Bart Happel
-
Content Count
188 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Bart Happel
-
-
Dearest Bart,Enough counter arguments were presented to you earlier and in other threads by me as well as many others. You have only a bit of knowledge in both science and scriptures as your responses reflect that. You are no scientist.
Now if you keep wanting people to constantly argue against a strawman proposal all the time, it is a waste of their time. Counter arguments are placed when there is a good enough argument in the first place. So far you have been repeating the same personal theory for each counter argument. The response is usually in fashionable words like quantum entanglement and mandelbrot to describe this universe and God.
It is clear that you have already assumed you are right and any contrary opinion to yours is wrong. So any number of counter arguments presented is a waste of time.
With love and kind regards,
Dear Justin,
I’m asking people not to dismiss my proposal without arguments, i.e., not to waste my time (although I don’t mind too much). And it’s clear that you don’t have counter arguments. So please Justin, don’t waste my time. And if you think I’m making a mistake, I kindly ask you (again) to point it out to me. But I don’t think you can, for I’m quite sure that if you could, you would have done that already. And for your information; I’m a real genuine scientist. But is that relevant? A debate is about arguments, not about PhD’s.
Kind regards, Bart
-
Dear all,
Some of you may be familiar with the scientific term ‘quantum entanglement’. At a microscopic - or quantum scale, our perceived reality appears to be ‘non-causal’, i.e., not action/reaction-like. For example, the state of different quantum particles can be ‘instantaneously correlated’; when of two entangled quantum particles the state of one particle changes, then the state of the other particle changes accordingly and instantaneously. Such (non-causal) correlation of quantum state may persist even if the particles are miles or light-years apart. This is called quantum entanglement.
Quantum entanglement can only mean that what we perceive at a quantum scale as different or dual, is actually one or non-dual; spatially separate quantum events have a common cause. And since quantum reality underlies our entire perceived macroscopic reality, everything that we perceive as dual must actually be one.
Can anybody argue that the above proof of fundamental non-duality of our perceived cosmic manifestation doesn’t prove that 'advaita' is true?
Kind regards, Bart
-
bart.U are God.
Then lift the Govardhana mountain.(you can NOT consider THAT a myth coz Sri Shankaracharya has described Parabhramn with 'Giridhari')
Do it.
Then i'l worship.I'l worship myself.Then v'l both dance together as Gods.
Ok?
I don’t claim to be anything. And I’m certainly not an expert on Vedic literature. My knowledge is scientific, i.e., based on observable and reproducible phenomena in our manifest reality. Although current scientific knowledge is obviously incomplete when it comes to the most fundamental principles of matter and mind, scientific experimental data can be verified by anyone and therefore it must be considered true knowledge. The scientific method may or may not lead to an ultimate theory to fit all the data and clarify everything in the universe and who we are, but scientific knowledge can certainly be used to dismiss apparent nonsensical ideas such as any claims about anti-matter being an essential part of our cosmic manifestation or even our mind and consciousness.
I think current incomplete scientific theories of quantum reality reflect human ignorance. I argued, however, that a theory may exist that is not only a more complete model of quantum reality, but also seems to clarify the religious concept of ‘simultaneous oneness and difference’. Moreover, the model may explain the relation between matter and energy and between our ignorant perception and consciousness.
Recently I noticed that this model corresponds remarkably well to Srila Prabhupada’s ‘advaitic’ ideas and even to the Buddhist notion of ‘form and emptiness’. The concept of mukti then also seamlessly fits in. This is not to say, however, that the model is the truth or even that it is a complete model of reality. But it might be interesting to see if it can resolve the dualism/monism controversy at least in principle and thus contribute to general religious understanding. Therefore, the model must be able to withstand criticism. However, to test the model against criticism, I need debatable counter arguments from scripture or science. Not just some half baked unfounded idea’s or loose terms or utterances. If you think I’m wrong, then you should be able to provide arguments in support of your position and/or against my position.
Kind regards, Bart
-
And this is not non-dualism that you are trying so hard to argue for
This is not the God that is talked about in Vedas.I wouldn't know that. Tell me about it..
