be assigned deistic, atheistic or theistic foundations depending on the leanings of the observer....then with human being sna danimal intellgience, we can abstract and form mental bodies of images connected to values decided by physical intellgience for homeostasis of the body, whic his difernt than survival. survival implies a future time.
    But, so over time as we learn the mental body overrides phyiscal or can physical intelgience adn the unconscous mind[the beleiver] through the autonomic and sympathtric systems, work to overrride the consciosu by way of emotions[motiavtors]. Then the conscious mind can use logic, or comparison of concept sor images and also, when one asses one cannot learn anymore from reason one projects, or uses a concept to project the conscosuness into a area of the perfect proprotional to the values distinguushed by the concepts.

  • A I Jul 11, 2012

    Then later we have insight or direct awareness due to relationship or seeing. Insight rather tahn intuition which are differnt sligtly.
    Then we can see that man makes mistakes bcause the mind is referrign to images of reality and concepts to choose rather than through direct relationship. Then we have the idea that as we evolve with knowlege and thus technolgically, as we change our environment, so it effects diretly our self value. Thus we have seemed to devolve mentally due to the conviencice and menchaization technnolgoy allows and that we have moved more towrds seeign the unveise pluralistically, rather than a single event. Then per how the mind accesses will base don self value, as when we identify with sometihng in self value we change how we act towrds it. Interesting and why culture is so important in all our affairs.
    When culture slowly gets and accept a more monadic concept of the unvierse, that its one event, then how we access our itnellgience and treat others will change passively. That the time may be close for this to happen, is exciting, albeit it may not.
    But so the reunfication of science and religions and also of religons to disocver they ar ein agreement more than disagreement wodl be a time of great healing culturally.
    Anyway. Hoep that was clear. may not be right, i try to stay skeptical, as it's healthy.
    Most important, more than knowledge is trust and faith. trust that we have our back cared and faith in our capabiltiy as living intellgient beings. AS it quiets the mind...and allows us to acces more of our natural empowerment.
    Thank you.

    This is part 2 of 2...to get aroudn the limti in characters.

  • slowlygetnthar Jun 30, 2012

    Sungon9,I was thinking that what stands at the pinnacle of that pyramid as conductor between the Ultimate and the material = us.

    We are like the ying/yang symbol~incorporating both, made whole and balanced by both realms.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Jun 30, 2012

    RE:How "scientific" is the belief in such an event?

    What is the question? Other than the Big Bang, which is not a belief according to scientific methods, it is a hypothesis based in observation, give us another example of where "science referred to "extraordinary" phenomena which only happen once."

  • Anonymous Icon

    Sungon9 Jun 14, 2012

    To me, religion represents that which is "top-down" and science that which is "bottom-up." I believe that religion regards the ultimate and how that ultimate can be used to influence and improve the harmony of people collectively on Earth. Then I believe that science is the understanding of how the world works, of what God created. I believe there is a point, like the top of a pyramid, where "knowledge/understanding of how the world works" (science) and "collective spirit, unification of consciousness" (religion) meet. It is at that point that one finds, or is, God. That point, to me, is seemingly at infinity, but maybe it is there.

  • Anonymous Icon

    WalkwithLight Jun 09, 2012

    Spiros, Ken Wilbur has taught there is a spectrum of consciousness reaching from (1) body (the empirically verifiable) to (2) mind (where we find thoughts and ideas - the birthplace of theories, both philosophical and scientific) to (3) spirit (the contemplative state found through watchfulness in meditation) where self-transcendence occurs, and there is an identification of self with the totality of the cosmos, energy or spirit underlying it. It is here that our very identify is altered. So religion conflicts (as many things do) with science. That is not important, but what is important is our state of consciousness.

  • Spiros Kakos Jun 09, 2012

    @ KYRANI, parket et al: The problem of defining what one says is the hardest one. I may refer to "something which exists in all living things" and people may call me a religious person. I may refer to "electromagnetic fields which exist in every corner of the Universe" and people may call me "scientist"... Which wording is more "correct" no one can say.

  • Spiros Kakos Jun 09, 2012

    @slowlygetnthar: I do not think the definition you say is simplistic. This is actually what I was also saying in my article. The search for the "why" is what is important for all thinking humans. The "how" is for the majority of non-thinking individuals...

  • Spiros Kakos Jun 09, 2012

    @dustproduction: How many times has science referred to "extraordinary" phenomena which only happen once? Take a look at the Big Bang for example. It happened. We did not see it. It involved creation of something from nothing. It involved the creation of "time". It involved the creation of "space". How "scientific" is the belief in such an event?

  • slowlygetnthar May 30, 2012

    I was recently at a conference where religious and science professionals were discussing purposes of science and religion. They further refined your definition of their being in search of truth. If I recall correctly, they said:

    science is for finding the truth about the ways things are the way they are
    religion is for finding the truth about why things are the way they are....

    I kinda liked the differentiation, though it is too simplistic, of course. Still I thought you might like this perspective.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction May 28, 2012

    Science, or rather a scientific attitude, is incompatible with religious belief. Science and religion are in irreconcilable conflict … There is no way in which you can be both properly scientifically minded and a true religious believer (Worrall 2004, p. 60).

    It is not that some sects of one religion invoke miracles but that many sects of many religions do. (Moses, after all, parted the waters and Krishna healed the sick.) I agree of course that no sensible scientists can tolerate such exceptionalism with respect to the laws of nature (Orr, 2004).


  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction May 01, 2012

    "The vast majority of people believe in a supernatural god or gods, says social psychologist Ara Norenzayan of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada. Yet there are hundreds of thousands of atheists and agnostics who do not. While scientists have begun to study the psychology of belief, we know little about what causes disbelief.
    Humans use two separate cognitive systems for processing information: one that is fast, emotional and intuitive, and another that is slower and more analytical.
    The first system innately imputes purpose, personality or mental states to objects, leading to supernatural beliefs. People who rely more on intuitive thinking are more likely to be believers, while the more analytical are less likely. This doesn't necessarily mean analytical thinking causes disbelief, but activating analytical thinking can override the intuitive system – and vice versa. Norenzayan used this to test the causal relationship."

  • parker Apr 15, 2012

    Your statement: ""I" can discuss all manner of things but I can't discuss what is real" - is an oxymoron - what is real must by all accounts be within what is all things, therefore you are confused about what you can discuss.

    I apologize for offending you with my choice of wording. And I forgive you for re-expressing my intentions. In fairness to the topic of the thread, and to its originator, Spiros Kakos, I withdraw from sharing any further comments with you.

  • KYRANI Apr 15, 2012

    you said "there is indeed many possible things that exist in the eternal realm that we are incapable of perceiving while limited to this temporal one. What we perceive as "void" for example, is one such thing, that although we cannot perceive "what" this void may be, we still know this void exists"

    You need to die to live! DIE TO LIVE! "we" perceive as "void" is nonsense. I'm sorry but I have to say so. While there is an "I", "we", "you" perceiving there is temporal. Already in the moment is the Ultimate Reality.. just die to live. "I" can discuss all manner of things but I can't discuss what is real.. REAL!

  • parker Apr 14, 2012

    It would have been better word choice to state: "The energy that is expressed as all things to us..." as opposed to "The energy that is expressing all things . ." This would have avoided coming to the obviously erroneous conclusion you mention that "There is NO ENERGY EXPRESSING ALL THINGS!" Your agreement with the statement immediately preceding this section, would also confirm your agreement of this revised wording.

    As to your next following comment, I will repeat that there is indeed many possible things that exist in the eternal realm that we are incapable of perceiving while limited to this temporal one. What we perceive as "void" for example, is one such thing, that although we cannot perceive "what" this void may be, we still know this void exists.

    Alternatively, perhaps you could explain all things that otherwise remain unexplained?

