Living universe

Hi Paul,

I am just wondering why we are discussing religion in the scientific matters forum??

I guess, from my point of view, religion and science (and philosophy for that matter) are not so easy to disentangle. At least in this case the article which this post is discussing, The Biocentric Universe Theory: Life Creates Time, Space, and the Cosmos Itself, is at least partly about the role mind plays in the creation of the universe.

I believe that existence is no more nor less than processes of interrelationships of subject and object - awareness is intrinsic to the fabric of the universe. Judy has a slightly different view in that she believes that the primal cause is spiritual (mind based) as opposed to material (please correct me if I'm wrong here Judy).

In the discussion I'm having with Judy, I'm trying to point out what seem to me to be inconsistencies in her philosophical position. The interesting thing is that, while I believe that the way she explains things is problematic, I think that the examples she give should be carefully considered. After all they are either gross lies or they are evidence that the physical universe is not quite so concrete as we tend to expect it to be. Judy's examples are also evidence of a universe that is influenced by thought in quite dramatic ways.

I think the "religious" bits are just details really which I'm quite happy to forgive in this context.

Norbu

Hi Paul,
I can understand where you’re coming from! I entered into this discussion as a result of Scommtech’s post no 2.

These pages are described as:

Scientific Matters
Time, space and all science related ideas

I have been posting above about both time and space, albeit from the perspective of metaphysics, rather than physics.

What it all boils down to, is what IS science? Centuries ago when the word first appeared, it meant “certain knowledge” but that has been watered down somewhat over the years! To me, science is not only the search for, but the understanding and demonstration of absolute Truth. Despite enormous progress, our natural scientists have not reached that stage yet - in fact, I only know of one scientist in history who has - Christ Jesus.

I found this interesting:

Journal of Theoretics Vol.1-3
Aug/Sept 1999 Editorial

What is Science?

In terms of the definition of what is or is not a Science, we need to find a definition that is timeless and few could argue against. One of the best way to understand the current definition of something is to look at its history (ignorance of the past will lead to mistakes of the future5) but I will leave that for a book on the subject because even though it is engrossing reading, it can get lengthy. I would like to propose that we define Science as the "the field of study which attempts to describe and understand the nature of the universe in whole or part."* Though simple, it is an encompassing and elegant definition, as we will see.
JP Siepmann, Editor archive@journaloftheoretics.com

Journal of Theoretics

* Definitions

(Every article, book, paper, etc. should always include definitions as well as a bibliography or reference section.)

describe: to understand the nature of something in the universe and define it in a manner that allows it to be studied and communicated.

fact: a theory that has been validated close to certainty.

hypothesis: a tentative or working assumption which scientific study has yet to validate.

For instance, I can make the hypothesis that fire is hot. I put my hand into a fire and find it is hot. Now it is a theory. If it is validated by many to the point of certainty then it is a fact. Technically, there is nothing that is 100% certain. For instance, I could be existing in a dream world where fire is hot while in my real world fire is cold. Though this is highly unlikely, it still could be so. But when something seems to be confirmed by every reasonable method, then we can call it a fact.

law: a characteristic of the universes that seems fundamental to the workings of he universe.

part: any component of the universe.

Science: the field of study which tries to describe and understand the nature of the universe in whole or part. The field of study or discipline that we call Science is spelled with a capital "S" as it is a proper noun in this use while science with a small "s" is the application of this discipline.

theory: a hypothesis or group of hypotheses which have been validated but not to the point of near certainty.

universe: that which exists and in its entirety. This includes all that exists whether it can be perceived or not.

whole: something that permeates the universe at large. e.g. gravity.

Note: The definitions used here and in the article above are those of the author's unless otherwise referenced.

**In addition to the above definitions of hypothesis, theory, fact, and law, below is an example of their appropriate use.

Let's say that I form the hypothesis that fire is hot. I then put my hand into a fire and find it is hot. Now it is a theory as it has been verified. If it is verified by many to the point of certainty then it becomes a fact.

Technically, there is nothing that is 100% certain. For instance, I could be existing in a dream world where fire is hot while in my real world fire is cold. Though this is highly unlikely, it still could be so. But when something seems to be confirmed by every reasonable method, then we can call it a fact.
A Law on the other hand is not a fact, but rather it is something that seems fundamental to the workings of the universe. As we have seen, Laws are subject to revision (as Einstein did to Newton, and Siepmann has done to Einstein6).
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Vol-1/e1-3.htm

Reading the above, Christian Science fits comfortably within its definitions, though surely the real definition of law is unchanging and repeatable, rather than variable?

