Nassim Haramein's Delegate Program

Originally posted by 547000
What does meditation have to do with science? Ever heard of a false analogy?

Have I said meditation is analogous to doing science? No, I haven't. If I am correct and meditation is a valuable technique, it obviously would be only a tool to help in determining how our universe works. It would be added to the process of science rather than replacing anything.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by 547000
What does meditation have to do with science? Ever heard of a false analogy?

Have I said meditation is analogous to doing science? No, I haven't. If I am correct and meditation is a valuable technique, it obviously would be only a tool to help in determining how our universe works. It would be added to the process of science rather than replacing anything.

I wish to God that you would do some graduate level problems in physics. These are so tough that you are already in a state of meditation when you do them. You cruise in the depth of Prajnaparamita when you do these classes. Of course you can disregard this note coming from the source.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I wish to God that you would do some graduate level problems in physics. These are so tough that you are already in a state of meditation when you do them. You cruise in the depth of Prajnaparamita when you do these classes.

There are only selected parts of physics that fascinate me - mostly cosmology. And I don't want to learn the math. I also don't enjoy reading about the details of experiments. Only the conclusions drawn!

Originally posted by Mary Rose
And I don't want to learn the math. I also don't enjoy reading about the details of experiments. Only the conclusions drawn!

Yeah, I figured that a long time ago. It's like trying to learn how to use a microscope with your eyes shut.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Not if you have good sources.

Depends on what you're trying to do: Be a practitioner like you, or study the work of visionaries.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Not if you have good sources.

Again, being blind will prevent you from using the microscope, "sources" nonwithstanding.

Depends on what you're trying to do: Be a practitioner like you, or study the work of visionaries.

It's a bit rich to call claims that run contrary to routine observations "work of visionaries". Somebody said the Moon is made of cheese, are they visionaries in your book?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
. . . experiences with meditation that have influenced his work. . . .

Going through my notes from videos to get info for a post for a different thread, I stumbled across notes for an interview about consciousness as related to scalar waves, and the idea that scalar waves are invisible systems that carry information, and are independent of time and space. Looking up various websites that were mentioned, I saw a reference to morphic field theory.

Maybe meditation is tapping into the morphic field.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
And I don't want to learn the math.

But I've learned from printing links posted by other members in answer to my science questions that, although I don't want to learn the math, learning the vocabulary of science is very enjoyable.

For example, I'm reading the Wikipedia article on gauge theory, stopping to look up every word I don't understand and taking notes on them.

I just came to the term "Lie group," which I had seen before but hadn't spent much time on it. The online dictionary page for the term brought up a beautiful graphic. From The Free Dictionary:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b9cc42442bb8.png[/atsimg]

(I don't know why the system is cutting off the right-hand side. It's not that way in "My Pictures." Grrrr.)

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Mary Rose
And I don't want to learn the math.

But I've learned from printing links posted by other members in answer to my science questions that, although I don't want to learn the math, learning the vocabulary of science is very enjoyable.

For example, I'm reading the Wikipedia article on gauge theory, stopping to look up every word I don't understand and taking notes on them.

I just came to the term "Lie group," which I had seen before but hadn't spent much time on it. The online dictionary page for the term brought up a beautiful graphic. From The Free Dictionary:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b9cc42442bb8.png[/atsimg]

(I don't know why the system is cutting off the right-hand side. It's not that way in "My Pictures." Grrrr.)

Most of the vocabulary of physics is mathematical in nature. For example velocity is the rate of change of displacement. Vocabulary can give you the feeling you understand, but it can mislead you if you don't understand the mathematical concepts.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
(I don't know why the system is cutting off the right-hand side. It's not that way in "My Pictures." Grrrr.)

Because the size in pixels is 640x640.
Anything over 600 pixels wide gets cut off in the original post.

You have a couple of options.

Option 1. Resize to 600 pixels wide. Here it is resized to 600x600 pixels:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1a1877b77850.png[/atsimg]
I did that with a cheesy program called Nero Photosnap.

Option 2. Add a scroll bar:

To see how to do that, look at this post using "quote" and see how the tags are modified.

I hope that helps.

Originally posted by 547000
Vocabulary can give you the feeling you understand, but it can mislead you if you don't understand the mathematical concepts.

If I push on a truck with the parking brake on, the parking brake prevents it from moving. After 5 minutes of pushing on it as hard as I can until I'm out of breath, it's strange to see the physics definition that I haven't done any work. If I haven't done any work, why am I out of breath?

The answer lies in the mathematical definition of work which isn't necessarily the same definition you'll get if you look up the word "work". The dictionary lists 11 definitions for the word work, and none of them are the mathematical definition used in physics here.

So you're exactly right, you have to be careful about looking up words in physics without understanding the math.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I hope that helps.

Yes, it does!

Thank you very much.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So you're exactly right, you have to be careful about looking up words in physics without understanding the math.

