Is the absolute personal?
10 views
Skip to first unread message
Paul Werbos
Oct 26, 2017, 10:55:00 AM10/26/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
First, I thank the sponsors of this list for informing us of a very
important conference coming up in New Delhi, on the important topic of
Hindu-Islam dialogue. And also for informing us of the two talks by
Bhakti Muni and Bhakti Shanta, who provided great guidance to the
conference in Nepal on science and the scientist.
It seems that the first main theme of their talks is "is the absolute personal?"
On this list, words like "absolute" have been thrown around, but at
times we get into such technical details that we may be losing the
forest for the trees. And so, to get some idea of what MIGHT be
discussed on the Hindu side in the new conference, I did a web search
which led me to:
http://www.krishna.com/what-does-bhakti-have-do-vedanta
Does this web site give a reasonable feeling for the debate going on
in larger circles in India (and echoes from there) about monism versus
dualism, still going on today? And of course, there is also some
groping for a synthesis, a third way, and the views of Ramanuja were a
major theme of the Nepal conference.
On the website, I was reminded once again that the authors of the
principal Upanishads were NOT postmodernist debunkers obsessed with
either support or rejection of science as we know it today. I can't
help remembering that a lot of the early folks came from a culture of
the "people of the horse (or chariot)" coming from the zone my wife
came from, people commigted both to tough realism in a practical sense
as well as logic. (Indeed, as inventors of the iron age, they were
leaders of technology.) When I read parts of the Upanishads, I bear in
mind how THEY were thinking. (Though of course the Upanishads have a
lot of variation in them.)
And so... I do not think it is crazy at all to believe that the
Absolute (as summarized briefly on that web page) may actually be the
combination of curved Minkowski space and the Lagrangian which gives
rise to the dynamics of this cosmos, a dynamics mathematically
equivalent to an optimization calculation performed over multiple
scenarios on a vast computer (without an actual computer as we know
it).
The first commenter on the web page, a simple Monist who is rightly
lectured to later, says that science only studies the phenomenal flow
of emergent patterns. That is not a correct statement about science.
Science does INCLUDE humble phenomenological activities, like
measuring the spectrum of helium and cataloging species, BUT ONE
PRIMARY MISSION OF science is to USE the information we have from
experience to LEARN TO UNDERSTAND the Absolute, the "Law of
Everything".
But is the Absolute personal? The monist says no, very very
emphatically. It is understandable how some of the early leaders of
the age of iron should think intuitively about the Law of Everything,
and view it as impersonal, the laws of nature. And it is
understandable that modern people also think of physics-based
candidates for Law of Everything as utterly impersonal.
Certainly at the start of 2014, that was still my own way of thinking.
Except for imaginary things, I felt that concepts like "bhakti" or
emotional connections to higher spirit could only be justified by
thinking of something SMALLER than the Absolute as personal, like the
earth as a whole.
Even in Nepal, I emphasized the theme that "we are the earth," which
is the practical priority for most of human life, the area where
realistic spiritual growth occurs. Usually, when people imagine they
are contacting infinity, they actually are just connecting more to the
earth,m which is incredibly big compared to humans -- and when not
earth, fantasy. Usually. But earth is part of a galaxy, also much
smaller than the Absolute or the Cosmos.
This year I have come to understand, mainly but not exclusively
through mathematics, that
it makes sense to ask
IS A LAGRANGIAN OPTIMIZATION SYSTEM "PERSONAL", and if so, in what
way, and what does it tell us if we understand this very precisely?
Of course, we generally connect to the cosmos VIA earth and galaxy,
and that is part of understanding what it means. If earth and galaxy
are more aligned with cosmos than we are as individuals, then it is
not a change in the basic principle of alignment.
============
Please forgive for such a long email, utterly redundant with things I
have said here before, but the new context is important.
My first thought on seeing the program for New Delhi was "What will
the representatives of Islam make of this?" And "How will this
contribute to the larger life-or-death global work of integrating the
spiritual consciousness of the earth as a WHOLE?" By coincidence this
week, I found myself in rather serious dialogue with folks from the
Islamic part of the world in Washington DC, over three days. In some
ways, the situation reminds me of our group visit to the
Pashupatinath Temple in Nepal, an incredible mix of energies to be
sorted out, balancing a very authentic quest for alignment to issues
of identity politics of the worst sort. I wish Bhakti Muni and Bhakti
Shanta the very best of cosmic luck in rising to this occasion.
But... enough for now.
Best of luck,
Paul
important conference coming up in New Delhi, on the important topic of
Hindu-Islam dialogue. And also for informing us of the two talks by
Bhakti Muni and Bhakti Shanta, who provided great guidance to the
conference in Nepal on science and the scientist.
It seems that the first main theme of their talks is "is the absolute personal?"
On this list, words like "absolute" have been thrown around, but at
times we get into such technical details that we may be losing the
forest for the trees. And so, to get some idea of what MIGHT be
discussed on the Hindu side in the new conference, I did a web search
which led me to:
http://www.krishna.com/what-does-bhakti-have-do-vedanta
Does this web site give a reasonable feeling for the debate going on
in larger circles in India (and echoes from there) about monism versus
dualism, still going on today? And of course, there is also some
groping for a synthesis, a third way, and the views of Ramanuja were a
major theme of the Nepal conference.
On the website, I was reminded once again that the authors of the
principal Upanishads were NOT postmodernist debunkers obsessed with
either support or rejection of science as we know it today. I can't
help remembering that a lot of the early folks came from a culture of
the "people of the horse (or chariot)" coming from the zone my wife
came from, people commigted both to tough realism in a practical sense
as well as logic. (Indeed, as inventors of the iron age, they were
leaders of technology.) When I read parts of the Upanishads, I bear in
mind how THEY were thinking. (Though of course the Upanishads have a
lot of variation in them.)
And so... I do not think it is crazy at all to believe that the
Absolute (as summarized briefly on that web page) may actually be the
combination of curved Minkowski space and the Lagrangian which gives
rise to the dynamics of this cosmos, a dynamics mathematically
equivalent to an optimization calculation performed over multiple
scenarios on a vast computer (without an actual computer as we know
it).
The first commenter on the web page, a simple Monist who is rightly
lectured to later, says that science only studies the phenomenal flow
of emergent patterns. That is not a correct statement about science.
Science does INCLUDE humble phenomenological activities, like
measuring the spectrum of helium and cataloging species, BUT ONE
PRIMARY MISSION OF science is to USE the information we have from
experience to LEARN TO UNDERSTAND the Absolute, the "Law of
Everything".
But is the Absolute personal? The monist says no, very very
emphatically. It is understandable how some of the early leaders of
the age of iron should think intuitively about the Law of Everything,
and view it as impersonal, the laws of nature. And it is
understandable that modern people also think of physics-based
candidates for Law of Everything as utterly impersonal.
Certainly at the start of 2014, that was still my own way of thinking.
Except for imaginary things, I felt that concepts like "bhakti" or
emotional connections to higher spirit could only be justified by
thinking of something SMALLER than the Absolute as personal, like the
earth as a whole.
Even in Nepal, I emphasized the theme that "we are the earth," which
is the practical priority for most of human life, the area where
realistic spiritual growth occurs. Usually, when people imagine they
are contacting infinity, they actually are just connecting more to the
earth,m which is incredibly big compared to humans -- and when not
earth, fantasy. Usually. But earth is part of a galaxy, also much
smaller than the Absolute or the Cosmos.
This year I have come to understand, mainly but not exclusively
through mathematics, that
it makes sense to ask
IS A LAGRANGIAN OPTIMIZATION SYSTEM "PERSONAL", and if so, in what
way, and what does it tell us if we understand this very precisely?
Of course, we generally connect to the cosmos VIA earth and galaxy,
and that is part of understanding what it means. If earth and galaxy
are more aligned with cosmos than we are as individuals, then it is
not a change in the basic principle of alignment.
============
Please forgive for such a long email, utterly redundant with things I
have said here before, but the new context is important.
My first thought on seeing the program for New Delhi was "What will
the representatives of Islam make of this?" And "How will this
contribute to the larger life-or-death global work of integrating the
spiritual consciousness of the earth as a WHOLE?" By coincidence this
week, I found myself in rather serious dialogue with folks from the
Islamic part of the world in Washington DC, over three days. In some
ways, the situation reminds me of our group visit to the
Pashupatinath Temple in Nepal, an incredible mix of energies to be
sorted out, balancing a very authentic quest for alignment to issues
of identity politics of the worst sort. I wish Bhakti Muni and Bhakti
Shanta the very best of cosmic luck in rising to this occasion.
But... enough for now.
Best of luck,
Paul
Bruno Marchal
Oct 27, 2017, 11:02:11 AM10/27/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
emulates all the computations.
"absolutely all" is we accept the Church-Turing-Post-Kleene thesis/law.
Now, no machine can know in which computations she is supported by,
and she is actually supported "simultaneously" by infinitely many
computations, and she is undetermined on its first person expectation.
To predict correctly its future first person experience, she would
need to emulate all computations at once, and so she is confronted to
something absolute (the same for all machine) and highly non
computable. From this it can be shown that both consciousness and
matter are not "entirely" computable (by the non computability might
be just the first person (plural) indeterminacy in the self-
multiplication (in arithmetic).
Normally the Lagrangian and the Minkowski Space would be themselves
physically absolute if we derive them, and only them, from the
statistics on *all* relative computations (in arithmetic). The quantum
logic is somehow already derived (indeed three quantum logics (and two
quale logics). Then, at the (logical sigma_1) bottom, things get
symmetrical and there are suggestion that the Lagrangian or the
Hamiltonian, or some symplectic group structures can be obtained. That
needs still a lot of work.
>
> The first commenter on the web page, a simple Monist who is rightly
> lectured to later, says that science only studies the phenomenal flow
> of emergent patterns. That is not a correct statement about science.
> Science does INCLUDE humble phenomenological activities, like
> measuring the spectrum of helium and cataloging species, BUT ONE
> PRIMARY MISSION OF science is to USE the information we have from
> experience to LEARN TO UNDERSTAND the Absolute, the "Law of
> Everything".
attitude, which is simply honesty and modesty.
In fact, everything is a consequence of the arithmetical fact that the
self-referentially correct machine are modest. That results is known
as Löb Theorem. With [] put for Gödel's beweisbar 'provable)
arithmetical predicate, it means that if such machine proves []p ->p ,
she will prove []p. The machine can prove its own Löb's theorem []([]p
-> p) -> []p.
Such Löbian machine have a very rich theology (the study of what is
true and not provable by the machine(s), about the machine(s)). (I
identify (temporarily) God and Truth).
>
> But is the Absolute personal? The monist says no, very very
> emphatically.
Ah! I guess you mean the Monist Materialist. (I am monist, but
immaterialist. Technically, by assuming Mechanism at the meta-level, I
do not have to assume anything more than (very) elementary arithmetic
(so I am a finitist too, but I can explain why the infinities are
indispensable to be believed by the finite numbers if they want to be
able to realize their dreams.
Consciousness is explained through the existence, provable *on*
(Löbian) machines, by Löbian machines, but not by any particular
machine about themselves, of propositions which are true, not
rationally justifiable, nor definable, yet known to be true, and even
undoubtable.
Matter-space-time-energy emerges as observable invariant.
The arithmetical truth is impersonal, but eventually we need, assuming
Mechanism, only the sigma_1 arithmetical truth which is basically the
"universal machine truth", which has many personal aspect. But it is
not a creator, it is more like a dreamer which can get very sleepy and
lost itself into itself, very often.
I use logic to reason on machines believing in number, and which are
numbers, but number theorists, all by themselves cross territories
related to physics. The prime number distribution seem to mimick an
infinite array of heavy (quantum) nuclear material, and the bosonic
string theory has been used to prove Lagrange theorem, which says that
all positive numbers can be written in the form of the sum of four
integers squared. (Lagrange was good in Number Theory too!).