I totally agree with Norbu, that it isn’t possible to disentangle what are termed science, religion and philosophy from one another.

On the Evolution thread, I included this quote from Daniel Scott's lecture:

“It is ironical that physics, which has led the way for all the other sciences, is now moving towards a more accommodating view of mind, while the life sciences, following the path of last century’s physics, are trying to abolish the mind altogether.”
Paul Davies

That's not what you're trying to do are you Paul? 😉

I also recently added a link to a quantum physicist’s book – well, I’ve just been to his website:

http://www.amitgoswami.org/

There is a revolution going on in science. A genuine paradigm shift. While mainstream science remains materialist, a substantial number of scientists are supporting and developing a paradigm based on the primacy of consciousness.
Dr. Amit Goswami, Ph.D, a pioneer of this revolutionary new perspective within science shares with us his vision of the unlimited potential of consciousness as the ground of all being, and how this revelation can actually help us to live better.

On that same thread, I posted a link to a video of Daniel Scott PhD discussing whether Christianity can be scientific.These are some of Daniel's comments:

the language of science is mathematics

it's right as a scientist to be sceptical

science is no use unless it actually works

physics has become more metaphysical through its advances

some of the quantum physicists have said that it makes the universe look like a great thought

consciousness is the grounds of reality

There's a difference between physics and mathematics With physics, every couple of years they will say, "forget what we told you - it's all changed." That never happens in mathematics. There's a principle there. Breakthroughs in mathematics never invalidates previous mathematical facts. Mathematics is a metaphysical science.

Whether we're physicists, or other scientists or Christian Scientists, we are all searching for the truth.

http://tmcyouth.com/media/podcasts/tmcyouth-podcasts/82-can-christianity-be-scientific

In answer to that question, in the post below are some more ways I and others have proved that what appear to be fixed "laws" of nature, especially of destruction, can be overturned. Surely, as Norbu says, this is something that should be taken seriously?

Practical, repeatable metaphysics

This is just to show that my words above are not simply abstract theory. If everyone on earth learnt how to tune in to harmony and dispel drought, floods, fire, storms, tornadoes, hurricanes and eventually perhaps, earthquakes, (not to mention disease) wouldn't that be scientific progress worth taking notice of?

One afternoon, a few years ago, I had been writing on HP (for a change), when I suddenly noticed it had gone dark. Well, I looked out of the window and the sky was blue-black with thunder clouds. There was a terrific crack of lightning which made me jump out of my skin.

My first thought was "We’re in for a big storm." My second was "I don’t have to accept that." Now, I know there is a widespread belief that we need thunderstorms to clear the air or to put something – is it nitrogen? - into the soil, but I live near Heathrow Airport and I can tell you, thunderstorms near airports are not good things.

I recalled what Mary Baker Eddy says about lightning and other violent weather. She taught her students not to be fearful and impressed with violent weather, but to stand up to it and to always know that God (Good, Harmony) is in control of the weather. We don’t ask for specifics, after all good weather for a farmer may not be good weather for a sailor, but just know that infinite Mind, intelligence, is in control.

Adelaide Still, a worker in Mrs. Eddy's household, describes this:

"On several occasions I saw Mrs. Eddy dispel a storm; the first time was on August 3, 1907, in the late afternoon. The sky was overcast and it was very dark. Mrs. Eddy sat in her chair in the tower corner of her study, watching the clouds with a smile and a rapt expression on her face. She seemed to be seeing beyond the storm, and her present surroundings, and I do not think that she was conscious of my presence. In a few moments the clouds broke and flecked, and the storm was dissolved into its native nothingness. About half an hour later I took her supper tray to her, and she said to me, 'Ada, did you see the sky?' I replied, 'Yes, Mrs. Eddy.' Then she said, 'It (meaning the cloud) never was; God's face was never clouded.' This agrees with what another student has recorded as having been said by Mrs. Eddy, namely, 'When I wanted to dispel a storm, I did not say, "there is no thunder, and no lightning," but I said, "God's face is there, and I do see it."

(From Mary Baker Eddy: Christian Healer by Yvonne Caché von Fettweis and Robert Townsend Warneck, p. 284–285)

Here’s another:

"One day Mrs Eddy called her students into her study and pointed to a very black cloud, shaped like a cornucopia, coming towards the house in direct line with her front study window. She asked each one to go to a window and face it, and to realize that there are no destructive elements in God’s creation. Although appearing to whirl straight toward Pleasant View, a mile or so away the cyclone changed its course and went around Concord into the mountains, doing very little damage.
(From the reminiscences of Clara Know McKee in We Knew Mary Baker Eddy)

Well, back to me standing at my window looking at the purple-black storm clouds: I decided to do what Eddy taught her students to do. I stood at the window and looked straight at those black clouds, knowing that God (supreme harmony) is in control of the weather. I looked to see harmony right where all that black angry stuff was. I must have stood there praying, perhaps for ten minutes. The black clouds turned dark grey, then light grey, then they broke up and finally the sun came out.

