NDE's can be explained through string theory?

[gHari 0]

With so much success in harnessing nature to enjoy and destroy the world, man has inflated his opinion of the almighty brain to fantastic limits. Soon he will reduce God to a mere sequence of equations, hallowed be Thy polynomials.

 

We can only hope that these exotic mysteries of the material world will serve to humble the bulging brains of the brainy class. Like Professor Stevason always says, "They be just too smart for their own good. But not quite smart enough". Never quite smart enough to give the heart a chance.

 

Let the mind rassle with the ultimate puzzle - the magic of existence itself. Not what exists, but just how can it possibly exist, now there is a question worthy of a man. What is 'existence'? Until then, it will continue creating life by placing a sperm in an egg - it will remain a children's farce, a sport for toddlers.

[Yegan 0]

There are 64 dimensions as stated in vedas.

I have heard that in the mahabharat,Durudhan became bewildered and didnt know in which dimension he has set foot in.

Jai Radhakrishna

[Guest guest]

Namaste

 

The world according to Myrla

 

I do not mean the string theory is controversial. I am just a simple person who is in no position to critique it. Also, it has no value to my present life whatsoever. What I find controversial is in what you said that God will be reinterpreted by science in a way that will be reduced to a set of physical laws. God is dead according to sciences so what is new? A string related God. If they see aspects of God, my first thought, would be that is good than nothing at all. But my second thoughts would be it is a boring proposition. What aspects of God will they see? The advaita vada sort of God, devoid of form, personality, qualities and activities that the mayavadis want to merg in. I don’t think anyone can see the more beautiful form, vibrant “real” God with the material eyes. He is acintya rupa – inconceivable. As I said, I don’t need science to validate my faith in a personal God which is foundation of the Vaishnava philosopy

 

I like the string theory, especially the bosons and fermions ideas. (From the official string theory website: Bosons are particles that transmit forces. Many bosons can occupy the same state at the same time. This is not true for fermions, only one fermion can occupy a given state at a given time, and this is why fermions are the particles that make up matter. This is why solids can't pass through one another, why we can't walk through walls -- because of Pauli repulsion -- the inability of fermions (matter) to share the same space the way bosons (forces) can).

 

It gives me a better physical understanding of how Krishna when dancing in his rasa lila with the 1108 gopis (is that the right number) can be with each one of them at the same time, satisfying their wishes simultaneously. However, I don’t particularly care about the impact of the energy that can be directed from the vibrations of the string enery to hone man’s consciousness to a “higher perfections” perceptions of God and yogic powers. My param acharyas had handed down to us the path to take in this yuga. Like art, it is concrete: it has shapes, colours, textures, dimensions. And like abstract art, it still gives a margin for our own individual distinct appreciation. What would be the value of this possible new harnessing of energy to our consciousness?. Our great avatar has said that what the yogis had achieved in other yugas by performing tapasya can be achieved in this yuga by chanting the holy names. The faculty to do this, this body, is here now in this timespace, but we still have no attraction for the process. This body is already too hot to handle, would it make any difference? is it gonna be more easy with another encumberance – with this new possibility string theory method of realization, eg, like I can be in Melbourne, Vrindavan, New York at the same time.? Or would this make us enjoy more and forget Krishna? The problem with us is that we are so hanged up to experience a new process, any new process, any new experience to see God. I stick to the simple formula realized by the acharyas that devotional faith coupled with mercy will take you there.

 

Well, you do not have to worry. They say that though the different theories look different because they are looked at from different angles, they are all a part of the foundational theory of the superstring. That is why the foundational theory is called the M theory because it is the mother of all theories.

 

Jaya sri Radhe

Myrla

[Guest guest]

Haribol

Myrla

[Guest guest]

Theist said: Personal or impersonal I don't think it matters when studying the actions of universe even at sub sub atomic levels.

 

I think the string theory is talking about particles or packets of energy. I think is is the third level, sub-atomic is second. I may be wrong. This comment is inconsequential anyway, to your very good post.

 

Theist said : I believe Greene referred the vibrations of strings as making up symphony.

 

 

Sorry to be pedantic theist but to be exact, it is symmetry and they even refer to it as supersymmetry. Symmetry is more exact description and if you look at the dictionary there is a big difference in meaning.

 

We are just having fun here , ok.