  • KYRANI Apr 14, 2012

    @ parker
    a healer is a mediator. He is not doing something himself or herself to "make" the other person well. He or she acts as an alter self/ego that enables ideas to be upheld or more firmly upheld. As an alter ego he or she can also act on behalf of the sick person to aid them to hold a particular mental state.. ideas/thoughts. It requires a changed mental state, changes to the blueprint to effect change in the body or the physical manifestation of the blueprint/ ethereal body whatever you want to call it.

    As far as Jesus was concerned, he was a prophet/ avatar of God, thus he was able to act from higher levels, which means he was able to uphold ideas that were "powered" or maybe we could say from the Will of God. The Father that you want to call God is not a separate entity, it is threaded through us all. We have open access.. the Gateless Gate! However to the extent that people choose to maintain and uphold an ego-self existence (which everyone has to a greater or lesser extent) they separate themselves from the Source / the Father / Ultimate Reality / God. Jesus would have had very little ego-self so when he did healing work he did it from a no-self state. That is the same as saying calling on The Father. He did not call on The Father as in bringing in some separate, other entity. Given an enlightened state everyone that is not evil can do that. Evil people have cemented their ego in concrete and divided them to create two aspects, which precludes them, and I strongly suspect permanently from The Source. They have no power because they are separated from God in a way that renders them powerless. That is why their games are all about trickery and deceit.

    You said "We do not know what is not expressed, or by what manner He expresses all things, except by perceiving those patterns of energy that He expresses as all things for us to behold." I agree,

    but then you come back with
    "The energy that is expressing all things to us..." There is NO ENERGY EXPRESSING ALL THINGS! Energy is manifestation NOT THE SOURCE!

    Then you say "under no obligation to express whatever it is that exists in between itself that we call a void, nor is that void of any temporal consequence, because even though we know we cannot perceive it, we also know it exists." Find no-self and you will see that this is statement of yours is.. mmh I better not say.. no offence.

    That which Is only Is and Known to Itself, and Knowing Itself is satisfied. There are no gates, doors, barriers of any sort but you have to die to Live.

  • parker Apr 13, 2012

    Your "Jesus" did not heal anyone - He Himself stated quite clearly, that He could do nothing of Himself, that all things were from the Creator - the higher intelligence of Creation, He called His Father, and that He was merely a messenger, not a healer. He did and said certain things, and "they" were healed by the power of the Father that they had faith in,

    It is this Father, Yahweh that dwells within each of us and yearns to express all knowledge to us - we need only accept and ask. He expresses Himself to us as the patterns of energy we perceive. They are His thoughts, and likewise so are we, therefore He is in all things and all things that we perceive are of Him. If there is more than Him, we are unable to perceive it in any form, because He has not expressed it.

    We do not know what is not expressed, or by what manner He expresses all things, except by perceiving those patterns of energy that He expresses as all things for us to behold. The energy that is expressing all things to us, is under no obligation to express whatever it is that exists in between itself that we call a void, nor is that void of any temporal consequence, because even though we know we cannot perceive it, we also know it exists.

  • KYRANI Apr 13, 2012

    @ parker,
    You ask "How is it that you enable application of these two aspects of your healing protocol for someone that is a drooling idiot in a wheelchair for example? Or for someone with advanced mental degradation such that they cannot comprehend your two instructions? Or how do you enable or affect healing of a person that subconsciously desires to remain in dis-ease? Or is suffering in coma?"

    In these cases you can ask the person if they want your help or if they are unable to commune physically, eg in a coma, you can ask mentally and depending on the person's willingness to be helped you can take their place in providing the prescription for them. You cannot help someone who doesn't want to be helped or doesn't believe that they can be helped. You will find that even Jesus was arguably the greatest healer of all times still asked the patient "do you believe that it is possible" before he went ahead. Indeed he did not try to heal anyone who had not asked or agreed to be healed.

    I would also like to say something here about your "a person that subconsciously desires to remain in dis-ease". NO ONE, whether consciously or subconsciously desires to remain in dis-ease. However the people who are adversely affecting them may be terrorizing them and causing them to be too afraid to ask for help or even believe that they can be helped. That person needs information but still you can't help them if they don't want it or won't accept it no matter what method is used.

    As for "your inner self", yes I agree that it is closer to you than your very breath, closer than your heart.. etc., the closest most intimate but even so most people are not aware of that so they are unable to take advantage of that aspect. My mental prescriptions in any case are issued by direct communion with that and through the faith that is inherent therein. That is in a way what I was trying to tell you somewhere else. You don't just have thoughts they need to be empowered and the inner self, the core of being is the empowering entity.. the power is with God or the Ultimate Reality whatever name we are to use to name the Nameless. It's not all energy. The core of Being, the void is not energy, it is beyond the mind, beyond consciousness, beyond everything.

  • parker Apr 13, 2012

    Your free will is currently enabling you to perceive some obligation to accept my word - this choice could be countered with your free will to test the instructions yourself. You would first be required to ascertain what the original instructions were/are, and then apply them, then your own experience would be the evidence that would preclude your choice of accepting or rejecting my word.

    As you rightly say, healing is not difficult. Yet you overlook vital points. Notwithstanding your blog or elsewhere, more is often required than the two things you indicate - "Two things are needed. One to stop the aggressor's influence (by identifying and eradicating harmful ideas and by counter attacking the aggressors ), and two to apply instructions to the body to return to full rest conditions and that includes undoing whatever may have been done (by the body of course). These are what constitute a mental prescription and it is 100% effective."

    How is it that you enable application of these two aspects of your healing protocol for someone that is a drooling idiot in a wheelchair for example? Or for someone with advanced mental degradation such that they cannot comprehend your two instructions? Or how do you enable or affect healing of a person that subconsciously desires to remain in dis-ease? Or is suffering in coma?

    The deep level of spiritual awakening you mention is not so elusive as you suggest. Your inner self, that aspect of you that knows these things is close, not far from you, and eager to share, not reluctant. Reluctance is a conscious free will choice that like resistance, disables communion with one's inner self. Reluctance or resistance are not aspects of our inner self.

    Acceptance that the knowledge you seek, is easy to find, enables access to it. We were certainly not made perfect, yet we were also not made without the ability to seek and find and learn from that perfection within us. Yet we will never even look, if we resist even the possibility of it being there.

  • slowlygetnthar Apr 12, 2012

    Sorry, Spiros, for the long delay in response. Was off at a conference, where the topic of science and religion were discussed, by an exceptionally conservative panel that was a huge disappointment. One woman scientist claimed that she had never seen any proof of mystical traditions, such as yoga and meditation, benefitting anyone's health!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Another man, from SETI, poo-pooed people reporting having alien encounters. They called all of this "pseudoscience" and dismissed audience questions about such topics. It was fairly appalling.

    For info on validity of arguments, see Aristotle.

  • KYRANI Apr 12, 2012

    I have to take your word on the insructions in the OT but as for healing, unless you stop the "source" of the problem no hands on is going to work, at least not for long. Healing is not difficult. You only got to go to my blogs. Two things are needed. One to stop the aggressor's influence (by identifying and eradicating harmful ideas and by counter attacking the aggressors ), and two to apply instructions to the body to return to full rest conditions and that includes undoing whatever may have been done (by the body of course). These are what constitute a mental prescription and it is 100% effective.

    I do not discount that a person at a very deep level of spiritual awakening can take avertive action right at the onset but those people are very few and far between, about one in a billion or less.

  • parker Apr 11, 2012

    continued from previous comment (below):

    The original Bible was intended to instruct us on everything that is important for us to know and learn in this temporal lifetime. It did not purport to actually hold all of the answers, rather it is a direct introduction to many of the answers, while also being a map directing us to many more of the answers residing within us. Further, it justifies our inherent free will, by explaining both its origins and its purpose, expanding this explanation with rational examples of what may happen as a result of our choosing to follow its recommendations, or not.

    Like many car drivers that can experience driving and maintaining a car without ever reading the car manual, many humans are quite capable of experiencing life without ever reading their life manual. Likewise they are free to judge those that choose to follow the recommendations offered in the manual. Yet with very little effort, one can find out whether or not the recommendations are true, simply by testing them.

