Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Aware-ized Energy: a rational explanation for pan-what-ever-ism

2 views
Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted

Whit Blauvelt

unread,
Jul 12, 2017, 12:37:01 PM7/12/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 07:22:10AM -0700, Joseph McCard wrote:
>
> Energy permeates all structures. All energy is aware. 
>
> Therefore, everything is aware.
>
> It just makes sense.
>
> 1) it is consistent with Eastern metaphysical principles, as I understand them
>
> 2) it explains why we feel the effects of energy, but cannot see energy itself.

Hi Joseph,

I agree with you _but_ a lot depends on your definition of "energy." Or I
should say I agree with you if what you mean by "energy" is different from,
but analogous to, what physics means by "energy."

There's a lot to first- and second-person human experience that "energy" as
used in physics makes a good metaphor for. But if I do a standard kundalini
meditation and bring energy into my heart, even though the resulting state
is real and consequential (and I feel energized in a distinct way), there's
not likely to be any energy meter which can verify it. It's obviously not
electro-magentic, nor kinetic, nor anything else we have physical
instruments for.

Best,
Whit

BMP

unread,
Jul 13, 2017, 10:05:01 AM7/13/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Joe

Namaste. You have mentioned some controversial ideas about energy. Let us see if we can come to some agreeable ones. 

I'm sure we can all agree that energy is not independent of the source of its generation. Currently there is so much talk about renewable energy, so the source is certainly of primary concern. Thus although energy is essential for so many applications, the source is not to be neglected. So before we can even mention energy we must first recognize that it has a source, a dynamo, a generator. 

In the Sanskrit literature the word shakti is sometimes translated as energy or potency, in which case it is grammatically considered feminine because its existence depends on something other than itself (its source).. All living entities of both genders are considered grammatically feminine as jivashakti, as well as material nature itself or prakritti, known also as Mother Nature.

There are many shaktis or energies (sarva shaktis) and all have their source or origin in the independent (svarat) supreme absolute. There is a difference between the source or shaktiman, the possessor of energies, and the (shaktis) energies themselves, just as there is a difference between the Sun (globe) and its energy, the sunshine. Of course, although they are two, one cannot be conceived without the other, so they are an identity in difference. The abstract monists cannot think the absolute has any energy associated with it, as if the absolute could be impotent. But the absolute is sarva shaktis or complete and full of all potencies and therefore can produce everything from it as the original source of all. 

Among the infinite energies of the absolute is cit or cit shakti, cognition or the energy/potency of consciousness or cognition. Energy may be understood to mean 'ability.'  For example, energy is defined in science as 'the ability to perform work.' In the Upanisads there is a verse
parāsya śaktir vividhaiva śrūyate
svābhāvikī jñāna-bala-kriyā ca
"The Supreme Lord has multi-potencies (śaktir) which act so perfectly that all consciousness, strength and activity are being directed solely by His will." (Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 6.8)

Here, three energies are specifically mentioned - jnana, bala, kriya, meaning the powers/abilities of knowing/consciousness, strength, action. These all act automatically or magically in us. We don't consciously produce these powers by any effort of our own. We can certainly cultivate them or neglect them, but initially they are simply available to us - like breathing or digestion. The important thing to recognize is that knowing or cognition/consciousness is only an ability whose source is not coming from us. The ability to be conscious, or consciousness has to be associated with a source who has or utilizes that ability, which in the verse above is the will of the Supreme Lord. In other words, abilities or energies have to belong to someone before they can be utilized constructively. Energy without any intelligent direction  or guidance is purely destructive in nature.

The perfection of life is to know these things and properly utilize all energies for the owner or source of such energies rather than for selfish exploitation.

Sincerely,
B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute











From: Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com>
To: "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 10:52 AM
Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] Aware-ized Energy: a rational explanation for pan-what-ever-ism




Energy permeates all structures. All energy is aware. 

Therefore, everything is aware.

It just makes sense.

1) it is consistent with Eastern metaphysical principles, as I understand them

2) it explains why we feel the effects of energy, but cannot see energy itself.

3) it accounts for paranormal experience, OOB experience, mystical experience, any perception, creativity, and life.

4) it explains Heisenberg Uncertainty.

5) It explains why consciousness cannot be understood in the physical framework.

6) it makes you the creator of your own reality, a full expression of free will. 

7) it explains and underlies pan-psyhchism, pan-theism, pan-experientialism,...

8) it is consistent with the writings of several philosophers and scientists (people much smarter than me or you).

9) it provides the framework for the explanation of personal reality, the mind, soul, psyche, ego, reincarnation, perception and thought.

10) it is a natural way of looking at the world.

11) it applies to creative endeavors.

12) it works as an overall approach to life, and in solving problems that involve subjective rather than objective measurements.




-

Multisense Realism

unread,
Jul 13, 2017, 4:04:03 PM7/13/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com> wrote:



Energy permeates all structures. All energy is aware. 

I would argue that in a sense energy does not exist at all. Energy may be nothing but the qualities of matter interacting with matter. It just depends what you prefer to put in the foreground and what you put in the background of your description of nature.


What does exist, however, is experience. There's no view of the universe which gets us away from that.


Therefore, everything is aware.

It seems clear to me that these words are not aware.
 

It just makes sense.

1) it is consistent with Eastern metaphysical principles, as I understand them

2) it explains why we feel the effects of energy, but cannot see energy itself.

3) it accounts for paranormal experience, OOB experience, mystical experience, any perception, creativity, and life.

4) it explains Heisenberg Uncertainty.

5) It explains why consciousness cannot be understood in the physical framework.

6) it makes you the creator of your own reality, a full expression of free will. 

7) it explains and underlies pan-psyhchism, pan-theism, pan-experientialism,...

8) it is consistent with the writings of several philosophers and scientists (people much smarter than me or you).

9) it provides the framework for the explanation of personal reality, the mind, soul, psyche, ego, reincarnation, perception and thought.

10) it is a natural way of looking at the world.

11) it applies to creative endeavors.

12) it works as an overall approach to life, and in solving problems that involve subjective rather than objective measurements.


 
All of that is just as true if we use consciousness instead of energy.

Thanks,
Craig


--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/2415f5c9-e5b0-4855-84c5-6bb551090c97%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

Whit Blauvelt

unread,
Jul 13, 2017, 7:16:44 PM7/13/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 12:59:26PM -0700, Joseph McCard wrote:

> We are indeed dealing with two entirely different approaches to reality and to
> solving problems -methods we can call mathematical/scientific rationality, and
> magical rationality, associative, non-linear, and spontaneous. 

Ah Joe,

But is there a possibility of a magical rationality which is linear? As
Arthur Clarke famously said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology looks
like magic." Might there also be sufficiently advanced magics that look like
technology?

Best,
Whit

Serge Patlavskiy

unread,
Jul 14, 2017, 5:01:25 AM7/14/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
-
Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com> on July 14, 2017 wrote:
>Matter, as I see it, is energy manifested, tangible energy, 
>energy in a different package.
.
[S.P.] For the above statement to hold water, so to say, we have to add that anything existent can be formalized (modeled) as a complex system which depends simultaneously on the activity of three factors: informational factor, material factor, and energetic factor. The case is that we do not only HAVE "matter" -- we have DIFFERENT "matter". But why "matter" is different, or why "energy" becomes "manifested" in different ways? The answer is as follows: "energy" becomes "manifested" as different "matter" due to involvement of different "informational codes" (so to say). 
.
So, a hydrogen atom, being modeled as a complex system, has got its own specific set of informational, material, and energetic characteristics. A living organism, a society, a planet, a galaxy, etc., in virtue of being existent, can also be formalized as complex systems which have got their own specific sets of informational, material, and energetic characteristics.
.
And, several important remarks. We should start talking about anything existent as of a complex system. Therefore, there is no sense to talk about energy alone. We should always talk about "information-matter-energy" as of an inseparable trinity of characteristics we have to use to describe the existent entity. So, I would not say (as Craig Weinberg does) that "energy does not exist at all" -- I would rather say that "energy" does not exist beyond the mentioned above trinity of characteristics.
.
The other question is that in Physics, when we try to account for the behavior and nature of physical phenomena, we may safely ignore the activity of informational factor, and to consider the material (mass) and energetic (joule, eV) characteristics only. But, when we want to talk about the living organisms and consciousness, the activity of informational factor cannot be ignored. 
.
To the point, the above approach makes it possible for us to avoid a need to embark on the doctrine of panpsychism and to state that, for example, "all energy is aware" (as Joseph McCard holds). In fact, it is not "all energy that is aware", but it is anything existent which depends on the activity of informational, material, and energetic factors simultaneously. All these three factors are postulated to be equally fundamental, and, for preserving consistency of my specially constructed meta-theory, I have to conclude that there cannot be anything existent which could be called "aware energy". 
.
As to consciousness, it appears only after the overall entropy of the complex system becomes sufficiently low for the effect of self-organization to take place. Therefore, the atom cannot be said to possess consciousness, despite of being characterized by using a certain set of informational, material, and energetic characteristics. This is what my own doctrine of pan-informationism consists in.
.
Best,
Serge Patlavskiy



From: Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com>
To: "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2017 1:24 AM
Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: Aware-ized Energy: a rational explanation for pan-what-ever-ism

Craig,

"I would argue that in a sense energy does not exist at all." (Craig)

Do you mean by "exist", that it has no tangibility? If that's what you mean, I can understand that you could conceive of the idea that energy does not exist. 

Matter, as I see it, is energy manifested, tangible energy, energy in a different package. 

joe
-- 

Multisense Realism

unread,
Jul 14, 2017, 7:47:28 AM7/14/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com> wrote:

Craig,

"I would argue that in a sense energy does not exist at all. Energy may be nothing but the qualities of matter interacting with matter." (Craig)

One question, how can matter interact with matter, without the energy to do so?

Energy is the name of matter's interaction. Matter is an experience which we is disconnected from our own. In our own direct experience, we can feel desire (a sensory affect of motivation) and we can choose to put effort behind that (release the affect by exerting effort through the body). Our personal effort is a single experience, but when viewed from the outside, that experience is millions of sub-personal motor-effects. We personally translate our personal sense of desire into a personal motive effect which is, from the third person perspective, millions of sub-personal motor effects.

Each of those sub-personal motor effects corresponds to a sub-personal motive experiences, however those impulses, while sensory motive just as our impulse to move our arm is, are in an entirely different sensory context. The motive is the same: desire to transform a feeling of tension into another feeling of release, but the sense is entirely different. We want to move our arm to pick up a glass, but the sub-personal experiences may be some strange kind of cartoonish-gestural experience that correspond to conditions in the world that we see as cells and molecules. Perhaps there on that sub-personal level, there is only a single combined sense modality that uses proto-acoustic and proto-optic stimulation, and maybe that ties into transpersonal awareness with its modalities (conceived of as chi, psi, prana).

It is important not to project our sense of cells onto the sub-personal experience. We are only seeing the body of cells and we are seeing them through our human scale of awareness which is being augmented/diminished/objectified through a microscope. It would be like if bacteria looked at our cities with telescopes and decided that the human world was made of cars burning gasoline.

So to answer your question, I would analogize it to a question like "how can industries interact without the money to do so?'. Both matter and energy are inferred from sensory properties and solutions to physics problems. If we privilege matter, then energy can be understood as nothing but what matter does to transform itself. If we privilege energy, we can understand matter as nothing but what energy does to delay its transformation. Both of these, however, are only half of the picture. They both only exist as views within the tactile and visible sense of consciousness...they are touch without feel, image without sight.
 


"In quantum mechanics, even a perfect vacuum is considered a space which contains the condition of vacuum energy. This gives rise to a chicken-egg paradox. If there’s no vacuum except one that is filled with ‘energy’, how can we really claim that space exists other than the extension of energy?" (multisense realism)

Right, there is no vacuum, space does not exist, Space is a theoretical organized structure (think Euclid's Elements/ definitions and postulates, book 1, or, Cartesian coordinate system for example) that of itself imposes your ideas of order and predictability.

My point is that if you make space real, then energy has to become some vibration-stuff in space. If you make energy real, then space has to become frequency of oscillation. If you make matter real, then space and energy have to become the behaviors of material objects. These views are interchangeable, but what is not interchangeable is the relation of sense. Sense is always primary. There is no matter, energy, or space but the sense experience of matter, energy, and space.
 

"The folk conception of ‘energy’ is often as a radiant aura of effects such as increasing light, warmth, or color saturation accompanied by dynamic patterns such as vibration, emanation, and an expansive shift in awareness. This view is considered a pseudoscientific view, since the symptoms of energy that we encounter in the world are not technically ‘energies’ themselves but more like statistics about changes to material substances as approximated by our sensory detection methods." (MSR)

We understand "energy" by experiencing its various qualities. 

Why not just say we understand "consciousness" by experiencing its various qualities?
 

"What energy is in scientific terms is quite abstract really. Physicists don’t generally think in terms of energy as a concrete presence in space, but more of a value that is used in equations about how to cause masses to change position. Energy is an immaterial variable which is conserved within quantitative analyses of how work gets done. In that sense, energy does not ‘exist’ in the physical world that we experience, so much as it is a theoretical influence which governs changes to the physical world (which we may or may not experience)."

The claim by one scientists, at least, is that they don't have a clue about what energy is: 

"It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount. It is not that way.
volume I; lecture 4, "Conservation of Energy"; section 4-1, "What is energy?"; p. 4-2" 

"The space view of energy is perhaps the polar opposite of the space view of matter in that it is anchored in intangibility rather than tangibility."

It is not that energy is intangible, it is that energy and consciousness are the same thing.

If energy and consciousness are the same thing then stop using separate terms for it. If there is an experience, then it is consciousness. If there is no experience then it is energy.
 
You cannot see your own perceiving. You only feel its effects. Just like energy. because, they are the same, all energy is aware-ized. We do not perceive energy directly, like we perceive matter, we only feel energy's effects on us. 

We feel sensations and emotions. When those sensations make us feel stimulated in some way, we might say they are energizing. That does not mean that there is any 'energizing-ness' that we feel.
 

What does exist, however, is experience. There's no view of the universe which gets us away from that.

Therefore, everything is aware.

"It seems clear to me that these words are not aware." (Craig)

This is a re-statement of the Liar's Paradox. The Liar is an equivocation between the objective and the subjective perspective. Hence, your statement is false. 

I think that the Liar's Paradox is a misunderstanding of what language is. There is only a paradox if we invest words and sentences with truth properties rather than seeing language as a passive carrier for communication between conscious agents. This sentence does not literally have meaning, this sentence is a way for me to convey meaning to you (and potentially to any English reader). These words have no authority to make sense on their own. Nothing that the liar says can be literally true or false, because what is being said is just phonemes or graphic notations. The truth values belong to what is understood to be communicated, and the relation between that understanding and all other understandings we have access to.
 
And, the words themselves, the one's on the screen, are composed of, held together by, aware-ized energy. You could not read them, without the energy to do so : )


I feel like the :) there is a sign that you are beginning to get a sense of the weakness of that hypothesis. I don't think that words 'held together', they are merely presented as gestalt phenomena in cognitive sense, plus visible or audible sense if they are being communicated. Our understanding of these pixels as symbols does not imbue the pixels with sense-making.
 
"All of that is just as true if we use consciousness instead of energy." 

Given your perspective, I can understand that you may explain some of what I said in 1 - 12, but how does you perspective explain,

1) Eastern metaphysical principles, as I understand them

Nothing changes with my view, except that rather than seeing chi and psi as literal fields in space or time, we see them as sensory-motive phenomena. Morphic resonance turns inside out so that it would be Phoric resonance instead.
 

2) why we feel the effects of energy, but cannot see energy itself.

Because there is no energy itself. There are only experiences, and we call those experiences which are motivated to change other experiences 'energetic'. Analogy: there is no 'profit' itself, we just call business transactions which increase revenue above expenses 'profitable'.
 

3) account for paranormal experience, OOB experience, mystical experience, any perception, creativity, and life.

Consciousness has developed and diffracted into a rich phenomenal spectrum. In the sub-personal range there are urges and impulses, sensations like color, flavor, pressure, etc. Sub-personal pain can be numbed with a local anesthetic. In the personal range, there are perceptions and thoughts, autobiographical narratives, egos and relationships, jobs, etc. Personal pain can be numbed with narcotics or sedatives. It is emotional and social. In the transpersonal range there are intuitions and archetypes, synchronicity and life reviews, God, genius, the miraculous, etc. all of that. Life on the transpersonal level is a grand cosmic expression of meaning. On the personal level life is growing up together and growing old. On the sub-personal level, life is biochemical signals. On the impersonal level, there is no real distinction between life and non-life. There is astrophysical shapes, organic shapes, cellular shapes, zoological shapes, and that's it.
 

6) makes you the creator of your own reality, a full expression of free will. 

There is a variety of experiences in which we participate to different degrees. If you are Oprah, you are having an experience of being a creator of your own reality. If you are born with cancer, you may not be able to express much of your free will before you die. Even when it seems like we are creating our own reality, I think we only ever co-create. We're just kind of trying things out and if they work, then we think we've figured it out. We might consider that when consciousness is primary, the universe has us figured out also, and does not shy away from making us see that sometimes "The Secret" is "you've been a greedy fool".
 
Craig


joe




--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
Message has been deleted

Avtar

unread,
Jul 14, 2017, 5:37:36 PM7/14/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Net mass-energy of the universe remains constant. If mass goes up energy deceases by the same amount and vice versa. 

Regards 
Avtar

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 14, 2017, at 11:23 AM, Avtar <asing...@aol.com> wrote:

Energy is the relativistic kinetic (V >0) form of the rest (V=0) mass. 
Regards 
Avtar Singh

Sent from my iPhone
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

Asingh2384

unread,
Jul 14, 2017, 5:37:36 PM7/14/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
There are several inconsistencies in the standard physics and cosmology theories regarding description of energy:
1.       
The universe is assumed to be borne out of a void or nothing, the net energy of the universe being ZERO. This assumption violates fundamental laws of conservation, since the universe is full of matter (equivalent energy) and there is no evidence of anti-matter in the same amount to cancel it out to ZERO. This often misleads one to believe that energy is NOTHINGNESS or void.

2.       Photon has ZERO mass but non-zero energy and momentum. This violates laws of equivalence of mass/energy (E=mC**2) and laws of momentum (p=mV).

The Universal Relativity Model (URM) presented in my book and papers removes the above inconsistencies as follows as evidenced by its successful predictions of the universe observations:

1.       The net energy of the universe is equal to M0C**2, wherein M0 is the rest mass. The total energy of the universe always remains constant in all of its possible relativistic states of varying mass/energy/space/time.

2.       The mass of a photon or any quantum particle is non-zero so long as it is moving at speed less than C. At V=C, the mass approaches asymptotically to zero, while its total energy (mass plus kinetic energy) remains constant for all possible mass/energy states. However, the very very small mass of a photon at speeds close to but less than C may not be measurable by classical instruments, and hence erroneously assumed by the mainstream science to be Zero FAPP (for all practical purpose). This assumption may be good enough for worldly technological applications but fatal for universe scale or cosmic predictions by standard model leading to the paradoxes of unexplained dark energy or dark matter.

3.       URM interprets Space as the un-manifested DOMAIN OF CONSCIOUSNESS or AWARENESS and not form dimensions that can bend or contract. Dimensions or form is measurable but space is not, since it is the fundamental domain wherein the forms of the manifested matter/energy/dimension/time  are materialized.

4.       The Zero Point state described by quantum mechanics is also a misnomer since it is full of wave functions of non-zero frequencies and finite non-zero space-time. URM predicts an absolute Zero Point State wherein mass/energy/space/time are fully dilated into an unmanifested (Implicate Order) state of Existence or ZERO POINT STATE or Consciousness or Awareness.

Best Regards
Avtar Singh, Sc.D.
Alumni, MIT
Author of "The Hidden Factor - An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, Cosmology, and Universal Reality"
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Message has been deleted

Vasavada, Kashyap V

unread,
Jul 15, 2017, 4:51:58 AM7/15/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

Dear Avatar Singh and Joseph  McCard,

I am not sure of any model of consciousness, what form of energy it is etc. So my remarks will be strictly based on what overwhelming majority of physicists believe about the physical world, not mental world. Also I should remind this audience that number of physicists on this group is such a tiny minority of physicists that disagreements on this blog should not be taken as major disagreements in community of physicists.