> It is understandable how some of the early leaders of
> the age of iron should think intuitively about the Law of Everything,
> and view it as impersonal, the laws of nature. And it is
> understandable that modern people also think of physics-based
> candidates for Law of Everything as utterly impersonal.
>
> Certainly at the start of 2014, that was still my own way of thinking.
> Except for imaginary things, I felt that concepts like "bhakti" or
> emotional connections to higher spirit could only be justified by
> thinking of something SMALLER than the Absolute as personal, like the
> earth as a whole.
> Even in Nepal, I emphasized the theme that "we are the earth," which
> is the practical priority for most of human life, the area where
> realistic spiritual growth occurs. Usually, when people imagine they
> are contacting infinity, they actually are just connecting more to the
> earth,m which is incredibly big compared to humans -- and when not
> earth, fantasy. Usually. But earth is part of a galaxy, also much
> smaller than the Absolute or the Cosmos.
There is only one universal consciousness, but it differentiates and
fuse abundantly. It takes time and detours before recognizing itself.
>
> This year I have come to understand, mainly but not exclusively
> through mathematics, that
> it makes sense to ask
> IS A LAGRANGIAN OPTIMIZATION SYSTEM "PERSONAL", and if so, in what
> way, and what does it tell us if we understand this very precisely?
control, but the whole spectacle is far greater and deeper as I feel,
personnally, and through my study of machine's self-reference.
>
> Of course, we generally connect to the cosmos VIA earth and galaxy,
> and that is part of understanding what it means. If earth and galaxy
> are more aligned with cosmos than we are as individuals, then it is
> not a change in the basic principle of alignment.
>
> ============
>
> Please forgive for such a long email, utterly redundant with things I
> have said here before, but the new context is important.
>
> My first thought on seeing the program for New Delhi was "What will
> the representatives of Islam make of this?" And "How will this
> contribute to the larger life-or-death global work of integrating the
> spiritual consciousness of the earth as a WHOLE?" By coincidence this
> week, I found myself in rather serious dialogue with folks from the
> Islamic part of the world in Washington DC, over three days. In some
> ways, the situation reminds me of our group visit to the
> Pashupatinath Temple in Nepal, an incredible mix of energies to be
> sorted out, balancing a very authentic quest for alignment to issues
> of identity politics of the worst sort. I wish Bhakti Muni and Bhakti
> Shanta the very best of cosmic luck in rising to this occasion.
Bruno
> Paul
>
> --
> ----------------------------
> 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/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085
> 138
>
> 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/CACLqmgdB795UnLRJhxMGM83BFqzJ8TcbvLOiBpxs1YWe0j1LtQ%40mail.gmail.com
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Bruno Marchal
Oct 30, 2017, 7:13:37 AM10/30/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
> Normally the Lagrangian and the Minkowski Space would be themselves
> physically absolute if we derive them, and only them, from the
> statistics on *all* relative computations (in arithmetic). The
> quantum logic is somehow already derived (indeed three quantum
> logics (and two quale logics). Then, at the (logical sigma_1)
> bottom, things get symmetrical and there are suggestion that the
> Lagrangian or the Hamiltonian, or some symplectic group structures
> can be obtained. That needs still a lot of work.
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> The first commenter on the web page, a simple Monist who is rightly
>> lectured to later, says that science only studies the phenomenal flow
>> of emergent patterns. That is not a correct statement about science.
>
> I agree.
>
>
>> Science does INCLUDE humble phenomenological activities, like
>> measuring the spectrum of helium and cataloging species, BUT ONE
>> PRIMARY MISSION OF science is to USE the information we have from
>> experience to LEARN TO UNDERSTAND the Absolute, the "Law of
>> Everything".
>
> Science does not exist. What exist are persons with a scientific
> attitude, which is simply honesty and modesty.
>
> In fact, everything is a consequence of the arithmetical fact that
> the self-referentially correct machine are modest. That results is
> known as Löb Theorem. With [] put for Gödel's beweisbar 'provable)
> arithmetical predicate, it means that if such machine proves []p -
> >p , she will prove []p.
Apology. That was a typo error. read: she will prove p.
> physically absolute if we derive them, and only them, from the
> statistics on *all* relative computations (in arithmetic). The
> quantum logic is somehow already derived (indeed three quantum
> logics (and two quale logics). Then, at the (logical sigma_1)
> bottom, things get symmetrical and there are suggestion that the
> Lagrangian or the Hamiltonian, or some symplectic group structures
> can be obtained. That needs still a lot of work.
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> The first commenter on the web page, a simple Monist who is rightly
>> lectured to later, says that science only studies the phenomenal flow
>> of emergent patterns. That is not a correct statement about science.
>
> I agree.
>
>
>> Science does INCLUDE humble phenomenological activities, like
>> measuring the spectrum of helium and cataloging species, BUT ONE
>> PRIMARY MISSION OF science is to USE the information we have from
>> experience to LEARN TO UNDERSTAND the Absolute, the "Law of
>> Everything".
>
> Science does not exist. What exist are persons with a scientific
> attitude, which is simply honesty and modesty.
>
> In fact, everything is a consequence of the arithmetical fact that
> the self-referentially correct machine are modest. That results is
> known as Löb Theorem. With [] put for Gödel's beweisbar 'provable)
> arithmetical predicate, it means that if such machine proves []p -
> >p , she will prove []p.
Best,
Bruno
> ----------------------------
> Fifth International ConferenceScience 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/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085
> 138
>
> 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
> 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/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085
> 138
>
> 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
> 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/4BB9C6C7-D433-441D-9C20-0CF9DAAC3266%40ulb.ac.be
> 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.
Andris Heks
Oct 30, 2017, 9:14:35 AM10/30/17
to online_sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Bruno,
If you perceive the absolute as personal, I cannot understand why you continue with an impersonal 'machine' model assumption. Surely, a 'living organism' would be a more appropriate model.
Kind regards,
Andris Heks
From: online_sa...@googlegroups.com <online_sa...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be>
Sent: Monday, 30 October 2017 10:04 PM
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Is the absolute personal?
Sent: Monday, 30 October 2017 10:04 PM
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Is the absolute personal?
On 27 Oct 2017, at 16:48, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 26 Oct 2017, at 15:01, Paul Werbos wrote:
>
>> First, I thank the sponsors of this list for informing us of a very
>> important conference coming up in New Delhi, on the important topic
>> of
>> Hindu-Islam dialogue. And also for informing us of the two talks by
>> Bhakti Muni and Bhakti Shanta, who provided great guidance to the
>> conference in Nepal on science and the scientist.
>>
>> It seems that the first main theme of their talks is "is the
>> absolute personal?"
>>
>> On this list, words like "absolute" have been thrown around, but at
>> times we get into such technical details that we may be losing the
>> forest for the trees. And so, to get some idea of what MIGHT be
>> discussed on the Hindu side in the new conference, I did a web search
>> which led me to:
>>
>> http://www.krishna.com/what-does-bhakti-have-do-vedanta
>>
>> 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/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085
>> 138
>>
>> Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
>> ---
>> 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/CACLqmgdB795UnLRJhxMGM83BFqzJ8TcbvLOiBpxs1YWe0j1LtQ%40mail.gmail.com
>
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------
> Fifth International ConferenceScience 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/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085
> 138
>
> Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
>
> 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/4BB9C6C7-D433-441D-9C20-0CF9DAAC3266%40ulb.ac.be
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
----------------------------
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.
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/7548ACBF-1D8D-44CC-995E-B48FCFA375C1%40ulb.ac.be.
Paul Werbos
Oct 30, 2017, 11:03:40 AM10/30/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 8:08 AM, Andris Heks <a.h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Dear Bruno, If you perceive the absolute as personal, I cannot understand why you continue with an impersonal 'machine' model assumption. Surely, a 'living organism' would be a more appropriate model.
=========================
It is important that we not put too much trust in specific words when we try to grapple with such tricky things beyond the level of mundane ordinary life.
What does "personal" mean anyway? I have argued that an Einstein/Lagrange optimization model of the cosmos may well be "personal" or "superpersonal," with one reasonable usage of those words, even though it would ALSO fit common ideas of what a "mechanical" or "materialistic" model would be!! What matters is NOT the position we take in a debate for or against such a word, which gives at best a fuzzy picture of the reality which it tries to describe, but the more precise understanding we develop.
Yet in truth, I find myself called this morning to think twice even about the tentative more precise understanding I have developed, in part by considering questions people have raised here.
For example -- what difference does it make whether the true Lagrangian is MAXIMIZED, or if it can only be described as a MINMAX operation (which sounds a bit Zoroastrian!), or that it might be MAX or MINMAX subject to equality constraints (a crucial feature of simple Maxwell's Laws, a crucial axiom, often mischaracterized in discussions of the underlying assumptions of a field theory). Does life exist "between the fire and the ice," between hard fixed points and stochastic "heat death", requiring a minmax kind of situation, making the cosmos less "personal" than one might imagine? And are we REALLY just possible scenarios of a PDE model? What is the real meaning of those Schrodinger cats? How would I look at all this if I did NOT include personal experience, which must always be taken with caution (as there are many many ways that strange things can happen)?
All for now.
Must run.
Paul
Bruno Marchal
Oct 31, 2017, 4:36:23 PM10/31/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Andris,
If you perceive the absolute as personal, I cannot understand why you continue with an impersonal 'machine' model assumption. Surely, a 'living organism' would be a more appropriate model.
Yes, but an organism can survive with an artificial heart, and my working hypothesis is that there is a level of description of the brain such that my consciousness would remains unchanged (I survive) through a digital emulation at that level.
A living organism, as far as we know, obeys to the physical laws, and they are all semi-computable, that is emulable by a digital universal machine. (except the controversial wave packet reduction)
But yes, with mechanism, a computer is a living organism of some sort, and arithmetic is full of living and dreaming creature.
The advantage of that simplifying assumption is that a whole well developed branch of (pure) mathematics: recursion theory, mathematical logic, can shed a lot of light, and kill many prejudices, and improve incorrect reasoning. Of course this does not make it true!
"living organism" as a model (theory) is harder to define. In the digital realm, we have the Church-Turing thesis which leads to an elegant theory, whose consequences seems to fit with both the known facts and the personal experience.
Note that it is not the machine, nor the organism, which do the thinking, but the person associated to it.
Best regards,
Bruno
Andris Heks
>> To view this discussion on the web visithttps://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CACLqmgdB795UnLRJhxMGM83BFqzJ8TcbvLOiBpxs1YWe0j1LtQ%40mail.gmail.com
To view this discussion on the web visithttps://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/BY1PR14MB00729D54B35DE2CA4CB0EF5995590%40BY1PR14MB0072.namprd14.prod.outlook.com.
Andris Heks
Oct 31, 2017, 9:01:11 PM10/31/17
to online_sa...@googlegroups.com
Many thanks dear Bruno.
Mathematics is a mental construct.
It way come up with beautiful models but never with the absolute.
Because the absolute is the fusion of consciousness and life force, but the machine like mathematics lacks such spontaneous life force.
Kind regards,
Andris
From: online_sa...@googlegroups.com <online_sa...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be>
Sent: Wednesday, 1 November 2017 5:51 AM
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/390543F7-E3C4-4556-B770-CE56E87495FD%40ulb.ac.be.
Bruno Marchal
Nov 1, 2017, 1:59:20 PM11/1/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Andy,
On 01 Nov 2017, at 01:56, Andris Heks wrote:
Many thanks dear Bruno.Mathematics is a mental construct.
OK. But with the mechanist assumption, that makes Mathematics a mental construct made by the universal number in arithmetic. I assume arithmetic. We have to assume at least some truth. And I can more easily conceive that I wake up in a moon without a moon than in a reality where 3 is even.
It can be proved that to have just one universal (in Turing sense) machinery, we need to assume some universal machinery. I assume elementary arithmetic (which is known to be Turing universal since long). I believe/assume for example that all natural numbers are either even or odd, like I am pretty sure they are all either prime of composite.
Then indeed we can verify easily that when universal number introspect themselves they create somehow the mathematical and physical reality.