    You may have taken a car for a "test" drive? Well take any of the Bible true recommendations for a test application and you will find they actually work as promised. (This does not apply to most of the content of modern traditional bible versions.)

    Learn the true Biblical truth about healing for example, and not only will you be able to help a great many people heal themselves of virtually any physical disease, you will be able to help yourself do the same thing. Even better, you will learn the "scientific" and rational explanation as to why "hands on" faith healing works, and why it is not the television "miracle" proclaimed by the Benny Hill's of the traditional christian world.

  • parker Apr 11, 2012


    Yes, we translated the oldest museum copies of the original Torah, from "Ancient" Hebrew (most Jews can't read it), which is quite different from modern Hebrew that Torahs are translated from.

    There are a great many evidentiary sources that establish the NT was originally written in Hebrew (too many for this venue, but I can supply directly if needed). The oldest available Greek translations of that original Hebrew are replete with linguistic "Hebrewisms", and are also very different than the much later Greek versions used by the traditional translators. I was involved in this research, not to prove the Bible, but originally to prove that it was all phony - I lost a significant bet.

    I agree that like most modern religious philosophies, modern Christianity in all of its various forms, is distorted, and designed to lead people away from the real truth, not closer to it. This is precisely why the Masons and Jesuits distorted the truth they allowed shared with the masses, so that they alone could benefit from that which they kept hidden. Remarkably, they published their admissions of doing this, because ":we were too stupid to understand, even if we were told"!

    The original Torah (OT) was designed as sort of "Operator's Manual" for the human Creation. It provided basic operating instruction and suggested maintenance concerns, which when followed, promote better health, longer and happier temporal living experience. The instructions, like those in an Operator's Manual for a car, are not the entire experience. The instructions for the car driver depend on the driver applying the instructions to his everyday driving experience, just like the instruction in the Bible depend upon the human applying them in his everyday living experience. In each case, the instructions can be beneficial. Human drivers have free will, and can drive without ever having read the car's operating manual - sometimes the manual provides means to safer driving, longer vehicle life, and many other benefits, that one could never actually know, unless the instructions were followed.

    Our research established that the instructions in modern Bible (and Torah) translations, were not what was originally intended. So imagine a car driver following instructions from the wrong car manual - some might accidentally work in his favor, yet most would be counter-productive, which is exactly what modern Jewish and Christian religions are all about.

    My intent here is not to promote the Bible, or certainly not Christianity, but rather to provide examples of beneficial behavior, which coincidentally I learned from my Bible research experience. We suspect the ancients held much wisdom that has been lost. It is not remarkable that some was lost from the ancient Bible texts. My promotion of remote viewing is just one such example. It is conceptually explained in great detail in the Bible under different terminology.

  • KYRANI Apr 11, 2012

    @ Parker
    from what you say in the last two paragraphs I can accept that you have found some value in the Old Testiment or really if it was the Hebrew version then it was the Torah because the Old Testiment was really a Greek version of the Torah and they are different.
    The New Testiment however is a different story. If the old documents got destroyed, and I'll bet deliberately, what makes you think that what you have in Greek is authentic? Don't you see that whoever deliberately destroyed the old work wanted to re-make it, to re-invent because of some reason, be it political, cultural, maybe even evil.

    What you say in the last bit that you use instructions to look within I am in full agreement. That is why I am saying we need a new reformation. It is not enough to read any book, Bible or anything else because all of them and the "new teachings" have been distored and are being distorted. I have recently been looking at Zen, which I was studying about twenty years ago and what I see now is a great distortion. So it is very important for people to discover by direct means. You promotion of remote viewing as a means is a very good thing and something I would support.

  • parker Apr 10, 2012


    Let me start with admitting that English is not an all accommodating means of expression - sometimes it will take two or three efforts before we realize we are actually on the same page.

    There are original copies of documents actually transcribed in Hebrew of the OT. The NT was originally written in Hebrew as well, but the Hebrew originals were all deliberately destroyed. The earliest remaining copies of the Greek translations of those original Hebrew NT manuscripts have been linguistically deconstructed to determine the original Hebrew intent, and then used to create a proper first generation translation back into English. There were no originals written in Aramaic. A few partial Aramaic translations of the original Hebrew have been found, but they do not provide any advantage to a translator.

    The inspired Words clearly direct us to seek the knowledge of Creation and the knowledge of the Creator from within ourselves. Thus, if you can accept that premise, then it becomes only a matter of doing what we were instructed to do, nothing mystical about it. It tells us for example, that all things visible, are made of things that are invisible, or as we might now state it, all things are made of the intelligent energy that cannot be seen, yet is proven to exist as evidenced by all things that are made of it.

    When we meditate on these things, as instructed, we end up recognizing our ability to commune with this inner knowledge that yearns to reveal itself to us - we were designed to "Remote View" as a primary source of learning the mysteries of the ages, yet we rarely use this innate ability to seek what desires to be revealed, in favor of placing our faith in what "we" think we can discover instead.

  • KYRANI Apr 10, 2012

    I am not discounting your work and translations because I haven't seen them and read them. So you are saying that there are original copies of documents actually written by the apostles and even Jesus? I was not aware that any such documents exist. Are they in Aramaic or Greek?

    Without mystical experience how can you say that a person can gain the truth from them? The truth cannot be got out of a book no matter how grand. However I have to buy a copy from you and read it to understand what you mean.

    ESP I think is just our ability to perceive on a common platform, the mind and it is as you say our natural ability. You are maybe rejecting it for the words extrasensory perception. I prefer to call this ability direct mental perception.

  • parker Apr 10, 2012

    The point of the translation efforts you noticed we conducted, was to establish whether or not the Bible is truth, or truthfulI, or simply literature.

    We determined to our satisfaction, that the original words - and yes, there do still exist original, unaltered copies of the texts in museums, are both truthful and truth revealing. These remaining originals are in ancient languages that are essentially un-readable by almost everyone today. And all conventional Bibles are extremely different than any of these original texts, to the point of being meaningless and of very little real value to anyone.

    When the original words and intent are available, and properly understood, they provide a new and revealing insight into virtually every aspect of life. They actually prove themselves to be the true source of truth and revelation of truth. It is of no direct concern whether or not you are willing to accept this, but until you were to investigate what the original word and intent of that word actually was, your discounting of it, cannot be taken seriously,

    We learned of what we are currently doing with RV from the newly translated Bible - the original version's intent. The true Biblical manner of communing with one another or with one's inner self, is fully revealed within that work, and I will say it has nothing at all to do with ESP. What is erroneously referred to as ESP, is more properly just learning to engage our normal, or naturally innate ability.

    By doing as we were originally designed to do, we can learn of all things. Acceptance of these self-evident truths is key, then faith builds on rational experience as scientific proof, rather than being blind as in most modern religions.

  • KYRANI Apr 10, 2012

    @ parker
    I noticed that you have done a lot of work translating the Bible. Your efforts are admirable but is the Bible the truth? We have no original documents. All are "the gospel according to" and as for Paul, there is evidence that he was not the real McCoy. I doubt his work is valuable at all.

    I think a new reformation is desperately needed. People need to gain the mystical experience/ enlightenment first hand for themselves. This is the true source.. the one and only. And from what I see of your work in remote viewing, you understand well matters of ESP and so on. These are what will convince people enough and give them the courage to find the mystical experience. And indeed some will become a new bred of scientists.

  • parker Apr 08, 2012

    We ponder a unification of science and religion, yet we fail to recognize the apparent reasons for the current conflict between them. Science is limited by its own definition, but religion has been limited by deliberate restriction of truth, which is why even most modern religions disagree with each other about their basic beliefs.

    Theistic religions, including modern Jewish believers, rely upon many spurious translations of the original Word, that by legal definition of “Copy-Right”, are each necessarily deemed to be “sufficiently at variance (or different) from the original”, in order to qualify for said Copy-Right. That should be clue enough for anyone, yet nearly no-one seems to appreciate it.