First, when we say energy, it should mean total energy unless you specify specific form of energy  i.e. kinetic, potential, rest mass energy and every form of energy known to physics, such as heat, electromagnetic, mechanical, chemical etc. There is a model that this total energy of universe may be zero and the universe could have come from vacuum. The reason is that gravitational potential energy is negative and it could very well have balanced the positive mass-energy of created particles. There is no problem with conservation of energy. (There is a problem in GR, but here we are strictly talking about SR). Anti-matter also has positive energy. So this has nothing to do with antimatter.

There is no problem with photon having zero mass, as I explained in my comments to Vinodji.  According to special relativity (SR),

E= Sqrt ( c^2 x p^2 + m(0)^2 x c^4) where p=momentum,  m(0) is mass of the particle in its rest frame, c=velocity of light. For photon we cannot go to its rest frame, since it is moving with c. But in the limit it is completely consistent to take m(0) for photon to be zero.

This is also consistent with  SR expression,

E= m x c^2= m(0) x c^2/ Sqrt ( 1.-v^2/c^2).

Also momentum p = m(0) x v/ Sqrt (1.-v^2/c^2). For photons p=0/0, since v=c. But I am sure Avatarji knows that 0/0 can be finite in calculus in the limiting sense.

Then for photons E= c x p. For photons E and momentum are same apart from a factor of c.

Actually modern tendency is not to use the so called relativistic mass m, since it leads to the above confusion. Tables of particles always give values of m(0).

I will look at the derivation of your (Avatar Singh’s)  eq. (1) sometime. But the above is what majority of physicists agree with. There are outstanding problems with combination of general relativity and  quantum mechanics in dealing with origin of universe and black hole dynamics. But the problem does not lie with the above math. The above is given in every elementary textbook of modern physics, If you have some revolutionary theory it is fine to propose, but you will have hard time convincing physicists that there is a problem with this elementary stuff.

Best Regards.

Kashyap

 

joe

 

 

 

 

Message has been deleted

Multisense Realism

unread,
Jul 15, 2017, 10:14:52 AM7/15/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 4:11 PM, 'Avtar' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Net mass-energy of the universe remains constant. If mass goes up energy deceases by the same amount and vice versa. 

Or if it doesn't, we can always call it "Dark mass-energy".
 

joe




To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

Multisense Realism

unread,
Jul 15, 2017, 10:44:01 AM7/15/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com


On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 6:16 PM, Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com> wrote:


Wait a minute!!! You are saying you don't believe Craig? What a shock. Are you that much smarter than Craig? I mean, he's a pretty smart guy.


I don't want anyone to believe me, I only want those who are interested to deeply understand the ideas I'm trying to get across.
Message has been deleted

Vasavada, Kashyap V

unread,
Jul 15, 2017, 5:29:44 PM7/15/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

Joe,

This is misunderstanding of Feynman’s remarks. When he said, nobody understands quantum mechanics, he left out qualifying words (in terms of our everyday life). It is true QM cannot be understood in terms of the kind of experiences we have in our everyday life from morning to night. Our language and intuition are based on these experiences. We do not have any experience of living in a quantum, atomic world! Mathematically there is no problem. It works to an accuracy of 1 part in billion to trillion.

Energy in physics is similarly a difficult concept intuitively. It is an abstract theoretical but useful concept. Like tables and chairs, I cannot give you energy  to hold in your hands or even to picture ! Forces you can understand because in everyday life you push and pull with your hands. You might say I am exhausted, I do not have any more energy! But it is still abstract!  Energy in physics is closely and consistently related to forces. There is no problem mathematically. About conscious energy, nobody knows for sure!

Best Regards.

Kashyap

 

From: online_sa...@googlegroups.com [mailto:online_sa...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Joseph McCard
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2017 10:07 AM
To: Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: Aware-ized Energy: a rational explanation for pan-what-ever-ism

 

Kashyap,

 "I should remind this audience that number of physicists on this group is such a tiny minority of physicists that disagreements on this blog should not be taken as major disagreements in community of physicists."

 

I just watched 2 videos of Richard Feynman saying that physicist do not understand quantum mechanics, and another quote that says they have no idea about what energy is. Have things changed since his comments?

 

joe

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

Vasavada, Kashyap V

unread,
Jul 15, 2017, 5:29:45 PM7/15/17
to VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL, Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

Dear Vinod,

BTW, Vedas do agree with origin from vacuum. In my article, I have quoted two passages, one from Vayupuran and the other from Nasadiya Sukta. Now I grant you that after thousands of years it is not clear what they meant by vacuum. But Buddhist philosophy is slightly clearer. They say everything came from Shunyata.

About physicists ignoring consciousness in their studies:  First of all , you can see from the debates on this Forum, people do not even agree on definition of consciousness! It is a very complex field. But as we discussed before, the problem is that the other side does not offer anything except meditate yourself, read ancient books and talk to a Guru if you can find one. If I understand, you do not even care for experiments with Yogis. In this respect, I admire Maharishi’s suggesting experiments in connection with TM.  Vimalji is at least willing to consider experiments. You may be right that these experiments will not resolve anything. But at least one should try. Otherwise the two fields will be disconnected forever!

Best Regards.

Kashyap

 

From: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL [mailto:vinodse...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2017 6:47 AM
To: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>; Asingh2384 <asing...@aol.com>; Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: Aware-ized Energy: a rational explanation for pan-what-ever-ism

 

Dear Kashyap and others,

 

Our mental thoughts also constitute some energy with which Physicists are unaware as on date.   EEG activity comprising of em energy represents the physical counterpart of "mental thoughts" in the brain and not the "thoughts: itself.

 

 "There is a model that this total energy of universe may be zero and the universe could have come from vacuum. The reason is that gravitational potential energy is negative and it could very well have balanced the positive mass-energy of created particles".

 

Gravitational potential energy and mass energy of particles may be opposite in signs implying that they have opposite effects leading  to zero effect but ontologically ( implying emerging as some"stuff" and also originating from some"stuff) neither of these can be zero. Before exerting each of their effects, both the gravitational potential energy and mass energy should emanate out in ontological positive manner. The same is not feasible from a very very low energy density ( almost vanishing)  of the vacuum.

 

Logically and metaphysically, no existence can come out from non-existence.

 

Another issue regarding hypothesis of the birth of universe from the vacuum is regarding the synonymity or distinctness of low energy density in form of quantum fields and vacuum ( devoid of any trace of energy/fields at all). Quantum Fields/low energy are in some distinct format  ( That is why virtual energy particles pop up) and background vacuum should be in an indivisible holistic format. There is no awareness with Physicists of the existence and nature of the indivisible holistic vacuum against which discrete low energy quantum fields stand.

 

Logically, intuitively and metaphysically, all the discrete structure should require some other background medium against each such structure rest in and operate. This regress shall continue till a true indivisible infinite holistic medium is achieved. Vedic/Upanishadic sages have named this indivisible infinite holistic medium as Brahman, Cosmic Consciousness having infinite conscious energy. This solves both the above issues of the creation from vacuum viz existence from non-existence & requirement of an indivisible holistic infinite medium for the 'resting' and operation of the discrete structure. But despite this logical requirement, Quantum Physicists don;t agree to for the existence of any cosmic consciousness/Brahman despite glaring inconsistencies in their model e.g theoretically predicted vacuum energy is more than 10^120 times ( mind boggling variation) from the experimentally measured value.

 

Regards.

 

Vinod Sehgal 

 

 

Message has been deleted

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Jul 16, 2017, 4:01:09 AM7/16/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Even the Universal Machine agree with you Craig, as we have discussed this on another forum. So we agree on an important thing: the physical reality is made, quasi-literally, by the universal consciousness. Of course, you disagree with the further step which explains consciousness in term of number extensional and intensional relations with respect to the unnameable (arithmetical) truth. This leads to most qualitative and quantitative quantum features, and the qualia extension.

All this is derivable from the definition of consciousness/first-person by "the only thing undoubtable and non rationally justifiable", and the assumption
that there is a brain level of description such that we are not aware of any change when getting a physical digital transplant copying the brain or body at that level.

I guess we agree that consciousness is not energy. Consciousness is a first person immaterial reality, without any third-person complete account of it, which is the case for the physical notion of energy (although eventually even energy and anything physical will appear to be first person plural, unlike consciousness which is first person singular (even the cosmic one)).

With Digital mechanism, we recover the "multisense" with all intensional variants of Gödel's predicate of "believability/provability":

p (truth)
[]p  (provable p, believable p, representable, 3p)
[]p & p (knowable p, first person 1p)

And the "two matters" (p sigma_1)
[]p & ~[]f
[]p & ~[]f & p

With p sigma_1,  the last three "hypostases" gives the expected quantum logic. sigma_1 means having the shape ExP(x,y) with P decidable. They obey "p -> []p", which plays some role in making the physical laws reversible.

Bruno





--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Vasavada, Kashyap V

unread,
Jul 16, 2017, 4:01:09 AM7/16/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

Joe,

Thanks. Yes. I heard the tragic news about Mirzakhani’s death. I am sure she would have turned out to be a really super mathematician. The way theoretical physics works is like this. You make mathematical models using the existing mathematics available and then compare with experiments. Certain things are still beyond the capability of calcualational tools including computers we have. Examples are weather prediction and calculation of biological processes, even though according to many, the basic physics equations involved are already known! The accuracy I quoted was with the existing calculations. It is true , future developments in Math may help do better and better calculations. But we cannot wait indefinitely for that!

Best Regards.

Kashyap

 

From: online_sa...@googlegroups.com [mailto:online_sa...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Joseph McCard
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2017 6:44 PM
To: Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: Aware-ized Energy: a rational explanation for pan-what-ever-ism

 

Kashyap,

 

I hope you know I really appreciate your comments. 

 

"We do not have any experience of living in a quantum, atomic world! Mathematically there is no problem. It works to an accuracy of 1 part in billion to trillion."

 

"Maryam Mirzakhani, only woman to take math's highest award...Her work could help advance understanding in physics, quantum mechanics and areas outside math, Stanford said in an online news article about her death...The Iran native thrived in study of curved surfaces such as doughnut shapes and amoebas -- to a degree that other bright minds in the field dared not explore, her colleagues have said. In 2014, she became the first woman to receive the Fields Medal, the highest honor in mathematics and equivalent in reputation to a Nobel Prize. When she won in 2014, the IMU called Mirzakhani's accomplishments in complex geometric forms such as Riemann surfaces and moduli spaces "stunning." "Because of its complexities and inhomogeneity, moduli space has often seemed impossible to work on directly," the IMU said."(online news report)

 

Please excuse my lack of knowledge here, and I am only naive and curious, but if new discoveries in math, help advance understanding in quantum mechanics, how could the math be as accurate as your comment suggests? 

 

joe

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

BMP

unread,
Jul 16, 2017, 7:03:16 AM7/16/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Joe

Namaste. Thank you for your reply and questions.

"I'm sure we can all agree that energy is not independent of the source of its generation...Thus although energy is essential for so many applications, the source is not to be neglected. So before we can even mention energy we must first recognize that it has a source, a dynamo, a generator. " (BMP)

I would say that action is the expression of the inside vitality of the inner universe. Action is the result of the desire/will(?) of the inside vitality to completely manifest itself, and its inability to do so. (kind of like asking God to make a rock bigger than He/She can pick up) [JM]

BMP: You seem to have the basic idea here. But there is a distinction between the universe (as an object) and life (inner vitality as a subject), and then a still further distinction between inner vitality of the subject, and the inner of the inner or absolute inner of the vitality. This means there are three levels: the objective universe, the subjective vitality or life, and the (inner of the inner) or absolute source of both the objective and subjective spheres.  The subjective will to actualize itself as objectivity is called action, but its inability/limitation to do so is due to its failure to recognize the role of the source (absolute) in all will and activity. In other words, only when subjective will is dovetailed with absolute will is complete fulfillment of desire attained. BTW God can make a rock heavier than He can lift and lift it too, since in the absolute all contradictions are resolved.

"In the Sanskrit literature the word shakti is sometimes translated as energy or potency, in which case it is grammatically considered feminine because its existence depends on something other than itself (its source)." (BMP)

Could this be interpreted as saying that energy's existence depends on a polarity, vitality (female?) and desire/will(?) male?, something like that. [JM]

BMP: Again this is considered a partial understanding according to the broader perspective of the Vedic teachings. For instance in the Bhagavad-gita (7. 4-6) is it explained that the objective universe (nature) is called prakriti (jada shakti, which is feminine. Mother Nature), but above that there is another feminine nature called parapraktiti (the jiva shakti or living entity), where the prefix para means superior. We understand that matter is inert but it can be moved by a living entity, so in that sense it is superior, as well as in many other ways. But above the paraprakriti or jiva soul (atma) there is yet another superior or super-subjective being called paramatma (Supersoul) who is male and the Iswara owner/controller/lord of both the universe and the vital iiva shakti.


"There are many shaktis or energies (sarva shaktis) and all have their source or origin in the independent (svarat) supreme absolute."(BMP)

When you say "independent", what do you mean? Independent from humans? 
You say "supreme absolute, I say "All That Is", others say "God", or "The Tao", etc.  Can we agree that we are all trying to reference the same concept? [JM]

BMP: The Sanskrit word svarat or independent being is mentioned in the Bhagavat Purana (Srimad Bhagavatam) in the first verse, where the source of everything is determined as abhijna svarat, or the supremely independent cognitive being. This affirms that the source of everything (janmadyasyatha)  is an absolute individual Personality. Philosophy considers the absolute to be that from which everything comes except for itself. Because the absolute does not come from anything other than itself, it is considered as having an independent existence. Only that whose existence comes from something other than itself is considered dependent. So if the absolute is that from which everything else comes, then the absolute cannot come from something other than itself, otherwise that other thing would have to be considered absolute.Spinoza called the absolute causa sui, or that whose substance is caused only by itself. For example, the sunshine is caused by the sun, so the sunshine is dependent upon the sun. But the sunshine does not cause the sun. Therefore the sun is independent relative to the sunshine. of course the sun is not caused by itself, according to astronomers. So the sun is not independent but dependent upon that which caused it. By tracing back to the original source of the sun and everything else we come to the absolute beyond which we cannot go, otherwise that further thing will be the absolute. In the Brahma Samhita. Ishwara Krishna is described as sarva karana karanam, whcih means the cause of all causes. This is another way of understanding the independent absolute as that which causes cause or is the source of cause in the first place.

If the concepts absolute, God, Tao and so forth all refer to the ultimate cause of everything else they are not exactly the same thing because they may each have a different understanding of what the nature of that source is. Some may be atheistic, impersonal, undifferentiated, void, theistic, personal, variegated, and so on. Each perspective understands the basic principle that there is a source of all energies, but their understanding of the nature of that source may differ. Generally there is some criterion for judging which concept of source is supreme, higher or inclusive of all others depending on what the individual considers fulfilling. Most find the highest fulfillment only with rasa, taste, or divine love. Others want only peace, tranquility, impersonal knowledge, unity, sleep, or emptiness. They will seek the absolute accordingly.

JM:We are all that is, or we are you and me. This is clearly expressed by using the two sides of a coin as an analogy. There are 2 sides to a coin and the coin itself, without which the two sides would not exist, dual-aspect monism, if you will. This also expresses the idea that mind and brain are 2 aspects of the same thing. 

BMP: This is not in complete accord with the Vedic conclusion as explained above.  'We' represents humanity, and that can never be 'all that is.' All life, not only human, has its source in the absolute.Humanity does not create the Sun or the galaxy. It cannot even create a blade of grass.  Dual aspect monism can never represent the absolute by the very fact that it claims 'aspects' or perspectives which place it outside outside of the absolute looking on at different perspectives from first or third person views. The absolute cannot be comprehended by perspectives, for the absolute is that whose being is for itself and by itself.

"The important thing to recognize is that knowing or cognition/consciousness is only an ability whose source is not coming from us." (BMP)

Consciousness is a tool we use.[JM]

BMP: A tool is something that is different from ourselves [not existing for our purpose] but we can utilize it for our own purposes. Consciousness is intrinsic or constitutional. Just like breathing or digesting is constitutional or what we are. You would not think of using breathing or digestion as a tool. They are constitutive of our material nature.

"The perfection of life is to know these things and properly utilize all energies for the owner or source of such energies rather than for selfish exploitation." (BMP)

I think we will have to agree to disagree on that point. [JM]

BMP: That is pure evil.
From: Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com>
To: "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 4:02 PM

Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: Aware-ized Energy: a rational explanation for pan-what-ever-ism

B Madhava Puri,

Thank-you for your comments, and thanks to Whit: )

"You have mentioned some controversial ideas about energy. Let us see if we can come to some agreeable ones. "(BMP)

As far as I can tell, from your notes below, there is much we agree on.

The following is from the thread I started on jul 6, "Shakti, Chit Shakti". "As far as I understand, and please correct me if the following is wrong, Shiva has 5 energies: one of them being the energy of consciousness, Chit Shakti. From the energy of consciousness/action, matter was created.
Shakti is the female principle of divine energy personified. Shakti, as I understand, is both responsible for creation and the agent of all change. Chit Shakti creates and manifests phenomena.  What's the relationship between Shakti, Chit Shakti, and consciousness, as you understand it."

"Energy permeates all structures. All energy is aware. Therefore, everything is aware. 1) it is consistent with Eastern metaphysical principles, as I understand them" (joe)

"I'm sure we can all agree that energy is not independent of the source of its generation...Thus although energy is essential for so many applications, the source is not to be neglected. So before we can even mention energy we must first recognize that it has a source, a dynamo, a generator. " (BMP)

I would say that action is the expression of the inside vitality of the inner universe. Action is the result of the desire/will(?) of the inside vitality to completely manifest itself, and its inability to do so. (kind of like asking God to make a rock bigger than He/She can pick up)

"In the Sanskrit literature the word shakti is sometimes translated as energy or potency, in which case it is grammatically considered feminine because its existence depends on something other than itself (its source)." (BMP)

Could this be interpreted as saying that energy's existence depends on a polarity, vitality (female?) and desire/will(?) male?, something like that. 

"There are many shaktis or energies (sarva shaktis) and all have their source or origin in the independent (svarat) supreme absolute."(BMP)

When you say "independent", what do you mean? Independent from humans? 
You say "supreme absolute, I say "All That Is", others say "God", or "The Tao", etc.  Can we agree that we are all trying to reference the same concept? 

"There is a difference between the source or shaktiman, the possessor of energies, and the (shaktis) energies themselves, just as there is a difference between the Sun (globe) and its energy, the sunshine.' (BMP)

I think I am saying something similar, "shaktiman" as "inside vitality", and "action of energy" as "shaktis".

"Of course, although they are two, one cannot be conceived without the other, so they are an identity in difference."

Yes, action and identity, as I expressed in a separate thread. In short, I said "For the purpose of discussion, the terms "action" and "identity" must be separated, but basically, no such separation exists."

"...the absolute is sarva shaktis or complete and full of all potencies and therefore can produce everything from it as the original source of all."(BMP)

That's how I see it, all possibilities, all ways of being, including being conscious. 

"Among the infinite energies of the absolute is cit or cit shakti, cognition or the energy/potency of consciousness or cognition." (BMP)

As I said, quoted above, "Chit Shakti. From the energy of consciousness/action, matter was created."

"Energy may be understood to mean 'ability.'  For example, energy is defined in science as 'the ability to perform work.' In the Upanisads there is a verse
parāsya śaktir vividhaiva śrūyate
svābhāvikī jñāna-bala-kriyā ca
"The Supreme Lord has multi-potencies (śaktir) which act so perfectly that all consciousness, strength and activity are being directed solely by His will." (Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 6.8)" (BMP)

I think this is the critical issue in our exchange. In one sense, "The Supreme Lord" creates physical reality, but, in a more important sense, at least to me, we are The Supreme Lord, creating our own experiences. "We" can be understood in many ways, We are all that is, or we are you and me. This is clearly expressed by using the two sides of a coin as an analogy. There are 2 sides to a coin and the coin itself, without which the two sides would not exist, dual-aspect monism, if you will. This also expresses the idea that mind and brain are 2 aspects of the same thing. 

What I hope to convey is that I believe we create the reality we experience, co-operatively as one whole experience, and as many individual subjective experiences. 

"Here, three energies are specifically mentioned - jnana, bala, kriya, meaning the powers/abilities of knowing/consciousness, strength, action. These all act automatically or magically in us." (BMP)

Yes. I am very comfortable using the term "magic". So, for example, there is a form of logic called magical rationality, one that is associative, non-linear, and spontaneous. Memory is magical, for example. 