The first person view of the machine is undetermined on *all* universal numbers running them in arithmetic. This predicts/predicted/explain the appearance of statistical type of interference between the infinitely many computations on which consciousness differentiate. The domain of the statistics is NOT computable.
It way come up with beautiful models but never with the absolute.
We are the models (called theories in logic). We are the finite beings infinitely multiplied in arithmetic, we can see our self in 8 modes(*), given by the variant of provability imposed by incompleteness.
Note that the machine is aware of what you say: she knows already that she can't identify Bp and (Bp & p). She can still bet/hope/pray for the adequacy, but she is aware that this requires faith.
The universal machine agrees with you, unless you took your sentences as an argument of superiority.
Because the absolute is the fusion of consciousness and life force,
The essence of this is the Theaetetus' definition of knowledge: true belief. Bp & p. With true (p) being consciousness, and Bp being the 3p representable life force (the definition of the finite machine/organism in some language (biochemistry perhaps, quantum mechanics).
but the machine like mathematics lacks such spontaneous life force.
I think this run against my working hypothesis (Digital mechanism in Cognitive Science/philosophy-of-mind/theology).
It is because the machine and the mathematical theories can be aware of their incompleteness (even just with resect to the arithmetical reality) that they develop the life force, consisting in the infinitely many attempts to overcome their incompleteness until they wake up and understand that it is impossible to do that by adding information, but is automatic by discarding information (but that is a secret, and provable only with respect to the Mechanist act of faith. Mechanism is the belief in terrestrial digital reincarnation (surviving digital brain transplant) and it entails infinitely many arithmetical reincarnations, and the need to extract physics from that. (making mechanism testable, to be short as I want to avoid the details).
You must realize that the very nature and possibilities about natural numbers have completely changed from before to after Gödel's 1931. Before most thought that the natural numbers are easy, and that a machine could explore all the truth if given enough time. After Gödel we know that no machine can do better than scratch the surface, and worst: the very exploration by the universal number of the arithmetical reality put a mess which grows with the exploration. It leads to a creative bomb, leading to a web of dreams, enforced by the non trivial laws of thought and laws of mind of the universal numbers.
What many seems to ignore is that Gödel showed how arithmetic mimic life through its self-reference used in his proof of incompleteness (of all effective, finitely describable) machine (or theories or numbers or words or informations or organisms). I developed this in my paper "amoeba, planaria, and dreaming machines". I discovered mathematics *in* biology (and then in Gödel 1931). I became a mathematician, only by the lack of a faculty of neoplatonist theology.
Your basic intuition seems right to me, but are misapplied if you think that such intuition is not available to the (relative) numbers and machines supported by computations in arithmetic. Life, in arithmetic is on the border of the computable and the non-computable, and most attributes *on* machines are non-computable.
bruno
(*) The eight modes: (B = Gödel's arithmetical provable predicate (Bew, beweisbar)
p (truth, the ONE)
Bp (provable, the INTELLECT)--------split in two along provable/truth
Bp & p (Knowable, the SOUL)
Bp & ~Bf (Observable, the OBSERVER)--------split in two along provable/truth
Bp & ~Bf & p (Sensible, the FEELER) --------split in two along provable/truth
Bruno
To view this discussion on the web visithttps://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/BY1PR14MB0072B83EC634F5F7D8AF0D1A955F0%40BY1PR14MB0072.namprd14.prod.outlook.com.
Whit Blauvelt
Nov 1, 2017, 3:36:16 PM11/1/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Hi Bruno,
Given these alternative stories:
1. Consciousness is emergent from the physical
2. Consciousness is emergent from math
3. Math is emergent from consciousness
4. Math is emergent from the physical
5. The physical is emergent from consciousness
6. The physical is emergent from math
It seems you want to say (6) and perhaps (2). I say "perhaps" because I'm
not sure if you're positing emergence or identity, i.e. "math just is
consciousness."
There's also a big question in defining "emergent." If these are three
spheres, there could be a universe where "emergency" flows in every
direction between them, where which one is "fundamental" to the others is
merely a choice of perspective, of which sphere one looks from. But that use
of "emergence" violates the more normal claim where it's taken to work in
only one direction, such that only one of these can count as foundation for
the others.
In choosing your foundation, it well seems math is easier to define clearly
than either "consciousness" or "the physical." I'll grant you that. What
seems the stranger step is your repeat claim that math shall "dream." I'm
not sure that's truly stranger than the more common claims that physical
matter can dream, or that consciousness somehow can "dream up" matter, for
that matter.
I follow your claim that IF we can substitute parts up until the brain has
been replaced by computer circuits, and still find ourselves conscious, that
it would be fairer to say consciousness arises from number than that it
arises from physical matter. But that it would be fairer is yet not an
account of how or why. Your turning this on its side to claim it shows
number, not matter, is the foundation -- assuming the IF -- is elegant and
challenging.
But how can it be that numbers dream? And granted they do, what is the
threshold of dreaming? Does this dovetail with Integrated Information
Theory? Indeed, does "number" in your sense even mean the same thing as, or
something closely related to, "information"?
If so, that gets us into "eat the menu" territory. That's to say,
nutritional information is not nutritious. But perhaps by "number" you don't
really mean "information" at all?
Best,
Whit
Given these alternative stories:
1. Consciousness is emergent from the physical
2. Consciousness is emergent from math
3. Math is emergent from consciousness
4. Math is emergent from the physical
5. The physical is emergent from consciousness
6. The physical is emergent from math
It seems you want to say (6) and perhaps (2). I say "perhaps" because I'm
not sure if you're positing emergence or identity, i.e. "math just is
consciousness."
There's also a big question in defining "emergent." If these are three
spheres, there could be a universe where "emergency" flows in every
direction between them, where which one is "fundamental" to the others is
merely a choice of perspective, of which sphere one looks from. But that use
of "emergence" violates the more normal claim where it's taken to work in
only one direction, such that only one of these can count as foundation for
the others.
In choosing your foundation, it well seems math is easier to define clearly
than either "consciousness" or "the physical." I'll grant you that. What
seems the stranger step is your repeat claim that math shall "dream." I'm
not sure that's truly stranger than the more common claims that physical
matter can dream, or that consciousness somehow can "dream up" matter, for
that matter.
I follow your claim that IF we can substitute parts up until the brain has
been replaced by computer circuits, and still find ourselves conscious, that
it would be fairer to say consciousness arises from number than that it
arises from physical matter. But that it would be fairer is yet not an
account of how or why. Your turning this on its side to claim it shows
number, not matter, is the foundation -- assuming the IF -- is elegant and
challenging.
But how can it be that numbers dream? And granted they do, what is the
threshold of dreaming? Does this dovetail with Integrated Information
Theory? Indeed, does "number" in your sense even mean the same thing as, or
something closely related to, "information"?
If so, that gets us into "eat the menu" territory. That's to say,
nutritional information is not nutritious. But perhaps by "number" you don't
really mean "information" at all?
Best,
Whit
Andris Heks
Nov 2, 2017, 5:56:54 PM11/2/17
to online_sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Bruno,
Thank you for your detailed and fascinating reply.
May I offer as a preliminary reply my article attached which attempts to formulate the absolute.
Although it is written neither in a mathematical or materially scientific mode, I hope that you can relate to it and kindly comment.
Many thanks,
Andris
From: online_sa...@googlegroups.com <online_sa...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be>
Sent: Thursday, 2 November 2017 4:32 AM
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/FD9D02B1-5F9F-4DAF-8109-4765E4D43F8D%40ulb.ac.be.
Srikanth R.
Nov 2, 2017, 7:45:40 PM11/2/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
I believe that the question in the subject line is a reaction to the perceived (among certain Vedantic schools) claim that the Advaita (Ideal Monism) deems the Absolute (read "brahman") as an impersonal Being.
IMHO, the Absolute has three aspects: the "I am" core (Purusha / Yin); Cosmic Nature (Prakriti / Yang); the connective Energy linking the two (Cosmic Prana / Chi). The Purusha is evidently a personality-bearing entity.
Thus, my answer to the question in the subject line would be "The core of the Absolute is characterized by a Personality".
Thanks!!
--
----------------------------
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/CACLqmgdB795UnLRJhxMGM83BFqzJ8TcbvLOiBpxs1YWe0j1LtQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Dr. R. Srikanth
Assistant Professor
Dept. of Theoretical Sciences
Poornaprajna Institute of Scientific Research
Bangalore- 560 080, Karnataka, India.
Mob: +91 9844593440
nadeem haque
Nov 3, 2017, 5:07:05 AM11/3/17
to sr...@poornaprajna.org, Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
"First, I thank the sponsors of this list for informing us of a very
important conference coming up in New Delhi, on the important topic of
Hindu-Islam dialogue."
important conference coming up in New Delhi, on the important topic of
Hindu-Islam dialogue."
Regarding the above, after having researched this topic for 35 years and having written a number of books on this subject and related topics, from the Quranic/Islamic/logical perspective, my conclusion is that this deity is a personal being and 'its' relation to space is unique and cannot even be understood as being transcendent or immanent but aspects of both in relation to 'space'. I intend to present this view at a conference in 2018 (European Society for the Study of Science and Theology) in Lyons, France. When the paper is eventually completed/published, I'll circulate it. When one studies the scriptures of the 'sages' of the past very carefully, one will not fail to see that this is what is being said.
I have dealt with this topic here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/163371933/From-Microbits-to-Everything-Universe-of-the-Imaginator-Volume-2-The-Philosophical-Implications
I know that there are 'schools of thought' in Vedanta philosophy that agree with the above view.This is not a trivial or academic matter as it presents an opportunity to unify the whole of humankind on a rational and spiritual basis without any conflict in thoughts and groups, or exploitation of any kind. Human thought is moving in this direction, but very slowly, and also with some drastic setbacks.
Regards,
Nadeem Haque
IHR
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 at 6:05 PM
From: "Srikanth R." <sr...@poornaprajna.org>
From: "Srikanth R." <sr...@poornaprajna.org>
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/CACLqmgdB795UnLRJhxMGM83BFqzJ8TcbvLOiBpxs1YWe0j1LtQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Dr. R. Srikanth
Assistant Professor
Dept. of Theoretical Sciences
Poornaprajna Institute of Scientific Research
Bangalore- 560 080, Karnataka, India.
Mob: +91 9844593440
--
----------------------------
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.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAKTqw4fzR9FsuXTbmLgT487_DKmN5vLUTp3XoUDA99t7bFhNrw%40mail.gmail.com.
Dr Sumangala Devi Dasi
Nov 3, 2017, 11:13:30 AM11/3/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Dr. Paul Werbos,
Thank you for creating this important inquiry. I often observe that most of the discussions in this list ignores the main points that are being presented by Sripad Bhakti Madhava Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. If the scientists and scholars in the list can try to understand what Sripad Puri Maharaja is trying to present then they can get some great benefit. I am hearing some of these important teachings of Sripad Puri Maharaja from Sripad Bhakti Niskama Shanta Maharaja, Ph.D. (who is a disciple of Sripad Puri Maharaja) during my participation in a last few conferences, where he delivered talks. I have also got the opportunity to participate in Indo-Iranian event at Delhi. I am summarizing some of the main points in this email and a detailed report of Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute's contribution in recently concluded Indo-Iranian conference will be sent soon to this list.
1. Absolute is sentient and He is Supreme Personality of Godhead (Therefore all monistic claims of Vedanta are only a partial representation of real wisdom of Vedanta. Actually Vedanta offers personalist view of Absolute)
2. Reality is personal and it is the false ego of misconceived souls that forces them to see reality as impersonal and thus some are busy in finding a mechanistic explanation of reality (Hence matter is an experience of such misconceived souls who have not yet realized that everything [including themselves] is meant for the service of Absolute )
3. Absolute can be approached only by cultivation of love for the Absolute (through loving service - bhakti)
4. Bhakti is not a mental imagination and one can only attain true love (bhakti) for Absolute by engaging in loving devotional services under a devotee who has already awakened that love for the Supreme ("Bhakti comes from Bhakti" which is similar to the Vedic mantra that we often come across on this list - "Life comes from Life")
It is important to discuss and learn properly, these important Vedic conclusions.