    The original Words of knowledge have been preserved in public museums, but remain there in a now near unreadable ancient form of language, which is nothing close to what is contained in any of the great many versions of modern Copy-Righted Bibles, Talmuds, Torahs, or Qurans.

    In the original Word, all KNOWLEDGE of the universe, its origins, the origins and attributes of mind, and the origins of mankind, of angels and dinosaurs, of health, of healing, of families and of communities, of life and of love, and even of the sciences - biology, astronomy, physics, and "noetic" experiences, gaining access to our inner self, and much more, was freely given to us.

    For centuries this was all deliberately veiled by self-righteous and self-proclaimed guardians, who disguising themselves as the self-appointed theologians of nobility, hid the true originals and produced watered down copies for very limited public use.

    The veil was unwittingly reinforced and extended throughout history by any number of well intentioned servants employed by this nobility as translators, who took great efforts to translate only these nobility-amended copies, not the actual originals, believing we may only presume, that their revered nobility would not deliberately mislead them!

    Until the blind faith of religion is willing to seek the real and original truth that was the beginning of their faith, they will never be able to reconcile with each other, let alone with science.

  • Spiros Kakos Apr 07, 2012

    (Exact) Science and Logic are based on axioms. And axioms can change at (free?) will...

  • Spiros Kakos Apr 07, 2012

    parker, Parmenides said it thousands of years ago…

    «οὐδέ ποτ’ ἦν οὐδ’ ἔσται, ἐπεὶ νῡν ἐστιν ὁμοῡ πᾱν, ἓν, συνεχές»

    (it neither is, nor it will be, because it is now all together, ONE, continuous)

  • Spiros Kakos Apr 07, 2012

    slowlygetnthar, what would consist a "valid" logical statement?

  • parker Mar 29, 2012

    Agreed. There is nothing more subjective, than pure objectivity.

    What is need more than unification or merging of various disciplines, is unification of the minds from within all disciplines. We need a new mind, in the sense of a re-newed way of thinking. The old mind, the old mindset and way of thinking has finally become aware that it is obsolete.

    In the spirit of renewed thinking, we need to learn to remain open to the most objective reality of all, which is that all that exists, exists whether we can explain it or quantify it or not, or whether we believe it without proof or not.

    All that is, is. Therefore our faith in whatever it is. must be absolute, if we are to perceive ourselves as being even a tiny bit objective. We may each hold our unique perspective on what is, but to put forth that any one perspective regarding what is, is more correct or right than any other one, is the current subjectivity that we must get beyond.

  • frequencytuner Mar 28, 2012

    Black, Grey and White.
    Infared, Visible and Ultraviolet.
    Birth, Life and Death.
    Where do 'we' exist?

  • frequencytuner Mar 28, 2012

    Beautiful comment. Right and Wrong are derived from right and left, or sun and moon, or male and female, objective or subjective, absolute or relative, 1 or 0, logic or reason, knowledge or wisdom, seen or unseen, measurable or immeasurable, finite or infinite. Similarly, words like love and hate, good and evil, true and false, day and night, heaven and hell etc. have been added to the list.

    Tolerance is good focus point here. With no Tolerance one is fixed. With some Tolerance one is fluid. With complete Tolerance one is both. All of existence fluid, changing, and dynamic: RELATIVE TO being fixed, eternal and unchanging. One can be fixated more or less one one pole, agreeable to one perspective more than the other. The more fixated, the stronger the draw toward one pole or perspective and proportionally away from the other. The common ground between them is All that Is, all of existence exists between these poles in a fluid like state. Opinions are Wisdom. Facts are Knowledge. What is there besides facts and opinions?

  • slowlygetnthar Mar 28, 2012

    Spiros wrote: Logic is not something "objective". This is one great mistake everyone does. I have my logic. You have your logic. Who dictates which one is "correct". Major mathematicians have discovered unsolved antinomies in Logic. What we must know is that the distinction between "correct" and "wrong" did not exist in the old days of Homer!

    This isn't quite correct, especially in light of how claims, in logic, as dissected by Aristotle, are not valid if the premises are lame.

    Anyway, I agree with your general premises in the original thread, here.

    I don't think that spirit and science are mutually exclusive. There is a great deal of common ground between them, if only people would stop arguing and look for it.

  • frequencytuner Mar 28, 2012

    Do YOU believe Darwin? Then what does it matter what Darwin believes? Do you believe the Pope? Then what does it matter what the Pope believes? The unification is not somewhere out there with people and organizations and institutions around the world, again, it is solely within YOU.

  • frequencytuner Mar 28, 2012

    "They" do not have to acknowledge each other. That is absurd to even fathom. Ask a bird and a fish to live in the same environment. YOU have to do the acknowledging and accepting, that's all. Find the unity within yourself.

  • parker Mar 28, 2012

    Conventional Science is most often an attempt to express what is known rationality, within the limits of what knowledge has already been accepted as rational.

    Traditional Religion is most often an attempt to express a faith in a set of beliefs, that is limited to believing they are believing that which is most beneficial and more correct than what others believe.

    In this context, neither science nor religion are capable of learning from the other, hence any attempt at unification might be considered the marriage of the "dumb" with the "dumber".

    There is no rational way to justify traditional religion. An honest Spiritualist will remain open to believing all that is, not just all that is nice to believe. There is no need to merge or to unify true Spirituality with traditional science, any scientific truth is already within the Spiritualist's reality.

    Likewise there is no rational way to justify traditional science's self-imposed limitations. Simply put, there is no need for such science at all, let alone a need to merge or unify it with anything else.

    What is needed by both scientists and religionists, is a renewal of mind. A new mind that is open to the most rational reality of all, which is that all that exists, exists whether we can explain it or quantify it or not, or whether we believe it without proof or not. It is, therefore our faith in whatever it is. must be absolute, if we are to perceive ourselves as being even a tiny bit rational.

  • jmatt4lifehoe Mar 19, 2012

    I believe religion and science are two halves of a whole. Each is the other's complement and both are supposed to be working together, in tandem, for the betterment of mankind. It's still not the right time, yet. Eventually, they will acknowledge each other and begin to repair the earth and its humanity.

  • Saudade Jan 16, 2012

    I know us men make many errors. We interpret things as we know them. Though we may not be right, it's a start which we should understand that it may change. People should always look to understanding more and helping each other to become better. Sometimes that is not wanted. This society does need another enlightenment era. There are very simple laws to follow that are good for the spirit. You can't argue against them. It is the foundation and for any strong temple, you need a foundation. When you have a good spirit, science is explained in your spirit and brain. I think Science and spiritual beliefs go hand in hand. I don't like to use the word religion honestly. There are different levels of understanding even when reading something like the bible. There is even things in the bible that will increase your understanding of science. I think it is important to note that if Jesus was real, he was a "man". Through understanding and wisdom that is in life naturally, he understood the incorrectness of things. He tried to address those issues. I like to refer to the word Christ as life and the word Anti-Christ as anti-life. As we are humans, we are a special people. We are self-aware. I could spend hours talking about this. I will end with this, in the King James Bible, there is a passage somewhere that wrote "And God said let their be Light" and there was light. It is important to point out just this simple line can explain a scientific process. Let me ask you, what happens when you speak? What do you speak? Words, What are words? Sound? What is sound, Vibrations? What happens when there is a certain vibration? What happens when vibration interacts with a charged particle, how does it respone? What are your beliefs..words? What is your spirit? Words? Does your spirit have a frequency which bonds righteousness or attracts right things altimitaly. I have often pondered the idea of when a spirit leaves a person, where does it go? How does it know where to go, is there a map like guide in ourselves so that it knows where to travel or instead of a map, the word key is better use. Does the vibrations of space set a rythmic pathway for things not understood? I think if people try to seperate the science of belief, I think maybe we are limiting ourselves. To every belief, there should remain an understanding that maybe we are not right and accept that fact and not try to force a theory on somebody. People are free to decide for themselves. There is also much danger into people loosing hope. As a people and as an exsisting race, we do not want to loose hope or our dreams or our beliefs. The key to everything is to do things with pure, clean love for one another.

