Does physics leave room for the spiritual?

[Snoopy]

OK I’m struggling to get off first base here.


Physics is the science of matter[1] and its motion,[2][3] as well as space and time[4][5] — the science that deals with concepts such as force, energy, mass, and charge. Physics is an experimental science;[6] it is the general analysis of nature, conducted to understand how the world around us behaves.[7]

Spirituality, in a narrow sense, concerns itself with matters of the spirit, a concept closely tied to religious belief and faith, a transcendent reality), and God. Spiritual matters are thus those matters regarding humankind's ultimate nature and purpose, not only as material biological organisms, but as beings with a unique relationship to that which is beyond both time and the material world.

(courtesy of Wiki)


Isn’t the OP like saying “Does architecture leave room for musical appreciation?”



s.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

OK I’m struggling to get off first base here.


Physics is the science of matter[1] and its motion,[2][3] as well as space and time[4][5] — the science that deals with concepts such as force, energy, mass, and charge. Physics is an experimental science;[6] it is the general analysis of nature, conducted to understand how the world around us behaves.[7]

Spirituality, in a narrow sense, concerns itself with matters of the spirit, a concept closely tied to religious belief and faith, a transcendent reality), and God. Spiritual matters are thus those matters regarding humankind's ultimate nature and purpose, not only as material biological organisms, but as beings with a unique relationship to that which is beyond both time and the material world.

(courtesy of Wiki)


Isn’t the OP like saying “Does architecture leave room for musical appreciation?”



s.

Ha! Brilliant, Snoopy!
Many buildings are specifically designed for their acoustical properties. Now, in order to answer the question, we just have to figure out how to "look for signs of 'acoustical (spiritual) design' within the 'architecture' of physics."

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Ha! Brilliant, Snoopy!
Many buildings are specifically designed for their acoustical properties. Now, in order to answer the question, we just have to figure out how to "look for signs of 'acoustical (spiritual) design' within the 'architecture' of physics."

I'll take that to be Brilliant as in Crap then me old flower. I tried to come up with an analogous comparison using two unrelated spheres and that's what you do to me. Right off my Christmas card list. What I meant was that spirituality does not fall under the aegis of physics.

Last night I watched a programme on meditation. The programme was "done" by a scientist. Although she was open minded (cf other famous scientists ) and the programme interesting (cos of the subject and content e.g. Matthieu Ricard) the approach was a perfect example of what I'm trying (and failing) to put accross. She kept banging on about THE scientific approach which seemed to mean find a way to create an experiment and vary just one variable and look for a statistically significant change in the only other variable. Concerning meditation. Concerning the mind. Not two chemicals in a test tube.


We were supposed to be amazed that meditation produced better mental health (real happiness, less depression) than with endless prescription drugs (courtesy of science).

She thought it an amazing idea that meditation might be of benefit to everyone?! Why!!??

s.

OK you may have found a button.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

I'll take that to be Brilliant as in Crap then me old flower. I tried to come up with an analogous comparison using two unrelated spheres and that's what you do to me. Right off my Christmas card list. What I meant was that spirituality does not fall under the aegis of physics.

Sorry. Does this mean everything is not interconnected?

Last night I watched a programme on meditation. The programme was "done" by a scientist. Although she was open minded (cf other famous scientists ) and the programme interesting (cos of the subject and content e.g. Matthieu Ricard) the approach was a perfect example of what I'm trying (and failing) to put accross. She kept banging on about THE scientific approach which seemed to mean find a way to create an experiment and vary just one variable and look for a statistically significant change in the only other variable. Concerning meditation. Concerning the mind. Not two chemicals in a test tube.

Since the mind is ever changing, you will not be able to isolate just one variable and still have 'mind,' so to speak (at least that's what I think. ) However, you can look for patterns within the whole.

OK you may have found a button.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Sorry. Does this mean everything is not interconnected?

Yes, ultimately. But down here in Relativeville, no!

Since the mind is ever changing, you will not be able to isolate just one variable and still have 'mind,' so to speak (at least that's what I think. )

Couldn't agree more.

However, you can look for patterns within the whole.

Perhaps. But this sort of looking is like looking for flowers using a flame thrower as the optical instrument.

s.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Yes, ultimately. But down here in Relativeville, no!

There is more to physics than relativity.

Perhaps. But this sort of looking is like looking for flowers using a flame thrower as the optical instrument.

s.

I see what you mean.

[Snoopy]

sg, you may (or may not) find this interesting…

Amazon.com: Mutual Causality in Buddhism and General Systems Theory: The Dharma of Natural System (Buddhist Studies Series): Joanna R. Macy: Books

When The Scientific Method is code for reductive linear one-way causality then it is bound (it seems to me) to fall down when one is considering something complex / profound.

