Hardly. Science maybe a “discipline”, but it is not a mythology like religion is. Confession and the Rosary are superstition. Science is not. Science and meditation are nothing alike either.
Religion would not have us coming down out of trees and it would continue having us throwing people into volcanoes, if not worshipping volcanos, like Moses et al were doing and don’t tell me they weren’t.
No Yoga of any sort is not a science. I’m not sure where you get your ideas.
Religion is not reality. Religion worships Casper the Holy Ghost and says it’s real, but science can show us that ghosts are not real. Stop equating religion to science because they are not equivalent. Maybe polar opposites, but not equal or comparable.
Also, science is what people have in common around the world, but religion is not common, except for the fact each culture has one, but not all are Xian, for example.
IMO, a hell of a lot easier than dealing with a relativistic infinitude.
I have shown this before but this little synopsis by Ricky Gervais (comedian) is so clear and irresistibly true that it bears repeating.
You are adding something extra with these reference s to religion so you will have something to talk about while avoiding the point I so carefully presented.
.
Science isn’t magic, it is a valuable human discipline directed toward certain well tested ends.
You seem to be having a conversation with somebody else. If not, then you remind me of a Bibleist on autopilot. (bit of a disappointment after my having imagined you differently)
Oh…so you have read the Yoga Sutras in multiple translations and the original Sanskrit? Lived your life through the lens of its principals, testing the results against its hypothesis. Please tell us about that.
My comment was about “discipline”. Your lack of applying any in your response is a helpful lesson. And I hope some others will learn from it. There was nothing in my comment promoting religion. The reference to “confession and the Rosary” that sent you off the deep end, was about a technique used to cultivate qualities of existential value to an individual in their community.
Your judgement of that is your affair, but not related to the point I made which was summarized as usual in terms of the ultimate equanimity of phenomena. Our picking and choosing between which, is the process of evolution (spiritual, intellectual, and physical) . All of it being emergent characteristics of the undivided, and therefore non-relative Whole that is Reality.
You are using the term “religious discipline” as a spiritual lifestyle.
The term “scientific discipline” is used as a research methodology and by definition that excludes spirituality.
The phenomenon of “categories” is also emergent therefore the parsing out of phenomena into categories does not represent the non-relative context of Nothing.
Things being the emergent characteristic indicates the significance of Nothing.
Not acknowledging that significance is a choice. As is acknowledging it. Both are emergent and therefore dependent characteristics.
Call it sophistry if you like. For me it is a-priori.
It would be interesting to hear your definition of “spiritual”. I would be hard pressed to come up with one that would be excluded by anything other than science’s difficulty with infinitude.
[quote=“brmckay, post:585, topic:7931”]
Things being the emergent characteristic indicates the significance of Nothing.
Seems to me the very opposite. Nothing has no characteristics and is therefore insignificant.
Not acknowledging that significance is a choice. As is acknowledging it. Both are emergent and therefore dependent characteristics.
There is no choice. One is significant, the other is not.
And Nothing is not an emergent property. Quite the contrary.
Call it sophistry if you like. For me it is a-priori.
Please, do not misunderstand. There is definite benefits to be gained from “insight” as form of ordering one’s personal life.
But it is not “knowledge” (the science) of the ways things work.
IMO, the question “why” is not relevant, the question “how” is.
I can’t let myself keep repeating for ears that have a policy not to hear.
There are no things without the context of nothing. What could be more significant than that?
How are you and science doing with that “hard problem of consciousness” by the way? Better than with the immeasurability of infinitude I hope…or is it the same thing?
Really? How is this a question to ask in discussion forum like this one? Could you maybe tone it down a little? That’s a physics question, and none of us are physicists. I’ve heard nothing from you that comes close to showing an understanding of these terms you throw out, like “reality as it is”. That’s something you have a concept of, but no one knows what’s going on in your head.
I’ll get you the t-shirt if you’d like
The theory of everything (so far) equation Amazon.com
It is Nothing, a timeless, dimensionless, permittive condition that allows for an infinitely expanding universe @ FTL.
As you can see, this perfectly logical model is based on the scientific knowledge of a dynamically expanding singularity, suggesting that the universe had a small, not an infinitely large beginning.
If the Universe has any inherent properties, they have to be of an implicit orderly nature, that gives the functional appearance of a quasi-intelligent "guiding equation".
The de Broglie–Bohm theory, also known as the pilot wave theory, Bohmian mechanics, Bohm’s interpretation, and the causal interpretation, is an interpretation of quantum mechanics. In addition to the wavefunction, it also postulates an actual configuration of particles exists even when unobserved. The evolution over time of the configuration of all particles is defined by a guiding equation. The evolution of the wave function over time is given by the Schrödinger equation. The theory is named after Louis de Broglie (1892–1987) and David Bohm (1917–1992).
The theory is deterministic[1] and explicitly nonlocal: the velocity of any one particle depends on the value of the guiding equation, which depends on the configuration of all the particles under consideration.
My comment was from me personally. If I think you need moderating I’ll flag it with the proper colors. I admit I’m frustrated with this conversation. You and Write seem to be handling it better than me.
Comments like these are the most confusing to me. If you had been agreeing earlier, you’d think I could find something above where you say, “yes, I agree with that”.
Edit/Added: I didn’t intend to say “cool it”, I asked why you are challenging people with physics questions. These are debated thoroughly elsewhere and don’t see how they impact this discussion. So I asked.
I did request that you adjust your tone, but I thought that was reasonable.
But you call it God and that doesn’t logically follow.
p.s. Nothingness has no angles. It has no time or dimension of any kind.
My description is the only accurate one, unless you can demonstrate otherwise.
No one said science is magic, but religion is with the preacher’s slide of hand. I had a minister great uncle who also did “magic for Jesus”. There’s a LOT of slide of hand with religion.
I’m having a conversation with you, but I am not a “Bibleist”. You’re the one who made comments, which lumped science in with religion.
And you have?
Yeah, right. I doubt there was a lesson you want people to learn from it. That wasn’t there, but you like to believe there was.
It was related and I’m beginning to think you’re playing games with the members of this forum. As I said before, I just haven’t figured out your intent, because you have some sort of intention, some sort of evangelism, maybe, that I haven’t figured out yet. You seem to want to convince others that what you are saying is right and should be believed, which is just as bad Evangelical Xianity.
You seem to forget, religion is not reality. Science deals with reality, but religions do not. Religion is mythology, with some philosophy mixed with it, but does not deal with reality.
The sad part about this is, you turn on a dime when someone points out facts to you and insist other need to learn from those who disagree with you and do not accept what you say as religion being reality and equal to science, even when it is not. You cannot see what others are saying because you believe what you have to say to be true and real, when it is neither. It’s just an interesting discussion, until you push it on others and insist it is reality and equal to science, when it is not.