  • DyckDyck Jan 09, 2012

    Terms like 'should' often make me wonder whether if someone is in input or output mode, Spiros.

    Hi Saorsi. I don't have many 'beliefs' nor 'hopes' either (terms on a continuum from not knowing to knowing). I do have varying levels of knowing. And only one level is that of intellect, which is far from the highest level of knowing although one that I'm mostly relegated to (lowest to highest: hope, belief, instinct, intellect, experiencing, Intuition, Illumination, Insight, realization of God, I am God).

    * I know that the fact of existence of God doesn't depend on anything, nor anyone's belief, opinion, proof, faith, or what have you.
    * It is simply a fact or it is not a fact.
    * Further, it is either knowable or not knowable.
    * Further, it is knowable to some or all.
    * Further, knowing of the fact is based on a desire to know or it is based on absence of desire to know.

    To me, words alone, without affection, tentativeness, etc., are mostly useless in discussion except in the most trivial way. Sounds absurd, no? But, don't we mindlessly use words as though they were the object rather than a symbol... as though we know things (really) instead of having only their terminology or image or idea? Can we escape from always having a predisposing purpose or desire, biasing our vision.

    Who can inquire into truth, spirituality, infinity, etc., who either won't or can't step out of this cage, or who doesn't even know they're in one?

  • Anonymous Icon

    tucca Jan 07, 2012

    Wow! I read some comments and had to just say wow.
    Science is an ever expanding field. Just ask Einstein.

  • Anonymous Icon

    Otto Krog Dec 14, 2011

    I am sure that spiritualism can be explained mathematically.

    Spiritualism is to me the combined minds of us all.

    The individual mind is located in space and time as antimatter.

    My view on antimatter is, that it is the mind and consciousness of all living entities.

    You are your own universe.

    Reality is where the minds (antimatter) meets the physical universe.

    Interested? Then read my philosophical multiverse theory.

    Google crestroyer theory, and find it instantly.


  • Saoirse Dec 11, 2011

    DyckDyck, I guess that would depend on how you define fact. If you define it by your personal beliefs, then you would see "God" as a fact. But other cultures have beliefs that differ from yours and they probably think of their beliefs as facts as well. I define facts as things that can be objectively verified, so for me, saying that a religious belief is the same as a fact doesn't work.

    I don't think there can be a unification of religion and science, because they're based on diametrically opposing concepts. Science holds that the universe is ultimately knowable, while religion is based on the idea that it is not. Religion encourages (some would even say "requires") individuals to accept without question, to have faith. I don't see how this could ever be combined with the scientific method, which is based on collecting and evaluating empirical evidence.

  • Anonymous Icon

    AlanBourey Dec 08, 2011

    Your comments, Spiros, parallel very closely some of the positions I set forth in a book I released a few months ago: A Common Path: The Future of Religion, Science and Spirituality. In the first three chapters I set forth how religion should change so that it would be more reflective of truth and as a result more compatible with science. In the second three chapters I discussed the nature of science, how science should change and some present limitations of science in explaining the universe. In the third three chapters, I answered nine questions about our universe: How was the universe created? How was life created? Does God exist? Do we have a spirit or soul? What happens when we die? How should we live our lives? Do we have free will? Are events in our lives random? Will the universe end? While most of the basis for my answers came from science, scientific knowledge was supplemented with intuition, logic and transcendental experiences which meet certain threshold requirements. I also reviewed Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Judaism. Christainity and Islam and compared their teachings to my answers and my proposed new "spiritual knowledge" and new spirituality. I will look for your article on line. If you are interested in my book, you can find more at acommonpath.net or at http://www.amazon.com/Common-Path-Religion-Science-Spirituality/dp/0615457525/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1323363633&sr=8-2. Alan D Bourey

  • DyckDyck Dec 07, 2011

    What about a most basic fact? "Nothing is real except God. All else is illusion."

    And of course, synonyms for God e.g. Love, Beauty, Truth, Compassion, Infinity... should be considered too.

    If we begin with this as a fact most would say, how will I conceive of this, work with it? For it turns upside down, inside out most scientific premise.

    And, if this is correct, without acceptance of this fundamental Spiritual law it is probable little or no understanding can follow.

  • Saoirse Dec 01, 2011

    Thanks Ethan! That does clarify things for me, and it definitely brings me closer to your thinking on it. That IS a huge difference! I don't suppose there's a pocket sized version of you that I could carry with me in my EDC bag? I'd know a lot more about physics if I had you around all the time!

  • Anonymous Icon

    EthanT Dec 01, 2011

    I should probably clarify what I meant when I said, “So, we’re all just a big random fluke within the “infinite” multiverse.” It’s not that I don’t like how it views humans as even “less special”. By “us” I meant our Universe as a whole, including the explanation M-Theory provides for some of its properties/laws.

    For example, there is a famous problem in physics called the 120 order of magnitude problem. Basically, the observed and calculated values of the cosmological constant disagree by 120 orders of magnitude. This is huge. M-Theory’s explanation (tied to eternal inflation) put very simply is basically that, since there are an effectively infinite number of choices to choose from, of course one would exhibit this problem.

    Now, they might be right, but what if they’re not? There could be a REAL problem here with our physics that is making this 120 orders of magnitude off. But, if the new orthodoxy in Science becomes the multiverse, we may be glossing over many issues like this and chocking it up to “random chance”. This is what I don’t like, and is what other critics of the multiverse also express. Humans being more or less “special” seems trivial next to this.

    However, some proponents of the multiverse do have some ideas on us being “less special” than we ever felt about ourselves before, that I also don’t agree with. For example, assume all you are is just a complex arrangement of atoms. Now, this arrangement may be highly unlikely due to the high degree of complexity, BUT since there are an effectively infinite number of other Universes out there, it is almost guaranteed this pattern “happened” somewhere else. In other words, there is a Universe somewhere out there with EXACT copies of me, you and potentially everybody else. ( Of course this can tie back to the Many Worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics).

    Now, this last idea seems ridiculous to me, but I don’t see it as a real problem for M-Theory. It could be more or less an interpretational mistake forced on the theory by viewing humans completely as machines, including our consciousness. The theory could be right AND consciousness can be more than the brain, at which point, that interpretation just wouldn’t apply anymore.

    By the way, a site I really like for a critical view of all this and for up-to-date updates on the LHC and Higgs, without all the hype is:


    The blog belongs to Peter Woit – mathematician and critic of String Theory. The comment section is good too, as folks in the field, also reply at times.

  • Anonymous Icon

    wbilly3814 Dec 01, 2011

    My response is that in order to actually know what a scientist is thinking and what a scientist knows, and how he/she thinks, you have to be a scientist. Religion is more open, by design.

    I wrote: Quantum Physics, Near Death Experiences, Eternal Consciousness, Religion, and the Human Soul, which has been in the top 40 'in the world' in Quantum Theory for a year now. The reason I wrote the book is because I keep seeing non-scientists speculating on vocabulary and principles they don't actually know, and writing about it. So the book teaches Quantum Theory, in its original form, to the reader, in great detail. My mother-in-law understood it, and can explain superposition and quantum entanglement back to me better and with great correctness more so than any lay author has done. The book also goes to great length dismissing urban myth and misconception regarding Quantum Theory.

    When all of that is done, a working definition for consciousness which is suitable for the formal original definitions in Quantum Theory, the philosophies, and Religions of Man is presented, and consequently, all of the paradoxes in science and religion go away; my observation of a symptom of a definition that works.

    I've mentioned before any IONS member can email me at wbilly3814@yahoo.com and let me know if you prefer pdf, epub, or kindle, and I'll email you a copy for free - with only the expectation that 1) you'll read the entire thing and 2) you'll look the book on amazon and write a review.

  • Saoirse Dec 01, 2011

    That all makes sense on the c issue. Obviously paradigm shifts happen but that one seemed so central, and so well verified and consistent that I was really skeptical of it. As for you not being an expert -- you're pretty darned close to one, so I'm inclined to listen to you on matters of physics.