 

Anyone in Australia, in ABC tonight 8:30 there will be a feature on string with the British sceintist Stephen Hawking.

 

Radha-krishna

Myrla

[stonehearted 0]

I agree that the strings are vibrating strings of material energy. They're not spiritual energy, as in svarupa shakti. I understand only the most rudimentary elements of these things. I gave up on science when I was a kid, seeing it as hoeplessly conceited speculation, and little more. (This was when I was 11--I figured out that these folks were really doing a lot of sophisticated guessing and weren't getting close to the Real Truth.) I find the implications and connections interesting, though, and fun to fiddle with.

 

And don't look for Brian Greene to sport a bead bag any time soon, theist. He has no need for God, but finds it interesting that his brother's ancient religion talks about the same kind of thing, although in very different language.

[bija 0]

 

Never quite smart enough to give the heart a chance. quote by gHari

I was reading out of Science of Self Realization last night, that lecture where AC Bhaktivedanta was glorifying Bhaktisiddhanta Maharaja. You know, the lecture by Bhaktivedanta Maharaja years before he left to go to America.

At one point He talks about kali yuga, and how kali yuga cannot be a diminishing of technological expertise, because just the opposite is happening.

But it is actually a degrading of being aware of our spiritual nature and spiritual call as souls, and missing the chance for this in the human form.

 

So where will all this science lead in this age of kali. By some good fortune some rare souls surely will see the hand of God, and in my view a wonderful loving personal God. On the other hand science may just lead to an impersonal conclusion that we are all God. An impersonal whole. Or if science does not lead to God, then we are all doomed to be nothing more than super fine, advanced particles of matter.

 

This thread still draws me to the wonderful Brahma Samhita. A book of wonder and beauty. It speaks in a language totally different than modern science. But it is the language that God wishes to reveal Himself to us tiny one's. I just love the way the concluding verses wind up sounding the call of Bhakti.

As gHari says.....give the heart a chance.

 

Brahma Samhita: http://vedabase.net/bs/en

[bija 0]

But, saying this...let's continue on. I'm having a good time, this string theory is fun.

 

And Myrla, thanks for reminding us of the science show about strings on ABC Australia TV tonight. Classic timing.

 

Nitai-Gauranga Hari bol.

[nekozuki 0]

Even if scientists say God isn't real, it still doesn't mean he doesn't exist.

[theist 1]

 

Theist said: Personal or impersonal I don't think it matters when studying the actions of universe even at sub sub atomic levels.

 

I think the string theory is talking about particles or packets of energy. I think is is the third level, sub-atomic is second. I may be wrong. This comment is inconsequential anyway, to your very good post.

 

Theist said : I believe Greene referred the vibrations of strings as making up symphony.

 

 

Sorry to be pedantic theist but to be exact, it is symmetry and they even refer to it as supersymmetry. Symmetry is more exact description and if you look at the dictionary there is a big difference in meaning.

 

We are just having fun here , ok.

 

Anyone in Australia, in ABC tonight 8:30 there will be a feature on string with the British sceintist Stephen Hawking.

 

Radha-krishna

Myrla

 

Third level? Yeah that is what I was thinking but didn't know what to call it so I wrote sub sub atmoic. That's three. But I have no idea if there aren't ten more in between or not with quarks and also those other tiny things squirellin' around.. Science speak blows right past me.

 

Did he say symmetry? I still like the idea of symphony better. A harmonious vibration of individual notes that forms a Beethoven composition which I relate to the manifest creation. Krsna's original note becoming many. Kinda like how pure light works when it hits a prism, it splices into many varied colors. Now if one could see the whole of that reflected light from a wide enough angle perhaps we could see how it forms a Picasso or something.

 

"Having fun here..." What? This is deadly serious stuff and how dare you even attempt to correct me!?

 

Of course it's fun. Philosophical speculation vs. mental speculation. Helps to meditate on the awesome nature and beauty of Krsna.

[nekozuki 0]

I've noticed that certain sounds can trigger past life memories. Has anyone ever tried that? It works.

[theist 1]

 

And don't look for Brian Greene to sport a bead bag any time soon, theist. He has no need for God, but finds it interesting that his brother's ancient religion talks about the same kind of thing, although in very different language.

 

Yeah but you never know. I grew up an atheist and Krsna let's me chant sometimes. His brother is a devotee, Krsna is in his heart so who knows.