"We don't consciously produce these powers by any effort of our own. We can certainly cultivate them or neglect them, but initially they are simply available to us - like breathing or digestion. 

I agree. AsI see it, we are one, and many, with what I think you are calling "The Supreme Lord". 

"The important thing to recognize is that knowing or cognition/consciousness is only an ability whose source is not coming from us." (BMP)

Consciousness is a tool we use.

"The ability to be conscious, or consciousness has to be associated with a source who has or utilizes that ability, which in the verse above is the will of the Supreme Lord." (BMP)

I think we are saying the same thing, but using different words. Is that how you see this exchange?

"In other words, abilities or energies have to belong to someone before they can be utilized constructively."

Consciousness is an ability I have, a tool I use. 

"Energy without any intelligent direction  or guidance is purely destructive in nature." (BMP)

We have a system called relativity, polarity, in order for us to understand what is by knowing what it is not. Energy, and hence consciousness, in order to do that, must have been endowed with basic unpredictability. 
No destruction, no life. Know destruction, know life. 

"The perfection of life is to know these things and properly utilize all energies for the owner or source of such energies rather than for selfish exploitation." (BMP)

I think we will have to agree to disagree on that point. 

"Polonius:
This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
Farewell, my blessing season this in thee!" (WS : )

Sincerely and Respectfully, joe : )

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

Asingh2384

unread,
Jul 16, 2017, 1:36:54 PM7/16/17
to vinodse...@gmail.com, vasa...@iupui.edu, joseph....@gmail.com, online_sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Kashyap and All:

Your statement – “….what overwhelming majority of physicists believe about the physical world, not mental world…” is not convincing because of the fact that the standard model approved by the majority of the mainstream scientists fails miserable to predict 96% (dark matter, dark energy etc) of the universe. A mere 4% success rate is an embarrassing testament towards the goal of science to achieve a theory of everything. Moreover, the current myriad of inconsistencies and unresolved paradoxes of the mainstream theories, and ridiculous/unproven multiple universes demean science founded on the principle of ONE UNIVERSE with one set of laws, and ONE THEORY of EVERYTHING.

Energy is proportional to V**2 and hence is always positive, never negative. Even the gravitational energy (GE) is positive. If GE were negative, no rockets would be needed to lift a satellite into space, and a hydraulic dam could not produce a positive electric hydro-power. You are confusing GE with the gravitational potential (height) that could be negative as water only flows from a higher to lower gravitational potential. A galaxy’s total energy consists of its mass-energy, kinetic energy, and gravitational energy along with thermal, light energies etc. A black hole has mostly all positive gravitational energy that crunches it to the singularity at zero volume. Just as temperature could be negative but thermal energy is always positive, gravitational potential could be negative but GE is always positive.

Coming to photon model inconsistencies, the rest (V=0) mass of a quantum particle as it emanates from a radiating surface is always non-zero. A photon’s initial velocity at a stationary radiating surface is zero before it accelerates itself spontaneously (without any external force) to V=C. Only when it reaches V=C, its mass becomes zero, otherwise it has a variable non-zero mass at V<C. This is modeled in the Universal Relativity model in my book using SR formulations. Hence, the existing mainstream photon model is inconsistent with physical reality and observed behavior of other quantum particles. The rest mass of a photon is hf/C**2 and not zero as proclaimed. This photon model is vindicated by successful predictions of the observed universe expansion and explains the inner working of QM while resolving the current inconsistencies and paradoxes of physics and cosmology. The mainstream standard model of photon (described in your e-mail) fails to predict 96% of the universe.

Best Regards
Avtar Singh, Sc.D.
Alumni, MIT
Author of "The Hidden Factor - An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, Cosmology, and Universal Reality"




1) Eastern metaphysical principles, as I understand them
 
Nothing changes with my view, except that rather than seeing chi and psi as literal fields in space or time, we see them as sensory-motive phenomena. Morphic resonance turns inside out so that it would be Phoric resonance instead.
 
 
2) why we feel the effects of energy, but cannot see energy itself.
 
Because there is no energy itself. There are only experiences, and we call those experiences which are motivated to change other experiences 'energetic'. Analogy: there is no 'profit' itself, we just call business transactions which increase revenue above expenses 'profitable'.
 
 
3) account for paranormal experience, OOB experience, mystical experience, any perception, creativity, and life.
 
Consciousness has developed and diffracted into a rich phenomenal spectrum. In the sub-personal range there are urges and impulses, sensations like color, flavor, pressure, etc. Sub-personal pain can be numbed with a local anesthetic. In the personal range, there are perceptions and thoughts, autobiographical narratives, egos and relationships, jobs, etc. Personal pain can be numbed with narcotics or sedatives. It is emotional and social. In the transpersonal range there are intuitions and archetypes, synchronicity and life reviews, God, genius, the miraculous, etc. all of that. Life on the transpersonal level is a grand cosmic expression of meaning. On the personal level life is growing up together and growing old. On the sub-personal level, life is biochemical signals. On the impersonal level, there is no real distinction between life and non-life. There is astrophysical shapes, organic shapes, cellular shapes, zoological shapes, and that's it.
 
 
6) makes you the creator of your own reality, a full expression of free will. 
 
There is a variety of experiences in which we participate to different degrees. If you are Oprah, you are having an experience of being a creator of your own reality. If you are born with cancer, you may not be able to express much of your free will before you die. Even when it seems like we are creating our own reality, I think we only ever co-create. We're just kind of trying things out and if they work, then we think we've figured it out. We might consider that when consciousness is primary, the universe has us figured out also, and does not shy away from making us see that sometimes "The Secret" is "you've been a greedy fool".
 
Craig
 
joe
 
 
 
 
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

John Jay Kineman

unread,
Jul 16, 2017, 1:36:54 PM7/16/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Just to point out that numbers are mathematical abstractions and math is much broader than number theory. The hope that everything would be calculable has already been demolished.

Yours, 
John
Message has been deleted

Vasavada, Kashyap V

unread,
Jul 16, 2017, 2:13:15 PM7/16/17
to Asingh2384, Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

Dear Avatar,

You are right that there are unsolved problems with dark matter and dark energy. But that does not mean we have to discard some basic physics discussed in freshman physics books! Many of these concepts have been verified for decades and some for several hundred years since Newton’s time. Every time NASA launches a rocket for orbital or planetary flights, it verifies these theories of gravity!

Potential is by definition potential energy per unit mass. Masses are always taken as positive. Every elementary textbook will tell you that

P.E. (if there are just two masses m (1) and m (2)) is given by

U= - G m (1) x m (2)/r, r is the distance between the two. If the masses are infinitely apart, U=0. Since gravity is always attractive U decreases as they come closer. A little calculus exercise tells us that a sphere of radius R has a gravitational P.E.

U = -3Gm^2/5R.

Difference in potential or potential energy can be positive or negative depending on which way you go.

The reason you have to provide a positive energy to a rocket to send it away from earth is that the P.E. further out is less negative. Thus the difference is positive. For same reason water at a higher level than ground has greater (positive) potential energy relative to ground. Again the reason is the arithmetic fact that -2 – (-5) = +3

Only kinetic energy is proportional to v^2 (in non-relativistic physics) and is always positive, not every form of energy.

As for zero mass of photon, what I wrote last time is freshman text book material. If you are right, millions of books will have to be rewritten.

The burden for convincing people about revising all the elementary basic theories of physics will be on you. There are very few physicists on this google group. It is not enough to convince people on this group. So you will have to convince majority of physicists at large.

I am surprised that we have to even discuss this first year college or even high school physics stuff!

 

joe

 

 

 

 

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.


For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

BMP

unread,
Jul 16, 2017, 2:13:15 PM7/16/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Joe

Namaste. 

You are talking about self and other, and my previous response to you was about the Source of your self and others, not about others. You seem to be so absorbed with an internal dialog with yourself that you can't hear or understand anything else. Slow down and try to quiet your mind for a minute. This is the type of control of mind for which yoga is intended. Then read again what I wrote previously:

""The perfection of life is to know these things and properly utilize all energies for the owner or source of such energies rather than for selfish exploitation." (BMP)

There is no opposition between your self and your own source. When your hand picks up food and unselfishly puts it into your mouth, the hand does not suffer any injustice at the expense of your mouth. Rather the hand benefits from such selfless action because the stomach is the source of nourishment for the entire body including the hand. 

When you water a tree, you don't pour water on every leaf or branch. It is enough to water the root, then all the leaves and branches are taken care of automatically. The root is the source of nourishment and water for all of its members.

One who is thinking only of the parts in ignorance of the whole of which those parts are parts, is deluded by such limited conception. If you can open your mind to what was said in my previous message you will find a much broader scope for your views of self and other. Just remember there are three things: self, other and source. They are all different but none of them are opposed to the other when comprehended as an integral system or whole, each one including but different from each other. 

Good luck.

Sincerely.
B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.
From: Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com>
To: "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2017 1:35 PM
Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: Aware-ized Energy: a rational explanation for pan-what-ever-ism


""The perfection of life is to know these things and properly utilize all energies for the owner or source of such energies rather than for selfish exploitation." (BMP)

I think we will have to agree to disagree on that point. [JM]

BMP: That is pure evil.

Each person should worry about Self—what Self is being, doing, and having; what Self is wanting, asking, giving; what Self is seeking, creating, experiencing, and all relationships would magnificently serve their purpose—and their participants! Let each person worry not about the others, but only  about Self. This seems a strange teaching, for you are saying that in the highest form of relationship, one worries only about the other. Yet, your focus upon the other—your obsession with the other—is what causes relationships to fail. Please understands that it doesn’t matter what the other is being, doing, having, saying, wanting, demanding. It doesn’t matter what the other is thinking, expecting, planning. It only matters what you are being in relationship to that.
 
The most loving person is the person who is Self-centered. If you cannot love your Self, you cannot love another. Many people make the mistake of seeking love of Self through love for another, as you seem to be suggesting. Of course, you don’t realize you are doing this. It is not a conscious effort. It’s what’s going on in the mind. Deep in the mind. In what you call the subconscious. You think: “If I can just love others, they will love me. Then I will be lovable, and I can love me.”

When you lose sight of each other as sacred souls on a sacred journey, then you cannot see the purpose, the reason, behind all relationships. The soul has come to the body, and the body to life, for the purpose of evolution. You are evolving, you are becoming. And you are using your relationship with everything to decide what you are becoming. This is the job you came here to do. This is the joy of creating Self. Of knowing Self. Of becoming, consciously, what you wish to be. It is what is meant by being Self conscious.
 
You have brought your Self to the relative world so that you might have the tools with which to know and experience Who You Really Are. Who You Are is who you create yourself to be in relationship to all the rest of it. Your personal relationships are the most important elements in this process. Your personal relationships are therefore holy ground. They have virtually nothing to do with the other, yet, because they involve another, they have everything to do with the other.
 
This is the divine dichotomy. This is the closed circle. So it is not such a radical teaching to say, “Blessed are the Self-centered, for they shall know God.” It might not be a bad goal in your life to know the highest part of your Self, and to stay centered in that.
 
Your first relationship, therefore, must be with your Self. You must first learn to honor and cherish and love your Self.
 
You must first see your Self as worthy before you can see another as worthy. You must first see your Self as blessed before you can see another as blessed. You must first know your Self to be holy before you can acknowledge holiness in another.
 
If you put the cart before the horse—as most religions ask you to do— and acknowledge another as holy before you acknowledge yourself, you will one day resent it. If there is one thing none of you can tolerate, it is someone being holier than thou. Yet your religions force you to call others holier than thou. And so you do it—for a while. Then you crucify them.
 
Not “I am holier than thou,” but “You are as holy as am I.”
 
That is why you can never truly, purely, fall in love with another. You have never truly, purely fallen in love with your Self.
 
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

BMP

unread,
Jul 16, 2017, 8:45:27 PM7/16/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Joe

Namaste.

You wrote:

"You are saying, it seems, that in the beginning, the dynamo is all there was, and there was nothing else. Yet I claim the dynamo could not know itself—because the dynamo is all there was, and there was nothing else. And so, the dynamo… was not. For in the absence of something else, the dynamo, is not. Hence, the energy became the source of its own generation. The energy created the identity you call the dynamo."  (JM)

BMP: First, the Source is never without the energy that derives from it, otherwise there would be no sense in calling it source. Secondly, it was stated in my original email on this topic that the Source is abhijna svarat - supremely independent cognitive being. We are conscious, how could the source of such consciousness be unconscious? The word 'independent' does not mean there was nothing else. As I explained when you asked the question originally, independent means that it does not come from anything else other than itself (causa sui). This does not mean there is nothing else beside itself. You seem to forget what was already covered, but this is good in the sense that it makes the points clearer for you and whoever reads this. Repetition is a primary form of learning. I appreciate your interest in trying to understand this subject, and realize the difficulty in learning new ideas. 

So source does not exclude the existence of the energy of which it is the source. Next you want to claim "the energy became the source of its own generation." But this proposition ignores the original meaning of 'source.'  Ontologically (in terms of existence) - for example, the Sun produces its sunshine - it is clear what the source is. However, logically you might say because the Sun and sunshine are not separable then without sunshine we could not have the Sun.  In the order of existence (ordo essendi) the existence of the sunshine follows the existence of the Sun, and thus is considered dependent on the Sun. So we want to be careful not to confuse logic and existence.

This becomes even more clear when we consider the relation between whole and parts. A leaf on a tree did not produce the tree upon which it is found. The tree includes the leaf in its wholeness as a tree, but the leaf as a whole existentially did not produce the tree. The body as a whole includes  a hand, but the hand does not produce the body. 

In the Isopanisad it is explained that the Whole produces the Whole, It does not involve a process of gradual accumulation of parts. This is impossible for modern scientific understanding to follow due to its analytical nature. Yet the empirically observed fact is that life comes from life, cows come from cows, humans produce humans, and so on throughout nature. The parts, be they atoms or whatever, do not produce the whole of which they are parts. This has been explained in another post The False Elephant and the False Ego as due to the failure of modern science to include the essential aspect of cause that Aristotle recognized as the necessary final cause or that for which anything exists (i.e. its purpose). By failing to include purpose, they turn the part into a whole that is independent of the Whole to which the part exists as part. You are making a similar mistake by taking yourself as a whole (God) instead of what you actually are as a part of God in a purposeful relation to God.

Finally, we have to recognize the great evil that the idea "I am God" holds for society, as this mentality of being for self is that belongs to the most arrogant dictators of the world who would rape, kill and exploit the world and others to demonstrate their superiority to others who dare to defy them. When the citizenry learns this type of mentality then leaders who come from the masses arise in any country, even in modern democracies like the USA, who do not accept even historical facts but 'alternate facts' that suit their self interest. Lacking humility they can never learn anything from anyone or any situation, and thus remain the obstinate know-it-all that is as useless and even dangerous to themselves as to others. 

This is not to condemn anyone but to point to the very real possibility of human error and misdirection (Maya) for which the only cure is forgiveness, since, being finite, we are all subject to limitation. Since humanity is part of God it means that even God has limitations within Godself and thus is full of the grace or forgiveness that transcends and overcomes such faults. Thus limitation and error is not something bad or evil in itself but the cause of the necessity of grace, forgiveness and love. 

Thank you for kindly participating in this exchange. Trust your health will improve soon. 

Sincerely,
B Madhava Puri, Ph. D.
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute
From: Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com>
To: "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2017 5:14 PM

Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: Aware-ized Energy: a rational explanation for pan-what-ever-ism


B Madhava Puri,

I want to go back to our first exchange. I think that is where the trouble started. 

"I'm sure we can all agree that energy is not independent of the source of its generation...Thus although energy is essential for so many applications, the source is not to be neglected. So before we can even mention energy we must first recognize that it has a source, a dynamo, a generator. " (BMP)

As far as I understand things, there is no dynamo, there is only energy, the inside vitality of the inner universe. It has no beginning and it has no end. Your "dynamo" metaphor does not make sense to me. How can there be a dynamo, without the energy to create it?  How can there be an identity, " a dynamo", without the aware-ness of a dynamo identity? 

You are saying, it seems, that in the beginning, the dynamo is all there was, and there was nothing else. Yet I claim the dynamo could not know itself—because the dynamo is all there was, and there was nothing else. And so, the dynamo… was not. For in the absence of something else, the dynamo, is not. Hence, the energy became the source of its own generation. The energy created the identity you call the dynamo. 

I would say that action is the expression of the inside vitality of the inner universe. Action is the result of the desire/will(?) of the inside vitality to completely manifest itself, and its inability to do so. (kind of like asking God to make a rock bigger than He/She can pick up)

O.K. You did not like the metaphor, and the paradoxes I am familiar with can be re-solved [mine is the result of an equivocation]. I was only trying to say that inner vitality can never complete itself. Materializing in any form whatsoever, at once multiplies the possibilities of further materialization. 

"In the Sanskrit literature the word shakti is sometimes translated as energy or potency, in which case it is grammatically considered feminine because its existence depends on something other than itself (its source)." (BMP)

I don't see it. The source, an identity, may be termed action which is conscious of itself. For the purpose of discussion, the terms "action" and "identity" must be separated, but basically no such separation exists. The energy of action, the workings of action within and upon itself, forms identity. Yet though an identity is formed from action, action and identity cannot be separated. Hence, the source is Not, as I said above. 

joe

now I will go back and respond to your last comment : )




--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

Siegfried Bleher

unread,
Jul 17, 2017, 9:43:39 AM7/17/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

Dear Avtar,

 

To say that the standard model has a 4% success rate because it does not account for 96% of the universe seems to ignore the near 100% accurate predictions of the behavior of the part of the universe we can make precise measurements of.  I agree there is something missing in this picture, but it is not obvious to me the problem is an incorrect accounting of gravitational energy and an incorrect measurement of photonic mass.  To say the photon rest mass is hf/c^2 is really ascribing to the energy of an atom that emits a photon of energy hf a mass m = hf/c^2 equivalent to the additional mass the atom has before emitting the photon, in accord with Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence E = mc^2.  Can we thereby say the photon is at rest before it is emitted by the atom?  And then accelerating from v = 0 to v = c?  I am not so sure.  What is the acceleration of the photon?  Can you design an experiment to measure the photon’s nonzero mass after it is emitted from the atom, but before it has attained v = c?

 

How exactly are you defining and measuring gravitational energy, other than as gravitational potential energy? A zero must be defined before assigning a ‘sign’ to GE.  Since gravitational force is always attractive (unless we are talking about cosmological constant or dark energy), gravitational energy of any configuration of masses is always negative relative to the same collection of masses when infinitely far apart.  It is not clear to me if your notion of GE meshes with what I am familiar with.

 

Your observation that in nature there is a ubiquitous spontaneity that physics takes as either fundamental or beyond further inquiry is, in my opinion, a very good one: a photon is emitted from an energetically excited atom at random times (or at least currently unpredictable); a radioactive atom spontaneously decays at unpredictable times, etc.  And there is perhaps a deeper truth that is still related to your noting of spontaneity—the way in which every particle in the universe appears to behave in a ‘lawful’ way.  That this is so, and that particles can even be subdivided into ‘kinds’—such as electrons and protons, quarks, etc.—whose properties on Earth are the same as those of the same ‘kind’ of particle in Andromeda Galaxy, is rather surprising to me.  Perhaps there is a principle similar to Mach’s principle that might account for other particle properties besides inertia?

 

I do have some questions about your derivations, however, as given in your fQXi paper From “Absurd” to “Elegant” Universe.  As Kashyap points out, gravitational potential energy is negative, which is the origin of the motivation for a positive cosmological constant. Your equation (5) and (6) (and subsequent equations) gives

More importantly, what is the rationale for equating the kinetic energy you derive in equation (6) to the vacuum energy?  The derivation appears to begin with the assumption that energy is being continually converted spontaneously from existing mass directly to kinetic energy of that mass—and then equating this to vacuum energy?  Should such decay processes not be observable in the laboratory?  For example, I do understand that a proton when accelerated gains energy according to your equation (2):

 

Even though the proton rest mass does not change, its effective mass increases without bound as v à c.  Your equations appear to imply, however, that when the proton is accelerated, its increased velocity is due to spontaneous conversion of mass to kinetic energy.  I realize you are speaking in terms of conversion of mass on a universal scale, but how does the universal scale conversion appear at the local level?  Is it strictly related to weak-force induced decay?  And how does this relate to the vacuum?

 

 

Another question has to do with “The corresponding space and time dilation…”: the equation you write may be correct for length contraction, but should it not be  for time ‘dilation’?

