• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Theoretical physics and religion

well if you are a shaman with a vast knowledge about plants,
its medecine, you are a doctor, with trial and error you came to be in a position where you can indeed predict and explain things and help people
but you call it religion, you say the spirit told you, but you are working with a extensive database of accumulated knowledge based of experiments
but its done for spiritual purpose
you can call it religion, you can call it science, but its both
science doesnt have to be modern science and religion doesnt have to be organize religion

and i dont want science and religion to be the same, that would kill the point, its about balancing each other, like male female, if you want to be in a relationship you dont want to end up with a half penis half vagina for yourself, you want the opposite sex to stay the opposite so that it can be complementary, hence the attraction

as for religion in school im all for it, as long as its about religion,
i would have loved to learn about hinduism, islam, judeism, taoism, zen, santeria, voodoo, sufism, paganism, mandaeism, gnosticism.....
but what i learn about was christianity, and there is a difference between one religion and religion
it wasnt about religion it was about christianity
so as you say its mostly about pushing someones agenda and im not for that
 
Last edited:
aaaahhh ok we just differ in our definitions. i take 'science' to mean the discipline as its evolved since the enlightenment, i.e. modern science, using specifically 'the scientific method.' incidentally this excludes a lot of what people would call 'theoretical physics,' because some parts of it aren't even in theory testable, the fact most string theorists are in maths depts is quite telling....

but yes, you are right, complimentarity is important in life. (and in science as it happens...)
 
chinup: Yeah there does seem to be a big difference between religion/science as it is practice in the "west".

I would consider something like Buddhism to be quite scientific. There's some dogma as well but many practices are based on direct experience through meditation. To me direct experience is probably more "scientific" than typical experiments or could be considered an experiment without any division between observer/observed.
 
indeed they are much more similar.

i guess my problem there would be, what is direct experience? for example, is it when the photon hits the eye? is it when it hits part of our retina? is it when that signal gets transmitted to the optic nerve? or when that signal has finally been processed into what we 'see'? to me, direct experience of most things doens't exist. so measuring apparatus, whilst less direct than our eyes, has other benefits- for example it will give you the exact chemical composition of a foodstuff rather than rely on subjective accounts of taste.

the one thing i'm sure we do directly experience is our consciousness, and we certainly can learn a lot about that through meditation. observing our own consciousness is the only i can think of to deduce it exists in the first place.

edit- should also just say i'm aware my personal need for a definition for everything isn't really philosophically justified....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
religion is a science of the soul

when it comes to religion there is belief and there is practice
belief being the equivalent of a theory, you use faith to get there
you have faith that the theory is right
but you need to test it out via practice, be it meditation, contemplation, prayer, whatever you call it
religion is there to connect you with the source
the source being : the logos, the word, ohm, the dao, god, now...whatever you call "it"
it rains, it snow, its happening
"it" being the impersonal whole that completes you and defines you and created you
but it is also something you create, that you define, you as being "it"
do you create your imagination or does it creates you ?
"it"s both
it - is - both
its a interrelation, it happens due to self reflection

self reflection is you putting yourself outside of yourself by using memory and creating a abstraction of the world
a abstraction of your world, a abstract you outside of you
a you looking in
and thats where you find god
by looking within yourself from the outside
you can see god
which happens to be you, but you as being it
because like i said : is it you who creates your imagination or is it creating you
its both
both you as god the creator, and you as you creating god (or whatever mystical stuff you are into)

but then how do you differentiate the two
how do you differentiate what you create via your memory (in-out) and what you create via your imagination (out-in)
one is you looking out, the other is you once out turning 360 and looking back in
but then how to know that that is you you are looking and not your imagination of you
inevitably it is your imagination but your imagination is you
and you is your memory

but to go back to your imagination looking at your memory (as oppose to your memory creating imagination)
how to differentiate what is memory and what is imagination of memory,
how do you keep a straight line from in-out-in
how to go out of yourself via imagination and coming back in at the same spot you came out of but using a imaginary you that fits perfectly with the actual original you (memory)
how do you transform imagination back to memory ?