-
... "Justin is not different from God. Justin's experience is God's experience. BUT, Justin is mistaken" ...This is, indeed, exactly the confusion addressed in this tread. How can one be part of God? Let’s suppose you are part of God. Then who is experiencing? Both you and God are experiencing, although your experience may be different from God’s experience. If, on the other hand, you are not a part of God, then God would be ignorant of your experience, which is unthinkable because God is omniscient. Furthermore, you must be part of God because everything in reality is one.
Kind regards, Bart
-
I agree with Srikanth's conjecture that for a non-dualist Mukti is not an experience. It is a state devoid of experiencer. So any non-dualist trying hard to attain mukti ultimately does not get to experience it. It is a myth for a non-dualist
Mukti is not a myth. And your experience is always God’s experience. When you think you are fundamentally different from God, you are mistaken.
Kind regards, Bart
-
...
If the only thing that exists in mukti is God as you said above, it is flawed. There is no liberation for God. Such a God who is devoid of any good qualities isn't worth pursuing....
Can you please elaborate a bit more on this, Justin? If your consciousness is (part of) God’s consciousness, then Srikanth’s conjecture does make sense, doesn’t it?
Kind regards, Bart
-
"... This is explained in the Bhagavad-gita as follows:The nonmaterial particle, which is the living entity, influences
the material particle to work. This living entity is always
indestructible. As long as the nonmaterial particle is within the lump
of material energy--known by the names of gross and subtle
bodies--then the entity is manifest as a living unit. In the
continuous clashing between the two particles, the nonmaterial
particle is never annihilated. No one can destroy the antimaterial
particle at any time--past, present or future. ..."
~ Easy Journey to Other Planets , Ch 1, Antimaterial Worlds
Dear Suchandra,
Do you really believe this is a correct description of the singular immaterial dynamic principle that underlies our manifest material reality, our soul and our consciousness? Obviously the notion of material aspects - versus non-material aspects of reality, as correctly described in the Bhagavad-gita, is wrongly mixed up here with the scientific notion of anti-matter.
Anti matter exists. It can be artificially created and stored within a magnetic field. Anti-matter is exactly the same as normal matter, except for the observable fact that all its fundamental properties are opposite to the fundamental properties of normal matter. And when, for example, an anti-hydrogen atom comes into contact with a normal hydrogen atom, both particles are not only annihilated, but their summed mass is explosively converted into ‘normal energy’. There doesn’t exist anything like ‘anti-energy’. Both anti matter and normal matter exist of normal energy. So at the most fundamental level all matter is the same: energy. Furthermore, because of the explosive character of anti-matter/matter annihilation, we wouldn’t want this to happen at a rate anywhere near the point that it could be a relevant process in our cosmic manifestation.
The distinction between material and non-material in Bhagavad-gita, simply serves to indicate the difference between our perceived material world and our non-material soul and consciousness. Never is the term ‘anti-matter’ used. Moreover, all matter in our material manifestation is explicitly and repeatedly described as an illusion created by our consciousness. At the most fundamental level everything in the universe is one (God). Call it energy, consciousness or spirit. No need for anti-matter.
I really can’t see what motivates people to come up with distorted idea’s like this. It only confuses our understanding of who we are and it is very obviously not the truth.
Kind regards, Bart
-
Exactly my point. There is no experiencer. The person who strives for mukti does not exist per non-dualism. So God is the only one experiencing mukti. If you say the person still exists or sees others existing separate from himself then that is not non-dualism. ...
It's like turning a switch in your mind
Your consciousness is God's consiousness, it's different but one. Your perception is, of course, ignorant.Kind regards, Bart
-
All perceivable matter is nothing but vibrations of energy. Hence any matter can be converted to energy. There is nothing called "anti-matter". It would be appreciable if Bart/Ravindran or any good physicists around will be able to give us a better scientific analysis in detail.Dear Srikanth,
Detailed analysis of the current paradigms of physics (quantum mechanics & general relativity) has been carried out in the past century by many great minds, and I doubt that anyone here will be able to provide a comprehensive presentation of this vast body of mathematics. And I don’t think it will be of much use in this discussion. If you want to know the details, you can look them up and study them. But allow me to make some general comments on the subject of (anti) matter, gravity and chaos.