This book takes a different perspective (in fact two, but related…). One is general systems theory and the other is codependent arising.

It seems the simplistic Western model derives from a chap called Parmenides (ancient Greek) who saw the world in terms of substance and permanence rather than process and change. For Parmenides what is real does not change. And from here (you need to read the book!) follows (in science, philosophy, religion) Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Descartes…

Mutual causality, interdependent systems, process and change are a whole different ball game however…I hope you can see how this relates to my previous comments.

That’s enough wittering; I’d recommend the book.

Joanna Macy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

s.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

When The Scientific Method is code for reductive linear one-way causality then it is bound (it seems to me) to fall down when one is considering something complex / profound.

This book takes a different perspective (in fact two, but related…). One is general systems theory and the other is codependent arising.

It seems the simplistic Western model derives from a chap called Parmenides (ancient Greek) who saw the world in terms of substance and permanence rather than process and change. For Parmenides what is real does not change. And from here (you need to read the book!) follows (in science, philosophy, religion) Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Descartes…

Mutual causality, interdependent systems, process and change are a whole different ball game however…I hope you can see how this relates to my previous comments.

That’s enough wittering; I’d recommend the book.

Joanna Macy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

s.

Well, you'd want one way linear causality if you were seeking control.

Substance and permanance instead of process and change? Form vs. function? {Form is emptiness, and emptiness is form.} (Noun based vs verb based thoughts: {or lifeless vs. living, as I like to put it.})

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

{Form is emptiness, and emptiness is form.}

Indeedy. This most popular of lines from the Heart Sutra should perhaps be given with the subsequent line (The same holds for sensation and perception, memory and consciousness) as “emptiness” does not only relate to form, but to all five skandhas.

lifeless vs. living, as I like to put it.

s.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Well, you'd want one way linear causality if you were seeking control.

Yes, science (if that's what you are referring to?) seeks control as one of its aims. But if the model you are using (one way linear causality) does not provide it...

Of course, if you're referring to religion as a means of control...

s.

[Dream]

Last night I watched a programme on meditation. The programme was "done" by a scientist. Although she was open minded (cf other famous scientists ) and the programme interesting (cos of the subject and content e.g. Matthieu Ricard) the approach was a perfect example of what I'm trying (and failing) to put accross.

Well that's a bad example. Did you see the Myth Buster's episode where they challenged the claims about plants having feelings? I think it may have been the Deadly Straw episode. They reproduced the lie detector experiments performed on plants in the 60's and tested various things, like whether the plants could sense human emotion if it was inside a steel container, etc. They used the exact same model lie detector, etc. The results were surprising, but not identical to the original claims.

I'm really looking forward to the upcoming special on Tigers by BBC. For three years they followed tigers around with cameras mounted on trained elephants!

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Dream

I'm really looking forward to the upcoming special on Tigers by BBC. For three years they followed tigers around with cameras mounted on trained elephants!

The first episode is now available on BBCi

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Dream

Well that's a bad example.

A bad example of what?

Did you see the Myth Buster's episode where they challenged the claims about plants having feelings? I think it may have been the Deadly Straw episode. They reproduced the lie detector experiments performed on plants in the 60's and tested various things, like whether the plants could sense human emotion if it was inside a steel container, etc. They used the exact same model lie detector, etc. The results were surprising, but not identical to the original claims.

What's this got to do with what I was saying?

I'm really looking forward to the upcoming special on Tigers by BBC. For three years they followed tigers around with cameras mounted on trained elephants!

It was triff.

Looking forward to the other episodes...

s.

[Dream]

Sorry I wasn't clear, Snoopy.

Mythbusters, unlike the show you watched, really seemed to do objective (if not perfected) experiments to test the ideas put forth in The Secret Life of Plants, which was written in 1973 and influenced a lot of people towards conservation, earth awareness, etc. The Polygraph scientist, Cleve Backster put forward data suggesting that plants have feelings and can experience our emotions telepathically. The Mythbuster's show put these ideas to the test, running identical tests with identical equipment and plants. Plus, they did additional experiments just for fun. It seems that plants do undergo an electrical reaction to the emotions of the creatures around them. The Mythbuster's did things like isolate the detection equipment from electromagnetic interference, etc. to see if the plants still picked up on human emotions. It was a cool show, but without all of the mystical assumptions that you saw on that other show. The most mystical assumption in The Secret Life of Plants was that all living things have a spirit that is concentrated into an extremely small dot somewhere in their living tissues -- a very popular 60's idea.

[Tao_Equus]

love the 'tiger-sparrow'