 

I also want to see Stephen Hawkins sporting tilak before his body finally gives out. Tilak and maybe a spot on his wheelchair built to hold a small tulsi plant. Do I ask too much?

[bija 0]

I want to see the right wing mainstream prime minister of Australia(John Howard)sporting a sika and flowing robes. Now that would be something.

 

Even better, doing that dance(hands locked together) spinning in circles with his best buddy Mr. Bush.

[bija 0]

It's great possessing this miniscule mind that's prone to mishear and make mistakes. I am quite attached to it:crazy:. .... I like the idea of a cosmic symphony too.

[stonehearted 0]

 

Yeah but you never know. I grew up an atheist and Krsna let's me chant sometimes. His brother is a devotee, Krsna is in his heart so who knows.

He's hardcore, having thought it out carefully and for a long time. However, I'm sure Yogesvara is clever enough to have given Brian the chance to create some sukriti, and he seems to be a nice guy. And he's a very long-time vegetarian, too. But don't get too attached to seeing the seed of sukriti flower this lifetime; things don't necessarily work like that.

 

 

I also want to see Stephen Hawkins sporting tilak before his body finally gives out. Tilak and maybe a spot on his wheelchair built to hold a small tulsi plant. Do I ask too much?

Not necessarily, especially if you're up to giving him the chance to develop some humility, and devising a way to convince him that he's not his mind. Go for it!

[Guest guest]

I am also lean to the left.

[Guest guest]

Nekozu: I've noticed that certain sounds can trigger past life memories. Has anyone ever tried that? It works.

 

Are you talking about the primal scream? I don't know much about it though.

 

Hare Krishna

Myrla

[nekozuki 0]

i don't know about the primal scream either. Just that certain sounds in music have triggered some past life experiences.

[bija 0]

guest...not the einstein factor. It's actually not ABC...its SBS 8-30 pm. I think, I don't own a tv guide.

 

 

I am also lean to the left. quote guest

These days I tend to lean to Srila Prabhupada. There is much good ideas in his books. For years my ideals were possibly leaning to the left. The older I am getting the less solace I find in politics. Lately His Divine Grace's writings have been meaning alot to me and my heart is moving toward His shelter.

[Avinash 0]

When I read the title of the thread, then I was very much tempted to participate in this discussion. But I wanted to read the existing posts first. But, by the time I could read some posts and decide to respond, there were newer posts!

Anyway, now I got the chance to respond. In this post I will talk in very brief what string theory says. Later, I will respond to some of specific posts in this thread.

We have read in Geometry that points are zero-dimensional. But, according to string theory, these zero dimensional points do not correspond to anything real. Rather the basic building bliocks of the universe are tiny strings. These strings are really tiny(much smaller than the size of an atom) but are not zero-dimensional.

These strings are vibrating. But they cannot build the universe as we see by vibrating in only 3 space dimensions that we perceive. They need higher dimensions. So, according to string theory, the existence of higher dimensions is a must.

We percive only 4 (3 space and 1 time) dimensions because the other dimensions are very small.

Evrything in the universe is because of the vibrations and because of various kinds of interactions between these strings. Even the forces that we know of (gravity, electromagnetic, weak nuclear, strong nuclear) are really because of the interaction between strings.

The postulation of strings gets rid of many problems in earlier theories. In earlier theories there was always problem of something becoming smaller and smaller and ultimately becoming zero-size. What happens then? What happens when a black hole goes on collapsing and becomes zero-size? Because of zero-size (i.e. zero volume), density becomes infinite. Because of infinite density, the equations of Physics break down.

But string theory comes to the rescue. Since strings are basic building blocks and are not zero-dimensional, therefore we do not have to worry about anything becoming zero-dimesional. When a black hole collapses, it can never become smaller than the size of a string.

Let me come to what I find most interesting about string theory. It is generally believed that nothing can be more fundamental than space and time. Both scientists and laypeople are used to the words "where" and "when". But even space and time are because of strings.

[Avinash 0]

 

Anybody ever think that String theory holds the answer to the idea of God, the efficacy of mantras, the acquisition of siddhis, of reincarnation, of just about any mystical phenomenon?

 

That it may be the key to truly uniting science with religion, and at a point of full understanding of string theory, everyone will become a potential yogi?