    I was sure M-Theory was going to finally give us the TOE, especialy because of the way it "returned" the 11th dimension and tied all the string theories together (Sorry-- there was no way to say that without the pun!) but yeah. the failure to confirm super-symmetry has me a littlle worried. I figured that part was going to be a slam-dunk, once the LHC was up amd running. If they don't find it, would that mean that Michio Kaku was... wrong? It's not possible! ;-) I think what you don't like about it is what makes sense about it to me. I could never buy the idea that humans are so special that we have the entirety of existence all to ourselves. It makes a lot more sense to me that life develops in suitable conditions and doesn't in unsuitable conditions. So, I'm still holding out hope and trying to think of it as narrowing in on the range,rather than failure to find it. But if they really don't ever turn that little Higgs rascal up, I guess it'll be back to the drawing board, There's an up-side, I guess -- Micho Kaku will have a whole new book to write, yeah?

  • Anonymous Icon

    EthanT Nov 30, 2011

    Sounds like the general consensus within the scientific community on the neutrino thing is that it will ultimately be wrong. If the replication you are referring to is what I think it is, it’s actually something the media hyped up and isn’t a true replication. It was just another release/refinement from OPERA on the original results they got that indicated faster than light travel or the neutrino. What they would really like to see is an independent replication of the results by another lab. My understanding is that one lab has just recently come out and said their results refute what OPERA got and does show that neutrinos move slower than c.

    From talking to some folks and perusing sites like physicsforum.com, they seem to think that it wouldn’t be a real big deal if the neutrinos do move faster than C. They claim the framework of Relativity will still be valid, but the constant c will no longer apply to light, but will still be a Universal speed limit. And, a search for an tiny and, as yet undetected, photon mass would begin, in order to confirm all this.

    I am far from an expert, but I tend to disagree with this, for the following reasons.

    Part of Einstein’s motivation to develop Special Relativity was the already Lorentz Invariant nature of Electromagnetism, as formulated under Maxwell’s Equations. In other words, Maxwell’s Equations were already compatible with SR, before SR was even invented. I think this is more than historically significant.

    Within the EM wave equation is the velocity of the EM wave which is inversely proportional to the square root of the vacuum permeability times the vacuum permittivity – two properties of “free space”. This value, or velocity, happens to be the speed of light in a vacuum, or ~3*10^8 m/s.

    Now, within Special Relativity, you can no longer think of time and space as separate entities. The mathematical quantity that “unites” them is called the metric. Within the metric is a constant which converts between time and space. That constant happens to be ~3*10^8 m/s! This ultimately shows nothing can move through spacetime faster than this speed, and it also helps preserve causality, as a result.

    And, it seems to me, the fact that the speed of light (~3*10^8 m/s) pops up in both places, pretty much says it has to be light (or any massless particle) that moves at this speed, or Universal speed limit.

    So, I think the neutrino result will be shown to be wrong too, but I’ve been accused of being brainwashed by Einstein more than once before, lol.

  • Anonymous Icon

    EthanT Nov 30, 2011

    I’ve only studied a very little of String Theory, as far as “doing the math” goes. And, since they say newly minted String Theory PhDs know just enough to be dangerous, that means I know just enough to be REALLY dangerous. With that said,

    I don’t feel M-Theory will be the big Theory of Everything(TOE) that folks hope it will be. But I have mixed feelings about it.

    M-Theory basically is String Theory. When String Theory was being developed and regarded as a potential TOE, it turns out there were different versions of the theory. This isn’t what you would hope for a TOE. Ed Witten developed M-theory shortly after, which shows the 5 versions of String Theory are all different ways of looking at the same thing. By adding one extra dimension (10 to 11), the 5 versions are shown to be mathematically equivalent.

    Anyhow, when you hear the analogy of violin strings creating different musical notes, as compared to Strings vibrating at different energies creating different particles and the entire Universe is then analogous to a musical symphony, well, I like that. If that’s not aesthetically pleasing, I don’t know what is.

    Also, I like the idea of higher dimensions, but not as represented in String Theory, as these compactified extra spatial dimensions. These extra dimensions are mathematically described by what is called a Calabi–Yau space. There is nothing within String Theory that says what shape these spaces HAVE to take and there are like 10^500 choices. Put very simply, each choice gives a Universe with different properties. Well, if you have effectively an infinite number of choices to choose from, you’re likely to be able to make the model fit reality, or have it make the predictions you need.

    So, I think String Theory may turn out to be a BIG mathematical trick, along the lines of the infamous Ptolemaic epicycles. This was a model of the solar system with the Earth at the center! It can be made to give you the answers and predictions you need, but its physical interpretation is dead wrong.

    Brian Greene and those guys like to relate this to eternal inflation, which seems to imply the existence of a multiverse. So the 10^500 different choices within String Theory each do apply in reality. It’s just that they apply to the many other Universes within the multiverse, ours being one particular choice that happens to support life. So, we’re all just a big random fluke within the “infinite” multiverse.

    I just have a hard time swallowing all this and you kinda have to if you’re going to get on the bandwagon of where all this is going.

    So, although I like some of the conceptual ideas, I have a gut feeling String Theory is going to be a dead end. There are hints of this at the LHC, which has not yet (and should have already!) verified Super Symmetry. (Super)string theory is based on super symmetry and if they don’t verify it, which is looking more and more unlikely, it spells big trouble for String Theory.

  • Saoirse Nov 30, 2011

    Ethan, that makes me feel a lot better!! I "get" kind of a gestalt on the whole thing, but don't have the math background to fully understand it, and some of the concepts I know I just don't have a real understanding of. All those quotes make me feel a little less like an eejit. Einstein hated QM as well, and spent the latter part of his life determined to prove that the whole thing was just one big misunderstanding. He made fun of quantum entanglement, calling it "spooky action at a distance," and scoffed at the whole idea of probability, saying that "Gpd doesn't play dice with the universe."

    What's your take on the neutrino thing, now that they've replicated the results? The first time around I figured it would turn out to be a flaw in the design -- no point getting all fired up about one result, right? But now that they fixed the flaw that they thought was causing it, and the neutrinos are still beating the clock, I'm not sure what to make of it & don't have the background necessary to speculate.

    And... since I'm peppering you with questions anyway... do you think M-theory is going to finally be the one?

  • Anonymous Icon

    EthanT Nov 29, 2011

    And, now for some quotes that fit the discussion, lol.

    » Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it. Niels Bohr.

    » If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics, you do not understand it. John Wheeler.

    » It is safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. Richard Feynman.

    » I do not like [quantum mechanics], and I am sorry I ever had anything to do with it. Erwin Schrödinger.

    » Quantum mechanics makes absolutely no sense. Roger Penrose

    And I think it was Feynman that said: "If somebody tells you they understand quantum mechanics they are either lying or crazy"

  • Anonymous Icon

    EthanT Nov 29, 2011

    Actually these days the most popular stand-point, or interpretation, is called "Shut Up and Calculate"

    In other words we can use the math to make predictions and do "business", so arguing about all the interpretations and which one is correct is often considered "philosophy"

    Kind of a cop out, if you ask me.

  • Anonymous Icon

    EthanT Nov 29, 2011

    Although that is the more popular consensus (not requiring consciousness for collapse) you can always still argue that the entire system (including the measuring device itself) is in a superposition of states, until somebody actually observes the result. There is nothing in the orthodox interpretation that disallows this. This is partly because we don't understand what wave function collapse really is, or when/where it happens.

    There is an interpretations, however, that may rid any need of an observer and start to define when and where wave function collapse really happens. This is Roger Penrose's interpretation, which is a type of Objetive Collapse interpretation. But, to fully understand the implications of this one, we'll need a new theory that unites QM and Gravity, because it says wave function collapse is tied to spacetime curvature. The nice thing about this one is that it makes some more solid predictions and should be experimentally verifiable.