 

Lastly, your derivations and predictions may be more convincing if they can be supported by a clear argument as to why you include special relativistic considerations, but not general relativistic ones, aside from including  .  Since you are making statements that include the cosmological constant and predictions on the scale of the universe, how would Einstein’s full equations not be needed?  Perhaps these details appear in your book? 

 

Best wishes,

 

Siegfried

 

 

From: 'Asingh2384' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. [mailto:Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2017 12:17 PM

 

joe

 

 

 

 

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.


To view this discussion on the web visit


For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact


---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.


To view this discussion on the web visit

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact


---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.


To view this discussion on the web visit

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact


---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

 

--

----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

oledata.mso
image005.wmz
image006.wmz
image001.wmz
image003.wmz

Asingh2384

unread,
Jul 17, 2017, 2:38:15 PM7/17/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Siegfried and Kashyap:
 
You are asking good and valid questions; let me try to answer them from the Universal Relativity Model (URM) perspective thinking outside the box of the current mainstream or text book mindset:
 
Q: “Can we thereby say the photon is at rest before it is emitted by the atom?  And then accelerating from v = 0 to v = c?”
 
Answer:
 
The initial conditions of the photon are determined by its boundary conditions. A photon at the time of emission has the same velocity as its emitting surface which is at rest. Hence, for continuity of the boundary conditions, the emitted photon must be at rest V=0 and no way could be moving at the V=C. Hence, it must have an initial velocity zero and then, due to an unknown physics, accelerating to C. URM describes this physics.
 
Such physics is not missing just for the photon behavior, but also for explaining the complimentary and spontaneous behaviors of wave/particle and mass/energy equivalence physics. The current physics recognizes the validity of these phenomena but lacking field equations describing them.
 
Q: ? Negative GPE?
 
Answer:
 
Regarding the negative GPE, I agree with the mainstream physics notion wherein the reference zero point is arbitrarily chosen as R = infinity. Similarly, the compression spring energy is labeled as negative potential energy from a chosen reference of the unconstrained spring. But always a positive amount of work (energy) is required to compress a spring. In general, a stored energy is termed a negative energy since it is available to be used in a reverse mode to generate positive energy. My reference for zero energy is G=0 i.e. no gravity at all. From this reference, G>0 results in a positive GPE at all R. GPE is still given by the same formula but due to a different reference zero point, it is always positive. The widely used mainstream negative GPE gives negative infinite GPE at R=0, which is a huge problem for standard cosmology models leading to singularities at R=0. URM eliminates this singularity.

From logical point of view, mass and energy could never be negative but always greater than or equal to zero. Physical existence can never be negative. From this point of view, what exists physically is only positive energy or mass. However, an arbitrarily chosen reference point may artificially label it negative.
 
The rationale for equating the kinetic energy in equation (6) to the vacuum energy is to derive a physical mechanistic equation for the cosmological constant eliminating the “Einstein’s Blunder” mischaracterization of it as an arbitrary “Fudge” constant. URM thus provides a physical basis for Cosmological Constant and hence, dark energy or vacuum energy.
Message has been deleted

Vasavada, Kashyap V

unread,
Jul 18, 2017, 4:59:27 AM7/18/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

Dear Avatar,

You are of course entitled to your opinion. But I should point out that assuming v=0 for photons at the time of emission is not only in contradiction with quantum physics but also in contradiction to classical electrodynamics. Maxwell’s equations demand that electromagnetic waves have velocity c, just at the time of emission and absorption and in transit (in vacuum). (As you know velocity in propagation in material media is less, but that is a different story). E.M. waves have energy and momentum related like

E = c x P which is the same equation as the one valid for photons, E=c x p which as I pointed out in the previous e-mail follows from special relativity connection between energy and momentum for zero mass particle. In classical electrodynamics this momentum recoil gives rise to radiation pressure. Although it is a small amount it is important to consider it in the  vacuum of space. In fact there is a proposal for interstellar flight based on radiation pressure from  radiation (photons ) generated by engine on a space craft!

Also this relation between energy and momentum of photons has been verified in scattering of photons by electrons, (called Compton Effect). Electron recoils by precisely the amount given by energy-momentum conservation applied to the scattering phenomena. In Nuclear Mossbauer effect, recoil of nucleus by emission of a gamma ray proves the above relation. In addition there are large number of photonic reactions in atomic, nuclear and high energy physics where E = c x p is used for photons . Your assumptions will fail in these cases. You may want to consider these processes in detail.

You are right in saying that location of zero in GPE is arbitrary and infinity may be just a convenient point. But that is with gravitation present and not G=0 and G not equal to zero, I do not see how you can change dynamics by changing location of zero point which is arbitrary anyway.

BTW, as you know, GR got a big boost recently when gravitational waves were discovered.

BMP

unread,
Jul 18, 2017, 7:54:20 AM7/18/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Joe

Namaste

Joe: ". . . you still insist that the source created the energy, and that the energy did not create the source. I think you have it backwards. I don't see how you can have a source, without the energy to create it. The difference here between us is critical."

BMP: Because you are conceiving the relation between source and energy as being relatively on the same existential level, like self and other, you are missing the third element, i.e.the transcendental absolute nature of the Source. When the Source is conceived on the absolute platform it can no longer be the result of anything but itself. It is important to understand the difference between the Absolute and relative platforms, and I think Spinoza has made a clear attempt at explaining this difference by his concept of causa sui [cause of itself]. I explained this in my first message to you, but either you seem to have a terrible memory or were not able to understand this the first time. I agree this is an extremely critical point to understand and it will change your whole perspective when you do. 

When we understand the Source [I write it with a capital letter to indicate it is an Absolute and not a relative idea] it means the nothing within the relative world-frame can influence it or exert any cause on it at all. Thus the absolute world is called pure, unconditioned, eternal, self-luminous, or as the Bhagavad-gita mentions the transcendental eternal soul cannot be wet by water, burned by fire, killed by a sword, and so on.  

While the Absolute cannot be influenced by the relative world, the relative world can be influenced [or more properly, created/manifested] by the Absolute or Transcendental world. We can understand this idea through the example of reflection [this is only an example]. When an object is reflected in a lake, in a mirror, or cast as a shadow, the reflection imitates the original and is caused by the original, but the reflection does not cause the original to act. On the other hand, the activity of the reflection is entirely dependent upon the activity of the original [source of the reflection].

If someone is absorbed in the reflected objects or shadows on the wall and thinks them to be the actual or original world, then this is called Maya.  Such a person thinks the reflected objects or shadows have their own spontaneous free will to move as they like, but this is all an illusion. The images in the mirror don't move, nor are those images formed by the glass and silver of the mirror if they were to be analyzed. 

When the reflective material is called matter, then we can understand how the material conception of life is simply an illusion or reflection of the original world of spirit. We will get to further details of that idea in a separate post. For now, I hope this helps to give a clearer understanding of what is involved.

Joe: "What is missing in this claim is the granting of complete freedom of will to man. Man is endowed with the "Lords" abilities. Man is now the creator. That is Who You Are. Hence, man, as is well shown on this forum, creates his own knowledge. The knowledge of how to create is the knowledge that is acquired form the "Lord", as I see it."

BMP:  Free will is always a difficult concept to grasp and its proper understanding may come only after we have matured in our spiritual understanding. In Sanskrit will or will power is called iccha shakti. In other words, free will is also an energy. As such it has a Source which is not us. As you write "Man is endowed," or given the gift of free will, creativity, consciousness, and so on. These are all energies and therefore dependent upon the Source from which they come. Thus Bhagavan Krishna, or Lord Krishna says in Bhagavad-gita, aham sarvasya prabhavo - "I am the Source of everything." In the Isopanisad it is written isavasya idam sarvam - "I am the owner an controller of everything." 

What this means is that we have free will, but it does not come from us, it comes from and belongs to the Source. We are just the energy of the Lord called jiva shakti. Because energy is dependent upon its Source, and we are energy and thus dependent upon our Source, our free will and creativity are just the reflection of the Absolute, not that they originate in us.  

If this can be understood, the whole conclusion of Vedic knowledge can be realized. The goal is not moksha or liberation into the Void or the abstract monism of impersonal Brahman, but liberation from the the world of the looking glass, and realization of the original life of spirit that has been neglected and forgotten in the perverted reflection of that original spiritual world. In the original world we understand our complete dependence and act as our proper selves as energy of the Lord in complete personal forms in the performance of His blissful lila or pastimes, while in the material world which is the perverted reflection of that world we think we are God and can act without proper understanding of our true spiritual nature.

Joe: [Given the relation of Source and energy] ". . .  how can there be independence and Wholeness?"

BMP: Absolute independence exists only for the Source as self-caused. Everything else is caused by something other than itself and is therefore dependent. Even our free will is dependent upon the Source of that freedom. That means that what is freely given to us can also be freely taken from us. Complete wholeness can only exist in the Absolute whole from which all wholes come - om purnam adah purnam idam. The wholes that come from the Complete Whole, are not really whole in themselves because they depend for their existence on that which is beyond themselves. Thus, for example, a single prokaryotic cell is a whole as an organism, but it depends on its environment to maintain its existence. In this way every individual living entity may be considered a whole, but they are never completely independent. Thus the nature of an individual is very hard to pin down since its true nature cannot be isolated from its Species, Genus, environment, society, history, and ultimately its Source.

Joe:: "I claim that energy of action, is the source of identity, not the source of action."

BMP: Yes, one's true identity is manifest to a certain extent in what one does and v.v. But when that extent is broadened to the absolute degree then the identity in question is not merely about a particular individual anymore.

The remaining arguments in your message concern your ideas vs my ideas, and your ideas of my ideas, or causality and acausality (non causality), linear or circular causality, and so on. These all refer to ideas within the looking glass, in the Vedic literature called the causal ocean (karana dakshyee). But we must try to understand there is an original reality beyond the looking glass, beyond what you or I or anyone else thinks or doesn't think or cause or doesn't cause in any way within the reflected world. In the Absolute world of spirit, freedom reigns in the form of spontaneity, spontaneous love and bliss. All self centered-ness is forgotten and self giving to the real center is supreme joy. In the Bhagavad-gita Krishna explains the method of bhakti-yoga for getting there, through the path of sharanagati (surrender) mam ekam saranam vraja - "Only (ekam) by complete surrender to Me."

As long as we retain any sense of 'I and mine' entanglement in the reflected world will continue without relief. Only a change of heart can make one qualified to receive grace and mercy from above the plane of relativity if the transcendental Lord wills. But those who remain passively or actively hostile to the Lord condemn themselves to an illusory existence in which true light/knowledge is reflected/apparent only.

Joe: "In order for the Whole to be, there needed to be something other than the Whole, so the Whole simply divided itself, becoming, in one glorious moment, that which is this, and that which is that. For the first time, this and that existed, quite apart from each other. And still, both existed simultaneously. As did all that was neither. Thus, three elements suddenly existed, simultaneously: that which is here. That which is there. And that which is neither here nor there—but which must exist for here and there to exist. The Whole is the nothing which holds the everything. It is the non-space which holds the space. It is the all which holds the parts. Do you understand?"

BMP: The Whole does not divide itself. When a mother (a whole) gives birth to a child (another whole) she doesn't divide herself. When the flame of a candle is used to light another candle, it does not divide itself. When a cell gives rise to another cell by what is called mitosis, it does not divide itself. A whole is actually produced from another whole, and this is only improperly called division. Rather than a division it is actually a multiplication. I'm sure you understand the difference between division and multiplication.

I understand you are sincerely trying to make sense of all this in your own way, and by grace you may be very close to understanding transcendence and the absolute platform. 

Joe: "The part is not independent of the Whole. But the Whole is also not independent of the part. I am a part of God and I am God, experiencing. I am One and Many, like you. I am created in God's image, as a creator. I am God. Who Are You?  "

BMP: Hopefully after reading this far you will now recognize the difference between the relative and the absolute platform of understanding, and that your statements here are on the relative platform only. Whole and part are relative terms, but when the Whole is the Absolute then the relative whole and part fall within the mirror world while the Absolute Whole retains its independence of that. Your role as a creator is only apparent, not real. You are a shadow reflection of the actual creator, not a another creator beside the original. I am a servant of God, jivera swarupa haya krishnera nitya dasa, [this is Bengali language] as Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, the Lord Himself taught.  We are all the energy of God (jivashakti) and therefore never independent of the Lord who is called Visnu-tattva (tattva means truth). To think otherwise is Maya, the illusion of taking our reflected existence in the material world to be our real nature.

These ideas are very hard to understand, as Krishna says in the Bhagavad-gita, mama  maya duratyaya. In fact it is not possible to understand them merely by the process of knowledge (jnana). In the Bhagavad-gita Krishna explains the correct process bhaktya mam abhijanati, -"I can be known only by devotion."

At least if we try to become a humble friend of Krishna we may be granted a peep into that world which lies beyond the reflected relative domain of Maya.

I will stop here because it is already a lot to remember and understand. You are actually doing a great service by providing an opportunity for this knowledge to be presented in this forum. Actually we are all serving Krishna already, only some may know it and others may not. You have my heart-felt appreciation for that.

Sincerely,
B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute
From: Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com>
To: "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 8:44 PM
Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: Aware-ized Energy: a rational explanation for pan-what-ever-ism


B Madhava Puri,

"BMP responded: First, the Source is never without the energy that derives from it, otherwise there would be no sense in calling it source."

This seems to imply that you still insist that the source created the energy, and that the energy did not create the source. I think you have it backwards. I don't see how you can have a source, without the energy to create it. The difference here between us is critical.

"Secondly, it was stated in my original email on this topic that the Source is abhijna svarat - supremely independent cognitive being." 

"The Sanskrit words abhijña and svarāṭ, appearing in the first verse of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, are significant. These two words distinguish the Lord from all other living entities. No living entity other than the supreme being, the Absolute Personality of Godhead is either abhijña or svarāṭ-that is, none of them are either fully cognizant or fully independent. Everyone has to learn from his superior about knowledge; even Brahmā, who is the first living being within this material world, has to meditate upon the Supreme Lord and take help from Him in order to create. If Brahmā or the sun cannot create anything without acquiring knowledge from a superior, then what is the situation with the material scientists who are fully dependent on so many things?" (https://prabhupadabooks.com/d.php?qg=2561)

What is missing in this claim is the granting of complete freedom of will to man. Man is endowed with the "Lords" abilities. Man is now the creator. That is Who You Are. Hence, man, as is well shown on this forum, creates his own knowledge. The knowledge of how to create is the knowledge that is acquired form the "Lord", as I see it. 

"So source does not exclude the existence of the energy of which it is the source." (BMP)

That seems possible, but how can there be independence and Wholeness? 

"Next you want to claim "the energy became the source of its own generation." 

I claim that energy of action, is the source of identity, not the source of action. 

"But this proposition ignores the original meaning of 'source.'  Ontologically (in terms of existence) - for example, the Sun produces its sunshine - it is clear what the source is.

That is not how I see it. You are talking in terms of cause and effect, which I do not recognize as valid. Since all events occur simultaneously, the sun and sunshine are a co-arising. 

"However, logically you might say because the Sun and sunshine are not separable then without sunshine we could not have the Sun.'

Exactly.

"In the order of existence (ordo essendi) the existence of the sunshine follows the existence of the Sun,"(BMP)

That's a belief you hold in a linear logic scientific/philosophical system. Such a system of logic does not apply to art, or life, or subjective experience. 

"and thus is considered dependent on the Sun. So we want to be careful not to confuse logic and existence."(BMP)

Philosophic/ scientific rationality confuses its "logic" with existence. Within natural logic, an identity is a dimension of existence, action within action, an unfolding of action upon itself - and through this interweaving of action  within itself, through this re-action, an identity is formed. Yet though identity is formed from action, action and identity cannot be separated.  Natural rationality, NO SEPARATION!

"This becomes even more clear when we consider the relation between whole and parts. A leaf on a tree did not produce the tree upon which it is found. The tree includes the leaf in its wholeness as a tree, but the leaf as a whole existentially did not produce the tree. The body as a whole includes  a hand, but the hand does not produce the body."

Again, your reasoning is linear and causal, following your physical perceptions of a material world. 
 
"This is impossible for modern scientific understanding to follow due to its analytical nature."

Yes, the linear causal logic of science and philosophy. 

"Yet the empirically observed fact is that life comes from life, cows come from cows, humans produce humans, and so on throughout nature."

Yes, empirically observed facts, linear and causal facts. So, your last two claims seem to conflict here

"The parts, be they atoms or whatever, do not produce the whole of which they are parts."

In order for the Whole to be, there needed to be something other than the Whole, so the Whole simply divided itself, becoming, in one glorious moment, that which is this, and that which is that. For the first time, this and that existed, quite apart from each other. And still, both existed simultaneously. As did all that was neither. Thus, three elements suddenly existed, simultaneously: that which is here. That which is there. And that which is neither here nor there—but which must exist for here and there to exist. The Whole is the nothing which holds the everything. It is the non-space which holds the space. It is the all which holds the parts. Do you understand? 

"This has been explained in another post The False Elephant and the False Ego as due to the failure of modern science to include the essential aspect of cause that Aristotle recognized as the necessary final cause or that for which anything exists (i.e. its purpose). By failing to include purpose, they turn the part into a whole that is independent of the Whole to which the part exists as part. You are making a similar mistake by taking yourself as a whole (God) instead of what you actually are as a part of God in a purposeful relation to God." (BMP) 

Your statement is a misunderstanding of what I have said, easy enough to do, because of the unbelievable limitations of words. The part is not independent of the Whole. But the Whole is also not independent of the part. I am a part of God and I am God, experiencing. I am One and Many, like you. I am created in God's image, as a creator. I am God. Who Are You?   

"Finally, we have to recognize the great evil that the idea "I am God" holds for society, as this mentality of being for self is that belongs to the most arrogant dictators of the world who would rape, kill and exploit the world and others to demonstrate their superiority to others who dare to defy them." (BMP)

Your conception of evil tells us more about you, then about me. 

"When the citizenry learns this type of mentality then leaders who come from the masses arise in any country, even in modern democracies like the USA, who do not accept even historical facts but 'alternate facts' that suit their self interest. Lacking humility they can never learn anything from anyone or any situation, and thus remain the obstinate know-it-all that is as useless and even dangerous to themselves as to others."

There are no objective facts. Facts do not exist by themselves. Connected to them is the mind of all those who understand these "facts", p-erceive these "facts", originate these "facts". There are not records in terms of objective for-ever available banks of "facts" into which you tune. A simple example, is look at the website for "BrainGames". >http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/brain-games/< Your brain plays Games with "facts".

joe



Message has been deleted

BMP

unread,
Jul 19, 2017, 6:10:22 AM7/19/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Joe

Namaste.

Joe: "I hope you realize I have the greatest respect for you"
BMP: Likewise, but for a different reason not directly related to you.

Joe: "I point out that this is a belief you hold."
BMP: You are conditioned to think like that - my belief v. your belief - because for one situated in the world-frame of self-centered, first person epistemology one distinguishes between self and other.  Thank you for allowing me to repeat this again and again. But there are three concepts to consider: self, other and the Absolute Source of both. Please read Beyond First Person Epistemology that was previously posted to this list.

The word absolute comes from the Latin absolvere meaning to release,  acquit, set free, where ab means 'from' and solvere means 'loosen' - in other words 'to absolve.' But if the Absolute means absolve, then we have to inquire who is being absolved and for what? If it is us, then what have we done wrong - are we criminals? The answer is yes in both cases. 

When the self presumes itself to be what it is not, to have an existence on its own, to be an independent whole unto itself [this is exactly what the atomistic conception of science foolishly advocates] it becomes a criminal conception against the Truth that the atomic self is only part of the Complete Whole.  In the Complete Whole the part [considered as an independently existing whole] is negated, but this does not mean annihilated. In other words, the part is preserved as a whole part but not as an independent whole unto itself - not as a separate existence apart from the Complete Whole. You have an identity which is not your own - it belongs to the Complete Whole,  it is infused in you as purpose, the teleological principle or final cause that defines what one is. Otherwise one is left with a false sense of self called ahamkara in Sanskrit. This has been clearly explained in The False Elephant and the False Ego also posted to this list.

In the Absolute this false claim of having a real existence separate from the Truth, in other words this false impersonation of being an absolute  reality against the existence of the True Absolute, is a crime punishable by death -  not only once but repeatedly - called samsara in Sanskrit. Thus it is called a mortal sin. There can only be one Absolute; only the foolish can think that there are two or more realities. Such fools who set themselves up against the Absolute are seriously misled and can also mislead others. They stubbornly refuse to relinquish their false claim to absoluteness so they experience death, the ultimate proof for themselves that their so-called reality is merely a dream or illusion [because dreams exist only for some time until one awakens].  Death is the punishment brought upon themselves for falsely clinging to the crime of maintaining their arrogant independent being against the Supreme Being of the Absolute.