The relation between normal matter and energy is described by Einstein’s famous equation E = mc<SUP>2</SUP> (energy is mass times the squared speed of light). Anti-matter is the opposite of normal matter and it’s relation to energy can be described as E = -mc<SUP>2</SUP>. So there can be positively charged electrons and negatively charged protons. Such anti-particles can even form atoms such as anti-hydrogen - and anti-helium atoms. However, anti-matter can only be produced artificially in extremely small quantities at enormous costs by high-energy particle colliders (such as CERN). And when anti-matter comes into contact with normal matter both anti - and normal particles are annihilated in an explosion emitting pure radiation or energy. So for all practical understanding, anti-matter cannot exist in our universe, although it is speculated by some that other universes may exist that are entirely composed of anti-matter, in which normal matter can’t exist.
Another physical notion (that is sometimes confused with the notion of anti-matter) is ‘dark-matter’. In physics and cosmology, dark matter is ‘invisible’ hypothetical matter that does not interact with the electromagnetic force, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter. According to present observations of structures larger than galaxies, as well as Big Bang cosmology, dark matter accounts for the vast majority of mass in the observable universe. The observed phenomena which imply the presence of dark matter include the rotational speeds of galaxies, orbital velocities of galaxies in clusters, gravitational lensing of background objects by galaxy clusters such as the Bullet cluster, and the temperature distribution of hot gas in galaxies and clusters of galaxies.
Determining the nature of this missing mass is one of the most important problems in modern cosmology and particle physics. It has been noted, however, that the names "dark matter" and "dark energy" serve mainly as expressions of human ignorance ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter ). Moreover, a chaos model of reality may resolve all gravitational problems in cosmology, by postulating that gravity is a global dynamical property of the ‘chaotic attractor’ of a unitary chaotic oscillation. If you want to know more about the nature of chaos and chaotic processes at an introductory level, I can recommend the book "Chaos: Making a New Science" by James Gleick.
Kind regards, Bart
-
After reading the several emotional poetry about quantum theories, non-dualism and mathematics in this thread, I too am inspired to borrow a few legendary poems. Here goes:Roses are red
Violets are blue
Most poems rhyme
But this one doesn't.
-----
The man in the flan
Quite liked his gran
She was rather triangular, too
The man in the flan
In a frying pan
Was absolutely nothing like you.
(Unless however, you are him and you are reading this)
-----
A great quote:
"To understand something means to derive it from quantum theories, which nobody understands."
- Anonymous
You are (still) only saying: “I just don’t buy it!”. Why don't you simply present some (counter) arguments?
Kind regards, Bart
-
Edit:
I mean, if only consciousness exists and all material duality is a perceptual illusion, then all material communication or interaction between conscious individuals must be a perceptual illusion. So in order to experience communication, relevant changes of your consciousness must be very precisely synchronized with changes in my consciousness through this universal consciousness..
-
Dear Bija,
I think the real 'miracle' is that I can communicate with You.
-
Krsna Book Chapter 14 (commentary on srimad bhagavatam canto 10)
....As described in the beginning of the Vedänta-sütra, the Supreme Person
is the origin of all qualities. He is generally called nirguna. Nirguna
means “whose qualities are beyond estimation.” Guna means “quality,”
and nir means “beyond estimation.” But impersonalists interpret this
word nirguna as “having no quality.” Because they are unable to estimate
the qualities of the Lord in transcendental realization, they conclude
that the Supreme Lord has no qualities. But that is actually not the
position. The real position is that He is the original source of all
qualities. All qualities are emanating constantly from Him. How,
therefore, can a limited person count the qualities of the Lord? One may
estimate the qualities of the Lord for one moment, but the next moment
the qualities are increased; so it is not possible to make an estimation of
the transcendental qualities of the Lord. He is therefore called nirguna,
one whose qualities cannot be estimated....
Agreed.
-
aaahhh! God speaks to man Bart? How is that possible? That sounds very harmonious.Bohm in his model cannot count for the personal dimension in the absolute paradigm. Where do all these gifts come from that are inherent in us. Love, compassion, humor....unfoldment etc?