In this Indo-Iranian conference at Delhi Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta challenged Swami Agnivesh's (Agnivesh is an Indian politician and a former Member of Legislative Assembly from the Indian state of Haryana, an Arya Samaj scholar, and a social activist) point "God cannot have form" by the argument that "If God can't do something then that is not the true concept of God." According to Vedic view Supreme can do-undo anything and everything - kartum-akartum-samarthaḥ. Everyone in the conference convinced by this argument of Dr. Shanta and all of them together said "Yes, if God cannot do something then He cannot be called God."
I will send soon a detailed report on the Indo-Iranian dialogue. Thanking you.
Humbly in Service
Sumangala Devi Dasi (Shilpi Saxena, Ph.D.)
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.
Paul Werbos
Nov 3, 2017, 11:13:30 AM11/3/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com, sr...@poornaprajna.org
On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 11:42 PM, nadeem haque <nha...@mail.com> wrote:
> "First, I thank the sponsors of this list for informing us of a very
> important conference coming up in New Delhi, on the important topic of
> Hindu-Islam dialogue."
>
>
> "First, I thank the sponsors of this list for informing us of a very
> important conference coming up in New Delhi, on the important topic of
> Hindu-Islam dialogue."
>
>
> Regarding the above, after having researched this topic for 35 years and
> having written a number of books on this subject and related topics, from
> the Quranic/Islamic/logical perspective, my conclusion is that this deity is
> a personal being and 'its' relation to space is unique and cannot even be
> understood as being transcendent or immanent but aspects of both in relation
> to 'space'.
Thank you, Nadeem!
> having written a number of books on this subject and related topics, from
> the Quranic/Islamic/logical perspective, my conclusion is that this deity is
> a personal being and 'its' relation to space is unique and cannot even be
> understood as being transcendent or immanent but aspects of both in relation
> to 'space'.
Having a few minutes this morning, and being baffled by some other
issues, I did look at two of your utube presentations.
The viewpoint there is quite different from what I saw on the pages of
Mohsen Qomi (or Comey?) of Iran, one of the main presenters at the
conference.
The first part of what i saw on HIS pages was very encouraging and
exciting to me. he talked about the great dilemma posed in the
conflict between those who oppose spirit
to excess, and threaten the whole world by possibly creating a world
which oppresses it -- versus the formalistic excess of false piety,
which also ends up oppressing the spirit "in the name" of God but
fighting all real manifestation. I agree very strongly with that very
important and fundamental concern. It reminded me of a book "Rumi and
Vedanta" which was given to me by a Dervish whom I met at a conference
on electrical engineering; it seems that Rumi, like this part of
Qomi's writings, was more in line with the spirit of bhatki, and less
like the dead formalism which threatens to choke it. However, the
second part degenerated into the worst racist identity politics. In a
way, it also reminded me of the Maoist soldiers I saw at one point in
Nepal, who identify with an ultrascientific view of life and politics
( like Jiang Zemin more than anyone in the US government), corrupted
by abject racism and identity politics. I am glad that your web page
emphasizes the need for all of us, all over the world, to resist such
decadence, decadence as bad as those ancient priest kings who would
sacrifice women to THEIR concept of god.
Lately I often think of the great wisdom of some of the native
Americans. For example, I was puzzled many years ago when a Mexican
woman suggested that we use a picture of a tree as an icon for our
joint workshop on neural network engineering, back in the 1990's. "Why
a TREE?" I asked. "This tree," she said, "symbolizes the sacred tree
of the Mayas, the great tree which provides some connection between
the people stuck in the mud and the people lost in the clouds." Yes,
that is also a key part of the real work before us.
Best of luck,
Paul
Andris Heks
Nov 3, 2017, 11:13:30 AM11/3/17
to online_sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Nadeem,
I have not read your website article.
However, I agree wholeheartedly with the position you outlined in your email.
All the best with your efforts to unify,
Andris Heks
From: online_sa...@googlegroups.com <online_sa...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of nadeem haque <nha...@mail.com>
Sent: Friday, 3 November 2017 2:42 PM
To: sr...@poornaprajna.org
Cc: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Fw: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Is the absolute personal?
Sent: Friday, 3 November 2017 2:42 PM
To: sr...@poornaprajna.org
Cc: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Fw: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Is the absolute personal?
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/trinity-2ad4758d-a093-407c-a544-0708e6f6a25d-1509680559977%403c-app-mailcom-lxa16.
Paul Werbos
Nov 3, 2017, 12:41:11 PM11/3/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com, sr...@poornaprajna.org
I am truly grateful for the inspired words of Sumangala Devi Dasi, and
for his mention of Bhakti Shanta whom I had the honor to meet in Nepal
(along with his colleague Bhakti Muni was a very kind guide to me
there).
It is good that we seek a balance between "looking to the sky", to the
great immensity rising up from earth to galaxy to cosmos (and
beyond?), and immersing ourselves in the need, spirit and growth of
the earth and of humanity in general.
I am sorry that when I look to the sky as far as I can manage, I still
find myself in a situation of multilayered ignorance, even more
ignorant than I started to feel I was a week or two ago.
It does not really worry me so much that all of us share some
ignorance, and can benefit from admitting it to ourselves, because "it
is enough for our purposes to understand what lies within 10 billion
years of here, at a level of life above 3 femtometers." But in trying
to understand the laws of physics at a level or two beyond the
mainstream today (still knowing that that is not necessarily the
absolute), there are still overwhelming questions.
I still wonder: are the ultimate, absolute laws of this cosmos exactly
expressable as a Lagrangian function over curved Minkowski space,
following the Lagrange/Euler mathematics? And if so, does that make
the cosmos a KIND of personal entity, with a Lagrangian function which
is actually a kind of "telos" like what Bhakt iMuni talked about in
Nepal, which we humans can try to be aligned with?
OF COURSE, I do not know. It is a question worthy of very serious
effort, of two sorts: (1) trying to figure out what the true
Lagrangian might be; and (2) in principle, looking for clear
predictive insight by some other type of model. For now, for me, (1)
is a task I have a better idea how to do, and I see no basic obstacles
now, after many years of learning how to surmount APPARENT obstacles.
But it is something of a lonely task, as mainstream physics today
needs more earthy experiments addressing much more elementary
issues/prerequisites.
Two weeks ago, I was excited by the full implications of a cosmos
which maximizes a Lagrangian function, implications I had not fully
understood before that. But on further consideration, such an
all-powerful cosmos (a system maximizing over all possible states of
all fields across space-time)... would it really entail so much
approximation and imperfection as we see around us? Maybe, but I feel
a bit more skeptical... HIGHLY uncertain... but this week it seems
most likely to me that the next big step in deeper understanding,
deeper than the best version of quantum field theory I am aware of,
would involve a MINMAX cosmos SUBJECT TO EQUALITY CONSTRAINTS. In a
way, that seems closer to the old Zoroastrian concept, of a kind of
cosmic war between a minimizer and a maximizer, with the addition of
an umpire enforcing rules (the constraint). This is not my
grandmother's holy trinity! But it seems most likely to me today that
life as we know it "is posshible only in the middle zone, between the
fire and the ice," the minimizer and the maximizer." And it may be
that the constraint, which I was not fully aware of until this year
(and which I only BEGIN to understand) is absolutely essential and
fundamental.
The emerging picture seems much more natural and plausible as a law of
everything than any version of quantum theory that I know, and it CAN
replicate MQED as a statistical approximation (thus correctly predict
what MQED already predicts), yet it does seem a bit contrived. I would
not argue so much if any of you argues, intuitively, that it sounds
SO contrived that someone , or Someone, must have cooked this up
behind the scenes, far beyond our vision. But then again, my own
"personal goddess," my wife notes that this is just a concrete version
of stage 3 of a four-step plan we discussed when cruising to the
Arctic a few months back, and perhaps her ideas about stage 4 might
work out to be more beautiful and absolute... when I reach that level.
For now, stage 3 is hard enough.
But then: IF we live in a minmax cosmos, to what does bhakti naturally apply?
THE OPPOSITE extreme vision of the cosmos is given the trilogy, The
Three Body Problem, representing a Chinese viewpoint, more like Jiang
Zemin than like Xi Jinping.
(Xi is more moderate, but I am not sure how HE balances the swirling,
conflicting energies he must deal with.) It envisions a cosmos like a
cdark forest, where we are all alone in a very dangerous way.
Between these extremes... back to native Americans (and Kurds!). The
earth and the galaxy are not so impeccably perfect as many wish the
absolute could be, but neither is life itself.
Bhakti or alignment with earth, and even with galaxy, are enough for
us small creatures. For most of our life, we need to remember not to
imagine we are so much bigger than either of these anyway. Yes,
physics must work to see beyond them, but for our lives, we need to
really deeply feel how earth and galaxy are large enough, and
deserving enough of our respect.
With sincere best regards and best wishes...
Paul
for his mention of Bhakti Shanta whom I had the honor to meet in Nepal
(along with his colleague Bhakti Muni was a very kind guide to me
there).
It is good that we seek a balance between "looking to the sky", to the
great immensity rising up from earth to galaxy to cosmos (and
beyond?), and immersing ourselves in the need, spirit and growth of
the earth and of humanity in general.
I am sorry that when I look to the sky as far as I can manage, I still
find myself in a situation of multilayered ignorance, even more
ignorant than I started to feel I was a week or two ago.
It does not really worry me so much that all of us share some
ignorance, and can benefit from admitting it to ourselves, because "it
is enough for our purposes to understand what lies within 10 billion
years of here, at a level of life above 3 femtometers." But in trying
to understand the laws of physics at a level or two beyond the
mainstream today (still knowing that that is not necessarily the
absolute), there are still overwhelming questions.
I still wonder: are the ultimate, absolute laws of this cosmos exactly
expressable as a Lagrangian function over curved Minkowski space,
following the Lagrange/Euler mathematics? And if so, does that make
the cosmos a KIND of personal entity, with a Lagrangian function which
is actually a kind of "telos" like what Bhakt iMuni talked about in
Nepal, which we humans can try to be aligned with?
OF COURSE, I do not know. It is a question worthy of very serious
effort, of two sorts: (1) trying to figure out what the true
Lagrangian might be; and (2) in principle, looking for clear
predictive insight by some other type of model. For now, for me, (1)
is a task I have a better idea how to do, and I see no basic obstacles
now, after many years of learning how to surmount APPARENT obstacles.
But it is something of a lonely task, as mainstream physics today
needs more earthy experiments addressing much more elementary
issues/prerequisites.
Two weeks ago, I was excited by the full implications of a cosmos
which maximizes a Lagrangian function, implications I had not fully
understood before that. But on further consideration, such an
all-powerful cosmos (a system maximizing over all possible states of
all fields across space-time)... would it really entail so much
approximation and imperfection as we see around us? Maybe, but I feel
a bit more skeptical... HIGHLY uncertain... but this week it seems
most likely to me that the next big step in deeper understanding,
deeper than the best version of quantum field theory I am aware of,
would involve a MINMAX cosmos SUBJECT TO EQUALITY CONSTRAINTS. In a
way, that seems closer to the old Zoroastrian concept, of a kind of
cosmic war between a minimizer and a maximizer, with the addition of
an umpire enforcing rules (the constraint). This is not my
grandmother's holy trinity! But it seems most likely to me today that
life as we know it "is posshible only in the middle zone, between the
fire and the ice," the minimizer and the maximizer." And it may be
that the constraint, which I was not fully aware of until this year
(and which I only BEGIN to understand) is absolutely essential and
fundamental.
The emerging picture seems much more natural and plausible as a law of
everything than any version of quantum theory that I know, and it CAN
replicate MQED as a statistical approximation (thus correctly predict
what MQED already predicts), yet it does seem a bit contrived. I would
not argue so much if any of you argues, intuitively, that it sounds
SO contrived that someone , or Someone, must have cooked this up
behind the scenes, far beyond our vision. But then again, my own
"personal goddess," my wife notes that this is just a concrete version
of stage 3 of a four-step plan we discussed when cruising to the
Arctic a few months back, and perhaps her ideas about stage 4 might
work out to be more beautiful and absolute... when I reach that level.