We must not misunderstand Supreme Being to be something like the highest mountain along side o which so many other smaller mountains also exist. No. The Supreme Being means the Universal Being from which all other so-called being appear to be.  We must understand the difference and relation between universal and particular being in this case. For example, fruit is the essence in all fruits, without which a fruit could not be determined to be what it is. Thus cherries, grapes, plums, and so on are particulars whose being are essentially the universal fruit. In the same way, the being of any particular species is in essence its genus. Thus an elephant as a species belongs to the Genus Mammal as do all elephants and other such animals.  

The Universal is thus negatively related to the particular, i.e. it is in the particular as its essence yet distinct from a specific particular since it is also in the manifold/plurality of all other particulars. The Absolute Supreme Being is likewise to be understood. Only by renouncing one's self-centered criminal attitude can one be forgiven (absolved)  by the Absolute Court of the Supreme Lord and be admitted into the normal society of the spiritual world which is eternal full of knowledge and bliss. Only if one wants to remain an obstinate criminal, refusing to surrender and be forgiven, is condemned to the prison world, where despite wanting to live, they must die, despite wanting to know what is what, they remain in ignorance, and despite wanting permanent joy, they must experience suffering. Our original Absolute nature is sat, cit, ananda but we experience just the opposite when we remain opposed to the Absolute Truth which is the real truth of our own existence when we are ready to acknowledge and submit to it.

Thus we find the prayer of the imprisoned souls to the Supreme Lord in the Brihadaranyaka Uanisad

asato mā sad gamaya,
tamaso mā jyotir gamaya,
mṛtyor mā amṛtaṃ gamaya

I don't want to be in illusion (untruth) lead me to the truth (reality).
I don't want to be in darkness (of ignorance) lead me to the light (of  true knowledge).
I don't want to be subject to death lead me to my true eternal life.

Joe: ""The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao; The name that can be named [The Source] is not the eternal name. The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth."
BMP: Yes, these are the words of the conditioned soul who still understands things like self and other, this and that, but who has not yet reached the Absolute plane where the Name and the Named are identical in their difference. Just as the absolute valued of |+1| and |-1| is 1, all opposites are identical in their difference in the absolute. I have already explained how identity in difference can be understood by the example if every x is different, D, from every other x then all x are identical in their being different from each other. This is the synthesis of Shankaracharya's and Madhvacharya's philosophies called achintya bedha abedha tattva (inconceivable oneness and difference).


Joe: "The Truth can be neither proved or disproved. It just is."
BMP: Indeed the Absolute Truth is eternally existing as the true  I AM, of which we are the false claimants for ourselves. Of course it can also be proved or disproved. We are not idiots. As the energy of the Lord we are imbued with reason, and God is not malicious or jealous of Man. Reason also comes from God. By your statement here you disprove your own misconception that "Man is endowed with the "Lord's" abilities." You have a multiple choice: Either you are confused, ignorant, or a hypocrite - chose one or all you like, my friend.

Joe:  "Free will", to me, means I create my own reality. 
BMP: This is nonsense. Deepak and others promote this foolishness. Go to Buckingham Palace and tell Queen Elizabeth that you are the King of England (Why not, you can create your own reality!) Go ahead, test your so-called creative ability, and let us know if you even get past the guards.

Joe: "Without Man, the Source would be Nothing. There would be no Lord."
BMP: The Source already implies there is something it originate, otherwise why would we call it a source. A "lord" means there is something to lord it over -  kingdom, queen, ambassadors, army and subjects.   In the same way the Supreme Lord is never alone - never. The meaning of the Lord by Himself is called Vasudeva. He exists but not in his full reality as svayam bhagavan Krishna - the  Lord with all his entourage, beloved associates, lila (playful pastimes), abode, and so on. Those who cannot yet accommodate the true Absolute in a self-centered conception of themselves as absolute are unable to recognize the world of the decentered subject that is the actual reality of which you are but a part. 

Joe: "Then take your believe, and, create what you will with it for yourself."
BMP: When Karl Jung was asked if he believed in God, he replied that it was not a belief for him - he already knew it by direct experience. Anyone can believe whatever they want. Jung used to treat the insane by dealing with them according to their deluded sense of identity. A man who believed he was Napoleon would be treated as if he were really one and the same. When the insane man realized how foolish he was being in the face of seeing it reflected in world before him he would snap out of his illusion. Since I can't prove it to you,  I encourage you to go and prove it to yourself. When you come back to us humbled and foolish, when you face reality as it is for the first time and know that you are not its master, then you will see what your pompous claims amount to.

We are participants, members of Reality, fleeting moments of a society, history, spirit, God. Yes, you may believe what you want, and therefore you have a choice to be either sane or insane, criminal or lawful. Therefore, every  State has an asylum or prison for them so that all may be treated equally according to their choices - their free will.  Everyone gets what they deserve. In Sanskrit that is called the law of karma. In Newtonese it is called the law of action and reaction. A child may not believe a first will burn if they put their hand in it. If they are not intelligent enough to believe those who are more experienced and wise they will have to suffer the consequences whether they are innocent or not. As it is said: only fools learn by experience; the wise learn by hearing from the wise.

Joe: "You are creating an unnecessary separation between us and the Source."
BMP: There is a difference. Difference does not mean separation. The sides of a coin are different, but not separate. The poles of a magnet are different but not separate. The Sun and the sunshine are different but not separate. The Source and its products are different but not separate.

Joe: "We are all One, as I see it."
BMP: Only a fool thinks that if the sunshine is in his room therefore the Sun globe [the source of the sunshine] is in his room. 

Joe: "The Source knew it was all there was—but this was not enough . . "
BMP: This is nonsensical. When the Source is understood as Absolute it is whole and complete in and for itself. It lacks nothing.  It is the finite self that is lacking in proper knowledge of its relation to the absolute Source. The problem lies in continuing to consider the Source as relative to its products. You have heard this again and again and yet forget this again and again. Jesus said they have ears but can't hear. Planck said the minds of the old scientific regime suffered rigor mortis long before their bodies did.

At the same time,  Krishna says in the Bhagavad-gita (15.15): sarvasya caham hrdi sannivisto mattah smrtir jnanam apohanam ca – “I am there within everyone's heart and from Me come knowledge, remembrance and forgetfulness.” One is not even responsible for their own forgetfulness, what to speak of free will. It is all just one of the Lord's pastime to save the conditioned souls. This is the Vedic conclusion.

Joe: "Do you understand?'
BMP: It's not about me. It has nothing to do with me. It is Him to Whom you have to appeal.

Thank you  very much.

Sincerely,
B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute













From: Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com>
To: "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 11:47 AM

Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: Aware-ized Energy: a rational explanation for pan-what-ever-ism

B Madhava Puri,

I hope you realize I have the greatest respect for you.

"you are missing the third element, i.e.the transcendental absolute nature of the Source. When the Source is conceived on the absolute platform it can no longer be the result of anything but itself. It is important to understand the difference between the Absolute and relative platforms, and I think Spinoza has made a clear attempt at explaining this difference by his concept of causa sui [cause of itself]." (BMP)

I point out that this is a belief you hold. Such belief seems to be contradicted by, for example, 

"The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao; The name that can be named [The Source] is not the eternal name. The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth. The named is the mother of ten thousand things." The Source cannot be defined and limited, It can only be expressed and released in each of us. 

and, "The Truth can be neither proved or disproved. It just is." This is evident, for example,  in Heisenberg Uncertainty, the two theorems of Godel. I accept that you and I can adopt a particular framework for us individually, and see how it works out.  

"What is missing in this claim is the granting of complete freedom of will to man. Man is endowed with the "Lords" abilities. Man is now the creator. That is Who You Are. Hence, man, as is well shown on this forum, creates his own knowledge. The knowledge of how to create is the knowledge that is acquired form the "Lord", as I see it." (joe)

"BMP:  Free will is always a difficult concept to grasp and its proper understanding may come only after we have matured in our spiritual understanding."

It is not difficult, as I see it. The meaning of "free will" is tied to its emotional pull, or feeling, and feelings follow beliefs. "Free will", to me, means I create my own reality. Hence "free will" is what I believe it to be, and all that implies. I have drawn this forum, and you, to me, and you have drawn me to you. It is no coincidence. I am not here by accident. 

"...free will is also an energy." (BMP)

Yes. "is-ness", Being, is existence, the by-product of the dynamic imbalance between action and identity.

"As such it has a Source which is not us." (BMP)

Without us, there is nothing. We give meaning to "Source", and it gives meaning to us. 

'As you write "Man is endowed," or given the gift of free will, creativity, consciousness, and so on. These are all energies and therefore dependent upon the Source from which they come. Thus Bhagavan Krishna, or Lord Krishna says in Bhagavad-gita, aham sarvasya prabhavo - "I am the Source of everything." In the Isopanisad it is written isavasya idam sarvam - "I am the owner an controller of everything." (BMP)

Without Man, the Source would be Nothing. There would be no Lord.

'What this means is that we have free will, but it does not come from us, it comes from and belongs to the Source." (BMP) 

That is what you believe. It is not what I believe. We are Co-creators, created in the image of Source. That is Who You Are. You have free will to believe that, or not. Then take your believe, and, create what you will with it for yourself. 

"We are just the energy of the Lord called jiva shakti." (BMP)

It may be that I am sensitive here, but your use of the word "just" indicates to me a kind of demeaning of who we are. 

"Because energy is dependent upon its Source," (BMP)

And the Source is dependent on energy.

"...and we are energy and thus dependent upon our Source, our free will and creativity are just the reflection of the Absolute, not that they originate in us." (BMP) 

You are creating an unnecessary separation between us and the Source. We are all One, as I see it. That is my reality.  

"If this can be understood, the whole conclusion of Vedic knowledge can be realized. The goal is not moksha or liberation into the Void or the abstract monism of impersonal Brahman, but liberation from the the world of the looking glass, and realization of the original life of spirit that has been neglected and forgotten in the perverted reflection of that original spiritual world. In the original world we understand our complete dependence and act as our proper selves as energy of the Lord in complete personal forms in the performance of His blissful lila or pastimes, while in the material world which is the perverted reflection of that world we think we are God and can act without proper understanding of our true spiritual nature." (BMP) 

The Source knew it was all there was—but this was not enough, for it could only know itself conceptually, not experientially. Yet the experience of itself is that for which it longed, for it wanted to know what it felt like to be. Still, this was impossible, because the very term “experience” is a relative term. The Source could not know what it felt like to experience unless that which is not the Source showed up. In the absence of that which is not, that which IS, is not.

Do you understand? 

joe


Avtar

unread,
Jul 19, 2017, 11:06:39 AM7/19/17
to online_sa...@googlegroups.com


Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:


Dear Kashyap;
I am familiar with the theories and equations published in text books and widely used by mainstream physics. But the very fact that the combined published, text book, and accepted theories fail to predict 96% of the universe point to some crucial fundamental missing or misconceived physics. Quite often, the various experiments used to validate these theories are limited by their range of applications. Even a 100% success rate against worldly classical experiments and instruments may miss 96% of the universal reality (below Planck scale and beyond the observable universe) behind the phenomena being measured. It is dangerous when scientists adhere to the sanctity of text books and widely accepted theories/models as religious mantras and scriptures.
 
Violation of boundary condition of V=0 by a photon at the emitting surface is not my opinion but a fundamental mathematical and physical requirement. The published photon models may satisfy many experiments and FAPP (for all practical purposes) be reasonable for 100% successful worldly technology applications, but fail 96% at the universal scale as proven by the empirical universe observations.
 
The absurdity of negative GPE is proven by the Hubble data that shows accelerated universe expansion in the far-field (Large R) wherein the large expansive (dark) antigravity kinetic energy dominates while GPE is almost zero. But a negative GPE would mandate a zero expansive energy at large R, which is totally absurd. Similarly, at R=0, negative GPE would mandate an infinite expansive anti-gravity energy with V=C while Hubble V=0, which is also absurd. Hence, standard model negative GPE predicts a totally absurd universe filled with inconsistencies, singularities, and paradoxes………not a surprise. The fact that the standard model is accepted by mainstream does not alter the universal reality and its absurdities. The castle of standard model is built upon the sands of allusive particles wherein the governing physics is missing or misunderstood.
 
The Universal Relativity Model in my book/papers integrates the missing physics and accurately predicts the observed universe without such absurdities of the text book and widely accepted GR, QM, QFTs, Q…, Q…., Q…. etc.
 
joe
 
 
 
 

 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga

 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/95bf53aa-a0ed-431f-a2f1-0283be5d5fa6%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin

 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to

To post to this group, send email to

To view this discussion on the web visit
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin

 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to

To post to this group, send email to

To view this discussion on the web visit
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin

 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to

To post to this group, send email to
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/15d4c3086cf-2245-700d%40webprd-m90.mail.aol.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/DM2PR12MB0045AF9F849E8190793383A8A2A00%40DM2PR12MB0045.namprd12.prod.outlook.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/15d51b6b609-407e-b1a2%40webprd-a25.mail.aol.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

Asingh2384

unread,
Jul 21, 2017, 12:18:19 PM7/21/17
to vinodse...@gmail.com, vasa...@iupui.edu, joseph....@gmail.com, online_sa...@googlegroups.com
Following up on the earlier discussion regarding photon mass, please see below the article from Wikipedia that supports NON_ZERO PHOTON MASS.

Thanks
Avtar Singh

Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon)

Experimental checks on photon mass[edit]

Current commonly accepted physical theories imply or assume the photon to be strictly massless. If the photon is not a strictly massless particle, it would not move at the exact speed of light, c in vacuum. Its speed would be lower and depend on its frequency. Relativity would be unaffected by this; the so-called speed of light, c, would then not be the actual speed at which light moves, but a constant of nature which is the upper bound on speed that any object could theoretically attain in space-time.[29] Thus, it would still be the speed of space-time ripples (gravitational waves and gravitons), but it would not be the speed of photons.
If a photon did have non-zero mass, there would be other effects as well. Coulomb's law would be modified and the electromagnetic field would have an extra physical degree of freedom. These effects yield more sensitive experimental probes of the photon mass than the frequency dependence of the speed of light. If Coulomb's law is not exactly valid, then that would allow the presence of an electric field to exist within a hollow conductor when it is subjected to an external electric field. This thus allows one to test Coulomb's law to very high precision.[30] A null result of such an experiment has set a limit of m ≲ 10−14 eV/c2.[31]
Sharper upper limits on the speed of light have been obtained in experiments designed to detect effects caused by the galactic vector potential. Although the galactic vector potential is very large because the galactic magnetic field exists on very great length scales, only the magnetic field would be observable if the photon is massless. In the case that the photon has mass, the mass term {\displaystyle \scriptstyle {\frac {1}{2}}m^{2}A_{\mu }A^{\mu }} would affect the galactic plasma. The fact that no such effects are seen implies an upper bound on the photon mass of m < 3×10−27 eV/c2.[32]The galactic vector potential can also be probed directly by measuring the torque exerted on a magnetized ring.[33] Such methods were used to obtain the sharper upper limit of 10−18eV/c2 (the equivalent of 1.07×10−27 atomic mass units) given by the Particle Data Group.[34]
These sharp limits from the non-observation of the effects caused by the galactic vector potential have been shown to be model dependent.[35] If the photon mass is generated via the Higgs mechanism then the upper limit of m≲10−14 eV/c2 from the test of Coulomb's law is valid.
Photons inside superconductors do develop a nonzero effective rest mass; as a result, electromagnetic forces become short-range inside superconductors.[36]

Vasavada, Kashyap V

unread,
Jul 22, 2017, 9:22:34 AM7/22/17
to VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL, Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

Dear Vinod,

Good question!  The general belief is that even in vacuum devoid of any actual matter, fluctuating quantum fields and as a result all the interactions are always present. Thus even though real particles are not present, for mathematical purpose these can be thought of as virtual particles, which are fields anyway. Normally gravitational force is the weakest force. So even though in our daily activity such as running , whenever accelerations are involved, we are probably emitting gravitational waves, but they are so tiny that it would be impossible to measure! Black holes formations and mergers are phenomenon where huge gravitational fields are involved. Gravity is so strong that even light cannot escape from inside the event horizon of a black hole. Thus merger of two black holes is such a violent phenomenon where extreme gravity is present that it is not surprising that some of the mass difference between the two black holes appears as gravitational waves. After all mass and energy are same.  When two particles collide and form a composite particle, very often binding energy is released as some waves. When a deuteron is formed from a proton and a neutron, the binding energy is released in the form of a gamma ray . In the same way when atoms are formed from nuclei and electrons, photons are released. The ultimate in gravitational waves were probably emitted at the time of big bang. If they are observed, it will be a crowning achievement of big bang theory. It is thought that these waves will be extremely low frequency and must be extremely weak after travelling for 13.8 B years.

In fission or fusion, there are much stronger forces present. Gravity has no chance to compete with them. Thus we needed astronomical phenomenon where gravity dominates and presumably we found it.

Regards.

Kashyap

 

From: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL [mailto:vinodse...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2017 2:22 AM
To: Asingh2384 <asing...@aol.com>; Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>; Siegfried Bleher <sbl...@msn.com>
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: Aware-ized Energy: a rational explanation for pan-what-ever-ism

 

Yours is a group of expert Physicists with long standing in the study and research in the area 

of Physics.

 

A simple and straight query and expects a response in a simple and straight manner.

 

Space is treated as the vacuum devoid of any stuff( let us ignore vacuum energy for the time

being). Gravitational waves were hypothesized by Einstein long ago and recently in LIGO 

experiments, same have also been verified.

 

What the gravitation waves should represent when space is a vacuum devoid of any physical

stuff?

 

Another related query has been that gravitational waves detected in LIGO experiments

arose from the mass difference on the merger of two gigantic black holes located quite 

far away. Why did mass difference on the merger of black holes represented as gravitational

waves and not in other forms of energy viz heat or kinetic etc? I the case of nuclear fission and

nuclear fusion, I think, all the mass difference manifests as heat and light energy  and not in any

gravitational waves ( irrespective of the very very small size of the waves).

 

Vinod Sehgal

 

 

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 9:42 PM, Asingh2384 <asing...@aol.com> wrote:

Following up on the earlier discussion regarding photon mass, please see below the article from Wikipedia that supports NON_ZERO PHOTON MASS.

 

Thanks

Avtar Singh

 

Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon)

Experimental checks on photon mass[edit]

Current commonly accepted physical theories imply or assume the photon to be strictly massless. If the photon is not a strictly massless particle, it would not move at the exact speed of light, c in vacuum. Its speed would be lower and depend on its frequency. Relativity would be unaffected by this; the so-called speed of light, c, would then not be the actual speed at which light moves, but a constant of nature which is the upper bound on speed that any object could theoretically attain in space-time.[29] Thus, it would still be the speed of space-time ripples (gravitational waves and gravitons), but it would not be the speed of photons.

If a photon did have non-zero mass, there would be other effects as well. Coulomb's law would be modified and the electromagnetic field would have an extra physical degree of freedom. These effects yield more sensitive experimental probes of the photon mass than the frequency dependence of the speed of light. If Coulomb's law is not exactly valid, then that would allow the presence of an electric field to exist within a hollow conductor when it is subjected to an external electric field. This thus allows one to test Coulomb's law to very high precision.[30] A null result of such an experiment has set a limit of m ≲ 10−14 eV/c2.[31]

Sharper upper limits on the speed of light have been obtained in experiments designed to detect effects caused by the galactic vector potential. Although the galactic vector potential is very large because the galactic magnetic field exists on very great length scales, only the magnetic field would be observable if the photon is massless. In the case that the photon has mass, the mass term {\displaystyle \scriptstyle {\frac {1}{2}}m^{2}A_{\mu }A^{\mu }} would affect the galactic plasma. The fact that no such effects are seen implies an upper bound on the photon mass of m < 3×10−27 eV/c2.[32]The galactic vector potential can also be probed directly by measuring the torque exerted on a magnetized ring.[33] Such methods were used to obtain the sharper upper limit of 10−18eV/c2 (the equivalent of 1.07×10−27 atomic mass units) given by the Particle Data Group.[34]

 

joe

 

 

 

 

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.