Words always have to be considered in context, not only in science, but in all subject areas.

Also, math symbols and formulas cannot be understood without accompanying language first and foremost. Would you agree?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I did that with a cheesy program called Nero Photosnap.

I believe you can also do this: [ ats=600x600 ] paste the URL [ /ats ] without the spaces.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Also, math symbols and formulas cannot be understood without accompanying language first and foremost. Would you agree?

If you look at a mathematical expression, and you don't know what the terms in the expression mean, then the math won't do much good. So yes you have to understand the terms in the expression, if I understand your question correctly. The point we were trying to make is, it's kind of hard to escape the math to have a good understanding of physics.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I believe you can also do this: [ ats=600x600 ] paste the URL [ /ats ] without the spaces.

Let's see if that works:


Hey thanks for teaching me something! How did you find out about that?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The point we were trying to make is, it's kind of hard to escape the math to have a good understanding of physics.

I am beginning to not be so intimidated by the math. I'm beginning to be more patient about reading what the symbols mean.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
How did you find out about that?

I started a thread on the Board Business forum some time ago and members responded.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

I am beginning to not be so intimidated by the math. I'm beginning to be more patient about reading what the symbols mean.

That's good to hear. Some of the symbols do mean things which can be grasped without a lot of training, and it's a good thing to do.

Some, though, like the beautiful E8 graph you've presented above, simply won't be comprehensible to anyone without years of very patient practice and familiarization of several entire branches of mathematics. It would be fantastic if that weren't the case, but it is, sadly.

Accepting that some things will remain way out of reach without years of intense dedication is part of the process of dealing realistically with mathematics. And I'm not saying that to be mean - it's just the way it is.

Other things, like the equations of Newton's laws of motion, are within the grasp of anyone with any interest in the way the world works, and appreciating them in the form of equations opens up new worlds of understanding

So good luck.

Originally posted by Bobathon
Accepting that some things will remain way out of reach without years of intense dedication is part of the process of dealing realistically with mathematics. And I'm not saying that to be mean - it's just the way it is.

Well said, Bob! Same goes for physics, or even for competitive sports -- a vast majority of people practicing these do accept the plain fact that they will never make the Olympic team.

Other things, like the equations of Newton's laws of motion, are within the grasp of anyone with any interest in the way the world works, and appreciating them in the form of equations opens up new worlds of understanding

I'm not sure I completely agree. Newton's laws indeed are dead simple mathematically, somewhat less conceptually, but the devil is in how they play out in the real world, and I remember that when I hit "Classical Mechanics" in college (things like Lagrangian formalism for some complex cases of motion) it was nothing like a cakewalk.

But yes, basic application of Newton's laws and understanding of same is already a basis for knowledge and vastly better than nothing.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Newton's laws indeed are dead simple mathematically, somewhat less conceptually, but the devil is in how they play out in the real world, and I remember that when I hit "Classical Mechanics" in college (things like Lagrangian formalism for some complex cases of motion) it was nothing like a cakewalk.

Yes, I meant nice things like F=ma or suvat, rather than the analysis of N-particle systems in d dimensions with w constraints using the differential geometry of (2Nd-w)-dimensional symplectic manifolds. Newton's laws have a lot to answer for!

Originally posted by Bobathon

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Newton's laws indeed are dead simple mathematically, somewhat less conceptually, but the devil is in how they play out in the real world, and I remember that when I hit "Classical Mechanics" in college (things like Lagrangian formalism for some complex cases of motion) it was nothing like a cakewalk.

Yes, I meant nice things like F=ma or suvat, rather than the analysis of N-particle systems in d dimensions with w constraints using the differential geometry of (2Nd-w)-dimensional symplectic manifolds. Newton's laws have a lot to answer for!

You don't have to go that far to taste the fruit... Just take a surface (of varying complexity) with cylindrical symmetry, place it in a known potential and toss a particle onto it, with a specific velocity vector. For a sophomore, can be painful...

Originally posted by Mary Rose

. . . consciousness as related to scalar waves, and the idea that scalar waves are invisible systems that carry information, and are independent of time and space. . . . a reference to morphic field theory.

Maybe meditation is tapping into the morphic field.

In the Free Dictionary typing “morphic field” brings up “morphic resonance”:

(Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) the idea that, through a telepathic effect or sympathetic vibration, an event or act can lead to similar events or acts in the future or an idea conceived in one mind can then arise in another

I'm thinking that maybe morphic fields are fields of information that can be tapped into by meditation.

And I’m thinking that maybe quantum non-locality and morphic fields are integrated with each other in a sort of infinite cloud permeating the entire cosmos. And maybe meditation gives people a pipeline into this cloud, and a knowing.

Ideas gleaned this way perhaps could be written down, and then tested with experimentation. Perhaps also the inspiration for how to do the experimentation and/or what equipment could be invented with which to do the experimentation, could also be derived from such a source.