    But, we don't really know which interepretation of QM is the correct one yet, and many of them can be shown to be mathematically equivalent, despite having completely different physical interpretations. (A great example of this is Time Symmetric vs Copenhagen).

    So, the jury is still out on the role of consciousness in collpase. But, since the current mind-set in science doesn't like to see consciounsess play a dominant role in reality, you can bet the interpretations that do not need it, will be favored for now.

  • Saoirse Nov 29, 2011

    Yep, that's a good one too, Ethan! I think we'll keep your quote thread, though -- Chuck Norris and Lady Gaga both say it's the best quote thread on the market, so it must be true! ;-)

    On the "collapsing the wave" thing, it's not actually true that human consciousness has to be involved. You can set up a completely mechanical detection device and walk away from it and get the same results. It's the measurement that matters, not the human, Once anything -- human or not -- happens that pinpoints the location of the particle, it necessarily changes the sum over histories by eliminating the paths that don't lead to that location.

  • Anonymous Icon

    EthanT Nov 28, 2011

    Don't forget "Appeal to Authority"

    We might as well delete my "Quotes" thread right now, lol.

  • Saoirse Nov 28, 2011

    I got interrupted and posted my last bit without really taking time to be clear. What I meant was, logic can't possibly be anything but objective. It's essentially mathematical in form. By definition, there's nothing about it that could be subjective, any more than one could say that it's simply a subjective opinion that adding 1 + 1 is going to give you two. Two people might have differing reasons for believing one thing or another, or they might have different interpretations of the same set of data. But that's not the same thing as having different logic.

    I think where the problem comes in is that there are a lot of logical fallacies out there and those can be traps for anyone not used to logic and critical thinking. Things like the Appeal to Ignorance -- "you can't personally provide a better explanation, therefore my theory is correct"; Proving the negative -- "you can't prove it doesn't exist, therefore it does"; the Appeal to the Masses -- "hundreds of people can't possibly be mistaken," and other such fallacies.

    Anyway -- maybe this is a little clearer than my last attempt. I really wish this forum allowed people to edit their posts instead of having to completely rewrite them!

  • Anonymous Icon

    EthanT Nov 28, 2011

    I have to also agree that logic is objective, because it is one tool for discovering the objective Truth behind reality. Saying logic is not objective would also imply the lack of any objective Truth.

    (Of course, we ALL distort this objective Truth with our own subjectivce biases and worldviews, but it is out there and we are, at the very least, indirectly referencing it)

    If Truth (and logic) are not ultimately objective in their true nature, how could anything be made sense of?

    I think an outright rejection of belief in an objective Truth is dangerous, because it ultimately can lead to the rejection of an objective, or universal, basis for morality too. Each man deciding on his own what is right and what is wrong can potentially sow the seeds of nihilism.

  • Saoirse Nov 27, 2011

    I'm not sure what you mean when you say logic is not objective. Logic is by definition objective. People may have different reasons for believing as they do, and they may easily disagree on those reasons, but reasons aren't logic. I think, at least in America, most kids aren't trained in logic in their early school years. My sister is getting them as college freshman, and virtually none of them have ever been taught logic or introduced to the concept of logical fallacies.

  • Spiros Kakos Nov 26, 2011

    Concerning the collapse of the wavefunction, I would mostly agree with the theory which states that "something with consciousness" causes that collapse. Electrons and particles in general anways interact with other particles. But that does not lead to their collapsing to a specific state. This only happens when a human observer comes into place.

    However I wouldn't bee too much optimistic in whether this will be accepted by todays dogmatic mainstream science soon...

  • Spiros Kakos Nov 26, 2011

    Logic is not something "objective". This is one great mistake everyone does. I have my logic. You have your logic. Who dictates which one is "correct". Major mathematicians have discovered unsolved antinomies in Logic. What we must know is that the distinction between "correct" and "wrong" did not exist in the old days of Homer!

  • Anonymous Icon

    EthanT Nov 22, 2011

    Ariel:"I have often thought that quantum physics would provide that necessary catalyst we need to discover that no system is entirely complete, because it hasn't been entirely manifest by enough observers. My overall idea is that the state of creation exists in quantum flux depending on the 'will' of the observers and will find itself in a state of totality one day in which the pendulum swings and a new universe of thought and ideas is created."


    you might like Eugene Wigner's interpretation of quantum mechanics, if you're not already familar with it. it basically says consciousness causes collapse (of the wave funtion). So, before you measure something, it exists only in a state of potentialities, and not in some definite state.

    But, you just gotta ask what does this interpretation say about the state of the Universe before there were any consciousness obersvers around? And, you're led to (at least?) two possibilities.

    One, before any conscious observers existed the entire Universe only existed as a flux of potentialities with no solid history. Once consciousness came into existence, it caused the entire Universe to collapse onto the history we're familar with and study in cosmology/physics.

    Two, consciousness (dare we say God?) has been around since the beginning and is what gives the Universe any reality.

    Of course, this is only one of a dozen or more interpretations of quantum mechanics, and not one of the most popular. But, it sure is neat!

    Time Symmetric Quantum Mechanics is another neat interpretation that does allow a type of retrocausal influence from the future, but in such a way that we can't be influenced by the future in our decision making, and so free 'will' is preserved.

    Ariel:"I think the best way I could describe how I feel right now is that we may be faced with the paradox of applying meaning to our own individual landscapes"

    I always like a quote of Joseph Campbell that is along the same lines, I think:

    "Life is without meaning. You bring the meaning to it. The meaning of life is whatever you ascribe it to be. Being alive is the meaning"

  • capt_infinity Nov 21, 2011

    If Susskind is correct and we are all holographic projections sitting peacefully on the edge of the universe in our two plane bliss, we are experiencing life as an illusion. The thought surely has every existentialist jumping up and down with glee. The concept has merit. We could easily pas through a black hole in two dimensional form. Could it be an open ended string that connects us to our two dimensional existence?

    Anyone care to do the math? Consider this. Every thought we have regarding philosophy, religion and science is an illusion until proven otherwise. The scientific method is not at fault. The fact it cannot be applied to many things is a huge clue we tend to easily sweep under the rug. If we cannot find proof that tells me we don't have enough knowledge to prove it.

    That said where does intuition and inspiration come from? Why do those us who have had NDE's see our lives drastically altered and experience phenomena no one can explain? There is something going on. many of those who follow new age beliefs know there is something going on. How many young people men and women who have had the opportunity to contemplate life and all that is have you talked to recently?

    When we are presented with ideas of any kind I see two possibilities. We either apply the scientific method and try and find proof or we gather as many peoples thoughts on the subject as we can and arrive at a consensus until we discover new knowledge, There is nothing preventing the religious leaders of the world from sitting down and arriving at a compromise other than the illusions they have created for themselves which they have made so real they are willing to kill each other to prove theirs is the only truth.

    Imagine a world where all human thought had to be either proven or put into practice through consensus and compare that to the world we live in today. We do live in a world based on illusion but, from where I sit, it sure looks like we have done an outstanding job of making it into one.

  • arielburns Nov 21, 2011

    Ethan, did you say, STRING THEORY? Haha, it is an old joke pointing at the tangled web we find most of physics in today, however (!) -- string theory is a magnificent thought. Incompleteness theorem indeed points out our elementary state of understanding the greater picture. I have often thought that quantum physics would provide that necessary catalyst we need to discover that no system is entirely complete, because it hasn't been entirely manifest by enough observers. My overall idea is that the state of creation exists in quantum flux depending on the 'will' of the observers and will find itself in a state of totality one day in which the pendulum swings and a new universe of thought and ideas is created. Lofty, yes, but equalled to my creative passion.

    I love the word axiom, it is a dimensional fanning of magnitudes and fractal realities. The truth is, we could kid ourselves with the meaning of ANYTHING; and if there is a God, he has a great sense of humour. I think the best way I could describe how I feel right now is that we may be faced with the paradox of applying meaning to our own individual landscapes - and how this relates to our progression toward love and truth.