For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

Multisense Realism

unread,
Jul 23, 2017, 12:50:28 PM7/23/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On Jul 15, 2017 5:29 PM, "Joseph McCard" <joseph....@gmail.com> wrote:
Craig,

So, I have read through your post. In order to help me understand you, would you say you embrace the Eastern metaphysical concept "maya"?

I see the maya concept as a major step in the right direction, but ultimately it still falls short of complete understanding. If the material world were an 'illusion' we would not be able to change consciousness by magnetically stimulating the brain. Matter is a surface in tangible and visible sense. It's as real as real could ever be, but other sense spectra are not bound by that kind of realism.

Is consciousness tangible or intangible? 

Trans-tangible. Tangible and intangible are sense qualities.

joe

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

Joseph McCard

unread,
Jul 23, 2017, 3:58:20 PM7/23/17
to Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D., wh...@csmind.com
All,

upgrading my original post: 

Emotion is energy in motion. When you move energy, you create effect. If you move enough energy, you create matter. Matter is energy conglomerated. Moved around. Shoved together. If you manipulate energy long enough in a certain way, you get matter.  It is the alchemy of the universe. It is the secret of all life.
 
Thought is pure energy. Every thought you have, have ever had, and ever will have is creative. The energy of your thought never ever dies. Ever. It leaves your being and heads out into the universe, extending forever. A thought is forever.
 
All thoughts congeal; all thoughts meet other thoughts, criss-crossing in an incredible maze of energy, forming an ever-changing pattern of unspeakable beauty and unbelievable complexity.
 
Like energy attracts like energy—forming (to use simple words) “clumps” of energy of like kind. When enough similar “clumps” criss-cross each other—run into each other—they “stick to” each other (to use another simple term). It takes an incomprehensibly huge amount of similar energy “sticking together,” thusly, to form matter. But matter will form out of pure energy. In fact, that is the only way it can form. Once energy becomes matter, it remains matter for a very long time—unless its construction is disrupted by an opposing, or dissimilar, form of energy. This dissimilar energy, acting upon matter, actually dismembers the matter, releasing the raw energy of which it was composed.
 
This is, in elementary terms, the theory behind your atomic bomb. Einstein came closer than any other human—before or since—to discovering, explaining, and functionalizing the creative secret of the universe.

joe

BMP

unread,
Jul 23, 2017, 3:58:20 PM7/23/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Craig

Namste. You write

Craig: ". If the material world were an 'illusion' we would not be able to change consciousness by magnetically stimulating the brain. Matter is a surface in tangible and visible sense."

BMP: Matter is what we call the substance of Reality when conceived as just an object. Reality is, however, more than just and object; it is also bespeckled with subjects; and in a deeper and more comprehensive sense it is Spirit. The illusion or Maya is not matter per se, but the identification of Reality as being mere matter. In other words there is something real we are experiencing, but it is not matter. Thus we find the philosopher Hegel stating, "The existent truth of matter is spirit." CG Jung said something to the effect: matter is just a symbol we place over reality which may in fact be spirit or anything else; it may even be God.

I hope this is clear.

Sincerely,
B Madhava Puri
From: Multisense Realism <multisen...@gmail.com>
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2017 12:49 PM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: Aware-ized Energy: a rational explanation for pan-what-ever-ism
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

Alarik Arenander

unread,
Jul 23, 2017, 3:58:20 PM7/23/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
maya is not that the world is an illusion.
maya is that we do not appreciate the world (consciousness) as ourselves (consciousness)
a


----------------------------
-------------------------
Alarik Arenander, PhD

Kindly use ALAR...@GMAIL.COM

Director, Brain Research Institute
President, Anti-Aging Company
President, EBrainMatrix
President, Leaders Brain Consulting

Skype: vedicbrain






To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

Vasavada, Kashyap V

unread,
Jul 23, 2017, 3:58:20 PM7/23/17
to VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL, Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

Dear Vinod,

I have a feeling that all these questions will be resolved if you recognize that, according to current physics, all forms of energy;  kinetic, rest mass. electrical, nuclear, gravitational, heat etc. are energies. There is no difference. They can be measured in the same units and frequently convert from one form to  the other. This is similar to your separating 10 Rs., 100 Rs., 1000 Rs.  notes in separate compartments of your wallet. But when you spend the money , they are all same, money with different values. Also in the eq. E=mc^2 , E is the total, total energy of the system. E and m are same apart from a factor of c^2. As a matter of fact theoretical physicists use system of units where c=1. At the end of calculation they may convert their results into usual system of units. Rest masses are convenient as properties of particles given in tables.  A very high energy electron may look like an antiproton. Experimentalists have to watch out for this. m is just an old fashioned unit. In high energy physics even m is stated in energy units such as m(e)= 0.5 MeV, m(p)= 938 MeV etc. In relativity lot of times people just use E and never mention m!

(i)                At the time of big bang, presumably all interactions were unified. So gravitational waves were emitted. But until we observe them we cannot say if they were emitted before masses were created  just from quantum fields or after. More likely from quantum fields.

(ii)               In which process which waves, gravitational, electromagnetic or particles are emitted , that depends on the dynamics of the process. When black holes are formed, mass is so large that gravity is bigger than all other forces. So it is not surprising that when two black holes merge and form a black hole of smaller mass, lot of energy according  to E=mc^2 will be emitted in the form of gravitational waves. This does not mean that electromagnetic or particle emission will not take place. As a matter of fact, they are looking for intense burst of gamma rays and neutrinos from the same part of sky where the gravitational waves are supposed to have come.

(iii)             Each particle has a specific rest mass. That does not change by definition. Usually lot of new particles with different rest masses and different kinetic energies are created. In fission or fusion, new nuclei with different rest masses are created. Remaining  energy appears as kinetic energy of fragments. Heat  is just kinetic energy of atoms and molecules. All that counts is the total energy balance, between before and after the reaction. No one has seen any violation of this as yet!

Best Regards.

Kashyap

 

From: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL [mailto:vinodse...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2017 8:38 AM
To: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>; Asingh2384 <asing...@aol.com>; Siegfried Bleher <sbl...@msn.com>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: Aware-ized Energy: a rational explanation for pan-what-ever-ism

 

Dear Kashyap,

 

So so you want to state and infer that

 

i) Gravitational waves are comprised of the fluctuating quantum fields since you have

said vacuum comprises of some quantum fields. After all, if there is the existence 

of gravity waves, it should pertain to disturbance of something since disturbance pertaining

to pure vacuum carrying nothing fives no meaning

 

ii) Only gravitational energy is transformable in gravitational waves. Since near black holes

   gravity is very high, therefore, gravitational waves, in the detectable range are produced

near black holes. But then the question arises: Why the loss in mass of the black holes should be

related to gravitational waves. Loss of mass on the merger of black holes should appear

as violent eruptions of e.m radiations and not as the gravitational waves. Here it is the loss

of rest mass and not the mass due to the motion.

 

iii) you indicated that in fission and fusion, it is the binding energy which releases as

thermal and light energy. does rest mass energy remains intact or a part of the same is also transformed

into heat and light energy?

 

Regards.

 

Vinod sehgal

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Jul 24, 2017, 5:47:33 AM7/24/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Hi Craig,


On 23 Jul 2017, at 18:07, Multisense Realism wrote:



On Jul 15, 2017 5:29 PM, "Joseph McCard" <joseph....@gmail.com> wrote:
Craig,

So, I have read through your post. In order to help me understand you, would you say you embrace the Eastern metaphysical concept "maya"?

I see the maya concept as a major step in the right direction, but ultimately it still falls short of complete understanding. If the material world were an 'illusion' we would not be able to change consciousness by magnetically stimulating the brain.

Why? Arithmetic emulates all dreams, including the dream where machine acts on their local representations to change their consciousness.



Matter is a surface in tangible and visible sense. It's as real as real could ever be, but other sense spectra are not bound by that kind of realism.

I can agree with this. Matter is a real illusion, explainable by very precise number/machine psychological laws. In that sense, matter is real. But it is a not primary. The illusion of matter arises from something non material, if we assume Mechanism in the cognitive science/philosophy of mind/theology.

Bruno


To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Serge Patlavskiy

unread,
Aug 1, 2017, 4:39:22 AM8/1/17
to Online Sadhu Sanga
-
Craig Weinberg <multisen...@gmail.com> on Aug 1, 2017 wrote:
>>Matter is informed???!!! How "matter" can be "informed"?
>
>By changing it's shape to accomplish a purpose.
.
[S.P.] OK. Your phrase that "matter is ... informed" is just a metaphor.
.
[Craig Weinberg] wrote:
>>What do you mean by "vehicles"?
>
>I mean that if we want to think of nature as a phenomenon 
>where information is fundamental, then matter becomes a 
>passive instrument or receptacle for the storage of information.
.
[S.P.] Three remarks here. First, we do not think of noumenon as a phenomenon. A map is not a territory. A map (phenomenon) is a model (a mental representation) that our consciousness constructs for the given cartographer, while Nature (or noumenon, or a territory) is postulated to exist objectively out there.
.
Second, personally, I postulate the informational factor, the material factor, and the energetic factor as three equally fundamental factors that the existence of any entity (formalized as a complex system) depends on. In case the interplay of these three factors results in sufficiently low overall entropy of the complex system then we may receive a consciousness-possessing complex system. And only then we may talk about "information", by which I mean a product of consciousness. 
.
So, for me, it is not "information" that is fundamental. In fact, I consider three different concepts: "informational factor", "consciousness", and "information", and only the first one pertains to the matters of fundamentality.
.
And, third. It is not "information" that is stored (sent, received, transformed, processed, etc.) but physical signals. Then, whether the given physical signal becomes "informative" for the given person, it will depend on the given person's consciousness.
.
Thanks for your reply,
Serge Patlavskiy



From: Multisense Realism <multisen...@gmail.com>
To: Serge Patlavskiy <serge.pa...@rocketmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2017 4:45 AM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: Aware-ized Energy: a rational explanation for pan-what-ever-ism



On Jul 29, 2017 9:07 PM, "Serge Patlavskiy" <serge.pa...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
-
>In your example I can make the energy component disappear into the matter component by saying that what your hands do to the clay is simply the process by which matter is configured and informed.

Matter is informed???!!! How "matter" can be "informed"?

By changing it's shape to accomplish a purpose.


>your hands and clay are simply the vehicles

What do you mean by "vehicles"?

I mean that if we want to think of nature as a phenomenon where information is fundamental, then matter becomes a passive instrument or receptacle for the storage of information.


>there is nothing that energy can do which is not a change in the velocity or direction of a moving object.

Energy itself DOES nothing.

I agree...and by extension, energy itself is nothing.


SP

From: Multisense Realism <multisen...@gmail.com>
To: Serge Patlavskiy <serge.patlavskiy@rocketmail. com>
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2017 6:02 PM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: Aware-ized Energy: a rational explanation for pan-what-ever-ism


On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 11:23 PM, Serge Patlavskiy <serge.patlavskiy@rocketmail. com> wrote:
-
1) on what knowledge (information, skill, imagination, etc.) of how to produce pottery I have -- I call this factor "informational";
2) on what material/physical substance like clay I have -- I call this factor "material".
.
Then, I have a fact that, when producing pottery, I have to turn the material substance from one state and shape into other state and shape. For example, at first, I have a shapeless piece of clay which has enough plasticity (as certain physical property). But, at the end, I have a physical object (e.g., a jug) which already has a different shape and enough hardness and waterproofness (as different physical properties). 
.
3) So, I call "energetic" the factor which helps to change the state and shape of the material/physical substance, and this one is the third factor that prosperity of my pottery business depends on.
.
The interplay of these three factors (namely, informational, material, and energetic) gives me the characteristic of prosperity of the pottery business as of some complex system. I call this characteristic "entropy", or a measure of order, or a measure of goodness/badness. This characteristic shows how good (ordered, successful, etc.) my business is.


In your example I can make the energy component disappear into the matter component by saying that what your hands do to the clay is simply the process by which matter is configured and informed. Matter includes shape and distance between shapes, and therefore the changing distance between shapes over time is all that needs to exist to account for everything that defines the effects of energy.

I can also make the energy component disappear into the information component by saying that your hands and clay are simply the vehicles through which the information that is the concept of 'pottery' is manifested.

As far as I know, there is nothing that energy can do which is not a change in the velocity or direction of a moving object. If you have objects that move, you don't need an additional 'energy that moves' the object, because the motion of objects is generated directly from the material properties. Moving is something that objects do by definition. There are rules about when and where movement occurs, but the where and when are dictated by material properties and conditions, not necessarily a separate, disembodied entity.

Thanks
Craig


From: Multisense Realism <multisen...@gmail.com>
To: Serge Patlavskiy <serge.patlavskiy@rocketmail. com>
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2017 2:46 PM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: Aware-ized Energy: a rational explanation for pan-what-ever-ism



On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 10:28 PM, Serge Patlavskiy <serge.patlavskiy@rocketmail. com> wrote:
-
Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com> on July 14, 2017 wrote:
>Matter, as I see it, is energy manifested, tangible energy, 
>energy in a different package.
.
[S.P.] For the above statement to hold water, so to say, we have to add that anything existent can be formalized (modeled) as a complex system which depends simultaneously on the activity of three factors: informational factor, material factor, and energetic factor. The case is that we do not only HAVE "matter" -- we have DIFFERENT "matter". But why "matter" is different, or why "energy" becomes "manifested" in different ways? The answer is as follows: "energy" becomes "manifested" as different "matter" due to involvement of different "informational codes" (so to say). 
.
So, a hydrogen atom, being modeled as a complex system, has got its own specific set of informational, material, and energetic characteristics. A living organism, a society, a planet, a galaxy, etc., in virtue of being existent, can also be formalized as complex systems which have got their own specific sets of informational, material, and energetic characteristics.
.
And, several important remarks. We should start talking about anything existent as of a complex system. Therefore, there is no sense to talk about energy alone. We should always talk about "information-matter-energy" as of an inseparable trinity of characteristics we have to use to describe the existent entity. So, I would not say (as Craig Weinberg does) that "energy does not exist at all" -- I would rather say that "energy" does not exist beyond the mentioned above trinity of characteristics.

I would say that the trinity is really a pseudotrinity in the sense that if we make matter and information real, then energy reduces to nothing more than information about the behavior of matter. If we make information and energy real, then matter and becomes nothing more than force-field simulations. If we make matter and energy real, then information reduces to nothing more than the repeating of particular states of motion.

The deeper foundation that I'm trying to address is the phenomenon of that relation - of parts which can dissolve each other or objectify each other intentionally. This is what I mean by sensory-motive. The perceptual-participatory aspect of nature is not describable as mass-energy, matter-spacetime, or information-process. These are all reflections. The pseudo-trinity reflects that fact to us. The quantum properties of superposition, contextuality, uncertainty, and entanglement reflect that fact to us. The relativistic properties of mass-energy, space-time equivalence and dilation-contraction of reference frames reflect that fact to us. Matter is frozen perception - a horizontal cross section of a history of experience which has been rendered static by the limitations of the tangible mode of perception. Light gives us the clues to how this works...how frequency modulation and de-synchronization of perceptual sampling rates can make feelings that feel like objects. Information does not feel. Energy does not feel. Matter does not feel. They don't need to. In the absence of perception, the physical universe would exist just as it does - as objects moving around at different speeds, repeating some movements at some times and places and not in others.
 
.
The other question is that in Physics, when we try to account for the behavior and nature of physical phenomena, we may safely ignore the activity of informational factor, and to consider the material (mass) and energetic (joule, eV) characteristics only. But, when we want to talk about the living organisms and consciousness, the activity of informational factor cannot be ignored. 
.
To the point, the above approach makes it possible for us to avoid a need to embark on the doctrine of panpsychism and to state that, for example, "all energy is aware" (as Joseph McCard holds). In fact, it is not "all energy that is aware", but it is anything existent which depends on the activity of informational, material, and energetic factors simultaneously.

That is very close to my view, but I don't think that it makes sense to say that the worlds we experience when we dream - the people we meet there, etc, depend on the activity of material factors. We could say that they depend on the brain, but that is true in waking life also, where clearly there is an expectation of isomorphic dependence between experience and material conditions. In the dream we see factual evidence that consciousness has the power to spontaneously and instantaneously create or give access to rich, worldly phenomena which factually have no material substrate. This to me demonstrates that information, energy, and matter are nothing more than aspects of conscious perception which reflect limitations on consciousness or separation between localized experiences. There is no information, only experiences which are informative. There is no energy, only experiences which are altered through participatory effort. There is no matter, only experiences which we can participate in only indirectly and in a limited capacity (tangibility band of the perceivability spectrum).
 
All these three factors are postulated to be equally fundamental, and, for preserving consistency of my specially constructed meta-theory, I have to conclude that there cannot be anything existent which could be called "aware energy". 
.
As to consciousness, it appears only after the overall entropy of the complex system becomes sufficiently low for the effect of self-organization to take place. Therefore, the atom cannot be said to possess consciousness, despite of being characterized by using a certain set of informational, material, and energetic characteristics. This is what my own doctrine of pan-informationism consists in.

In my view, entropy and complexity are aesthetic qualities which correspond to deepening richness of experience, but do not generate anything novel. There is no such thing as self-organization. All organization is coherence in some sensory-aesthetic presentation. If your sensory capacity is compromised, you lose access to the sense of organization. An atom is a shape. It possesses tangible properties only - size, velocity, position, behavior on collision and bonding with other atoms, etc. No shape has consciousness or information. Shapes are exactly what they look like - geometric graphic objects. They are perceptions of other perceptions which have been truncated and summarized within the tangibility sense protocol.

Thanks,

Craig

 
.
Best,
Serge Patlavskiy



From: Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com>
To: "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@ googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2017 1:24 AM
Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: Aware-ized Energy: a rational explanation for pan-what-ever-ism

Craig,

"I would argue that in a sense energy does not exist at all." (Craig)

Do you mean by "exist", that it has no tangibility? If that's what you mean, I can understand that you could conceive of the idea that energy does not exist. 

Matter, as I see it, is energy manifested, tangible energy, energy in a different package. 

joe
-- 




Multisense Realism

unread,
Aug 1, 2017, 12:21:06 PM8/1/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com


On Aug 1, 2017 4:39 AM, "'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
-
Craig Weinberg <multisen...@gmail.com> on Aug 1, 2017 wrote:
>>Matter is informed???!!! How "matter" can be "informed"?
>
>By changing it's shape to accomplish a purpose.
.
[S.P.] OK. Your phrase that "matter is ... informed" is just a metaphor.

If you're using a model of nature where nature is fundamental, then informing become a literal cause or force.

.
[Craig Weinberg] wrote:
>>What do you mean by "vehicles"?
>
>I mean that if we want to think of nature as a phenomenon 
>where information is fundamental, then matter becomes a 
>passive instrument or receptacle for the storage of information.
.
[S.P.] Three remarks here. First, we do not think of noumenon as a phenomenon.

Right, but that's just a presumption. If noumena did exist, we can never contact it in any way, including epistemologically.

A map is not a territory. A map (phenomenon) is a model (a mental representation) that our consciousness constructs for the given cartographer, while Nature (or noumenon, or a territory) is postulated to exist objectively out there.

Yes, postulated. We are so egocentric that we would rather think that any experience which is not ours must not be an experience.

.
Second, personally, I postulate the informational factor, the material factor, and the energetic factor as three equally fundamental factors that the existence of any entity (formalized as a complex system) depends on. In case the interplay of these three factors results in sufficiently low overall entropy of the complex system then we may receive a consciousness-possessing complex system. And only then we may talk about "information", by which I mean a product of consciousness. 
.
So, for me, it is not "information" that is fundamental. In fact, I consider three different concepts: "informational factor", "consciousness", and "information", and only the first one pertains to the matters of fundamentality.
.
And, third. It is not "information" that is stored (sent, received, transformed, processed, etc.) but physical signals. Then, whether the given physical signal becomes "informative" for the given person, it will depend on the given person's consciousness.

I see no possibility of physical signals unless we conflate the physical as phenomenal.

