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]

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.

'Truth' is not 'falsifiable'.
Neils Bohr once said that "There are trivial truths and there are great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is obviously false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." Their is at least one scientist who places no undue weight on the local pragmatic phenomenon of 'empiricism'.
Because physics had just that, no way to 'test, prod and poke' (examine) with the tools that they had, that they fell into the practice of avoiding Consciousness, and eventually, developing a religious horror of it.
Now, with our present 'tools', we are finding that (our 'discovery' of) Consciousness cannot be ignored any longer. It is, in the very least, 'pressing'. Unfoutunately for those exceptionally comfortable (even egoically identified) with the 'traditional tools'. The use of which can even be compared with religious ritual and dogma.
Unfortunately, or fortunately (depending on Perspective/Consciousness), the 'presence' of Consciousness also highlights the 'limitations' of the tools with which we have been working. Pragmatically, I'm not talking 'obsolescence', they (tools/laws) are just no longer to be considered 'universal'; neither the 'tools' or the 'laws' that they have 'uncovered/described'.

Until they know what the mechanism for consciousness is, it would be arrogant to say that the 'mystics' have known this truth.

You are attempting to force an apple into my orange hole. You make an assumption that there is a "mechanism for consciousness".
'Consciousness' has never even been defined (but very subjectively) much less evidence of a 'mechanism'. The acceptance of these premises of yours seems, to me, unfounded and a 'belief' structure.
As far as 'arrogance', I'm merely offering the (rather interestingly consistent gist of) written opinions/findings of perennial explorers of 'Consciousness'. Nothing arrogant about it. 'Mystical' writings are as available (for you to see the 'evidence' for yourself) as are their 'mystical disciplines' (for personal critical examination).

It sounds like taking a poorly understood mechanism, and applying vague symbolism to say "see, they knew it"

I can certainly understand the Perspective you describe.
The ineffable cannot be but 'poorly understood'. And all that can be 'understood' is a basically poor and impotent symbolism (to bring the 'nondual' (perfect symmetry) into dualistic thought, Perspective.
Yes, I'd agree with you that at this level of 'exploration', logic and rationality crumble as the notion of the 'solid' with the discovery of 'atomic structure' and 'information waves'.
Hence, Richard Feynman saying that only a "mystical state of mind can even begin to understand quantum theory". And that 'mysticism is always reached when any discipline is explored to any depth.'
Peace

"Truths" might not be falsifiable.. but then those 'Truths' aren't science. The 'Truths' that science deals with are these little things known as 'facts'. Any scientific theory will make predictions to be able to judge the accuracy of the model. If it isn't 'falsifiable', it's not science.

[Fallibleone]

Moderator note: Please refrain from making unproductive one-line posts. Please also refrain from making unsupported assertions and personal comments about other members. Please stick to the topic at hand. Please try and lift the tone of this thread. What has occurred outside it on other threads, unless it relates to the topic of this thread, is irrelevant.

1. No personal attacks of any sort are allowed. Comments about another poster that are negative, condescending, frivolous or indicate in any way a lack of respect are not allowed.
5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not make blanket statements that are not supportable by logic/evidence.
7. Do not post frivolous, flame bait, or inflammatory messages.
9. No unconstructive one-liners posts are allowed in debates (Do not simply say "Ditto" or "I disagree" in a post. Such posts add little value to debates).

[C-Nub]

First off, I called him "Mr." Crowley because I didn't know how to spell "Aleister", which even now I just copied and pasted from your reply.

Many a son has reacted to parental righteousness by going wrong. But Aleister Crowley is one of the few who deliberately devoted a lifetime to creating a "religion" out of every vice in the catalogue. At 14, he seduced the kitchen maid while his mother was at church, and butchered a cat to see whether it had nine lives.

I could provide more quotes, but let's just list a few things you can go and verify for yourself.

Joined the 'Golden Dawn' cult before leaving to form one himself.

