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?

[Goat]

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?

Neither. While there are some people who are trying to justify their metaphysical beliefs in the lack of knowledge we currently have about QM, that is an arguement from ignorance. The best that can be said is 'we don't know'.

[melodious]

hello goat

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?

Neither. While there are some people who are trying to justify their metaphysical beliefs in the lack of knowledge we currently have about QM, that is an arguement from ignorance. The best that can be said is 'we don't know'.

But the fact that we don't know means there is more to be discovered and understood, doesn't it?

[Goat]

hello goat

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?

Neither. While there are some people who are trying to justify their metaphysical beliefs in the lack of knowledge we currently have about QM, that is an arguement from ignorance. The best that can be said is 'we don't know'.

But the fact that we don't know means there is more to be discovered and understood, doesn't it?

There will be much more to be discovered and understood for many generations to come. Every prediction about 'the end of science ' (i.e. we know all things) tends to end up in the garbage can.

[Nameless]

I am ignorant about the fineries of gnosticism (though I read the gnostic gospels decades ago..), but quantum is certainly validating the presence and role of Consciousness as the "Ground of all Being", that classical physics and other sciences have studiously avoided (like a Xtian avoids demons!) in the past, to their detriment.
The mystics have known this truth for millennia.
I read of quantum theory in ancient eastern 'scripture'; some of it almost literal translations of foundational concepts.
Yes, science has been barking up a dead end (though pragmatic, to one degree or another), but the 'critical updates' are being downloaded as we speak!
Literally!
Any branch of science/thought that does not upgrade to 'Consciousness' level is already obsolete.

[Thought Criminal]

I am ignorant about the fineries of gnosticism (though I read the gnostic gospels decades ago..), but quantum is certainly validating the presence and role of Consciousness as the "Ground of all Being", that classical physics and other sciences have studiously avoided (like a Xtian avoids demons!) in the past, to their detriment.
The mystics have known this truth for millennia.
I read of quantum theory in ancient eastern 'scripture'; some of it almost literal translations of foundational concepts.
Yes, science has been barking up a dead end (though pragmatic, to one degree or another), but the 'critical updates' are being downloaded as we speak!
Literally!
Any branch of science/thought that does not upgrade to 'Consciousness' level is already obsolete.

Just a quick reminder: the last time this argument was attempted, I refuted it and referenced http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism

TC

[Nameless]

I am ignorant about the fineries of gnosticism (though I read the gnostic gospels decades ago..), but quantum is certainly validating the presence and role of Consciousness as the "Ground of all Being", that classical physics and other sciences have studiously avoided (like a Xtian avoids demons!) in the past, to their detriment.
The mystics have known this truth for millennia.
I read of quantum theory in ancient eastern 'scripture'; some of it almost literal translations of foundational concepts.
Yes, science has been barking up a dead end (though pragmatic, to one degree or another), but the 'critical updates' are being downloaded as we speak!
Literally!
Any branch of science/thought that does not upgrade to 'Consciousness' level is already obsolete.

Just a quick reminder: the last time this argument was attempted, I refuted it and referenced http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism

No, you refuted nothing. I'm glad for you that you feel that you did though. Must be satisfying. And, if I remember correctly, you were rude and disrespectful (perhaps thats why you are on probation..), and I walked from the discussion.
And I will not discuss this again with you. Take it to someone who enjoys your pissing contests.
And no serious researcher goes to the 'pubescent' wiki for serious referrence. Thats just pathetic...
Obviously your ego needed a boost. I'm glad you feel it.
But, as I said, you refuted nothing.
now,
nameless out

[QED]

No, you refuted nothing. I'm glad for you that you feel that you did though. Must be satisfying. And, if I remember correctly, you were rude and disrespectful (perhaps thats why you are on probation..), and I walked from the discussion.
And I will not discuss this again with you. Take it to someone who enjoys your pissing contests.
And no serious researcher goes to the 'pubescent' wiki for serious referrence. Thats just pathetic...
Obviously your ego needed a boost. I'm glad you feel it.
But, as I said, you refuted nothing.
now,
nameless out

That's not looking like civil debate material to me either. Nameless, you've evidently latched on to one particular interpretation of QM which, by its paradoxical nature, is equivalent to many others which do not involve consciousness. This is what we get when a contradiction is present in a system -- anything can be shown to be "true". No one should be satisfied with any one interpretation until the various problems are resolved.

[Goat]

I am ignorant about the fineries of gnosticism (though I read the gnostic gospels decades ago..), but quantum is certainly validating the presence and role of Consciousness as the "Ground of all Being", that classical physics and other sciences have studiously avoided (like a Xtian avoids demons!) in the past, to their detriment.
The mystics have known this truth for millennia.
I read of quantum theory in ancient eastern 'scripture'; some of it almost literal translations of foundational concepts.
Yes, science has been barking up a dead end (though pragmatic, to one degree or another), but the 'critical updates' are being downloaded as we speak!
Literally!
Any branch of science/thought that does not upgrade to 'Consciousness' level is already obsolete.

While there are some people who are speculating on quantum effects as part of "consciousness', currently they have no way to test, or falsify any mechanism.

Until they know what the mechanism for consciousness is, it would be arrogant to say that the 'mystics' have known this truth. It sounds like taking a poorly understood mechanism, and applying vague symbolism to say "see, they knew it"

[Nameless]

No, you refuted nothing. I'm glad for you that you feel that you did though. Must be satisfying. And, if I remember correctly, you were rude and disrespectful (perhaps thats why you are on probation..), and I walked from the discussion.
And I will not discuss this again with you. Take it to someone who enjoys your pissing contests.
And no serious researcher goes to the 'pubescent' wiki for serious referrence. Thats just pathetic...
Obviously your ego needed a boost. I'm glad you feel it.
But, as I said, you refuted nothing.
now,
nameless out

That's not looking like civil debate material to me either. Nameless, you've evidently latched on to one particular interpretation of QM which, by its paradoxical nature, is equivalent to many others which do not involve consciousness. This is what we get when a contradiction is present in a system -- anything can be shown to be "true". No one should be satisfied with any one interpretation until the various problems are resolved.

I had no various problems to resolve. I did see the various evidence and heard the various interpretations of the 'evidence'. I examined the evidence for myself. That I would, at least tentatively, 'resonate' with a modified Copenhagen interpretation is reasonable, especially since the data of other avenues of exploration seem to coincide at this point.
And there has never been any definitive refutation of any of it. There have only been other Perspectives, other POVs.
Peace
But, who doesn't think 'his' Perspective is a reasonable POV?