.
Thanks for your reply,
Serge Patlavskiy



From: Multisense Realism <multisen...@gmail.com>
To: Serge Patlavskiy <serge.patlavskiy@rocketmail.com>

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

art wagner

unread,
Aug 1, 2017, 4:04:47 PM8/1/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

This thread may find this recent paper of interest: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1707.06324.pdf    Abs.   Parallel Lives (PL) is an ontological model of nature in which quantum mechanics and special relativity are unified in a single universe with a single Minkowski space-time. Point-like objects called lives are the only fundamental objects in this space-time, and they propagate at or below c, and interact with one another only locally at point-like events in space-time — not unlike relativistic billiard balls. Lives are the only causal agents in the universe, and thus the causal structure of interaction events in space-time is Lorentz invariant. Each life traces a continuous world-line through space-time, and each life experiences its own relative world, fully defined by the past events along its world-line. A quantum field comprises a continuum of lives throughout space-time, and excitations like particles are the familiar physical systems in the universe — each comprising its own sub-continuum of lives. A pure universal quantum wavefunction tracks the collective behavior of these lives, but not their individual dynamics. There is a preferred separable basis for the Hilbert space of the universal wavefunction, and for a given physical system, each orthogonal term in this basis is a different relative world — each containing some fraction of the lives of the system. Hidden information about entanglement correlations in the universal wavefunction is shared locally by lives at all interaction events and carried as they propagate. This hidden information governs which lives of different systems will meet during future interactions, and enforces entanglement correlations between the lives of the systems. All entanglement correlations — including Bell violations — are enforced by this local mechanism. These, and many other details, are explored here, but several aspects of this framework are not yet fleshed out, and work is ongoing. 

From: online_sa...@googlegroups.com <online_sa...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Multisense Realism <multisen...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2017 11:41:06 AM
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

Serge Patlavskiy

unread,
Aug 3, 2017, 8:44:40 AM8/3/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
-
Craig Weinberg <multisen...@gmail.com> on August 1, 2017 wrote:
>If you're using a model of nature where nature is fundamental, then
> informing become a literal cause or force.
.
[S.P.] Cannot even suppose what you may be talking about here. What does it mean "a model of nature where nature is fundamental"? Who uses this model? What does it mean for "nature" to be "fundamental"? 
.
My approach presumes making a difference between Noumenal Reality (which I postulate to exist objectively and independently of the activity of consciousness) and Phenomenal Reality (by which I mean a model of Noumenal Reality, or a totality of knowledge the given person has about the outer world due to activity of own consciousness). Phenomenal Reality DOES NOT inform Noumenal Reality, and has no need to do this. Ontologically, these two are the different realms. Noumenal Reality does not depend on what we think about it or what model of it we have.
.
[Craig Weinberg] wrote:
>> [S.P.] Three remarks here. First, we do not think of noumenon
>> as a phenomenon.
>
>Right, but that's just a presumption. If noumena did exist, we can 
>never contact it in any way, including epistemologically.
.
[S.P.] As I have mentioned above, I postulate the existence of Noumenal Reality. The all I can know about it is due to activity of my consciousness which processes the physical (sensory) signals as the elements of Noumenal Reality and, in result, creates a model of Noumenal Reality for me -- it creates my version of Phenomenal Reality. We cannot have knowledge about Noumenal Reality directly. Hence follows the idea of "indirect realism".
.
[Craig Weinberg] wrote:
>> [S.P.] ...while Nature (or noumenon, or a territory) is postulated 
>>to exist objectively out there.
>
>Yes, postulated.
.
[S.P.] Any problems with "postulation"? The case is that I construct a special meta-theory with a hope to construct an effective theory of consciousness within its limits afterwards. A meta-theory, by definition, is a set of postulates, suppositions, and general assertions about Reality which require no proofs. It is a collection of beliefs. It is a certain person's worldview.
.
[Craig Weinberg] wrote:
>I see no possibility of physical signals unless we conflate 
>the physical as phenomenal.
.
[S.P.] Please, treat the two-word term "physical signal" as standing for a single concept. It should not be treated as "physical" + "signal". Physical signals are the elements of Noumenal Reality -- they exist objectively and independently of the activity of consciousness. For example, when reading my post, the e-m radiation reflected from the screen of your computer exists objectively -- its existence does not depend on whether you are looking at the screen or not, and on whether you agree with my arguments or not. Therefore, if we consider physicals signals, there is no conflation of "the physical as phenomenal". 
.
[Craig Weinberg] in private reply wrote:
>>[S.P.] "Physical signal" is a comprehensive term widely used in 
>>Physics. It stands for e-m radiation, air vibration, the flow of 
>>particles, etc. Every physical signal is a result of some physical 
>>event, and may be said to be a physical event itself. 
>
>Yes I understand, that's why I bring it up. I think it's one of the ways 
>that phenomenology leaks into physics. Signals are only experiential. 
>Attributing them to inexperienced events is a grave mistake.
.
[S.P.] Again, you misuse the terms "physical signal" and "information". Physical signals exist objectively -- it is a grave mistake to treat them as experiential. It is "information" as a product of consciousness which pertains to Phenomenal Reality and which may be treated as experiential.
.
When I raise my hand, my "raised hand" is an element of Noumenal Reality -- it exists objectively. The e-m radiation reflected from my raised hand is a "physical signal" which may be captured by your sense organs. Your sense organs (the eyes) transform that e-m radiation as a physical signal into physical sensory signal -- the electric impulse. Then, your consciousness may process this physical (sensory) signal and may transform it into information for you with the following meaning: "if Serge's hand is raised, then I have to run away from him". 
.
However, the other person's consciousness may process this same physical signal and may transform it into information with different meaning: "if Serge's hand is raised, then I have to approach him". Therefore, there is no "leaking" of phenomenology into physics -- a map (as a phenomenon) stands a map, and a territory (as a noumenon) stands a territory.
.
Best,
Serge Patlavskiy



From: Multisense Realism <multisen...@gmail.com>
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2017 7:29 PM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: Aware-ized Energy: a rational explanation for pan-what-ever-ism

On Aug 1, 2017 4:39 AM, "'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
-
Craig Weinberg <multisen...@gmail.com> on Aug 1, 2017 wrote:
>>Matter is informed???!!! How "matter" can be "informed"?
>
>By changing it's shape to accomplish a purpose.
.
[S.P.] OK. Your phrase that "matter is ... informed" is just a metaphor.

If you're using a model of nature where nature is fundamental, then informing become a literal cause or force.

.
[Craig Weinberg] wrote:
>>What do you mean by "vehicles"?
>
>I mean that if we want to think of nature as a phenomenon 
>where information is fundamental, then matter becomes a 
>passive instrument or receptacle for the storage of information.
.
[S.P.] Three remarks here. First, we do not think of noumenon as a phenomenon.

Right, but that's just a presumption. If noumena did exist, we can never contact it in any way, including epistemologically.

A map is not a territory. A map (phenomenon) is a model (a mental representation) that consciousness constructs for the given cartographer, while Nature (or noumenon, or a territory) is postulated to exist objectively out there.

Вірусів немає. www.avast.com

BMP

unread,
Aug 3, 2017, 3:40:25 PM8/3/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Craig

Namaste. I would like to comment on something you wrote.

Craig:  If noumena did exist, we can never contact it in any way, including epistemologically.
BMP: We define phenomena as appearing reality, thus we rationally imply that there must necessarily be a noumenal reality that is the ground/source of that appearance. What is thus established by reason can also be known by reason, even though it cannot be known by experience or consciousness.

As a simple example: The geocentric concept if the solar system is based on consciousness or the experience of the Sun passing through the sky from East to West. The heliocentric concept, however, is based on reason, not experience, and in fact despite experience. Although we can't experience the heliocentric solar system from Earth, we can still know it. through reason, as well as many details about it.

Sincerely,
B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.
From: Multisense Realism <multisen...@gmail.com>
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2017 12:19 PM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: Aware-ized Energy: a rational explanation for pan-what-ever-ism

Serge Patlavskiy

unread,
Aug 10, 2017, 10:18:49 AM8/10/17
to Online Sadhu Sanga
-
Craig Weinberg <multisen...@gmail.com> on August 7, 2017 wrote:
> Sorry that was an autocorrect typo. Should be a model of nature 
>where information is fundamental. Digital physics, computationalist, 
>etc.
.
[S.P.] Your idea should sound thus: "... a model of nature where physical signal is fundamental". I mean that you continue confusing the concept "information" and "physical signal". A physical signal (like e-m radiation, air vibration, sensory electrical impulse, etc.) is an element of Noumenal Reality -- it exists objectively and independently of the activity of consciousness. As to information, it is a product of consciousness of the given organism -- it is an element of this organism's version of Phenomenal Reality.
.
[Craig Weinberg] wrote:
> Why would a phenomenal reality exist at all though?
<skip>
> But then why would consciousness exist at all?
.
[S.P.] I repeat: I use the two-word term "Phenomenal Reality" to stand for the totality of knowledge, experience, concepts, models, information, feelings, etc. the given living organism has due to activity of own consciousness. Then I accentuate: for the living organism to stay alive, it is as important for it to possess the adequate model of the outer world or Noumenal Reality (to wit, to possess a version of Phenomenal Reality of certain quality/quantity) as it is important for it to consume food and to take part in energetic interactions. These are three ways in which a living organism as a complex system can itself reduce its overall entropy.
.
Without its version of Phenomenal Reality as a product of own consciousness, a living organism would not be able to stay alive.
.
[Craig Weinberg] wrote:
>But brains and neurons are not noumenal either.
.
[S.P.] Brains and neurons ARE the noumena -- they exist objectively and independently of what we think about them.
.
[Craig Weinberg] wrote:
>To me, postulating a noumenal world seems too conveniently 
>unfalsifiable. It doesn't explain what consciousness is or why it is, 
>just that it's not real so we don't need to worry about it.
.
[S.P.] It is interesting. You ask a question, the answer to which was just below in my text. Why not first to read the paragraph to the end and only then to ask questions? 
.
So, as I have supposed, you do have problems with understanding of the role of postulation. Well, I will repeat the idea again since it is very important. The case is that the postulates, beliefs, and other general assertions about Reality are the elements of a certain meta-theory (or a world-view, or a belief system, etc.). A meta-theory, by definition, requires no proofs, nor further explanations. A meta-theory plays the role of epistemological (conceptual) framework for the applied theories which could possibly be constructed within its limits in the future.
.
It is an applied theory that, by definition, must possess certain explanatory and predictive power, and to be testable, falsifiable, reproducible, and verifiable. It is the task of the Applied Theory of Consciousness to "explain what consciousness is or why it is" -- it is not a task for a meta-theory! The applied theory does not consist of postulates and beliefs!
.
[Craig Weinberg] wrote:
> Why have signals at all? I can't justify calling any physical 
>process a signal. A signal is a sign, it has significance. Physical 
>mechanisms require only that a function is performed. They need 
>not also have powers to signify other processes, especially 
>processes which do not follow logically from physics.
.
[S.P.] The physical signals are the elements of Noumenal Reality -- they exist objectively and independently of the activity of consciousness. Second. I have asked you to do me a favor and to treat the two-word term "physical signal" as standing for a single concept. But, as I see, this is not a feasible task for you. You tear off the term "physical signal" into "physical" and "signal". Your idea concerning the "processes which do not follow logically from physics" is too vague for me to comment on.
.
[Craig Weinberg] wrote:
>Sure, e-m does not depend on *my* awareness, but that does not
> mean that it can exist independently of all forms of detection.
.
[S.P.] Existence (of something) precedes, while its detection follows. So, how the present existence of something may depend on future possible detection of it by somebody? 
.
[Craig Weinberg] wrote:
>What physical form or function is intrinsically signifying and if 
>there is one, why not consider it phenomenal?
.
[S.P.] It is another too vague idea for me to comment on, sorry
.
[Craig Weinberg] wrote:
> A signal is information.
.
[S.P.] As I have mentioned above, you tear off the term "physical signal" into "physical" and "signal", which is not correct to do. But well. Let "a signal be information", and let the cows fly. :-)
.
[Craig Weinberg] wrote:
>>[S.P.] When I raise my hand, my "raised hand" is an element of Noumenal Reality
>
>How could you know that?
>
[S.P.] -- it exists objectively.
>
>You have no access to objective existence.
.
[S.P.] Again -- you ask a question without even reading my sentence to the end. Craig, do YOU exist objectively? When you raise your hand, is this an objective state of affairs? Does Craig with his hand raised physically differ from Craig with his hand not raised? I feel that we are approaching a dangerous borderline when our discussion may become impossible because of the lack of rationality in your arguments. 
.
[Craig Weinberg] wrote:
>I am proposing the opposite. I suggest what we call e-m is a sensory 
>motive protocol from the start. Matter is a sense organ and e-m is 
>nothing but the propagation of sense experience across materialized 
>locations.
.
[S.P.] The element of experience cannot propagate in principle. It is only the physical signal that can propagate in some material medium. By the way, the concept "sense experience" is nonsensical for me, because the sense organs do not produce information or experience. We can only talk about physical sensory signals -- the electric impulses that the sense organs produce.
.
[Craig Weinberg] wrote:
>Why would consciousness process It? Why not just have the 
>brain calculate a reaction for the body unconsciously?
.
[S.P.] Why you pay attention to a beautiful girl on a beach? Who tells you to do this? You may always choose to ignore her. As to "brain calculate a reaction for the body unconsciously", it is the third idea that is too vague for me to comment on, sorry.
.
Thanks for your questions,
Serge Patlavskiy

______________________________________________________

From: "Multisense Realism multisen...@gmail.com [jcs-online]" <jcs-o...@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, August 7, 2017 11:24 AM
Subject: Re: [jcs-online] Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: Aware-ized Energy: a rational explanation for pan-what-ever-ism



On Aug 3, 2017 4:47 AM, "Serge Patlavskiy serge.pa...@rocketmail.com [jcs-online]" <jcs-o...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 
-


Craig Weinberg <multisen...@gmail.com> on August 1, 2017 wrote:
>If you're using a model of nature where nature is fundamental, then
> informing become a literal cause or force.
.
[S.P.] I cannot even suppose what you may be talking about here. What does it mean "a model of nature where nature is fundamental"?

Sorry that was an autocorrect typo. Should be a model of nature where information is fundamental. Digital physics, computationalist, etc.

Who uses this model? What does it mean for "nature" to be "fundamental"? 
.
My approach presumes making a difference between Noumenal Reality (which I postulate to exist objectively and independently of the activity of consciousness) and Phenomenal Reality (by which I mean a model of Noumenal Reality, or a totality of knowledge the given person has about the outer world due to activity of own consciousness). Phenomenal Reality DOES NOT inform Noumenal Reality, and has no need to do this. Ontologically, these two are the different realms. Noumenal Reality does not depend on what we think about it or what model of it we have.

Why would a phenomenal reality exist at all though?

.
[Craig Weinberg] wrote:
>> [S.P.] Three remarks here. First, we do not think of noumenon
>> as a phenomenon.
>
>Right, but that's just a presumption. If noumena did exist, we can 
>never contact it in any way, including epistemologically.
.
[S.P.] As I have mentioned above, I postulate the existence of Noumenal Reality. The all I can know about it is due to activity of my consciousness which processes the physical (sensory) signals as the elements of Noumenal Reality and, in result, creates a model of Noumenal Reality for me -- it creates my version of Phenomenal Reality. We cannot have knowledge about Noumenal Reality directly. Hence follows the idea of "indirect realism".

But brains and neurons are not noumenal either.

.
[Craig Weinberg] wrote:
>> [S.P.] ...while Nature (or noumenon, or a territory) is postulated 
>>to exist objectively out there.
>
>Yes, postulated.
.
[S.P.] Any problems with "postulation"?

To me, ppstulating a noumenal world seems too conveniently unfalsifiable. It doesn't explain what consciousness is or why it is, just that it's not real so we don't need to worry about it.

The case is that I construct a special meta-theory with a hope to construct an effective theory of consciousness within its limits afterwards. A meta-theory, by definition, is a set of postulates, suppositions, and general assertions about Reality which require no proofs. It is a collection of beliefs. It is a certain person's worldview. As I have mentioned in my post #15823, "a meta-theory -- it is how the given person "sees" or "feels" the world. For example, a person has no need to explain to others why he prefers white girls and black cars, but not vice versa -- such are his meta-theoretical, conceptual, epistemological, or believing preferences formed during his lifetime in his unique conditions of existence.".
.
[Craig Weinberg] wrote:
>I see no possibility of physical signals unless we conflate 
>the physical as phenomenal.
.
[S.P.] Please, treat the two-word term "physical signal" as standing for a single concept. It should not be treated as "physical" + "signal". Physical signals are the elements of Noumenal Reality -- they exist objectively and independently of the activity of consciousness.

But then why would consciousness exist at all? Why have signals at all? I can't justify calling any physical process a signal. A signal is a sign, it has significance. Physical mechanisms require only that a function is performed. They need not also have powers to signify other processes, especially processes which do not follow logically from physics.

For example, when reading my post, the e-m radiation reflected from the screen of your computer exists objectively -- its existence does not depend on whether you are looking at the screen or not, and on whether you agree with my arguments or not.

Sure, e-m does not depend on *my* awareness, but that does not mean that it can exist independently of all forms of detection.

Therefore, if we consider physicals signals, there is no conflation of "the physical as phenomenal". 
.
[Craig Weinberg] in private reply wrote:
>>[S.P.] "Physical signal" is a comprehensive term widely used in 
>>Physics. It stands for e-m radiation, air vibration, the flow of 
>>particles, etc. Every physical signal is a result of some physical 
>>event, and may be said to be a physical event itself. 
>
>Yes I understand, that's why I bring it up. I think it's one of the ways 
>that phenomenology leaks into physics. Signals are only experiential. 
>Attributing them to inexperienced events is a grave mistake.
.
[S.P.] Again, you misuse the terms "physical signal" and "information". Physical signals exist objectively -- it is a grave mistake to treat them as experiential.

What physical form or function is intrinsically signifying and if there is one, why not consider it phenomenal?

It is "information" as a product of consciousness which pertains to Phenomenal Reality and which may be treated as experiential.

A signal is information.

.
When I raise my hand, my "raised hand" is an element of Noumenal Reality

How could you know that?

-- it exists objectively.

You have no access to objective existence.

The e-m radiation reflected from my raised hand is a "physical signal" which may be captured by your sense organs.

I am proposing the opposite. I suggest what we call e-m is a sensory motive protocol from the start. Matter is a sense organ and e-m is nothing but the propagation of sense experience across materialized locations.

Your sense organs (the eyes) transform that e-m radiation as a physical signal into physical sensory signal -- the electric impulse. Then, your consciousness may process this physical (sensory) signal and may transform it into information for you with the following meaning: "if Serge's hand is raised, then I have to run away from him". 

Why would consciousness process It? Why not just have the brain calculate a reaction for the body unconsciously?

.
However, the other person's consciousness may process this same physical signal and may transform it into information with different meaning: "if Serge's hand is raised, then I have to approach him". Therefore, there is no "leaking" of phenomenology into physics -- a map (as a phenomenon) stands a map, and a territory (as a noumenon) stands a territory.

If one of them smoked DMT,  they can see that even the hand is just another signal, not an objective fact. Our consciousness can experience other worlds without physics.

Thanks,
Craig

.
Best,
Serge Patlavskiy

___________________________________________________________

From: Multisense Realism <multisen...@gmail.com>
To: Online_Sadhu_Sanga@ googlegroups.com 
Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2017 7:29 PM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: Aware-ized Energy: a rational explanation for pan-what-ever-ism



On Aug 1, 2017 4:39 AM, "'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@ googlegroups.com> wrote:
-
Craig Weinberg <multisen...@gmail.com> on Aug 1, 2017 wrote:
>>Matter is informed???!!! How "matter" can be "informed"?
>
>By changing it's shape to accomplish a purpose.
.
[S.P.] OK. Your phrase that "matter is ... informed" is just a metaphor.

If you're using a model of nature where nature is fundamental, then informing become a literal cause or force.

.
[Craig Weinberg] wrote:
>>What do you mean by "vehicles"?
>
>I mean that if we want to think of nature as a phenomenon 
>where information is fundamental, then matter becomes a 
>passive instrument or receptacle for the storage of information.
.
[S.P.] Three remarks here. First, we do not think of noumenon as a phenomenon.

Right, but that's just a presumption. If noumena did exist, we can never contact it in any way, including epistemologically.

A map is not a territory. A map (phenomenon) is a model (a mental representation) that consciousness constructs for the given cartographer, while Nature (or noumenon, or a territory) is postulated to exist objectively out there.

Yes, postulated. We are so egocentric that we would rather think that any experience which is not ours must not be an experience.