For now, stage 3 is hard enough.
But then: IF we live in a minmax cosmos, to what does bhakti naturally apply?
THE OPPOSITE extreme vision of the cosmos is given the trilogy, The
Three Body Problem, representing a Chinese viewpoint, more like Jiang
Zemin than like Xi Jinping.
(Xi is more moderate, but I am not sure how HE balances the swirling,
conflicting energies he must deal with.) It envisions a cosmos like a
cdark forest, where we are all alone in a very dangerous way.
Between these extremes... back to native Americans (and Kurds!). The
earth and the galaxy are not so impeccably perfect as many wish the
absolute could be, but neither is life itself.
Bhakti or alignment with earth, and even with galaxy, are enough for
us small creatures. For most of our life, we need to remember not to
imagine we are so much bigger than either of these anyway. Yes,
physics must work to see beyond them, but for our lives, we need to
really deeply feel how earth and galaxy are large enough, and
deserving enough of our respect.
With sincere best regards and best wishes...
Paul
Andris Heks
Nov 3, 2017, 6:46:26 PM11/3/17
to online_sa...@googlegroups.com
Thank you Dr Sumangala Devi Dasi.
I agree with you except for this claim:
'one can only attain true love (bhakti) for Absolute by engaging in loving devotional services under a devotee who has already awakened that love for the Supreme ("Bhakti comes from Bhakti")'
Yes bhakti comes from bhakti, but that means that it is the axiomatic quality of God, that no human Guru can attain fully because none are God.
The devotee who is awakened is indeed necessary, but such devotee must be the materialised manifestation of the unembodied personality of God. That can be only God in human form.
And no Guru, except for the one divine God who is manifested in materialisation, as the only way, a universally loving Christ- call the amalgam of He and She by any other name- who can do this.
Kind regards,
Andris
From: online_sa...@googlegroups.com <online_sa...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Dr Sumangala Devi Dasi <drsuman...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, 3 November 2017 10:29 PM
Sent: Friday, 3 November 2017 10:29 PM
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.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAG9cEnaeXmZRTNXZJ8x59kjvPv5dgXvn%2BbZ%2B_56WBvJi_Vd6xw%40mail.gmail.com.
Andris Heks
Nov 3, 2017, 6:46:26 PM11/3/17
to online_sa...@googlegroups.com
Absolutely Paul!
Thanks,
Andris
From: online_sa...@googlegroups.com <online_sa...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, 4 November 2017 1:38 AM
To: online_sa...@googlegroups.com
Cc: sr...@poornaprajna.org
Subject: Re: Fw: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Is the absolute personal?
Sent: Saturday, 4 November 2017 1:38 AM
To: online_sa...@googlegroups.com
Cc: sr...@poornaprajna.org
Subject: Re: Fw: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Is the absolute personal?
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
----------------------------
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.
(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/CACLqmgcEKw2hqTy9xt6ygSDJ2Q%2B5UDTxutMHB-M6bDT%2Bc%2BMHsw%40mail.gmail.com.
Dr Sumangala Devi Dasi
Nov 4, 2017, 5:35:56 AM11/4/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Andris,
I am trying to learn the teachings of Sripad Bhakti Madhava Puri Maharaja for more than 1 year. I have heard from Sripad Bhakti Niskama Shanta Maharaja that even our devotion (bhakti) comes from Supreme Absolute because nothing is independent of Him. Sripad Shanta Maharaja says:
A real Guru helps the condition souls to awaken their love for the Supreme and such a Guru is very rare to find in this material world, where living entities are only trying to imitate Supreme and His pure devotees - pure Vaisnavas. Supreme absolute Lord Sri Krishna teaches all the process of how to approach Him by serving Himself through His pleasure potency (hladini sakti - Srimati Radharani). Hence the hladini sakti is the Original Guru. Without the help of serving energy of the Absolute (hladini sakti) no one can develop proper devotional spirit. Hence around 500 years back Supreme Absolute Lord Sri Krishna Himself came (as Lord Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu) in the mood of Srimati Radharani (hladini sakti) to teach us the proper mood of devotion. Therefore a genuine Guru is a pure serving member of the lineage of servant of servant of hladini sakti - Guru Parampara. Such a Guru is not an ordinary person because he knows nothing but "how to please supreme absolute". Whoever takes proper association of such a saint will also automatically develop the same devotional spirit. In this way "Bhakti comes from Bhakti" and no mundane person can produce real Bhakti by his mental concoction. All bonafide religious are meant to gradually bring us to this platform only. This is the ultimate goal of Religion.
You can find the proper article in the report from Princeton, USA, in that report Sripad Puri Maharaja discusses this in detail. Please find the link below:
Humbly in Service
Sumangala Devi Dasi (Shilpi Saxena,Ph.D.)
On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 3:58 AM, Andris Heks <a.h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Thank you Dr Sumangala Devi Dasi.
I agree with you except for this claim:
'one can only attain true love (bhakti) for Absolute by engaging in loving devotional services under a devotee who has already awakened that love for the Supreme ("Bhakti comes from Bhakti")'
Yes bhakti comes from bhakti, but that means that it is the axiomatic quality of God, that no human Guru can attain fully because none are God.
The devotee who is awakened is indeed necessary, but such devotee must be the materialised manifestation of the unembodied personality of God. That can be only God in human form.
And no Guru, except for the one divine God who is manifested in materialisation, as the only way, a universally loving Christ- call the amalgam of He and She by any other name- who can do this.
Kind regards,
Andris
From: online_sadhu_sanga@googlegroups.com <online_sadhu_sanga@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Dr Sumangala Devi Dasi <drsuman...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, 3 November 2017 10:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Is the absolute personal?
Dear Dr. Paul Werbos,
Thank you for creating this important inquiry. I often observe that most of the discussions in this list ignores the main points that are being presented by Sripad Bhakti Madhava Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. If the scientists and scholars in the list can try to understand what Sripad Puri Maharaja is trying to present then they can get some great benefit. I am hearing some of these important teachings of Sripad Puri Maharaja from Sripad Bhakti Niskama Shanta Maharaja, Ph.D. (who is a disciple of Sripad Puri Maharaja) during my participation in a last few conferences, where he delivered talks. I have also got the opportunity to participate in Indo-Iranian event at Delhi. I am summarizing some of the main points in this email and a detailed report of Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute's contribution in recently concluded Indo-Iranian conference will be sent soon to this list.
1. Absolute is sentient and He is Supreme Personality of Godhead (Therefore all monistic claims of Vedanta are only a partial representation of real wisdom of Vedanta. Actually Vedanta offers personalist view of Absolute)2. Reality is personal and it is the false ego of misconceived souls that forces them to see reality as impersonal and thus some are busy in finding a mechanistic explanation of reality (Hence matter is an experience of such misconceived souls who have not yet realized that everything [including themselves] is meant for the service of Absolute )3. Absolute can be approached only by cultivation of love for the Absolute (through loving service - bhakti)4. Bhakti is not a mental imagination and one can only attain true love (bhakti) for Absolute by engaging in loving devotional services under a devotee who has already awakened that love for the Supreme ("Bhakti comes from Bhakti" which is similar to the Vedic mantra that we often come across on this list - "Life comes from Life")
It is important to discuss and learn properly, these important Vedic conclusions.
In this Indo-Iranian conference at Delhi Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta challenged Swami Agnivesh's (Agnivesh is an Indian politician and a former Member of Legislative Assembly from the Indian state of Haryana, an Arya Samaj scholar, and a social activist) point "God cannot have form" by the argument that "If God can't do something then that is not the true concept of God." According to Vedic view Supreme can do-undo anything and everything - kartum-akartum-samarthaḥ. Everyone in the conference convinced by this argument of Dr. Shanta and all of them together said "Yes, if God cannot do something then He cannot be called God."
I will send soon a detailed report on the Indo-Iranian dialogue. Thanking you.
Humbly in ServiceSumangala Devi Dasi (Shilpi Saxena, Ph.D.)
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 6:31 PM, Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com> wrote:
First, I thank the sponsors of this list for informing us of a very
important conference coming up in New Delhi, on the important topic of
Best of luck,
Paul
--
----------------------------
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+unsubscribe@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/CACLqmgdB795UnLRJhxMGM83BFqzJ8TcbvLOiBpxs1YWe0j1LtQ%40mail.gmail.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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAG9cEnaeXmZRTNXZJ8x59kjvPv5dgXvn%2BbZ%2B_56WBvJi_Vd6xw%40mail.gmail.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.
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/BY1PR14MB007266513368AD0B8B7F8B79955D0%40BY1PR14MB0072.namprd14.prod.outlook.com.
BMP
Nov 4, 2017, 11:19:17 AM11/4/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Dr Sumangala DD,
Thank you very much for your participation on this list. Your devotional contribution is greatly appreciated.
Krishna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, explains in the Bhagavat Purana (Srimad Bhagavatam 9.4.68) :
sādhavo hṛdayaṁ mahyaṁ
sādhūnāṁ hṛdayaṁ tv aham
mad-anyat te na jānanti
nāhaṁ tebhyo manāg api
sādhūnāṁ hṛdayaṁ tv aham
mad-anyat te na jānanti
nāhaṁ tebhyo manāg api
"The pure devotee is always within the core of My heart, and I am always in the heart of the pure devotee. My devotees do not know anything else but Me, and I do not know anyone else but them."
BMP: Comment
Thus if someone asks 'where does God exist, or where can we find God' we may humbly reply on the basis of sastra (scripture) that He lives not only in His own abode (within Himself) but also 'in the heart of His devotees.' This knowledge is given directly by the Lord throughout the scriptures. It has also been clearly understood by the learned philosophers of Spirit. This means a devotee is not merely a Deist,i.e. one who thinks that God can only be found beyond the world. An enlightened soul knows that God is both immanent and transcendent. Philosophers call this panentheism. It is similar to the idea that we are both in the world and the world is in us, in the sense that what we call 'the world' is only what we know it to be - it is the content of our consciousness. At the same time, however, it is simultaneously understood as being beyond our consciousness as well. This is the very important synchronic one-and-different principle of acintya beda abeada tattva of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.
We may also note that a part of the Infinite is also infinite, as the famous mathematician Georg Cantor would acknowledge. Of course, none of the parts may be independent of the Complete Whole but by their connection may be empowered to act accordingly.
HTH
Humbly in service,
B Madhava Puri
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute
http:facebook.com/bviscs
From: Dr Sumangala Devi Dasi <drsuman...@gmail.com>
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, November 4, 2017 5:34 AM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Is the absolute personal?
nadeem haque
Nov 5, 2017, 6:45:26 AM11/5/17
to paul....@gmail.com, Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com, sr...@poornaprajna.org, z_shahbaz
Hi Paul,
Thanks for your message/response. I believe this is the challenge, realizing and making humanity realize the true nature of this absolute. You might be interested in my very short article that explains my view: http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/463/512
I have written many articles and books, but here is one which you might also like (published by a peer reviewed mainstream journal): https://www.animalsandsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/haque.pdf.
At the higher level of thinking (I know this as I've spoken to some Hindu and even Buddhist scholars) the message is the same and unique too, about the existence of this unique absoluteness that has a will. Tragically, it appears that we live now on a very immature planet that will undergo (unfortunately) a lot of suffering before we realize what I and a few others are saying, which was actually said by the sages, and prophets of old, but I'm just putting it in modern terminology, with a few other added pieces of information (gained by scientific knowledge) which they were not aware of thousands of years ago.
Best Regards and may you have peace!
Nadeem
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 at 10:38 AM
From: "Paul Werbos" <paul....@gmail.com>
To: "online_sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: sr...@poornaprajna.org
Subject: Re: Fw: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Is the absolute personal?
From: "Paul Werbos" <paul....@gmail.com>
To: "online_sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: sr...@poornaprajna.org
Subject: Re: Fw: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Is the absolute personal?