Took the nickname "The Beast," occasionally going so far as to add a '666' after in in clear reference to Satan.

Wrote multiple books on 'magic,' which I think is all you need to do to cement yourself as a nut.

Was nicknamed by the press (in his time) as the Wickedest Man in the World.


Otherwise, I'm not really going to argue with you. I don't see the point of coming to a debate forum to expunge on the equal value of all perspectives, which, for the record, aren't equal. The perspective, for example, of the flat earth society, the intelligent design community, and lets just say Mormons, is significantly more wrong than those of people who know the earth is round, believe in evolution, and don't think that the native peoples of America are brown because they offended Jesus when he visited them... (Crazy mormons)

I think it's interesting that you remarked on my condescending tone, which I unfortunately have to cop to and apologize for, yes, I was, and no, I shouldn't have been. At the same time, for the record, that's what I see in your writing. It comes across very much as if you're talking down to me as an idiot, which I most assuredly am not.

As for the brain being the mechanism of consciousness, I did not provide a 'perspective,' I provided an example of the scientific reasoning that we as a people have used to explore our fundamental nature and construction.


Now, a bit on perspectives;

Truth is not determined by how many people 'like' an opinion, a perspective is not made more valuable by the volume of its subscribers. No matter how much someone likes an opinion, a point of view, there can still be only one correct interpretation of the actual happenings observed. Two people who witness the same event can describe it very differently, but there is still only one event, and while both may have aspects of truth in their accounts, there is still a single, absolute description of what happened that, should there be some means of determining it, will trump all other 'interpreted' accounts of the events.

There are many accounts of, for example, the happenings in Roswell or the JFK assination, and its safe to say the vast majority of us don't really know what happened, but have a lot of very varied viewpoints on the subject. There is still only one sequence of events in each example that actually occured, and multiple perspectives does nothing to change that. (Parallel universes aside)

The same is true of what happens in your brain to generate consciousness. There are multiple definitions and explanations for what occures to generate the miracle that is 'alertness,' but there's still only one, actual and biological explanation for it. Many will argue that the soul contributes, just as many will argue that there was no holocaust, it's a perspective, it's a point of view, and in both cases, it's incorrect.



Finally, I have to say, I'm very, very, very happy that I do not understand or see the spiritual/metaphysical/mystical side of the universe, and I happen to think that the existance of such a 'side' to the universe is very, very, very, very, very, very unlikely at best. The extra very's are not meant to be condescending, but rather to illustrate how unlikely I think it will be.

[Nameless]

Thank you nameless for the exellent response to my question.

You are welcome. I'm happy to offer a bit of this Perspective before the 'other parties' offer a bit of 'theirs'. *__-

And thank you for putting c-nub in his place about ole' A.C.!

Oh noooo! Don't say that! First, I put no one in their place, just shared this Perspective. He is absolutely correct in/as 'his' Perspective. Stating as you did was inflamatory and not the way that I feel. I don't want to argue with him, just come to understanding, and attacking/threatening the ego like that tends to defeat the point of the conversation. Capisce'?

Thanks, again, nameless for providing a great answer and some wonderful quotes

Peace

[Nameless]

"Truths" might not be falsifiable.. but then those 'Truths' aren't science.

Agreed, science does not deal with 'truths', it explores that which it finds to explore, attempting to better understand the 'observed'. I know no 'science' (one single brance of the tree of philosophy) who even uses the term 'truth' (officially).

The 'Truths' that science deals with are these little things known as 'facts'.

Not even your temporary and tentative and local (non-omniversal) 'facts' are considered 'truths' but by a religious sort of 'believer'.

Any scientific theory will make predictions to be able to judge the accuracy of the model. If it isn't 'falsifiable', it's not science.

And if it doesn't give milk, it's a bull. So? I don't need a bull or a cow to enjoy a veggie salad. Science has its place in the exploration of the 'observed', but it is no more useful that a screwdriver is to hammer nails. Perhaps that is why, in the great system of philosophical inquiry, science is but one perspective among many. All perspectives are limited/imcomplete. So, it seems to me that taking all the avenues of exploration (different Perspectives); science, epistemology, metaphysics, ontology, theology, ect.. all together, rather than in 'cultlike' isolation (right vs wrong), might the best understandings arise. Cleaving to but one Perspective, in isolation, can never transcend its inherent limitations.
Within it's time 'and' locality, science is a wonderfully practical tool.
Like a screwdriver...

[melodious]

[Crowley] took the nickname "The Beast," occasionally going so far as to add a '666' after in clear reference to Satan.

A clear reference to who? Satan? No, no, no - that is a Christian superstition and reflects an ignorance of ancient Greek myth and gematria. Let me demonstrate from an excerpt of some of my own writings.

It is now that I shall come to you in Truth and Spirit on the Mystery of the Triple Six, which seems to disturb most people nowadays because of the vulgar and profane interpretations that have been perpetuated for nearly two thousand years. Although this number, as it may be of the Beast, is thought of as evil, it actually symbolizes and expresses the transcendence of IT. For Six Hundred and Sixty-Six is the number of the Goddess of Love & Beauty: Aphrodite, or Ishtar, or Isis, or Mary, or... this list goes on my friends! It is also the number of the Sun, three-fold: our Father of the material, psychological, and spiritual; however, the Sun, our Father, is only in His three-fold nature when He has realized the Mother, and She, being His "need to love," creates the Dragon's Path.
Remember, O Mystic on the Path, the three Fates of Greek myth. These "Fates" were personified by the Triple Goddess, and this secret number of Six Hundred and Sixty-Six rightfully belongs to Her, as it is the three-fold destiny, or fate of mankind.
Melodious - excerpt from On The Mysteries of The Dragon

[Crowley wrote multiple books on 'magic,' which I think is all you need to do to cement yourself as a nut.

Really? What we call modern physics and scientific technology, the ancients would've considered a great magic; Crowley, also, would've deemed it a great "magic." To clear up Aleister Crowley's understanding and view of, what he called, "magick," I will present here his own definition.

The following is taken from Aleister Crowley’s Magick in Theory and Practice.

I) DEFINITION: Magick is the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will.

(Illustration: It is my Will to inform the World of certain facts within my knowledge. I therefore take “magickal weapons�, pen, ink, and paper. I write “incantations�—these sentences—in the “magickal language� ie, that which is understood by the people I wish to instruct. I call forth “spirits�, such as printers, publishers, booksellers and so forth and constrain them to convey my message to those people. The composition and distribution of this book is thus an act of Magick by which I cause Changes to take place in conformity with my Will.)

In one sense Magick may be defined as the name given to Science by the vulgar.

[Aleister Crowley] was nicknamed by the press (in his time) as the Wickedest Man in the World.

Don't tell me that you actually believe everything that is printed or reported in the media? Side-questions, in all earnesty (no sarcasm): Do you believe that America put a man on the moon, or Oswald killed Kennedy, or that Jeus was even a real historical man that started some new religion 2,000 years ago, or that our moneysystem/economy/national deficit/elections/wars are even "real"???
Just curious, that's all.

The Human Will and the Divine Imagination - that is what's Real!

[C-Nub]

Yeah, Crowley is still pretty much a no-go for me, definition of 'magick' aside, he was a drug-addled lunatic and the majority of what seems to have been written about him comes across as fairly negative. He's no Hitler, but at the same time, no.


As for the man on the moon, there's a conspiracy that needs to die. I used to believe in it, but there's a few really critical problems with continuing to do so.

Before I get into this, I apologize for the topic divergence, if a moderator has a problem with it, feel free to delete it or take some tokens from CNorman. He's got lots, and I'll feel bad, so it'll still sort of be like punishing me. Kinda.