I wouldn’t even be writing about this (I did consider phoning the Bracknell Weather Centre and asking them what happened to the thunderstorm but felt a bit stupid) but the next day I was at a Mind Body Spirit show and started talking to a young woman from Woking (about 8 miles south-east from here). She said that she believed in God and that she had proof of His power the previous day. She said there was a huge storm brewing and there was a loud crack of lightning and her dog jumped into the road and was hit by a car and thrown several feet. As this happened she cried out to God and the dog was totally unhurt. Then (and this is the point) a strange look came over her face, "Funny about that storm. It seemed to just break up and disappear. It didn’t go anywhere. There was only that one crack of lightning"

Then a friend rang that evening and I was telling her this story and she said she was driving home to Wokingham (about 10 miles south west from here) and she told me that as soon as she saw those clouds she too had been praying and confirmed that they had just got lighter and lighter until they disappeared.

I have had experiences like this with weather several times (at least 3 times, the Captains of aircraft I was working in used the word “miracle” – but I wouldn’t use that word, it’s not scientific!) Some of my experiences are on this thread: https://www.healthypages.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=5142

Here’s another account of how practical metaphysics as taught in Christian Science is, and how the global understanding and demonstration of this Science could so help the world:

There had been no rain in the Concord area throughout November. The farmer who delivered Pleasant View’s milk told the cook that his well was empty and his cows were beginning to go dry. When Mrs Eddy was told about this, she smiled and said, "Oh! If he only knew, Love fills that well." The next day when the farmer came, he was overjoyed to tell the cook that that morning he had found his well full of water. And what was amazing to him was that there had been no rain to fill it.
(From Mary Baker Eddy: Christian Healer p 157)

Here’s a modern day example of a tornado dissipating en-route and a huge fire stopping short of engulfing homes - just two examples of countless experiences that are happening today but which are largely ignored because they can't be explained by the usual scientific parameters.:

[url]That ‘still small voice’ of God: Too small to speak to extreme weather?[/url]

[url] Fire on the mountain[/url]

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" Albert Einstein Science, Philosophy and Religion

Judy

Norbu,
I can just about hang in with your philosophy's. But am nowhere near qualified to comment. I have found some of the references absolutely enthralling, and am grateful to both you and Judy for sharing your thoughts.

Emtiness

Hi Scommstech,

Here's a link to a very good, and concise, introduction to Buddhist philosophical thinking. http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/emptiness.html

I think Judy would find the section on the emptiness of matter particularly interesting. Here is a short quote from it:

A manifest particle, such as an electron, cannot be described in terms of classical mechanics. It exists as a multitude of superposed "scenarios", of which one or another manifests only when it is observed, i.e. upon measurement. Therefore, matter does not inherently exist. It exists only as interrelations of "empty" phenomena whose properties are determined by observation.

At the bottom of this page is a quote from the Dalai Lama:

In The Art of Living (2001) the 14th Dalai Lama says, "As your insight into the ultimate nature of reality is deepened and enhanced, you will develop a perception of reality from which you will perceive phenomena and events as sort of illusory, illusion-like, and this mode of perceiving reality will permeate all your interactions with reality. [...] Even emptiness itself, which is seen as the ultimate nature of reality, is not absolute, nor does it exist independently. We cannot conceive of emptiness as independent of a basis of phenomena, because when we examine the nature of reality, we find that it is empty of inherent existence. Then if we are to take that emptiness itself is an object and look for its essence, again we will find that it is empty of inherent existence. Therefore the Buddha taught the emptiness of emptiness."

Try this as a thought experiment.

1. All material objects appear through a process of observation.

2. All mental objects (including self) appear through conceptualisation (which is dependent on language).

What remains? Some would say that, if self and object are projections of mind then mind and space must remain. However, can you have mind without an object and can you have space without form?

What we are left with is a universe full of wonders! And a very plastic universe it must be too. But nothing can appear that does not have internal consistency. It must follow consistent self building processes out of space and mind, object and form. I think what Judy is saying is that if you understand this to be the only possible basis for phenomena you then have the potential to influence patterns (in nature or the body or otherwise) that you observe, firstly because everything is illusionlike but that which is not harmoniously consistent is delusional because it would be an illusionlike phenomenon that is divided against itself.

Norbu