.
Second, personally, I postulate the informational factor, the material factor, and the energetic factor as three equally fundamental factors that the existence of any entity (formalized as a complex system) depends on. In case the interplay of these three factors results in sufficiently low overall entropy of the complex system then we may receive a consciousness-possessing complex system. And only then we may talk about "information", by which I mean a product of consciousness. 
.
So, for me, it is not "information" that is fundamental. In fact, I consider three different concepts: "informational factor", "consciousness", and "information", and only the first one pertains to the matters of fundamentality.
.
And, third. It is not "information" that is stored (sent, received, transformed, processed, etc.) but physical signals. Then, whether the given physical signal becomes "informative" for the given person, it will depend on the given person's consciousness.

I see no possibility of physical signals unless we conflate the physical as phenomenal.

.
Thanks for your reply,
Serge Patlavskiy

____________________________________________________________

From: Multisense Realism <multisen...@gmail.com>
To: Serge Patlavskiy <serge.patlavskiy@rocketmail. com> 
Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2017 4:45 AM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: Aware-ized Energy: a rational explanation for pan-what-ever-ism



On Jul 29, 2017 9:07 PM, "Serge Patlavskiy" <serge.patlavskiy@rocketmail. com> wrote:
-
>In your example I can make the energy component disappear into the matter component by saying that what your hands do to the clay is simply the process by which matter is configured and informed.

Matter is informed???!!! How "matter" can be "informed"?

By changing it's shape to accomplish a purpose.


>your hands and clay are simply the vehicles

What do you mean by "vehicles"?

I mean that if we want to think of nature as a phenomenon where information is fundamental, then matter becomes a passive instrument or receptacle for the storage of information.


>there is nothing that energy can do which is not a change in the velocity or direction of a moving object.

Energy itself DOES nothing.

I agree...and by extension, energy itself is nothing.


SP

__________________________________________________________

From: Multisense Realism <multisen...@gmail.com>
To: Serge Patlavskiy <serge.patlavskiy@rocketmail. com> 
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2017 6:02 PM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: Aware-ized Energy: a rational explanation for pan-what-ever-ism


On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 11:23 PM, Serge Patlavskiy <serge.patlavskiy@rocketmail. com> wrote:
-
1) on what knowledge (information, skill, imagination, etc.) of how to produce pottery I have -- I call this factor "informational";
2) on what material/physical substance like clay I have -- I call this factor "material".
.
Then, I have a fact that, when producing pottery, I have to turn the material substance from one state and shape into other state and shape. For example, at first, I have a shapeless piece of clay which has enough plasticity (as certain physical property). But, at the end, I have a physical object (e.g., a jug) which already has a different shape and enough hardness and waterproofness (as different physical properties). 
.
3) So, I call "energetic" the factor which helps to change the state and shape of the material/physical substance, and this one is the third factor that prosperity of my pottery business depends on.
.
The interplay of these three factors (namely, informational, material, and energetic) gives me the characteristic of prosperity of the pottery business as of some complex system. I call this characteristic "entropy", or a measure of order, or a measure of goodness/badness. This characteristic shows how good (ordered, successful, etc.) my business is. 


In your example I can make the energy component disappear into the matter component by saying that what your hands do to the clay is simply the process by which matter is configured and informed. Matter includes shape and distance between shapes, and therefore the changing distance between shapes over time is all that needs to exist to account for everything that defines the effects of energy.

I can also make the energy component disappear into the information component by saying that your hands and clay are simply the vehicles through which the information that is the concept of 'pottery' is manifested.

As far as I know, there is nothing that energy can do which is not a change in the velocity or direction of a moving object. If you have objects that move, you don't need an additional 'energy that moves' the object, because the motion of objects is generated directly from the material properties. Moving is something that objects do by definition. There are rules about when and where movement occurs, but the where and when are dictated by material properties and conditions, not necessarily a separate, disembodied entity.

Thanks
Craig

___________________________________________________________

From: Multisense Realism <multisen...@gmail.com>
To: Serge Patlavskiy <serge.patlavskiy@rocketmail. com> 
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2017 2:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: Aware-ized Energy: a rational explanation for pan-what-ever-ism




Вірусів немає. www.avast.com

Multisense Realism

unread,
Aug 12, 2017, 4:45:37 PM8/12/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On Aug 10, 2017 10:18 AM, "'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
-
Craig Weinberg <multisen...@gmail.com> on August 7, 2017 wrote:
> Sorry that was an autocorrect typo. Should be a model of nature 
>where information is fundamental. Digital physics, computationalist, 
>etc.
.
[S.P.] Your idea should sound thus: "... a model of nature where physical signal is fundamental". I mean that you continue confusing the concept "information" and "physical signal". A physical signal (like e-m radiation, air vibration, sensory electrical impulse, etc.)

The vibration of a physical medium is a geometric phenomenon. It does not signal anything and it cannot be a sign of anything in the absence of some conscious experience in which events are detected, qualified, compared, and signified by qualifying the result of the comparison. Any phenomenon which includes those features is consciousness by definition. 

Physics is tangible forms moving in public space. Everything that thise forms do is fully explained in those same terms, which are the terms of geometry. No signs, comparisons, references, or information of any kind can be assumed to emerge from geometry and if it could, that would be a supernatural geometry with unspecified magical powers. Physical forces cannot produce privacy, or an illusion of privacy.


is an element of Noumenal Reality -- it exists objectively and independently of the activity of consciousness.

There is no way to contact any such thing as a Noumenal Reality in any way. It is permanently a faith-based abstract concept.

As to information, it is a product of consciousness of the given organism -- it is an element of this organism's version of Phenomenal Reality.

The idea that there could be anything beyond Phenomenal Reality is a feature generated by, for, and within Phenomenal (Trans-) Reality.

.
[Craig Weinberg] wrote:
> Why would a phenomenal reality exist at all though?
<skip>
> But then why would consciousness exist at all?
.
[S.P.] I repeat: I use the two-word term "Phenomenal Reality" to stand for the totality of knowledge, experience, concepts, models, information, feelings, etc. the given living organism has due to activity of own consciousness

Yes. This is ok but it's not precise enough. The assumption that phenomenal presentations are limited to biological organisms overlooks the fact that bodies, cells, and 'life' are also nothing but phenomenal presentations which we share.

It's also jumping to a conclusion to associate the word Reality with phenomenal presence. Reality and realism are a subset of the larger context of the phenomenal totality, which includes fiction, surreality, delirium, paranormal experiences, etc. Of course our human phenomenal scope is tiny compared with the total universal scope or spectrum of phenomenal presentation, but that doesn't mean that anything can exist in the absence of all phenomenal description. 

. Then I accentuate: for the living organism to stay alive, it is as important for it to possess the adequate model of the outer world or Noumenal Reality (to wit, to possess a version of Phenomenal Reality of certain quality/quantity) as it is important for it to consume food and to take part in energetic interactions. These are three ways in which a living organism as a complex system can itself reduce its overall entropy.
.
Without its version of Phenomenal Reality as a product of own consciousness, a living organism would not be able to stay alive.

That turns evolution on its head. Natural selection does not enable public forms to develop private experiences. Bodies which reproduce do so because they are assumed to be statistically inevitable. Eventually, after baking and boiling organic molecules, you'll get one that builds copies of copy-buildin molecules. There's no magic there, just lots of molecules and lots of combinations of binding together and breaking apart. Whatever geometric circumstances happen to facilitate one species of shapes long enough to sustain reproduction are the sole cause of survival. Occam's Razor requires nothing but thermodynamics and time, not even a hint of a possibility for anything like sensation, perception, experience, qualia, consciousness, etc. None at all.

.
[Craig Weinberg] wrote:
>But brains and neurons are not noumenal either.
.
[S.P.] Brains and neurons ARE the noumena -- they exist objectively and independently of what we think about them.

That is what our human phenomenal experience wants us to believe...and we should believe that if we want our body to survive. To me it is clear that it is purely a bias of an animal kind of experience. Animal bodies require that the sense of tangibility be privileged over other sense modalities. From a more objective perspective, tangibility is actually a narrow band within a larger continuum of trans-tangible phenomena.

.
[Craig Weinberg] wrote:
>To me, postulating a noumenal world seems too conveniently 
>unfalsifiable. It doesn't explain what consciousness is or why it is, 
>just that it's not real so we don't need to worry about it.
.
[S.P.] It is interesting. You ask a question, the answer to which was just below in my text. Why not first to read the paragraph to the end and only then to ask questions? 

I don't have the mental buffer space to do it that way. I respond to what I disagree with before I forget why.

.
So, as I have supposed, you do have problems with understanding of the role of postulation.

This is an obvious attempt to try to undermine me personally. Please stick to the scientific and phosophical points.

Well, I will repeat the idea again since it is very important. The case is that the postulates, beliefs, and other general assertions about Reality are the elements of a certain meta-theory (or a world-view, or a belief system, etc.). A meta-theory, by definition, requires no proofs, nor further explanations. A meta-theory plays the role of epistemological (conceptual) framework for the applied theories which could possibly be constructed within its limits in the future.

What a theory or meta-theory requires is a purely social convention. I don't care about conventions about theories, I care about understand nature directly.

.
It is an applied theory that, by definition, must possess certain explanatory and predictive power, and to be testable, falsifiable, reproducible, and verifiable. It is the task of the Applied Theory of Consciousness to "explain what consciousness is or why it is" -- it is not a task for a meta-theory! The applied theory does not consist of postulates and beliefs!

Again, irrelevant conventions to me.

.
[Craig Weinberg] wrote:
> Why have signals at all? I can't justify calling any physical 
>process a signal. A signal is a sign, it has significance. Physical 
>mechanisms require only that a function is performed. They need 
>not also have powers to signify other processes, especially 
>processes which do not follow logically from physics.
.
[S.P.] The physical signals are the elements of Noumenal Reality -- they exist objectively and independently of the activity of consciousness.

I have explained above why physics can contain no signs or signals with our consciousness. 

Second. I have asked you to do me a favor and to treat the two-word term "physical signal" as standing for a single concept. But, as I see, this is not a feasible task for you.

It is not feasible for anyone except though an error in conceptualizing physics and signaling thoroughly.

You tear off the term "physical signal" into "physical" and "signal".

You put them together, I only refuse to follow that mistake.

Your idea concerning the "processes which do not follow logically from physics" is too vague for me to comment on.

Convenient.

.
[Craig Weinberg] wrote:
>Sure, e-m does not depend on *my* awareness, but that does not
> mean that it can exist independently of all forms of detection.
.
[S.P.] Existence (of something) precedes, while its detection follows.

That is the premise you take to be a given, but which I explicitly reject. I explain my rejection cogently and rationally.

So, how the present existence of something may depend on future possible detection of it by somebody? 

Existence is perception. Existence isn't *our* perception, but there is nothing that exists in the absence of perception. If you are blind, color still exists because it is still perceived. If the universe is blind, then color does not exist.

.
[Craig Weinberg] wrote:
>What physical form or function is intrinsically signifying and if 
>there is one, why not consider it phenomenal?
.
[S.P.] It is another too vague idea for me to comment on, sorry.

This is a defense mechanism. When our worldview is threatened the ego steps in and reduces the significance of the threat. We suddenly feel tired and annoyed at the idea of lowering ourselves to such insignificant concerns. We really cannot be bothered to listen or understand. It's the other party's fault.

.
[Craig Weinberg] wrote:
> A signal is information.
.
[S.P.] As I have mentioned above, you tear off the term "physical signal" into "physical" and "signal", which is not correct to do. But well. Let "a signal be information", and let the cows fly. :-)
.
[Craig Weinberg] wrote:
>>[S.P.] When I raise my hand, my "raised hand" is an element of Noumenal Reality
>
>How could you know that?
>
[S.P.] -- it exists objectively.
>
>You have no access to objective existence.
.
[S.P.] Again -- you ask a question without even reading my sentence to the end. Craig, do YOU exist objectively?

I am an experience and experience is existence. If you can see my face, then my face exists objectively (as a visible object) to you. I am not an object in my own frame of reference...not unless I import other people's responses to my own self definition and identify with my social ego.

When you raise your hand, is this an objective state of affairs?

It is if someone can see or touch my hand as a visible or tangible object. Objectivity and subjectivity are a phenomenal distinction...a dichotomy of qualities of experience.

Does Craig with his hand raised physically differ from Craig with his hand not raised?

Yes but that physical difference is not the only difference. Tangibility is not the only sense.

I feel that we are approaching a dangerous borderline when our discussion may become impossible because of the lack of rationality in your arguments. 

Ego says this, but what does science say?

.
[Craig Weinberg] wrote:
>I am proposing the opposite. I suggest what we call e-m is a sensory 
>motive protocol from the start. Matter is a sense organ and e-m is 
>nothing but the propagation of sense experience across materialized 
>locations.
.
[S.P.] The element of experience cannot propagate in principle. It is only the physical signal that can propagate in some material medium.

Physical events propagate by geometry. No sign or signal is possible.

By the way, the concept "sense experience" is nonsensical for me, because the sense organs do not produce information or experience.

Sense organs are another popular misunderstanding. All of matter is a sense organ. The organs we use personally to experience our body and the world of the body are are physical structures which we have evolved to centralize and specialize our sense experience. Organs do not generate experience, the just act as vehicles or lenses.

We can only talk about physical sensory signals -- the electric impulses that the sense organs produce.

Then we cannot go ahead to the 22nd century.

.
[Craig Weinberg] wrote:
>Why would consciousness process It? Why not just have the 
>brain calculate a reaction for the body unconsciously?
.
[S.P.] Why you pay attention to a beautiful girl on a beach? Who tells you to do this? You may always choose to ignore her. As to "brain calculate a reaction for the body unconsciously", it is the third idea that is too vague for me to comment on, sorry.

This is more of the same defense by offense. You're not seeing my position. I see and understand yours completely. Nothing that you're saying is new to me and I thought the same way for many years. Have some courage. Tell your ego to look at itself for a moment instead of its voodoo doll of me. : )

Thanks, have a good weekend.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

Paul Werbos

unread,
Aug 13, 2017, 3:58:06 AM8/13/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com, wh...@csmind.com
On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com> wrote:
All,

upgrading my original post: 

Emotion is energy in motion. When you move energy, you create effect. If you move enough energy, you create matter. Matter is energy conglomerated. Moved around. Shoved together. If you manipulate energy long enough in a certain way, you get matter.  It is the alchemy of the universe. It is the secret of all life.
 
This is, in elementary terms, the theory behind your atomic bomb. Einstein came closer than any other human—before or since—to discovering, explaining, and functionalizing the creative secret of the universe.


The English word "energy" is more precise than most, but, as with all important words, it is important to remember that it has different valid definitions, pointing to different useful concepts.

Einstein's concept of energy is "the" obvious concept, which many of us use quite intensely. For him, "energy" referred either to 
T00 (the time-like component of the energy-momentum stress tensor, the same as the Hamiltonian energy density) or to the whole 4-by-4 tensor. How it works depends on what you assume about the Lagrangian density (or geometry) of the cosmos, an issue of huge interest to many of us. In truth, if I were not flying to Nepal tomorrow, I would be actively exploring new ideas on that issue right now.

But there is also a concept which Freud called "psychic energy", like flows of cathexis or catharsis, which plays an important role even in mundane models of how brains actually function. Clever folks in AI used to laugh at such fuzzy ideas, but when I translated that concept into a theorem and algorithm (currently called "backpropagation"), it was what enabled all of the deep learning stuff you see today. (See our open access paper in Frontiers of Systems Neuroscience for an up-to-date review.)
This is not the same as the Lagrange-Hamilton type of energy, but the mathematics has some relation to it. My claim is that "qi" is basically just this kind of energy, at the level of "noosphere," the system of intelligence which connects all of us on this planet,
from humans to animals to.. let us say, matrix for now.

The notion of attraction being what holds the universe together goes back at least to Empedocles in the West, and I have wondered what flows of thought came from Empedocles to Jesus, aka Yeshua ben-Josef. But certainly attraction and repulsion both have important roles to play, and it is a key issue in mathematical field theory what kind of Lagrangian give rise to the kinds of patterns of forces which can hold the most basic particles together, and also lead to interesting higher levels of emergent phenomena. 

Best of luck,

     Paul

P.S. There are also several important concepts of "free energy,"  but this email is long enough already. 

 

Serge Patlavskiy

unread,
Aug 13, 2017, 9:49:47 AM8/13/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
-
Craig Weinberg <multisen...@gmail.com> on August 12, 2017 wrote:
> The vibration of a physical medium is a geometric phenomenon. It 
>does not signal anything and it cannot be a sign of anything in the 
>absence of some conscious experience in which events are detected, 
>qualified, compared, and signified by qualifying the result of the 
>comparison. Any phenomenon which includes those features is 
>consciousness by definition.
.
[S.P.] No, the "vibration of a physical medium" is a physical process/effect, which, to be formalized/described, may require different models, including the geometrical ones. And nobody says that "physical signal" must "signal" anything. 
.
But, well, if it is such a problem to cope with the two-word terms, I would suggest the following way out. So, I may coin the term "abracadabra" and to use it to stand for the e-m radiation, air vibration, sensory electrical impulse, etc. Is this better? Abracadabra exists objectively and independently of the activity of consciousness, just like any other physical process or event. Then, if two persons communicate, the larynx of one person yields abracadabra. Then, abracadabra propagates in a physical medium. Then, in case the other person's consciousness processes abracadabra, this person may get new information. 
.
[Craig Weinberg] wrote:
>> [S.P.] You tear off the term "physical signal" into "physical" and "signal".
>
>You put them together, I only refuse to follow that mistake.
.
[S.P.] It is not me who put them together! The "physical signal" is a comprehensive concept widely used in Physics.
.
[Craig Weinberg] wrote:
>>[S.P.] Existence (of something) precedes, while its detection follows.
>
>That is the premise you take to be a given, but which I explicitly reject. 
>I explain my rejection cogently and rationally.
.
[S.P.] So, you treat putting the effect before the cause as rational and cogent? OK. What can't be cured must be endured. :-)
.
[Craig Weinberg] wrote:
>Existence is perception. Existence isn't *our* perception, but there 
>is nothing that exists in the absence of perception. If you are blind, 
>color still exists because it is still perceived. If the universe is blind, 
>then color does not exist.
.
[S.P.] Oops-a-daisy! So, for you, the Moon isn't there while nobody is looking? 
.
[Craig Weinberg] wrote:
>>[S.P.] It is another too vague idea for me to comment on, sorry.
>
>This is a defense mechanism.
.
[S.P.] Yes, a car stops working if, instead of petrol, its tank is filled with urine. :-)
.
[Craig Weinberg] wrote:
>>[S.P.] When you raise your hand, is this an objective state of affairs?
>
>It is if someone can see or touch my hand as a visible or tangible object.
.
[S.P.] I postulate that the Moon is there even when nobody is looking at it. In other words, I postulate Noumenal Reality as existing objectively and independently of the activity of consciousness. Moreover, when talking about reality I make a difference between Noumenal Reality and Phenomenal Reality. But, as I see, you do not make such a difference.
.
[Craig Weinberg] wrote:
>The organs we use personally to experience our body and the 
>world of the body are are physical structures which we have 
>evolved to centralize and specialize our sense experience.
.
[S.P.] The same mistake again. I mean that the sense organs do not "experience our body and the world". The sense organs just produce electrical impulses and send them to the brain (or to what stands for it in the given organism). It is our consciousness which produces experience after processing the given physical (sensory) signal. Therefore, there is nothing like "sensory experience". Experience is a product of consciousness, but not of sense organs.
.
[Craig Weinberg] wrote:
>You're not seeing my position. I see and understand yours completely. 
>Nothing that you're saying is new to me and I thought the same way 
>for many years. Have some courage. Tell your ego to look at itself 
>for a moment instead of its voodoo doll of me. : )
.
[S.P.] OK. It's time for reminiscences. :-) So, what follows is from my jcs-online post #10616 on November 26, 2012:
.
"Craig Weinberg <multisen...@gmail.com> on Thu, Nov 22, 2012 wrote:
>I repeat - there is no translation of one sensory modality 
>INTO another. Sound can ONLY be heard, images can 
>ONLY be seen, flavors can ONLY be tasted.
.
[S.P.] It is rumoured that quite recently the Holland musicians were given a concert before the congenitally deaf persons. During the concert, the deaf persons were keeping inflated balloons between their palms. As I understand, the air vibrations produced by music were tactilely sensing, and then somehow transforming into mental audio patterns. Similarly, when an experienced musician sees the notes, music starts to "sound" in his mind."
.
Have a nice day too,
Serge Patlavskiy


From: Multisense Realism <multisen...@gmail.com>
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2017 11:45 PM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: Aware-ized Energy: a rational explanation for pan-what-ever-ism

Вірусів немає. www.avast.com
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages