Gnostic Philosophy and Quantum Physics

[melodious]

Throughout the world the news will be trumpeted that you are engaged in labours, the purpose of which is to ensure that human knowledge and the empire of the human mind over matter shall not for ever continue to be a feeble and uncertain thing. COMENIUS, VIA LUCIS (The Way of Light)

It was inevitable that sooner or later physics would return to metaphysics. That is, after all, how it began: with the Gnostic search for the One behind all phenomena. The desire to understand and master matter; the quest for the spirit imprisoned in matter; the chasing of light diffused throughout nature in divine signatures; the central role of humankind, the Great Miracle, as bridge between the visible and invisible—all are Gnostic themes. And they all influenced the quest for science.

Question for debate: Is quantum physics just now catching up with gnostic philosophy? Or do be more fair: Has gnostic philosophy (everthing from Pythagoras to Paul of Tarsus, Hermeticism to Crowley's Thelema, William Blake to John Lennon) forshadowed through the "divine imagination," as Blake dubbed it, and the "uncompromised will," as Crowley asserted, the now extreme "reality" of modern quantum physics?

[melodious]

... there's probably more to the Kennedy assisination than we know, though the 'lone gunman' part is pretty accurate, (magic bullet my xxx).

Wait a minute here. You are confusing me. The "lone gunman" assertion is the "magic bullet" theory. You know, the idea that one bullet went wizzing around, defying the laws of physics, and created multiple wounds. Maybe you weren't thinking straight when you wrote that. I'll consider that probability, and forgive you for the minor flub.

As far as the moon landing is concerned, you should check out the R.E.M. song called "Man on the Moon" - "... If you believed they put a man on the moon, man on the moon. If you believe there's nothing up my sleeve, then nothing is cool."

[C-Nub]

I guess I should first correct myself on 9/11. I'm in no way against talking about it, I think it's very important that people discuss it and realize how very wrong the official account is, and how many questions need to be answered regarding what really happened.

I draw the line, however, at committing to an 'answer'. I think we know there's a lot of questions, but to suggest that we know the answers to them, to point the finger at any one group, specifically the Bush administration, is at best, premature. We don't have answers or real evidence, and we likely won't be getting them, but it needs to be said, needs to be explored and questioned, absolutely.

I just disagree with asserting that we know who did and how and why. We don't have that information.



As for the magic bullet, I know EXACTLY what I was talking about, and it wasn't a flub. Because of how Kennedy was sitting, in an elevated position, it looked as though the bullet passed through him, moved around in so doing, and exited at an angle thought to be 'impossible' only because of how the wounds on the passenger in the seat ahead of him appeared.

Which is to say, were they both sitting in their seats properly, the evidence would have made no sense, but because of Kennedy's 'parade' position, the forensics, and this is the experts testimony to this day, and not mine, work out very well. A large number of recreations have been done to this date, and all the ones that seat Kennedy correctly work out fine.

There's also the fact that one cannot argue the source of the bullets came from anything other than a single rifle. The motives and puppet-mastering behind the assassination are what need to be examined, what happened on the day itself is fairly clearly established and not nearly as vague as people think.

So, to sum up, the Moon Landings have no conspiracy, the JFK thing does, but people are looking at absolutely the wrong aspects of it, and 9/11 has a huge question mark all over it, since nothing from the official account of what happens makes any sense whatsoever.

[melodious]

Hey c-nub
Thank you for the correction on the Kennedy thing. I did a bit of homework - it was the second bullet that was the infamous "magic bullet." And according to the report, they all came from one gun... but who really knows when it comes to government conspiracies.

9/11 was in no doubt the most horrible government cover up of all time (right up there with Pearl Harbor, the sinking of the Lusitania, and the Gulf of Tonkin "incident").

[Goat]

Hey c-nub
Thank you for the correction on the Kennedy thing. I did a bit of homework - it was the second bullet that was the infamous "magic bullet." And according to the report, they all came from one gun... but who really knows when it comes to government conspiracies.

9/11 was in no doubt the most horrible government cover up of all time (right up there with Pearl Harbor, the sinking of the Lusitania, and the Gulf of Tonkin "incident").

If there was a government cover up , it would have to do with the incompetency of the government for predicting and responding to 9/11. As much as I do not like the current administration, to think they planned it is beyond reason.

[Beto]

So... no one is actually interested in devoting a thread to it? I'd like some input on the more "interesting" aspects of the conspiracy theory. Personally, I only talk about available video footage and audio recordings.

[melodious]

... to think they planned it is beyond reason.

"They." "Them." That is the big question, isn't it? Let me be more specific. It was, at the very least, entities within the government, yet outside of it also (postulate this: the Federal Reserve Bank is a private institution). I would speculate that the F.B.I. and C.I.A. are very likely at some root of it. I would also speculate that the Oklahoma City and World Trade Center bombings were the first attempts at this agenda of "homeland security" laws being passed, such as the Patriot Act. "They" needed a certain large number of civilian casualties from "terrorist" acts within the U.S. to convince the naive public that laws were necessary to be passed in order to "protect" them. As a result of these "terrorist" attacks, bills, such as the Patriot Act, have been passed to "assure" national security. So in some ways I cannot think of any reason why the United States president would not know of such political agendas being promulgated. This is my position on the matter.

[Goat]

... to think they planned it is beyond reason.

"They." "Them." That is the big question, isn't it? Let me be more specific. It was, at the very least, entities within the government, yet outside of it also (postulate this: the Federal Reserve Bank is a private institution). I would speculate that the F.B.I. and C.I.A. are very likely at some root of it. I would also speculate that the Oklahoma City and World Trade Center bombings were the first attempts at this agenda of "homeland security" laws being passed, such as the Patriot Act. "They" needed a certain large number of civilian casualties from "terrorist" acts within the U.S. to convince the naive public that laws were necessary to be passed in order to "protect" them. As a result of these "terrorist" attacks, bills, such as the Patriot Act, have been passed to "assure" national security. So in some ways I cannot think of any reason why the United States president would not know of such political agendas being promulgated. This is my position on the matter.

You can speculate all the time, but I don't think it is reasonable to think that any agency in the U.S. government was responsible for the planning or execution of it.

[melodious]

You can speculate all the time, but I don't think it is reasonable to think that any agency in the U.S. government was responsible for the planning or execution of it.

Well the government is definitely relying on that being the opinion of the people. No offense, but I feel that this position is rather naive and gullible; however, you are not alone in your opinion. More people share yours than mine. But then when were the masses ever really right, or, at least, not a bit diluted of the truth.

[ShadowRishi]

Throughout the world the news will be trumpeted that you are engaged in labours, the purpose of which is to ensure that human knowledge and the empire of the human mind over matter shall not for ever continue to be a feeble and uncertain thing. COMENIUS, VIA LUCIS (The Way of Light)

It was inevitable that sooner or later physics would return to metaphysics. That is, after all, how it began: with the Gnostic search for the One behind all phenomena. The desire to understand and master matter; the quest for the spirit imprisoned in matter; the chasing of light diffused throughout nature in divine signatures; the central role of humankind, the Great Miracle, as bridge between the visible and invisible—all are Gnostic themes. And they all influenced the quest for science.

Question for debate: Is quantum physics just now catching up with gnostic philosophy? Or do be more fair: Has gnostic philosophy (everthing from Pythagoras to Paul of Tarsus, Hermeticism to Crowley's Thelema, William Blake to John Lennon) forshadowed through the "divine imagination," as Blake dubbed it, and the "uncompromised will," as Crowley asserted, the now extreme "reality" of modern quantum physics?

It is annoying when people who have no background in the philosophy of science or in theoretical physics attempt to justify their epistemological problems with the, now classic, game of "Pin-the-Tail-on-Quantum-Mechanics".


The short answer is that no, there is no causal or necessary relationship between a religious philosophy from 2,000 years ago and the modern physics model built off of the concept of a complex-valued function that must satisfy a linear, homogeneous partial differential equation the following logical consequences in tandem with some particle spin exclusion rules.


People tend to see quantum mechanics for something that it is not, and I must say, after having completed a course in quantum mechanics, I'm at a loss for what people think quantum mechanics actually is.

But, since people seem to lack knowledge in the subject, QM does not help arguments in support of:

1. Undeterminism.
2. Fatalism.
3. Free will.
4. God's intervention in the universe.