Ehh.. From God?
-
Dear Bija & Bhaktajan,
We are getting to the core of this now. The answer has to do with ‘time’. Reality is always faster than our consciousness. If we ask a question, then the answer is already there. Therefore, reality is infinite. And if reality is infinite, then part of reality can contain the whole of reality (Edit: in time).
I need some time, to think of a good analogy..
Kind regards, Bart
-
Physics to Metaphysics
The Vedic Paradigm
By Swami B. B. Vishnu
... Bohm's idea that the parts of the implicate order actually include the whole is not fully supported by his physical examples alone. Indeed this is impossible to demonstrate mathematically. The part of the hologram is not fully representative of the whole. The part suffers from lack of resolution. It is qualitatively one but quantitatively different. ...
This is not true. Ravindran can provide you the logical prove that part actually can contain the whole in infinite structures (a hologram is not an infinite structure). And I can provide you with a computational model of reality that also proves that part can contain the whole.
Kind regards, Bart
-
Is Mukti a Myth?According to the 'chaos model', it's (of course) not a myth.
And a chaotic system can't be analyzed by any calculus. That's the nature of chaos. Although any chaotic process displays a complex inherent order, it cannot be ‘solved’ analytically. We can only simulate it on a computer and study its properties (like a computer model of the weather on earth).
Kind regards, Bart
-
@ Bija
The key word is: ‘origin’. God is one and undividable, and simultaneously God is ‘the origin’ of everything in our cosmic manifestation. ‘Simultaneous oneness and difference’ may then be understood as follows. Because God is the origin of everything and God is one, everything is one; and because everything that we perceive ‘originates from’ God, everything we perceive is different from God.
It’s like a television picture. The entire picture we see is described or projected by a single (fast moving) electron-beam on the television screen. The picture is, however, not the electron-beam itself, but the picture originates from the electron-beam. We may see separate visible forms in the picture, but it’s all an illusion created by a single beam of electrons.
The problem is, where are we (the consciously perceiving souls) in the picture? In the above example, we are passively watching the television screen, physically separated from the television set itself. In reality, however, we perceive ourselves as integral parts of the picture, or the projection. And since the picture is created (projected) by the electron-beam, we must in fact be integral parts of the dynamics of the electron-beam.
To take this analogy one step further, suppose the electron-beam is consciousness, then we may be conscious parts of the dynamics of this one consciousness, experiencing our own individual picture or projection of reality. Then there is even no longer a need for a television screen; our cosmic manifestation may simply be the product of our (partial) consciousness.
Now, in the chaotic model of reality, the original singular consciousness is not a beam of electrons but a single oscillating point in a ‘state-space’. And perceived reality is not a television screen, but a ‘stroboscopic phase-projection’ of this chaotic oscillation. Such projections display self-similar (fractal) structures, in which parts of the whole are similar to the whole but different from the whole. Such parts, can be seen as the conscious cosmic manifestation of local complex dynamical regions (souls) within the conscious oscillation as a whole.
So, simultaneous oneness and difference can be conceived, at least in principle. The only thing that remains inconceivable is how this universal oscillation can actually be consiousness.
@ HeeHee
I used the example of curing a disease in the body, by curing every single cell in the body, because we usually think of our body as one, i.e., a single unified whole. But you are right, individual cells in the body are separate parts of the body in our cosmic manifestation. However, the chaotic system analogy of reality that I explained above, indicates that this is an illusion, just as all conscious perception and all perceived duality is an illusion and everything is in fact one (consciousness).
A key feature of any chaotic system is called ‘self-organization’. This means that everything in the cosmic manifestation (phase-projection) is an intricately interrelated organized dynamical whole. In this view, the process of curing every single cell in the body is just our consciously perceived manifestation of a self-organized healing process. Likewise, preaching to ‘others’ is just the perceived manifestation of a self-organized process of the propagation of religious insight or knowledge. Such processes may seem ‘causal’, i.e., action-reaction like, but that’s all an illusion because duality is an illusion. In the reality that underlies our conscious perception, there are no separate acting and reacting parts or entities.