because when you can balance the two thats the moments where you feel like we are all one, you remember your divine nature and feel like god, you are god and so is everything...
you remember where you came from, where you are, you got a sense of familiarity, of universal love...
you remember out of imagination, out of perfect alignment between memory and imagination


faiths comes from result at that point
religion is based on its result, the results are based on its practitioner
the practice makes the practitioner,
the religion is made out of shared beliefs, the religion express the beliefs of its practitioner
if you read that Christianity believes that...it means that christian practitioner as a whole unity, their commonly shared beliefs = that...
and those beiefs comes from practice
now comes faith, the one on a individual level and the collective one
where for instance you are new to it all
do you have blind faith in what religion tells you ?
or do you have faith because you know what works for you
blind faith is bad science,
blind faith is bad religion
religion isnt about blind faith
blind faith is giving up on practice
on experimenting until you get result, on following your own path to enlightment
testing hypothesis, creating new theories
its all about doing it until you get there
but lots of people dont want to do the hard work, they want someone else to do the work, they want to have the church doing the work for them in exchange of their blind faith
well then they are getting rob of their soul
they are getting rob of their own integrity
they loose the science of it

religion is about accumulated knowledge that brings people tools to connect with the source
those tools can be stories and metaphor and advise or laws, philosophies, concept
whatever once worked for someone and has being pass down generation
it all started with people getting there and wanting to share
because there is a way
there is a light
within
where you are the creator
tho you might not realize its you at that point because the light blinds you, the love encompass you, you aint in a state where you care to Analise whats going on you just enjoy the situation
abramic faith usually call it the light while eastern religion call it the void, the great nothingness, because if you care to look at the light long enough youll end up with the same result you get by fixing the sun, youll go blind, youll see darkness
but those eastern religion did came up with more complex ways to get there, more precise ways to sit, to breath, to center you mind, they created extensive array of meditation technique

religion is not to be confuse with blind faith
religion is not to be confuse with bad practice
religion is simply a tool, a guidebook

to use wiki definition of science :
"Science (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe"

testable is the important word here for those who are rational
some like to view science as opposite to religion without seeing it as also complementary
they have the notion that science is real and religion is not because science is "testable"
but religion is testable, but its also subjective, it goes within, not on the objective world where we can all agree on the same thing
in this case with religion you need to do the research, you new to do the experiment, you need to practice to get there, its just like trying to play a instrument, it aint gonna play itself for you
if it doesnt work for you you are doing it wrong, if you feel that it doesnt work for others well they probably are doing it wrong too
spiritual people usually arent yelling about their accomplishment,
most religious people that are vocal about their faith usually are pretty far from getting any result
you cant judge what works for you by judging what others do
its a personal thing
a personal science

can you prove what science tells you ? unless you can do the research yourself you cant prove what science says,
you can simply point out or link to some paper that someone else wrote about,
and in the case of science thats good enough
because objective reality is the same for everyone, thats why its objective, because we can all agree on it, if someone see something that no other is seeing well then we dismiss him, if he is schizophrenic for instance he is not gonna experience reality the same way and wont agree with the result
but we all see reality from our own subjective perspective, objective reality comes from common belief that if most everyone can agree that it is real
if a kid see santa well thats dismissible, if santa comes on national tv and show how he can make his reindeers fly while the whole world is watching then it becomes real
it doesnt matter at that point if everyone is actually experiencing mass hypnosis due to some virus created by a new plant taking over the human psyche
we wont know the difference and we will all agree
or i might be dreaming right now, are people really conscious in your dream, do they really have lives or do they disappear out of existence when you dont see them,
you believe its real every single night
but then you wake up and realize it wasnt real
but what about this right now, is this real ? is it because everyone say its real that it makes it real ?
our modern way of thinking has some roots in what Descartes wrote here : "i think therefor i am" where he was doubting every single thing for the sake of finding some kind of ultimate truth to base his existence from, one single dot where to start, a foundation

he found out that he could doubt everything except that he was doubting everything, he was sure of that (which is opposite-complimentary, doubt-sure)
thinking with no preconceive notion of anything else became the basis of is method
so no belief in religion and no belief in science or in his senses
but belief that he himself thinks and that that should be where we stand from in regard to reality

but if you start from there you cant rely on someone else or something else to show you the way
and he did talk about the soul and he did talked about god
he was a religious guy but he did not push religion, he pushed what worked for him, his method

and religion are just that, a accumulation of tradition related to what has worked for people
but yeah its being perverted by people who dont get it and failed to reach much anything spiritual out of it
but you cant judge religion by the people who fail to get there
you need to get there yourself
and youll need to use all you can and thats gonna include the scientific method

and now ill wiki its definition : "Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge."