--
----------------------------
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.
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/CACLqmgcEKw2hqTy9xt6ygSDJ2Q%2B5UDTxutMHB-M6bDT%2Bc%2BMHsw%40mail.gmail.com.
Dr Sumangala Devi Dasi
Nov 5, 2017, 6:45:26 AM11/5/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dandavat Pranams Sripad Bhakti Madhava Puri Maharaja,
I feel fortunate to receive your blessings. I am hearing about your teachings from Sripad Bhakti Niskama Shanta Maharaja and even though I am not qualified I feel very fortunate to be an insignificant serving member in your service world.
Maharaja I have heard from Sripad Shanta Maharaja that in the Vedic tradition it is only pure devotees who approach Supreme with His pleasure potency (hladini sakti). But gynani only meditate on Brahman (impersonal aspect of Supreme) and yogis meditate on Paramatma (who is there as witness in their hearts). There are some devotees like Mirabai who worship Lord alone but I heard from Sripad Shanta Maharaja that it is not a proper way to approach Supreme. I also see in other religions like in Islam and Christianity they worship Lord without His serving potency (hladini sakti). Can you kindly help me know the difference in realizations of these different paths to approach Supreme? Please forgive any offenses due to my ignorance.
Praying for your Mercy
Sumangala Devi Dasi
On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 8:47 PM, 'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Dear Dr Sumangala DD,Thank you very much for your participation on this list. Your devotional contribution is greatly appreciated.Krishna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, explains in the Bhagavat Purana (Srimad Bhagavatam 9.4.68) :sādhavo hṛdayaṁ mahyaṁ
sādhūnāṁ hṛdayaṁ tv aham
mad-anyat te na jānanti
nāhaṁ tebhyo manāg api"The pure devotee is always within the core of My heart, and I am always in the heart of the pure devotee. My devotees do not know anything else but Me, and I do not know anyone else but them."BMP: CommentThus if someone asks 'where does God exist, or where can we find God' we may humbly reply on the basis of sastra (scripture) that He lives not only in His own abode (within Himself) but also 'in the heart of His devotees.' This knowledge is given directly by the Lord throughout the scriptures. It has also been clearly understood by the learned philosophers of Spirit. This means a devotee is not merely a Deist,i.e. one who thinks that God can only be found beyond the world. An enlightened soul knows that God is both immanent and transcendent. Philosophers call this panentheism. It is similar to the idea that we are both in the world and the world is in us, in the sense that what we call 'the world' is only what we know it to be - it is the content of our consciousness. At the same time, however, it is simultaneously understood as being beyond our consciousness as well. This is the very important synchronic one-and-different principle of acintya beda abeada tattva of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.We may also note that a part of the Infinite is also infinite, as the famous mathematician Georg Cantor would acknowledge. Of course, none of the parts may be independent of the Complete Whole but by their connection may be empowered to act accordingly.HTHHumbly in service,B Madhava Puri
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute
Sent: Saturday, November 4, 2017 5:34 AM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Is the absolute personal?
Dear Andris,I am trying to learn the teachings of Sripad Bhakti Madhava Puri Maharaja for more than 1 year. I have heard from Sripad Bhakti Niskama Shanta Maharaja that even our devotion (bhakti) comes from Supreme Absolute because nothing is independent of Him. Sripad Shanta Maharaja says:A real Guru helps the condition souls to awaken their love for the Supreme and such a Guru is very rare to find in this material world, where living entities are only trying to imitate Supreme and His pure devotees - pure Vaisnavas. Supreme absolute Lord Sri Krishna teaches all the process of how to approach Him by serving Himself through His pleasure potency (hladini sakti - Srimati Radharani). Hence the hladini sakti is the Original Guru. Without the help of serving energy of the Absolute (hladini sakti) no one can develop proper devotional spirit. Hence around 500 years back Supreme Absolute Lord Sri Krishna Himself came (as Lord Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu) in the mood of Srimati Radharani (hladini sakti) to teach us the proper mood of devotion. Therefore a genuine Guru is a pure serving member of the lineage of servant of servant of hladini sakti - Guru Parampara. Such a Guru is not an ordinary person because he knows nothing but "how to please supreme absolute". Whoever takes proper association of such a saint will also automatically develop the same devotional spirit. In this way "Bhakti comes from Bhakti" and no mundane person can produce real Bhakti by his mental concoction. All bonafide religious are meant to gradually bring us to this platform only. This is the ultimate goal of Religion.You can find the proper article in the report from Princeton, USA, in that report Sripad Puri Maharaja discusses this in detail. Please find the link below:Humbly in ServiceSumangala Devi Dasi (Shilpi Saxena,Ph.D.)
On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 3:58 AM, Andris Heks <a.h...@hotmail.com> wrote:Thank you Dr Sumangala Devi Dasi.
I agree with you except for this claim:
'one can only attain true love (bhakti) for Absolute by engaging in loving devotional services under a devotee who has already awakened that love for the Supreme ("Bhakti comes from Bhakti")'
Yes bhakti comes from bhakti, but that means that it is the axiomatic quality of God, that no human Guru can attain fully because none are God.The devotee who is awakened is indeed necessary, but such devotee must be the materialised manifestation of the unembodied personality of God. That can be only God in human form.And no Guru, except for the one divine God who is manifested in materialisation, as the only way, a universally loving Christ- call the amalgam of He and She by any other name- who can do this.
Kind regards,
Andris
--
----------------------------
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/154737744.2806020.1509808637441%40mail.yahoo.com.
BMP
Nov 5, 2017, 1:50:37 PM11/5/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Dr Sumangala DD
There seems to me to be a serious misunderstanding in your message. Srimati Radharani is the personification of hladini shakti. No one else can approach the Supreme by Her energy. We can only ever hope to serve Her (and Her energy) by Her grace in Her service to Krishna (this is called Radha dasya). The living entities are infinitesimal conscious energies (jiva shakti) of the Supreme, and thus can serve in that capacity only. Ordinary souls, even pure devotees, cannot directly serve the Personality of Godhead (in His or Her Divine forms) except through Their energies. This is why the mediator is absolutely necessary (even in the stage of highest perfection, because we are krsnera nitya dasa). We are not visnu tattva. Once this is understood properly then the correct perspective of the various approaches of jnana, yoga or direct connection can be known in their insufficiency.
Unfortunately it is very difficult to understand the proper conception of service in suddha bhakti or pure devotion, even when one has been instructed by the previous acharyas (teachers).
Authentic truth such as 'life comes from life' is valid for theology, philosophy and empiric science. Genuine science has to be established on the basis of such universally valid foundations. This is what I would hope we may accomplish on this forum.
Thank you for your honest inquiry.
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Is the absolute personal?
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.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAG9cEnYDuw50HwZXyq4KuMipy%3D6gJyPVjuZB0ZmFikk23CzycA%40mail.gmail.com.
Bruno Marchal
Nov 5, 2017, 2:13:47 PM11/5/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Hi Whit,
I *assume* the (Digital) Mechanist thesis in my answer. I say this
once to avoid boring repetition. My point is only that Mechanism is
testable, not true, but also that its consequences known today fits
very well with the facts known today.
On 01 Nov 2017, at 19:25, Whit Blauvelt wrote:
> Hi Bruno,
>
> Given these alternative stories:
>
> 1. Consciousness is emergent from the physical
Human consciousness is with few doubt emergent from the physical. But
consciousness "in general" is not.
>
> 2. Consciousness is emergent from math
OK. (more precision below)
>
> 3. Math is emergent from consciousness
Most of it, but not what Brouwer called the separable part of math,
which is mainly constructive arithmetic, or the logicians "sigma_1
truth", that is the truth of the existential proposition of the type
ExP(x, y) with P decidable/recursive. That contains all positive
statements in computer science. Computer science is isomorphic to
(second order arithmetic, set theory), but its positive part needs
only a tiny part of first order arithmetic.
Analysis and physics are emergent from Arithmetic-seen-from-inside by
the "relative numbers". To be short.
>
> 4. Math is emergent from the physical
Can't be (assuming Mechanism, to insist).
>
> 5. The physical is emergent from consciousness
>
> 6. The physical is emergent from math
The physical is emergent from consciousness, and consciousness is
emergent from math, or from something mathematical. So, indirectly,
the physical is emergent from a part of math too.
>
> It seems you want to say (6) and perhaps (2).
Yes. I would say (2), (5) and (6).
> I say "perhaps" because I'm
> not sure if you're positing emergence or identity, i.e. "math just is
> consciousness."
Math is usually conceived as a collection of third person describable
realities. Two lines determined a point, two points determined a line,
17 has no divisors other than 1 and 17, etc.
So consciousness cannot be something purely mathematical, unless at
the meta-level, when we accept the brain-transplant surgery. But that
requires an act of faith, and is a personal thing. Then when we study
the digital machines, supposed to be ideally arithmetically correct,
we can show that they are subjected to something which is
true, knowable, non justifiably communicable (in fact neither
provable, nor even expressible). Consciousness is a good candidate for
that type of things.
So math is not consciousness, but consciousness can be approached by
some invariant of machine self-reference, notably of the type true,
not provable, ... (of course there are difficulties which remains).
>
> There's also a big question in defining "emergent." If these are three
> spheres, there could be a universe where "emergency" flows in every
> direction between them, where which one is "fundamental" to the
> others is
> merely a choice of perspective, of which sphere one looks from. But
> that use
> of "emergence" violates the more normal claim where it's taken to
> work in
> only one direction,
Yes, I used that term always taken in only one direction. It is:
NUMBER (structured with + and *) ==> NUMBER's dreams ===> Physics
(quanta and qualia)
> such that only one of these can count as foundation for
> the others.
>
> In choosing your foundation, it well seems math is easier to define
> clearly
> than either "consciousness" or "the physical." I'll grant you that.
Thanks. Especially that with Mechanism, the real math is just positive
integer arithmetic. Real numbers, and even physical realities are
simplifying local assumptions, but do not exist in the big 3p or 0p
picture. (third person, or 0th-person view like Thomas Nagel's view of
nowhere).
> What
> seems the stranger step is your repeat claim that math shall "dream."
Math does not dream, because math is not a person, and only person can
dream and be conscious. But math, or more simply the arithmetical
reality (not to be confused with the arithmetical theories) entails
the existence of the numbers and their relations; and in particular,
the semi-computable relations. It includes also all computations. So,
(assuming ...) your consciousness here-and-now is related to a
computations (actually to infinitely many one) which provably exists
in arithmetic (as we know since Gödel 1931 + the Kleene-Post-Turing-
Church's thesis, part of digital mechanism (to just define
mathematically what we mean by "digital")
Sometimes, some progress do not help. The advent of physical computers
made many people forgetting that the original notion of computations
is purely mathematical, and was soon shown to be arithmetical. In fact
Gödel mention already the point in a footnote in his 1931 paper:
Gödel's 1931 footnote 9: (I added comments with "[" and "]".
<<In other words, the above-described procedure provides an isomorphic
image of the system PM [Gödel's Principia-Mathematica] in the domain
of arithmetic, and all metamathematical arguments can equally well be
conducted in this isomorphic image. This occurs in the following
outline proof, i.e. "formula", "proposition, "variable", etc. [You can
add digital machines and computations, although this will only be
clear later with the Church-Post-Kleene-Turing thesis] are always to
be understood as the corresponding objects of the isomorphic image.>>
A Turing machine is unable to sense the difference between being
emulated by a physical computation or an arithmetical computation.
Like time is an indexical in General relativity, the whole
physicalness becomes an indexical phenomenology of numbers.
So, math is responsible for the existence of the dreamer and dreams,
but is not dreaming itself. What is dreaming are the universal
machines when supported by computations which does not enslave them
too much.
> I'm
> not sure that's truly stranger than the more common claims that
> physical
> matter can dream, or that consciousness somehow can "dream up"
> matter, for
> that matter.
OK, nice. Indeed, and that is very much like it when you assume the
digital mechanist hypothesis (at some level of description). For
machine, it is less weird, because they already distinguish all the
varaint of Gödel's provability (Bp), like "knowlegde" (Bp & p),
predictible (Bp & ~B~t), etc.