Kind regards, Bart
-
... Even today there are some mystics who claim they experienced oneness and God. How can anyone trust them. If they had experienced oneness, they should not have seen others. The moment they start preaching to the public that they are God and ONE with the universe they loose their credibility. After all, who are they preaching to. There is no one else existing other than the person who became God. ...Justin,
The term ‘oneness’ can only have meaning in relation to non-oneness or duality. If there was no perceived duality in our cosmic manifestation, the term oneness would not exist in the dictionary. The point is that this duality is only perceptual, it’s an illusion. In reality the universe is one (God).
So why would one preach to ‘others’? It may be seen like curing a disease in your body. Your body is one, but personal knowledge of the disease, or curing just a single cell of the body, won’t stop the disease. The medicine must be transported to all cells of the body to cure the disease.
Kind regards, Bart
-
The way I see that Bart, to call all things a model or theory is this...that then everything is an object. All things become objects. This is diametrically opposite to subjective encounter with a Super-subjective plane.The object is for gratification. The conscious Being, is alive with consciousness and definately not an object. But surely theory is, an object of study to gratify one's intellect.
Ofcourse saying that, I still see outside of my eyes some objective reality, and that is my great misfortune. Only spiritual eyes can see the truth.
Global reality will never be attained with object consciousness. Only a please all people science will occur with that, to fill the missing part we all feel...love of the other. That will never satisfy the soul.
No, no Bija! A theory or model is not an object; it is a conscious idea! The formalization of a theory can be viewed as a material object, written down on a piece of paper or published on the internet. But that’s just a material means to convey the idea.
Kind regards, Bart
-
Thank you Ravindran. Well said.There are four things that come to mind in this debate that I would like to point out.
1/ The vaisnava does not deny the existence of brahman or its transcendental eternal substance. Or brahman realization.
2/ The vaisnava accepts Lord's Krsna's form as eternal and purely transcendental.
3/ Some monists claim that Lord Krsna's form is made of matter and temporary.
4/The vaisnava maintains the mood of servant of God, never claiming the mood of controller.
Thus the vaisnava is not in any way condemning the reality of brahman realization, but instead is strongly opposed to those that hold to point 3.
Therefore as Jeffster has said, brahman, paramatma, param-brahman (bhagavan) is the full realization accepted by the vaisnava.
Maybe you should (globally) replace the term ‘vaisnava’ by the term ‘model’ or ‘theory’ in this post.
And the model, indeed, strongly opposes your point 3. More specifically, a material form cannot be the origin of God (the universal whole) in the model. But God may have many forms that can be consciously perceived by us.
Kind regards, Bart
-
Thnx Bija
-
The best proof is to begin chanting the Lord's Name...then you will have no doubts.Well, maybe you’re right about that. I ‘m actually trying to do that.
I just wonder whether scientific knowledge about how everything in the universe must be one interrelated whole, would make it any easier and perhaps more acceptable for people in general to actively serve and become conscious of this universal whole (God). At least such knowledge seems to have the potential to change the way people view their world (in a positive way).I like to think of consciousness as a stroboscopic light that shines on a fast turning wheel. We may first see the wheel as just a spinning blur. However, at specific stroboscopic frequencies, the wheel appears not to turn and we can discern every single detail of the wheel. Maybe, analogously, the process of mukti can be understood as tuning our consciousness to specific dynamical aspects of the universal whole.
Kind regards, Bart
Does 'free will' Exist?
in Spiritual Discussions
Posted · Report reply
<br />
Dear Ravindran,<br />
That is amazing! Thanks for sharing. If we can perceive this, then maybe our notion of ‘empirical science’ must be broadened. Perhaps this is what Prabhupada meant when he referred to his method of getting enlightened as a 'scientific method'. <br /><br />Do you think you were inside your body when you consciously experienced this? And does this (2-dimensional) video resemble your experience in any way:<br />
<center>
<br /><font size="2">(Note the 'fullscreen' option)</font><br />
<br />
<embed src="
</center>
<br /><br />
Kind regards, Bart