i think that the main problem isnt that people dont believe in the spiritual experience, its mostly a matter of being unmotivated to really look for it, they can easily be entertain by anything that is offer around them
so in the same way that theyll end up smoking, fat, unhealthy, dumb, lazy...
they could do better but they dont
it aint that they dont believe in religion anymore its mostly imo because they dont believe in themself
religion doesnt work in their opinion because it aint like science, it aint like medecine where they can find you a cure, give you a pill that make you one with god, i mean even psychedelic wont get you there even tho they sure are gonna put you somewhere, but even psychedelic are hard work (tho you might get lucky), but even if you get lucky you still need to take the risk and that aint a easy decision to make
but then training and eating well isnt that hard,
most peoples situation is a matter of expecting results by simply giving blind faith and-or little effort
so religion becomes irrelevant because they know they arent gonna do the work
its like buying a guitar and ending up playing guitar hero instead

"religion is a science of the soul"
and by soul i meant the whole of you but in spirit form, as in a abstraction of yourself, how you create imagination out of memory
but then you aint imagining your soul, it just is, its the negative, the you on the outside looking in while being in the process of self-reflecting
just like breathing, you can do it consciously just as it is done unconsciously
and has james brown said : "i got soul, and im super bad !"
well he sure did have soul, its a quality of spirit, most people today in our consumer whore society are dead when it comes to that, their soul is dead, they dont feed it, they dont entertain it, they dont play with it, because its a naked
so they cant dress it up with clothes and buy some cool accessory like electronics or a cool hat to make it better, your soul doesnt need a car or plastic surgery..so bah, no need for a soul
soul when it comes to music is something that came out of the black churches of the south in the usa when gospel turned secular
those people where praying and chanting and tapping their feet and praising the holy ghost, the room was on fire, people would get posses
but then thats africa, thats the african influence that merged with the christian tradition
the slaves had no other place then in the church to express their tradition
the spirit of their tradition because they could not be obvious about it but if you look at their belief and how its practice its all about experience with the community, it involve dance and singing and being posses by spirit...
they simply changed the names and the clothing and the stories
they changed the outside of their tradition but they kept the spirit behind it and applied it to the western tradition they were forced to follow
and coming from slavery, coming from a situation where some preacher came to tell you that you are not a animal, you are not worthless as a human being, that you have a soul, that god loves you, that you are important in the eyes of god, that this life on heart is bondage, that those physical chain around your feet are just a metaphor, that you aint ever truly free until you free yourself from your sin, from your body and that your spirit becomes one with god...
so that was nice, and then they hear about a people that went to slavery in egypt, a people that was persecuted, a people who got offered a promised land...
it was easy for them to identified with that story, with that struggle, so once they got freed of slavery and started being able to celebrate their freedom through god well they sure had their spirits on high, the soul was there
and that influence, the gospel giving birth to soul and it being one of the main influence on rock and roll and then rock, well that black influence came from the church, from religious practices, a lot of todays music owes a lot to what has being developed in the church, musically but mostly emotionally
and that became part of our lives because it became part of our music
there would be no beatles without slavery...

im not sure where i went with this whole post, its a mix of stuff
im just trying to share myself
amen
 
chinup: Yeah there does seem to be a big difference between religion/science as it is practice in the "west".

I would consider something like Buddhism to be quite scientific. There's some dogma as well but many practices are based on direct experience through meditation. To me direct experience is probably more "scientific" than typical experiments or could be considered an experiment without any division between observer/observed.

Why? Experiments are designed to test the contents of direct experience - when you directly experience the optical illusion of a stick bending under the surface of a body of water, you subject the observation to experimentation in order to verify that the stick indeed bends when put under water - and of course we know, through experimentation, that this is not what happens to the stick. "Direct experience," as you describe it, 1) has no predictive power, 2) needs a check on its veracity because our perceptual apparati aren't perfect. There needs to be an analytical division between observer and observed in order to check the truth of our observations.
 