 

It is possible that the knowledge of string theory may lead us closer to the knowledge about God. For that matter, any knowledge, so long it is correct, should lead us closer to God. But I do not think that string theory can really unify science and religion. The strings in string theory are basic building blocks of the material universe. It does not mean they are fundamental to even things spiritual. For example, there is absolutely no reason to believe that they are fundamental to soul. Strings can be split; a soul cannot be.

[Avinash 0]

 

The science show I saw about string theory was very complex and way beyond my grasp. In the show they said that the strings could possibly be the source of life. And that the strings could be described in some degree to sound vibration. Somewhat like the vibration coming from the string of a violin, they said. That the whole universe was built upon sound vibration. My heart jumped when I heard this. Sound familiar to anyone?

 

The whole universe is built upon the vibration of tiny strings. But these vibrations do not produce sound the way we normally think about sound. The vibrations of these strings are far more fundamental than vibrations that produce a sound.

 

But then, may be that the vibration mentioned in Vedas (i.e. "AUM") is also far more fundamental than normal sound vibrations?

[Avinash 0]

 

I would say strings must be material phenomena or they would be spiritual and fully eternal & conscious forms right?

 

Yes, they are material and they explain things observed in material universe.

 

 

I believe Greene referred the vibrations of strings as making up symphony. I like that, a cosmic all pervading symphony.

Yes, strings are cosmic all-pervading. As I mentioned in an earlier post, these strings are even more fundamental than space and time.

 

 

From Krsna's flute the primordial sound emanates. As matter emanates from that prinordial sound at some point it may take the form of strings all vibrating an infitesimal particle of that sound.

 

I like this way of thinking because you are calling Krsna's flute more fundamental than strings. Krsna being the source of everything has to be the source of strings as well.

 

In the past I have read some posts in which some people tried to explain soul by saying that these are made of some fundamental particles. I disagree with such an explanation completely. By saying that souls are made of fundamental particles, they are making soul less fundamental than particles. Elementary particles can be modified. One particle can split into two or more particles. Two pariticles can meet and produce a third. Two particles can even meet and annihilate and produce radiation. If we say that souls are made up of these elementary paritcles, then how do we explain Krsna's statement in Gita in which He says that soul cannot be cut etc.?

 

It is possible that some people may start explaining Krsna's flute in terms of strings, thereby making strings more fundamental. But, it is nice to see that you are calling Krsna's flute as more fundamental.

[Avinash 0]

 

But I have no idea if there aren't ten more in between or not with quarks and also those other tiny things squirellin' around.. Science speak blows right past me.

 

I wanted to point out that even quarks are because of strings and not the other way round. First strings, then quarks.

[theist 1]

 

We have read in Geometry that points are zero-dimensional. But, according to string theory, these zero dimensional points do not correspond to anything real. Rather the basic building bliocks of the universe are tiny strings. These strings are really tiny(much smaller than the size of an atom) but are not zero-dimensional.

These strings are vibrating. But they cannot build the universe as we see by vibrating in only 3 space dimensions that we perceive. They need higher dimensions. So, according to string theory, the existence of higher dimensions is a must.

We percive only 4 (3 space and 1 time) dimensions because the other dimensions are very small.

Evrything in the universe is because of the vibrations and because of various kinds of interactions between these strings. Even the forces that we know of (gravity, electromagnetic, weak nuclear, strong nuclear) are really because of the interaction between strings.

The postulation of strings gets rid of many problems in earlier theories. In earlier theories there was always problem of something becoming smaller and smaller and ultimately becoming zero-size. What happens then? What happens when a black hole goes on collapsing and becomes zero-size? Because of zero-size (i.e. zero volume), density becomes infinite. Because of infinite density, the equations of Physics break down.

 

It sounds like earlier theories were dovetailing with Buddhism with zero dimension corresponding to the Buddhist idea of the void. Buddha said, "I see the petal, the stem, the leaf, but no lotus flower." If we follow this meditation in this progression to the very end we eventually come to zero dimension.

 

Am I right in this Avinash?

 

The reality is, beyond this illusion of a universe which can be broken down into smaller and smaller units we don't come to zero dimension or total lack of substance, rather just the opposite, we come to true substance or Brahman. It's just that this Brahman is transcendental substance and not readily identifiable by material means.

 

If string helps bring us back from the abyss of the zero dimensional void for a while that is good but is that just a temporary rescue? Can string ever prove that substance comes from Substance? Will any theory in physics be able to?