If all we had for evidence of our having actually walked there was the pictures and the word of the American astronauts and members of the space program, then we'd have some room to doubt.

But it isn't. For starters, we have quite a few moon rocks, all of which have been examined by experts in geology, known collectively as 'geologists'. Many of these guys have been totally independant of the government as researches, and while a few moon rocks have been blown to earth by asteroid impacts, these are easily identifiable because of the atmospheric contamination the suffer on entry into earth's atmosphere. The moon rocks we currently have do not suffer from this contamination. Since none of the unmanned moon missions have returned to earth, this is a fairly important piece of evidence for us having actually been there.

The second big piece of evidence is what we left on the moon. Telescopes have been built, the first in Japan, with the power to visually confirm the existance of the landing site. No one has mentioned that it isn't there. On top of that, we left a mirror there. The reason we know that the mirror is there is that we bounce a very tightly focused laser off of it every single day to determin the continued rate of the moon's slow departure from orbit.

The mirror pretty much had to have been placed and calibrated by hand, at the time of the moon landings, we simply didn't have the topographical data or the robotic expertise to manage it otherwise.

[melodious]

Hey C-nub
Here's my view: Scientists and "experts" can be payed off, just like judges or policeman, to say just about anything, and especially when the government's involved - independent, my butt. There is these little things called misinformation and diversion tactics. They are used to get people to believe any number of ridiculous lies - and our governments use them constantly. For example: 19 terrorists attacked the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001 - true or false? Remember the 911 committee that investigated the questionable evidence? People who actually believe in Amercian politics are gravely diluted with romantic fantasies of how we actually "elect" our politicians. There's something called the "elite wealthy" in America: they rule the country - not you or I, the common "Joe."

But this is merely my perspective and opinion.

[C-Nub]

First off, I'm not touching 911 right now. There's a whole lot about it that doesn't add up, but that's just it, it doesn't 'add' to anything, it's a total mess, and the people in charge of figuring out what happened only made things worse.

The moon, however, is far less ambigious. I, like you, once believed that we hadn't been there. Now I feel somewhat foolish for having believed that. Geologists and physists would not, I think, publish findings on and dedicate time and energy to studying evidence that they had been bribed to lie about.


The moon landings were the achievements of dozens upon dozens upon dozens of people, many of whom had critical roles in the mission(s) themselves. On top of that, if they were faked, then there would also have been dozens more involved in the fabrication of evidence. Not just anyone can pick up an editing machine and splice film, not just anyone can doctor sound, build props or working sets, configure lighting, or properly handle a video camera. All of these people would have known, would have been privy to the secret.

All of the nasa scientists charged with programming the computers, the people tracking the craft in the control room, the astronauts themselves, the people in charge of calibrating the broadcasting / recieving equipment, and many more I'm not thinking of would have known, if not what was happening, that something was not happening as it was supposed to.

The motive exists, and the means of actually perpetrating the deception exists, but the ability to keep it a secret for this long, with many opportunities for deathbed confessions that simply haven't materialized, with many opportunities to profit from going public with this information, it's pretty hard to hang onto the notion that it didn't happen.

This isn't to say that there aren't conspiracies out there. There's definitely something up with 9/11, there's probably more to the Kennedy assisination than we know, though the 'lone gunman' part is pretty accurate, (magic bullet my ass). Maralyn Munroe was probably murdered and Elvis really could have faked his own death (he actually tried, once before) but as far as the moon landings go, the evidence that they actually occured is pretty hard to refute, especially if all you have is 'they're all liars or people who got bribed!'

[Beto]

C-Nub, I've already addressed 9/11 in a thread of mine about "Zeitgeist" a while back, but it's notorious how people rather not discuss the issue. Incidentally, you may find this article interesting.

http://www.physorg.com/news138546437.html

Perhaps we can start a thread on general chat specifically about 9/11?