I feel the farther one progresses into the sciences the more they realize its built purely off faith and that a certain set of fundamental theorems are assumed true.
Practices within the field revolve around this faith for them to be true... how is that not religion??

what if someone found a way to create or destroy matter/energy? science would be fucked. Im sure before science, when religion governed how philosophies were derived, the masses considered their practices to be universally true. THEN came along the enlightenment and the scientific method and so religion changed!!! who knows what is to come.

in my opinion e^[i(pi)] + 1 = 0 is god

e is eulers constant which is the only real number such that the value of the derivative at x=0 is equal to 1. it represents change.
i is an imaginary number that is graphed on an imaginary axis relative to a real axis such that u(x,i)=f(x) + g(i)
pi is as close to perfect as you can get... funny how the number has no terminating decimal point.
one isnt as special, but its needed to get to zero as if the first component was your mind and 1 is your body where zero is the absence of either but all of it as a whole is everything.
mind=-body and body=-mind. but since you cant create or destroy energy/matter they are always there.

although math governs the universe, it is not as attractive because it makes you practice it; you cannot just hear someone tell you the answer is because it is. its not tangible and its not material as most religions makes it appear at first.

math can easily be a religion.
 
Last edited:
I feel the farther one progresses into the sciences the more they realize its built purely off faith and that a certain set of fundamental theorems are assumed true.
Practices within the field revolve around this faith for them to be true... how is that not religion??

what if someone found a way to create or destroy matter/energy? science would be fucked.

...
in my opinion e^[i(pi)] + 1 = 0 is god

e is eulers constant which is the only real number such that the value of the derivative at x=0 is equal to 1. it represents change.
...
pi is as close to perfect as you can get... funny how the number has no terminating decimal point.

what if they discovered that maybe they can break the cosmic speedlimit? that seems a v similar question to yours about destorying/creating energy, yet we've just got experimental evidence that we might have done it and i haven't noticed science imploding. thats the key difference between science and religion- as many posters have pointed out- one updates its world view in the light of new evidence.

scientists use very few theorems, i think you mean theories... theorems are not assumed to be true, they are known to be true given a set of axioms, because it has been proven that from the rules of deduction in maths only derive true from true and false from false. (technical name: soundness). yes their theories are based on assumptions- but they specifically test their assumptions to try and get the best possible theories.

i find it odd you mention that pi is transcendental (actually you don't but thats way more interesting than simply being real) but not e. anyway i prefer tao to pi. but again, i don't think maths is like a religion. it has a very specific sphere and it has been proven and reproven to be valid i that sphere, therefore its got the whole 'demonstrably true' thing going for it, destroying the faith aspect required for religions. i can give you loads of sources if you doubt this.

as for religion is the science of the soul... may well be!
 
is tau the golden ration?
ive never experiemnted with it.
ive just used tau as a change with respect to t and phi as a change with respect to the polar angle of a sphere
 
tau is 2pi. its only really physicists who care about it cos pis like being in 2s in physics, and the least action principle states that we should write as little as possible whilst conveying the same meaning (you prob know it doesn't. i just bastardise it as an exucse for laziness).
 
I feel the farther one progresses into the sciences the more they realize its built purely off faith and that a certain set of fundamental theorems are assumed true.
Practices within the field revolve around this faith for them to be true... how is that not religion??

what if someone found a way to create or destroy matter/energy? science would be fucked. Im sure before science, when religion governed how philosophies were derived, the masses considered their practices to be universally true. THEN came along the enlightenment and the scientific method and so religion changed!!! who knows what is to come.

in my opinion e^[i(pi)] + 1 = 0 is god

e is eulers constant which is the only real number such that the value of the derivative at x=0 is equal to 1. it represents change.
i is an imaginary number that is graphed on an imaginary axis relative to a real axis such that u(x,i)=f(x) + g(i)
pi is as close to perfect as you can get... funny how the number has no terminating decimal point.
one isnt as special, but its needed to get to zero as if the first component was your mind and 1 is your body where zero is the absence of either but all of it as a whole is everything.
mind=-body and body=-mind. but since you cant create or destroy energy/matter they are always there.

although math governs the universe, it is not as attractive because it makes you practice it; you cannot just hear someone tell you the answer is because it is. its not tangible and its not material as most religions makes it appear at first.

math can easily be a religion.

i like that
my father got a phd in physics than he studied computer science
while my mom studied in theology and worked for the church
so my understanding of the universe got heavily influenced by that
so when i understand the universe i always have some kind of mathematical language in my head to make sense of the spiritual side of things

so i keep saying that science and religion are side of the same coin and that just like sex, opposites are complimentary, but really thats just my own bias in regards to my own upbringing
 
Top