>
> I follow your claim that IF we can substitute parts up until the
> brain has
> been replaced by computer circuits, and still find ourselves
> conscious, that
> it would be fairer to say consciousness arises from number than that
> it
> arises from physical matter.
I am so glad to hear that.
> But that it would be fairer is yet not an
> account of how or why. Your turning this on its side to claim it shows
> number, not matter, is the foundation -- assuming the IF -- is
> elegant and
> challenging.
>
> But how can it be that numbers dream?
So, to be short, the reason is that computer science is part of
(sigma_1) arithmetic. It is not entirely obvious, but follows readily
from the original work of Emil Post, Kurt Gödel, Alonzo Church, and
Stephen C. Kleene. Even more so after Tarski and the progress in Model
Theory.
> And granted they do, what is the
> threshold of dreaming?
Turing Universality.
You need Löbianity (which is when a universal machine realize she is
(at least) a universal machine) to get a machine able to distinguish
many different kind of dreams, and to develop a notion of awakening
(relative and perhaps absolute).
> Does this dovetail with Integrated Information
> Theory?
I think it should. With digital mechanism, the integrator is the
machine's self, but it has a desintegrating aspect, as the machine,
even before being programmed, is already confronted to a conflict
between its innate (by incompleteness) views on itself (truth, belief,
knowledge, observation, sensations). They fits well ... only in Gods
eyes, but on the effective (terrestrial) plane, the machine cannot see
that. She seems to be able to go very near that though, but here I
have different incompatible theories, and pursue the research.
> Indeed, does "number" in your sense even mean the same thing as, or
> something closely related to, "information"?
Numbers contains information, usually extensional one, like 17
contains an intrinsic quantitative information (the meaning of 17) and
qualitative information (its properties like being prime, odd, ...).
Yet, relatively to a universal numbers, 17 can contain extrinsic
intensional information. It can be the address of the house of some
friend, or a pointer to an important different numbers, etc.
A universal number is only the code of universal machine with respect
to some computable enumeration of all programs. Those numbers can
decode information, and learn to develop theories to asses and correct
possible encoding and decoding. But they have also access to not
expressible type of information, and consciousness and qualia belongs
to those non expressible things. We can say "whoa", or write poems and
hope it conveys the emotional information we want to communicate, but
we can only hope that the universal neighbor are enough close to us to
relive the experiences.
>
> If so, that gets us into "eat the menu" territory.
Well, yes. Something like that happens with the digital hypothesis.
When we embed a map of a territory in the territory, there is a fixed
point: the "you are here" point. In computer science, there are
similar "fixed point", there is an invariant "fixed point" in machine
self-observation. A brain and an environment are like dynamical
mirrors, but the semantical fixed point is not really fixed: it can
always transcend the fixation, and become "a number which moves
itself" (like the Pythagoreans and Platonists intuited).
> That's to say,
> nutritional information is not nutritious.
No. But if you are yourself emulated at some right level of
substitution, then nutritional information can become like seeming
nutritious, and even nutritious if you live in the emulation. But the
physical "really nutritious" emerges from the infinitely many dreams
where you feel to eat. reality becomes the sum on all fictions, somehow.
> But perhaps by "number" you don't
> really mean "information" at all?
Numbers and information are deeply related. Universal numbers can
represent many things with numbers, including pointers to
transcendental realm and other non-communicable forms of information.
Note that I use numbers, but any Turing universal machinery would work
(like lambda expressions, combinators, fortran, lisp, etc.). I use
numbers because they are taught in school, and people understand
better that 2+2=4 is true independently of themselves, than (CAR '(A B
C)) = A, which seems more artficial (LISP). But once you have a
universal machinery, you get them all, as they mimic exactly each other.
Kind Regards,
Bruno
>
> Whit
> 138
>
> Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
>
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/20171101182547.GA4183%40black.transpect.com
I *assume* the (Digital) Mechanist thesis in my answer. I say this
once to avoid boring repetition. My point is only that Mechanism is
testable, not true, but also that its consequences known today fits
very well with the facts known today.
On 01 Nov 2017, at 19:25, Whit Blauvelt wrote:
> Hi Bruno,
>
> Given these alternative stories:
>
> 1. Consciousness is emergent from the physical
consciousness "in general" is not.
>
> 2. Consciousness is emergent from math
>
> 3. Math is emergent from consciousness
which is mainly constructive arithmetic, or the logicians "sigma_1
truth", that is the truth of the existential proposition of the type
ExP(x, y) with P decidable/recursive. That contains all positive
statements in computer science. Computer science is isomorphic to
(second order arithmetic, set theory), but its positive part needs
only a tiny part of first order arithmetic.
Analysis and physics are emergent from Arithmetic-seen-from-inside by
the "relative numbers". To be short.
>
> 4. Math is emergent from the physical
>
> 5. The physical is emergent from consciousness
>
> 6. The physical is emergent from math
emergent from math, or from something mathematical. So, indirectly,
the physical is emergent from a part of math too.
>
> It seems you want to say (6) and perhaps (2).
> I say "perhaps" because I'm
> not sure if you're positing emergence or identity, i.e. "math just is
> consciousness."
realities. Two lines determined a point, two points determined a line,
17 has no divisors other than 1 and 17, etc.
So consciousness cannot be something purely mathematical, unless at
the meta-level, when we accept the brain-transplant surgery. But that
requires an act of faith, and is a personal thing. Then when we study
the digital machines, supposed to be ideally arithmetically correct,
we can show that they are subjected to something which is
true, knowable, non justifiably communicable (in fact neither
provable, nor even expressible). Consciousness is a good candidate for
that type of things.
So math is not consciousness, but consciousness can be approached by
some invariant of machine self-reference, notably of the type true,
not provable, ... (of course there are difficulties which remains).
>
> There's also a big question in defining "emergent." If these are three
> spheres, there could be a universe where "emergency" flows in every
> direction between them, where which one is "fundamental" to the
> others is
> merely a choice of perspective, of which sphere one looks from. But
> that use
> of "emergence" violates the more normal claim where it's taken to
> work in
> only one direction,
NUMBER (structured with + and *) ==> NUMBER's dreams ===> Physics
(quanta and qualia)
> such that only one of these can count as foundation for
> the others.
>
> In choosing your foundation, it well seems math is easier to define
> clearly
> than either "consciousness" or "the physical." I'll grant you that.
integer arithmetic. Real numbers, and even physical realities are
simplifying local assumptions, but do not exist in the big 3p or 0p
picture. (third person, or 0th-person view like Thomas Nagel's view of
nowhere).
> What
> seems the stranger step is your repeat claim that math shall "dream."
dream and be conscious. But math, or more simply the arithmetical
reality (not to be confused with the arithmetical theories) entails
the existence of the numbers and their relations; and in particular,
the semi-computable relations. It includes also all computations. So,
(assuming ...) your consciousness here-and-now is related to a
computations (actually to infinitely many one) which provably exists
in arithmetic (as we know since Gödel 1931 + the Kleene-Post-Turing-
Church's thesis, part of digital mechanism (to just define
mathematically what we mean by "digital")
Sometimes, some progress do not help. The advent of physical computers
made many people forgetting that the original notion of computations
is purely mathematical, and was soon shown to be arithmetical. In fact
Gödel mention already the point in a footnote in his 1931 paper:
Gödel's 1931 footnote 9: (I added comments with "[" and "]".
<<In other words, the above-described procedure provides an isomorphic
image of the system PM [Gödel's Principia-Mathematica] in the domain
of arithmetic, and all metamathematical arguments can equally well be
conducted in this isomorphic image. This occurs in the following
outline proof, i.e. "formula", "proposition, "variable", etc. [You can
add digital machines and computations, although this will only be
clear later with the Church-Post-Kleene-Turing thesis] are always to
be understood as the corresponding objects of the isomorphic image.>>
A Turing machine is unable to sense the difference between being
emulated by a physical computation or an arithmetical computation.
Like time is an indexical in General relativity, the whole
physicalness becomes an indexical phenomenology of numbers.
So, math is responsible for the existence of the dreamer and dreams,
but is not dreaming itself. What is dreaming are the universal
machines when supported by computations which does not enslave them
too much.
> I'm
> not sure that's truly stranger than the more common claims that
> physical
> matter can dream, or that consciousness somehow can "dream up"
> matter, for
> that matter.
digital mechanist hypothesis (at some level of description). For
machine, it is less weird, because they already distinguish all the
varaint of Gödel's provability (Bp), like "knowlegde" (Bp & p),
predictible (Bp & ~B~t), etc.
>
> I follow your claim that IF we can substitute parts up until the
> brain has
> been replaced by computer circuits, and still find ourselves
> conscious, that
> it would be fairer to say consciousness arises from number than that
> it
> arises from physical matter.
> But that it would be fairer is yet not an
> account of how or why. Your turning this on its side to claim it shows
> number, not matter, is the foundation -- assuming the IF -- is
> elegant and
> challenging.
>
> But how can it be that numbers dream?
(sigma_1) arithmetic. It is not entirely obvious, but follows readily
from the original work of Emil Post, Kurt Gödel, Alonzo Church, and
Stephen C. Kleene. Even more so after Tarski and the progress in Model
Theory.
> And granted they do, what is the
> threshold of dreaming?
You need Löbianity (which is when a universal machine realize she is
(at least) a universal machine) to get a machine able to distinguish
many different kind of dreams, and to develop a notion of awakening
(relative and perhaps absolute).
> Does this dovetail with Integrated Information
> Theory?
machine's self, but it has a desintegrating aspect, as the machine,
even before being programmed, is already confronted to a conflict
between its innate (by incompleteness) views on itself (truth, belief,
knowledge, observation, sensations). They fits well ... only in Gods
eyes, but on the effective (terrestrial) plane, the machine cannot see
that. She seems to be able to go very near that though, but here I
have different incompatible theories, and pursue the research.
> Indeed, does "number" in your sense even mean the same thing as, or
> something closely related to, "information"?
contains an intrinsic quantitative information (the meaning of 17) and
qualitative information (its properties like being prime, odd, ...).
Yet, relatively to a universal numbers, 17 can contain extrinsic
intensional information. It can be the address of the house of some
friend, or a pointer to an important different numbers, etc.
A universal number is only the code of universal machine with respect
to some computable enumeration of all programs. Those numbers can
decode information, and learn to develop theories to asses and correct
possible encoding and decoding. But they have also access to not
expressible type of information, and consciousness and qualia belongs
to those non expressible things. We can say "whoa", or write poems and
hope it conveys the emotional information we want to communicate, but
we can only hope that the universal neighbor are enough close to us to
relive the experiences.
>
> If so, that gets us into "eat the menu" territory.
When we embed a map of a territory in the territory, there is a fixed
point: the "you are here" point. In computer science, there are
similar "fixed point", there is an invariant "fixed point" in machine
self-observation. A brain and an environment are like dynamical
mirrors, but the semantical fixed point is not really fixed: it can
always transcend the fixation, and become "a number which moves
itself" (like the Pythagoreans and Platonists intuited).
> That's to say,
> nutritional information is not nutritious.
substitution, then nutritional information can become like seeming
nutritious, and even nutritious if you live in the emulation. But the
physical "really nutritious" emerges from the infinitely many dreams
where you feel to eat. reality becomes the sum on all fictions, somehow.
> But perhaps by "number" you don't
> really mean "information" at all?
represent many things with numbers, including pointers to
transcendental realm and other non-communicable forms of information.
Note that I use numbers, but any Turing universal machinery would work
(like lambda expressions, combinators, fortran, lisp, etc.). I use
numbers because they are taught in school, and people understand
better that 2+2=4 is true independently of themselves, than (CAR '(A B
C)) = A, which seems more artficial (LISP). But once you have a
universal machinery, you get them all, as they mimic exactly each other.