  • Anonymous Icon

    EthanT Nov 21, 2011

    After my last post I immediately thought of a common refutation of what I stated. And that is usually that the logic contained within math, as compared to mythology, is more clear, concise and less open to interpretation. And, in relation to physics, this logic can be experimentally verified, at times.

    All true, to an extent. But ...

    The use of the logic in math isn't always as infallible as it seems. It is when it comes to the more elementary form of math, but in difficlut problems, it can be downright daunting. I remember a few tough problems, or proofs, in physics where you end up very proud of your formulation only to find it is all BS because of one mistaken assumption. The math is all consistent, but it doesn't apply to anything in reality. All this even more so, for those on the cutting edge of math and physics.

    In addition, only a small subset of mathematics actually applies to the physical world ( somewhat of an enduring mystery in and of itself ). As a result, most math is not open to experimental verification. Also, see the incompleteness theorem I mentioned below by Goedel.

    Also, a mathematical model can be used to accurately model physical reality, but its accompanying physical interpretation could be dead wrong!

    Perhaps the most famous (and somewhat old) example of this is Plato's epicycles. It's a physical model of solar system, which has the earth at the center! It can accuralty model what we see in the sky, by adding small orbits (called epicycles) on the existing orbits of other planets. Basically, you can add as many of these as you like to get almost any answer you need. If you're familar with Fourier series in math, you'll have a gist as to what is going on. It's a type of mathematical "trick" and some claim that this is exactly what String Theory is all about.

    Perhaps Richard Feynman summed this up best ( in refernce to String Theory ) when he coined the term, "mathematical masturbation". Yes, it is just as easy to kid yourself with meaning in math sometimes, as it is to interpreting the meaning of a dream. (Although, that comparison would probably make Feynman roll over in his grave, lol)

    So, I guess my point is that it can also be challenging to see/follow the "logic" in dreams and myths, and it has a foreign, suspicious feel to many, BUT it IS there. And, with practice, just like with math, anybody can get good at following it.

  • Anonymous Icon

    EthanT Nov 21, 2011

    Thanks for your post ariel.. Yes, the forum format here can definitely use some improvement ... I've got some upside down posts out there too!

  • Anonymous Icon

    EthanT Nov 21, 2011

    "f you think "logic" is the way to go and that logic is against God, think twice. Aristotle (the founder of Logic) and Godel (the second greatest logician after Aristotle) had logical arguments IN FAVOR of God..."

    I liked that ;-)

    I've been giving some thought lately as to what exactly IS logic.

    having studied physics and engineering in school, and employment along such lines, mathematical logic and reasoning along those lines makes a lot of sense to me. I am able to follow it and use it on a daily basis .. the more pracice, the easier it becomes.

    But, I've also studied and read a lot of Carl Jung, Joseph Cambell, and mythology and religion, in general, as well as dreams. Here too, there is a type of logic, that is altogether different than what one might find in math. Yet it is consistent and can me made sense of. Once one is familar with the symbolic language used within myths and even dreams, one can pick up meanings and truths in a very consistent manner, just as in math. Again, the more practice and familarity gained the easier it is.

    So, I guess I've been led to the conclusion that to only use the type of logic as presented in math/physics is to only consider part of reality, or to be looking at only one aspect of Truth. The other logic ( a more left brained type of logic, or is that right brain, I forget lol) is also need to complete the picture.

    Btw, you mentione Goedel. Are you familar with his incompleteness theorem? It basically says (taked from Wikipedia):

    "The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an "effective procedure" (e.g., a computer program, but, may be any any sort of algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the relations of the natural numbers (arithmetic). For any such system, there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. The second incompleteness theorem, a corollary of the first, shows that such a system cannot demonstrate its own consistency."

    Kind of interesting in light of the discussion ;-)

  • arielburns Nov 21, 2011

    This is my first time posting - had I known how this arrangement would post in a inversely vertical fashion, I would have presented if differently. Please read from bottom up!

  • arielburns Nov 21, 2011

    She can dance into many forms to experience herself, and this creates jealousy and struggle between the etheric consciousness that resides side by side in man. Satan tempted Eve in the garden with knowledge - her choice to use these quantum rays to further explore her states of consciousness comes with a price. She must battle the consequence of her choices as she sacrifices her matter, born again and again, while she tears down one temple to form another. This is painful and can be experienced by the story of Christ, who battled the dark spirits or etheric body of the sun inside man, casting them out into the abyss. Christ had power over sin, and was in a pure state, likened to the state of her mastery over material enjoyment and focusing on development of her soul. He sacrificed himself and absolved all sin in those who could follow his ways - her intent for eternal life being exalted on the cross of sacrifice.

    The myths surrounding her experience with Lucifer, who has perpetuated under the title of 'Morning Star' - being cast from heaven as lightning. The ancient mysteries lend to stories of 'angels' being as an orb arriving into our sight and then changing into a human form with wings! Now that tells a story. The dark arts expose her struggle with using the sun to manifest life as a process of material enjoyment only. She struggles with her knowledge of the movements of the stars and knows how to use the planetary influences to her advantage, but has discovered this knowledge comes with a price if applied by man, as they endeavor to use these sciences for manifesting their own will - and not a will of the whole, the one conscious mind of mother Earth.

    Looking in another direction, great thinkers such as Carl Jung have exposed four main archetypes: Mother, Rebirth, Spirit and Trickster (Devil). Jung lent insight toward a global effort which carried these main themes. Could these archetypes represent the trickster Devil (sun) convincing the Mother to Rebirth herself in search for the Spirit of God?

  • arielburns Nov 21, 2011

    Solomon had reign over spirits, and commanded them through acute understanding of metals, alchemy itself being the process she uses to exalt life unto itself, further splintering into varying states of conscious discovery. This can be likened to her mastery over solar energy - it is possible that the sun itself has a uniform, solar consciousness that she wrests with to achieve her means. He is made of smokeless fire, and she, of clay. Is there a marriage of the two within the body, she the vessel, and he - the progenitor by his quantum light states? She struggles with his etheric body nestled inside her, his solar rays injecting his own will and fracturing her psyche. She may obtain eternal life and has the ability, or will, to change into many things, his soul does not have that will. He is as he is and is merely an object of god's will.

  • arielburns Nov 21, 2011

    Hello, I wrote the following yesterday and I'd thought I'd share. As I look uniformly at the products of all great works and minds, there are emerging themes that I do believe we will eventually integrate and understand. I hope this is a productive commentary:

    It is not mere coincidence that many gods have been modeled under the influences of the planets, moon and stars. For God himself being the manifest of all creation and our cells plight in the struggle to obtain eternal life through the development of the soul. God's intent as seen through the descent or fall into material manifest, only to reach eternal existence through varying states of matter changed through chemical processes into complex energies. We are her psyche, reflecting all of her loneliness in the abyss, her understanding of the cycles of the stars and the planetary influences, expressed through out the ages by her children. We are her manifest attempt to struggle through material existence and obtain the holy grail, eternal existence by matter changed into quantum energy states.

    When putting all of the data side by side, there is no mistaking her pain and struggle. She worshipped the sun, for its light has magical qualities she uses to alchemically change matter into life. In that vein, she questioned the sun being the true deity, for even they pass away - as she reads the sky. Her acute understanding of the cycles of the planets, passed onto the fragments of her global consciousness, comes with question and pain to her revealing these mysteries - as the pains of consciousness and awareness bring about desires to slip into material enjoyment and away from developing her soul energy. The pain she feels for her sacrificing herself unto other states of herself is clear in Christ, as he represents her quest in mastering the state of material existence. Christ is born of the caul, a veil born of children (is said to be the amniotic sac attached to the head upon birth) and the Essenes were acute in this understanding of the timing of these births, and that those children had enhanced abilities. But what of the veil? Representing the veil she imposes to her living consciousness, to further her process of discovery - we can be likened to her dream state, playing out the battles against material nature and dabbling in the art of magical sciences - the transfer of energy.

Stay in touch with IONS