Kind Regards,
Bruno
>
> Whit
>
> --
> ----------------------------
> 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/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085
> --
> ----------------------------
> 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
>
> 138
>
> 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
>
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/20171101182547.GA4183%40black.transpect.com
Bruno Marchal
Nov 5, 2017, 2:14:03 PM11/5/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Andris,
I think I can relate with your text, but I would not see it as an attempt to explain anything but as an account of a (wonderful) experience and reflection. It still assumes consciousness, and even matter, although it is not precise enough to see what is assumed and what is derived. So you are not really "formulating the absolute", but relating your personal awakening to it, which is very nice. The absolute is beyiond formulation, I would say, and I guess you could concur.
Again, if through such experience you believe that you or anyone is superior to any creature, I would have doubt on the authenticity and completeness of the experience, because such an experience, despite its grandeur, tend to make us fundamentally very modest, especially in the matter of communicating about the spiritual reality, which is simply ineffable and far above the words (and the numbers) even if mediated through the logos originally.
The text is quite nice, but I am not sure it can convince someone who has never glimpsed the transcendance. But those who did will probably feel or re-live their own, which is very nice.
The absolute is trans-personal, and concerns all creatures (a highly non computable set).
Thanks, and best wishes,
Bruno
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/FD9D02B1-5F9F-4DAF-8109-4765E4D43F8D%40ulb.ac.be.
--
----------------------------
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 visithttps://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/BY1PR14MB007245BB5965C85D34EE9FA2955C0%40BY1PR14MB0072.namprd14.prod.outlook.com.
<TOWARDS AN INTEGRAL SCIENCE OF LIVING CONSCIOUSNESS OR CONSCIOUS LIVING.docx>
Diego Lucio Rapoport
Nov 5, 2017, 6:34:36 PM11/5/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear B Madhava Puri
With respect to the invocation of infinity assuch that "part of the Infinite is also infinite, as the famous mathematician Georg Cantor would acknowledge", i would like to indicate thatYou have rightly criticized in several expositions the divorce between cognition of the trascendent domain and formalistic mathematics, so this invocation seems to me misplaced with respect to your critique, or contradictory.
So, even if we adhere to dual logic, the higher-order "infinities" are no such higher-order cognitive structure, quantitatively, at least, and only come to consideration through the dualistic basis of Cantor's approach.
In my own work based on supradual logic, related to the topology of the Klein Bottle which lies at the very basis of physiology through the topographic maps of the sensorium and the human bodyplan, no to mention chemistry, biological development, the genome, non-linearity, etc, the structure of "infinity" is related to this logic (and "infinity" has not a (merely) allegorical role for metaphysics, and in terms of which trascendence and immanence are fused, a fusion which you place at the basis of Vedanta. The latter fusion seems to me impossible in the setting of dual logic.
2017-11-05 15:48 GMT-03:00 'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>:
Dear Dr Sumangala DDThere seems to me to be a serious misunderstanding in your message. Srimati Radharani is the personification of hladini shakti. No one else can approach the Supreme by Her energy. We can only ever hope to serve Her (and Her energy) by Her grace in Her service to Krishna (this is called Radha dasya). The living entities are infinitesimal conscious energies (jiva shakti) of the Supreme, and thus can serve in that capacity only. Ordinary souls, even pure devotees, cannot directly serve the Personality of Godhead (in His or Her Divine forms) except through Their energies. This is why the mediator is absolutely necessary (even in the stage of highest perfection, because we are krsnera nitya dasa). We are not visnu tattva. Once this is understood properly then the correct perspective of the various approaches of jnana, yoga or direct connection can be known in their insufficiency.Unfortunately it is very difficult to understand the proper conception of service in suddha bhakti or pure devotion, even when one has been instructed by the previous acharyas (teachers).Authentic truth such as 'life comes from life' is valid for theology, philosophy and empiric science. Genuine science has to be established on the basis of such universally valid foundations. This is what I would hope we may accomplish on this forum.Thank you for your honest inquiry.Humbly in service,B Madhava PuriPrinceton Bhakti Vedanta Institute
Sent: Sunday, November 5, 2017 6:44 AM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Is the absolute personal?
Dandavat Pranams Sripad Bhakti Madhava Puri Maharaja,I feel fortunate to receive your blessings. I am hearing about your teachings from Sripad Bhakti Niskama Shanta Maharaja and even though I am not qualified I feel very fortunate to be an insignificant serving member in your service world.Maharaja I have heard from Sripad Shanta Maharaja that in the Vedic tradition it is only pure devotees who approach Supreme with His pleasure potency (hladini sakti). But gynani only meditate on Brahman (impersonal aspect of Supreme) and yogis meditate on Paramatma (who is there as witness in their hearts). There are some devotees like Mirabai who worship Lord alone but I heard from Sripad Shanta Maharaja that it is not a proper way to approach Supreme. I also see in other religions like in Islam and Christianity they worship Lord without His serving potency (hladini sakti). Can you kindly help me know the difference in realizations of these different paths to approach Supreme? Please forgive any offenses due to my ignorance.Praying for your MercySumangala Devi Dasi
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@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/CAG9cEnYDuw50HwZXyq4KuMipy%3D6gJyPVjuZB0ZmFikk23CzycA%40mail.gmail.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.
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/1678969606.3249383.1509907717093%40mail.yahoo.com.
Dr Sumangala Devi Dasi
Nov 6, 2017, 4:01:33 AM11/6/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dandavat Pranams Sripad Bhakti Madhava Puri Maharaja.
I feel fortune to be disciplined by you and it is your causeless mercy that you have corrected my misunderstanding. Please forgive me for inquiring about such high subject in a common forum where even the clearly empirically verifiable truth " Life comes from Life" is not properly honoured by many. Rather what we find in our syllabus and even in high standard scientific publications the emphasis is on the opposite (Life manifested from matter - abiogenesis) of what empirically observed. This I feel is most unfortunate because it only shows that on the name of science we are only propagating a dogma by grossly ignoring what is an empiric fact (biogenesis). I have heard from Sripad Shanta Maharaja that you have said that "Life comes from Life" is a maha-mantra for scientists and by chanting and meditating on this mantra they can overcome the misconception (abiogenesis) that is now deeply rooted in their mind.
Sripad Shanta Maharaja suggested me to prepare an article for Science and Scientist conference that you have initiated for guiding scientists towards proper direction. Maharaja I feel that you have given a perfect platform to the scientists to inquire about some important questions (say the deeper meaning of life) that they simply ignore. While working on the talks for last two conferences as a person from chemistry background I have also developed certain questions in my mind about chemistry itself. I really do not know how scientists could term something as positively or negatively charged. What is the standard to determine something as positive and something else as negative, and how that standard justify the real meaning of positive and negative? Moreover, why only negative (say, electrons) has to participate actively in chemical reactions (by exchange of electrons during bonding) and positive (say, protons) simply remain ideal? The whole atomic model does not clearly explain the role of positive and negative based on the real nature of positive and negative. Moreover we really do not know in chemistry why a simple increase in the number of protons or electrons or neutrons (as we see in the elements on periodic table) make atoms assume different properties (say, different taste, colour, hardness, etc). So I sometime feel that chemistry is a mere practice of nomenclature and it doesn't really provide any deep insight into the reality. I hope many scientists in this forum will agree with me on this. I will be also happy if some members in this forum can correct me (with proper scientific explanation), if they feel that I am wrong.
Maharaja I feel fortunate that proud scientists like myself can practice some scientific humility by participating in your scientific sankirtan services.
Praying for your mercy
Sumangala Devi Dasi
BMP
Nov 6, 2017, 11:02:40 AM11/6/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Diego,
Namaste. Thank you for your comments on my previous message. Poincare obviously never tried to book a room at Hilbert's Hotel. Mathematicians establish themselves in different groups on the basis of unproven presuppositions [or beliefs] which they call axioms or self-evident truths and from which they arrive at different and often conflicting conclusions regarding mathematics - groups such as intuitionists, constructivists, finitists, and others.
I tend to accept Cantor's ideas because his thoughts were more logically based and in agreement with the only philosopher who I believe is perhaps the first and only one who has given a proper conception of infinity, viz. G.W.F. Hegel. For Hegel the Infinite is that which has its limit within itself, or otherwise stated that which finds itself beyond is own limit. This establishes the fundamental principle of self-determination which is the very essence of free will, as I believe is axiomatic or self evident. This puts spirit and its truth as freedom or personality at the foundation of reality and which permeates the Vedic conception that has survived for millennia.
This means that the infinite is not opposed to the finite but both intrinsic to and extrinsic to the finite, or immanent and transcendent without being a fusing or con-fusing of their difference. In Chaitanya vaisnavism as in Hegelian philosophy this is the principle the identity of identity in difference, in which the difference is essential to the identity as much as identity is essential to the difference. This idea is neither dualistic nor non-dualistic which are merely moments of an overarching spiritual concept that is not static or abstract but is constituted by the dynamic movement of thought.
The pivotal point as Hegel mentions in his treatise on Phenomenology is that the Absolute is to be understood as Subject as much as we currently understand it to be substance. And Subject in its higher conceptions is consciousness, self [self-consciousness], reason, and ultimately Spirit. A reality that is pure substance without consciousness is darkness or ignorance. Just as the world before the Sun rises is cloaked in indeterminate darkness or ignorance of any determinate quality, so too substance without subject, without consciousness, remains dark and indeterminate. It is only Spirit which lights up the darkness of substance and gives life and definition to reality. This is the idea behind trying to comprehend the absolute as personal.
It should also be noted that Spirit in its unrealized state does not immediately awaken to its own nature as Spirit but in its illusory non-spiritual or darkened phase develops in stages, just as the Sunrise gradually reveals the colorful spectacle of Nature for an awakening world. These gradually developing stages of spiritual awakening appear [in Hegel's Phenomenology] as sense certainty, perception, understanding, life, consciousness, self consciousness, reason and ultimately spirit knowing itself as spirit.
Sincerely,
B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.
BMP
Nov 6, 2017, 2:29:05 PM11/6/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Dr Sumangala DD,
Thank you for your kindness and encouragement. I also wish you well in your service.
Charge is determined by passing an electron through a magnetic field.[a dipolar field] into something like a cloud chamber to determine if it is deflected from a straight path. Many questions exist for explaining what an electron is and how it moves. I often quote Sir Arthur Eddington's statement: "something unknown is doing we know not what, that is what our theory of the electron amounts to." And this is foundation of the entire modern theory of physics.
Recently a very precise calculation on anti-protons was made to determine their proportional difference from protons. The Dirac equation of relativistic quantum mechanics produces a positive and negative result which indicates that if the two opposite particles annihilate each other there could be no matter. The existence of the world depends on an asymmetry in their respective quantities. But one researcher concluded: "All of our observations find a complete symmetry between matter and antimatter, which is why the universe should not actually exist."
|
So physics is in deep trouble ironically because of advances in physics, and mathematics is fundamentally in equally deep trouble since Cantor and Godel. This leaves a lot of explaining to do.
Even the basic understanding of gravity has recently faced a daunting challenge
|
Some of the older scientists may find these developments to be discouraging and depressing since so much of their own egoic identity is invested in such dissolving conceptions of science, while the younger generation may be elated and enlivened to realize that they have the opportunity to create an entirely new, disruptive and innovative future of science. The Zeitgeist (Spirit of the times) marches through the civilizations of Man according to His (Its) own purposes, as Hegel has offered in his idea of a science of spirit. We have only a small role to play in that.
Humbly in service,
B Madhava Puri
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Is the absolute personal?
Andris Heks
Nov 14, 2017, 2:35:46 PM11/14/17
to online_sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Bruno,
My heart-felt, even if belated, thanks for your excellently sharp and generous reply.
Many thanks for your taking the trouble to make your comments which will help to guide me further.
As a light entertainment for you, allow me to attach another writing of mine.
Humillimus servus
(Your humblest servant)
Andris
From: online_sa...@googlegroups.com <online_sa...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be>
Sent: Monday, 6 November 2017 2:39 AM
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/4E61E4E6-86F6-456C-A842-319F73DC96BB%40ulb.ac.be.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages