Wat is eg,,en,Besprekings met Ranga,,en,Hierdie boodskap is 'n lang bespreking per e-pos wat ek met my vriend Ranga gehad het,,en,Die onderwerp was die onwerklikheid van die werklikheid van dinge en hoe hierdie begrip in die fisika toegepas kan word,,en,Gaan weer deur die debat,,en,Ek voel dat Ranga homself beter bekwaam in die filosofiese aangeleenthede beskou as ek,,en,ek doen ook,,en,Ek beskou hom as beter gelees as ek,,en,Maar ek voel dat sy aanname,,en,dat ek nie soveel geweet het dat ek oor sulke dinge moes praat nie,,en,het miskien sy mening bevooroordeeld en hom verblind vir sommige van die werklik nuwe dinge,,en,na my mening,,en,Ek moes sê,,en,nietemin,,en,Ek dink daar is 'n hele paar interessante punte wat tydens die debat na vore gekom het wat van algemene belang kan wees,,en,Ek het die debat geredigeer en geformateer vir leesbaarheid,,en? Discussions with Ranga.

Tue,,en,Ek ondersoek die rol van lig in die waarneming en argumenteer dat die spesiale lig van die snelheid van lig in ons werklikheid afhang van die feit dat ons 'n werklikheid is wat geskep word deur lig,,en,Net soos die spoed van klank spesiaal sou wees in die werklikheid van 'n vlermuis wat met eggolokasie geskep word,,en,soos jy gesê het,,en,Klank is belangrik vir 'n vlermuis,,en,maar is nie die enigste manier waarop dit die eksterne wêreld waarneem nie, laat staan ​​nog sy eie liggaam,,en,So is ook lig vir mense,,en,Om op navorsing as 'n navorsingstrategie te fokus, is anders as om te sê dat lig fundamenteel vir ons spesiaal is,,en,in terme van AR of selfs R,,en,lig het geen spesiale plek as sodanig nie,,en,ook,,en,R moet duideliker gedefinieer word soos van toepassing op alle wesens,,en,of slegs vir mense,,en,of net vir jou,,en,Hierdie self is 'n konseptuele doolhof,,en,as u daaraan gedink het,,en, May 22, 2007 at 2:13 PM

I go on to explore the role of light in sensing and argue that the specialness of the speed of light in our reality hinges on the fact that ours is a reality created using light. Much like the speed of sound would be special in a bat’s reality created using echolocation, as you said.

Sound is important to a bat, but is not the only way it perceives the external world let alone its own body. So is light for humans. To focus on light as a research strategy is different from saying that light is fundamentally special to us. So, in terms of AR or even R, light has no special place as such. Also, R has to be defined more clearly as applicable to all beings, or only to humans, or only to you. This itself is a conceptual maze- if you have thought about it.

Ek stel nie voor dat die absolute werklikheid verstaan ​​of geken kan word aan die hand van ons ondersoeke in ons fenomenale wêreld nie,,en,dit mag moontlik gebruik word van die feit dat die abs,,en,die werklikheid IS anders as ons persepsie daarvan,,en,as ons modelleer,,en,ter wille van betoog,,en,'n absolute werklikheid wat klassiek gehoorsaam is,,en,Galilese,,en,relativiteit en werk die proses van sensasie deur lig uit,,en,ons kry 'n perseptuele werklikheid wat baie ooreenstem met wat Einstein in SR beskryf,,en,Dit moet aandui dat klassieke meganika 'n goeie model vir AR is,,en,soos u tereg opgemerk het,,en,klassieke meganika is 'n ander manifestasie van ons persepsie en dit kan nie alles wees om te AR.IOW nie,,en,ons hoef nie te weet wat die absolute werklikheid is nie,,en,ons moet net weet dat dit NIE is wat ons sien nie,,en. But, it may be possible use the fact that the abs. reality IS different from our perception of it. For instance, if we model (for the sake of argument) an absolute reality that obeys classical (Galilean) relativity and work out the process of sensing through light, we get a perceptual reality very similar to what Einstein describes in SR. This should indicate that classical mechanics is a good model for AR. But, as you rightly pointed out, classical mechanics is another manifestation of our perception and it cannot be all there is to AR.IOW, we don’t need to know what absolute reality IS, we just need to know that it IS NOT what we perceive. Met hierdie kennis of onderskeiding word ernstig toegepas op astrofisiese verskynsels,,en,ons kan alreeds met goeie verduidelikings vorendag kom vir GRB en radiojets,,en,ons kan selfs kosmologiese kenmerke soos die CMBR en die groeiende heelal verklaar,,en,Hier moet jy die waters versigtig trap,,en,U kan geïnspireer word deur die metafisiese onderskeid tussen absolute en fenomenale werklikheid,,en,hierdie inspirasie lei jou om die aard en beperkings van die werklikheid wat ons raaksien te waardeer,,en,Hierdie waardering kan u help om dinge in 'n nuwe lig te sien,,en,By wyse van spreke,,en,Maar u verduidelikings van die fenomenale wêreld,,en,byvoorbeeld GRB's,,en,is glad nie op enige aspek van AR gebaseer nie,,en,aangesien dit nie vir ons toeganklik is nie,,en,volgens ons eie definisie,,en,begin met 'n raamwerk van AR,,en,soos in u blokdiagram van AR-,,en,Persepsie / Cognition-,,en,Waargenome werklikheid-,,en, we can already come up with good explanations for GRB and radio jets. In fact, we can even explain cosmological features like the CMBR and the expanding universe.

Here is where one has to tread waters carefully. You can be inspired by the metaphysical distinction between absolute and phenomenal reality, this inspiration leading you to appreciate the nature and limitations of reality we perceive. This appreciation may help you to see things in a new light, so to speak. But your explanations of the phenomenal world (for example GRBs) are not based on any aspect of AR at all, as it is not accessible to us, by our own definition. So, starting off with a framework of AR (as in your block diagram of AR->Perception/Cognition->Perceived Reality->Measurements-,,en,misleidend,,en,nie nodig nie, aangesien dit glad nie in die verduideliking van GRB gebruik word nie,,en,Die kritieke punt in die uitleg van GRB is die bevraagtekening van die ligversperring wat deur 'n vorige teorie geskep is en nie deur enige aspek van hierdie raamwerk nie.,,en,Hierdie nuwe teorie moet verduidelik word in terme van die vervalsing en toetsing daarvan,,en,Met meer waarnemende waarnemings kan 'n mens dan hierdie teorie bewys of weerlê,,en,As 'n mens dit nie herken nie, raak dit konseptuele verwarring,,en,'n mens kan mense mislei om te glo dat wetenskap deur streng analise die absolute werklikheid kan raaksien,,en,selfs al is die voorneme om hierdie idee nie te bevorder nie,,en,Ek dink dat u veral hierdie idee in u boek moet vermy,,en,Soos ek vroeër gesê het,,en,Verskeie wetenskaplikes is geïnspireer deur die metafisiese konsep van AR,,en>Science) is 1) misleading 2) not necessary as it is not used at all in the explanation of GRB. The critical point in the explanation of GRB is the questioning of the light barrier which was created by a previous theory and not by any aspect of this framework. This new theory has to be explained in terms of how to falsify and test it. With more perceptual observations one can then prove or disprove this theory. If one does not recognize this one gets into conceptual confusion. Further, one may mislead people into believing that science by rigorous analysis can help to see absolute reality (even if one intends not to perpetuate this notion). I think you should especially avoid this notion in your book.

As I have said earlier, numerous scientists have been inspired by the metaphysical concept of AR, wat hulle daartoe lei om probleme met ons persepsie te sien,,en,In neurowetenskap,,en,werk aan bistabiele persepsies,,en,binokulêre wedywering,,en,blinde sig,,en,en so aan en so meer het gekom uit die insig wat daar is,,en,fout,,en,In sosiale wetenskappe,,en,die idee van waargenome tyddilatasie tydens 'n baie lae en baie hoë stimuluskompleksiteit is ook tot 'n taamlike mate gewerk,,en,In hierdie gevalle,,en,wetenskaplikes het besef dat die verklaring van persepsiefoute gepaard gaan met verdere perseptuele foute,,en,as Brahman Maya nie veroorsaak nie,,en,wie / wat doen,,en,Hierdie vraag is gebaseer op die aanname van 'n tradisionele opvatting dat iets iets anders moet veroorsaak,,en,As u nog steeds binne hierdie uitgangspunt werk,,en,jy vra steeds sulke vrae,,en,Die idee van kousaliteit self moet bevraagteken word,,en,Kontroleer J,,en,Pearl,,en,oorsaaklikheid,,en,modelle,,en. In neuroscience, work on bistable percepts, binocular rivalry, blind sight, and so on and so forth have come from the insight that there is “error” in our perception. In social sciences, the notion of perceived time dilation during very low and very high stimulus complexity has also been worked on to a quite a degree. In these cases, scientists have recognized that clarifying perceptual errors is beset with further perceptual errors.

Well, if Brahman doesn’t cause Maya, who/what does?

This question is based on the assumption of a traditional notion of causation that something has to cause something else. When you are still working within this premise, you are still asking such questions. The notion of causality itself needs to be questioned. Do check J. Pearl (2000) – Causality: models, reasoning and inference and other related works. The concept of Brahman and Atman, and that of Sunyata in Buddhism, questioned causation even before Hume did it. We have to guard our scientific arrogance against taking a superiority attitudewe have yet to fathom some of these concepts.

What this means to me is that, Brahman and Maya are one and the same.

As all statements in Hinduism, this one also is mystical 🙂 They are the same, but they are also distinct from each other as you point out below.

Ourscientific attitudemakes us hypocritical about other ideas, concepts and fields of knowledge. More importantly, it has forced us to take positions. Dit of dit of dit moet wees,,en,so nie, is dit so,,en,mistieke,,en,As 'n mens nie die gelyktydigheid van oënskynlik teenstrydige idees kan verwant aan of verstaan ​​nie, skakel hulle dit na die,,en,Dit is 'n kwaal van wetenskap waaraan 'n mens moet wegkom,,en,'N Sekere ootmoed en verwardheid oor dinge wat u nie verstaan ​​nie, is baie nodig,,en,Baie dinge waarmee die wetenskap nou raak,,en,was voorheen geheimsinnig,,en,Baie gevolgtrekkings oor Hindoeïsme of ander ouer metodes van ondersoek was gebaseer op subjektiewe besinning,,en,miskien,,en,nie op die sogenaamde nie,,en,doel,,en,analise,,en,maar dit was net 'n ander metode,,en,en dit het sy meriete gehad,,en,Die idee dat iets terselfdertyd anders is, is een van hierdie moeilike konsepte,,en, if not it is “mystical”. When one cannot relate to or understand simultaneity of seemingly contradictory ideas one relegates them to the “mystical”. This is a malady with science that one has to get away from. A certain humility and perplexity at things that one does not understand is very necessary. Many things that science is coming to grips with now, was previously thought to be mysterious. Many conclusions arrived in Hinduism or any other older methods of enquiry were based on subjective reflection, perhaps, not on the so called “objective” analysis, but it was just another method, and it had its merits. The notion of something being different at the same time being same is one of these difficult concepts. Die wetenskap moet leer om teenstrydighede te aanvaar en by teenstrydighede bly sonder om standpunt in te neem,,en,maar dit bevraagteken die metode van wetenskap self,,en,Om dit vir onsself meer verstaanbaar te maak,,en,ten koste van die opknoping daarvan,,en,dit kan gesien word as die konstante vloed in die Brahman,,en,konstante interaksie van die heelal die voorwerpe en wesens daarin as manifestasie van die verskynsel,,en,Hierdie interaksie skep 'n sekere onderskeid tussen die identifisering van voorwerpe en wesens as individue en die behoefte aan die voortbestaan ​​van hierdie individue,,en,Die ontstaan ​​van hierdie onderskeid is die begin van die fenomenale wêreld waarvan ek nie praat in terme van evolusie of opkoms van die lewe hier nie,,en – but that is questioning the very method of science itself.

To make this more understandable to ourselves, at the cost of fouling it up – it can be seen as the constant flux in the Brahman, constant interaction of the universe the objects and beings in it as manifestation of the phenomenon. This interaction begets a certain differentiation the identification of objects and beings as individuals and the need for the survival of these individuals. The birth of this differentiation is the beginning of the phenomenal world I’m not talking in terms of evolution or emergence of life here. Die kritieke insig dat ons eintlik deel van 'n geheel is, is die dood van hierdie onderskeid en die heruitsending van die Brahman, die besef hiervan, word Atman genoem,,en,Dit gebeur nie in ons nie,,en,bewering,,en,behalwe in uiterste omstandighede,,en,sogenaamde Nirvana of Samadhi,,en,en beslis nie op 'n volgehoue ​​manier nie,,en,En vandaar,,en,ons voortdurende behoefte om individualisties en anders te wees en om ons verskil te bewys en teorieë te maak oor die wêreld wat ons rondom ons sien,,en,Ek dink normale dood,,en,nie Nirvana of Samadhi nie,,en,is die einde van die individuele differensiasie,,en,kennis ens,,en,In die mate dat ons niks onthou en weet nie,,en,eerste hand,,en,niks voor ons geboorte nie,,en,ons kom uit niks,,en,En ons dood moet 'n samesmelting wees met niksheid of alles wat Brahman is nie,,en,'N Mens kan dit ook sê,,en. This does not happen in us, allegedly, except in extreme circumstances (so-called Nirvana or Samadhi) and certainly not in a sustained way. And hence, our constant need to be individualist and different and to prove our difference and make theories about the world we see around us.

I think normal death (not Nirvana or Samadhi) is the end of the individual differentiation, knowledge etc. To the extent that we remember nothing and know (first hand) nothing from before our birth, we come from nothing. And our death has to be a merging with nothingness or everythingness that is Brahman.

One can say that too. Die rede waarom ek Samadhi genoem het, is dat dit beskou word as 'n toestand van bewustheid en tog 'n sublimasie in die Brahman,,en,Ek het nie Samadhi of die dood ervaar nie,,en,oksimoron,,en,'n toestand van nie-wees,,en,so ek kan nie sê nie,,en,Maar dit is enigiemand se raaiskoot,,en,om dit op te som,,en,die punt wat ek wil stel, is dat die idee van Absolute Werklikheid apart van Realiteit gebrekkig is,,en,Hierdie punt,,en,Ek is nie seker dat ek saamstem nie,,en,In die mate dat Maya 'n manifestasie of projeksie van Brahman is,,en,hulle is dieselfde,,en,Maar dit is ook duidelik omdat klank anders is as lugdrukgolwe, of reuk verskil van chemikalieë,,en,soos 'n Njana-joga-boek dit stel,,en,hitte verskil van vuur,,en,Kan die een sonder die ander wees,,en,Kan klink sonder lugdrukgolwe,,en. However, I have not experienced Samadhi or death (oxymoron), a state of non-being, so I cannot say. But it is anybody’s guess.

So, to sum it up, the point I would like to make is that the notion of Absolute Reality separate from Reality is flawed.

This point, I’m not sure I agree with. To the extent that Maya is a manifestation or projection of Brahman, they are the same. But they are also distinct as sound is different from air pressure waves or smell is different from chemicals. (Or, as a Njana yoga book put it, heat is different from fire).

Can one be without the other? Can sound be without air pressure waves? Dit is waar dit bevraagteken word of Maya kan bestaan ​​sonder Brahman of andersom,,en,is soms 'n beperking,,en,Die idee dat 'n mens die AR kan bereik deur 'n beter analise van R is selfs meer gebrekkig,,en,Hiermee stem ek saam,,en,Maar ons hoef miskien nie na AR te gaan om ons waargenome R beter te verstaan ​​nie,,en,ek sou sê,,en,om ons waargenome R op 'n ander manier te verstaan,,en,beter of slegter is 'n mens se oogpunt,,en,wat laat ons daarmee,,en,Dit as u iets verduidelik,,en,soos GRB's,,en,jy verduidelik beide die AR en R omdat hulle verweef is,,en,die skoonheid hiervan wat enige teorie denkbaar het,,en,bewys of nie weerlê nie,,en,vervalsbaar of nie volgens 'n wetenskaplike metode nie,,en,verduidelik beide AR en R,,en,omdat die verduidelikings produkte van ons sintuie en intellek is,,en,wat deel is van ons wêreld,,en,As ons dit gesien het,,en. Reductionism, is many sometimes a limitation.

The notion that one can reach the AR through better analysis of R is even more flawed.

This I agree with. But we may not have to get to AR to understand our perceived R better.

I would say “to understand our perceived R in a different way” – better or worse is one’s point of view.

So, what does that leave us with? That if you explain something (such as GRBs), you are explaining both the AR and R because they are intertwined. Further, the beauty of this that any theory conceivable (proven or disproven, falsifiable or not in a scientific method) explains both AR and R, because the explanations are products of our senses and intellect, which are parts of our world. If we have perceived it, dit moet in die wêreld AR of R wees of andersins,,en,as u aan hierdie kwessies dink,,en,die gevaar bestaan ​​dat dit in een van twee idees sal stollig,,en,Een daarvan is dat AR of Brahman onbegryplik en ver buite ons bereik is en dat ons ons nie moet bekommer oor die eienskappe daarvan nie,,en,Die ander is dat PR of Maya al is waarmee ons moet werk,,en,ons teoretisering moet daartoe beperk wees,,en,Watter,,en,Ek glo,,en,is die basis van wetenskaplike realisme,,en,My boek is waarskynlik 'n ondersoek na 'n middelgrond,,en,suksesvol of nie,,en,Dit lyk asof u albei hierdie begrippe vermaak,,en,'N Mens hoef nie standpunt in te neem nie,,en,soos gewoonlik in die wetenskap gedoen word,,en,'N Mens kan met die teenstrydighede leef,,en,van die onbegryplike AR en die moontlikheid om met die beperkings van ons sintuie en intellek te werk,,en.

In my view, when thinking about these issues, there is a danger of coagulating into one of two notions. One is that AR or Brahman is incomprehensible and way beyond our reach and we shouldn’t worry about its properties. The other is that to the extent that PR or Maya is all we have to work with, our theorizings should be confined to it. Which, I believe, is the basis of scientific realism. My book is probably an exploration in finding a middle ground, successful or not. You seem to entertain both these notions.

One does not have to take a stand (as normally done in Science). One can live with the contradictions – of the incomprehensible AR and the eventuality of working with the limitations of our senses and intellect. Even if you say that you are working towards the middle ground you are in fact still working within the confines of your senses and intellect. From my point of view, you have been inspired by the metaphysical notions of reality and that has helped you to see the problems of physics in a different way. It is a ground that is neither middle nor on the edgesit is the only ground you can walk on. It is a ground that others have walked on too, in other ways. Still, it is a ground that can be a wonderful garden (being poetic here 🙂 and full of joy for you. >

In the end, what we don’t know is what we don’t know. Ons kan met verskillende sienings en oortuigings en metodes vorendag kom om ons onkunde aan te val,,en,maar in 'n stadium,,en,ons moet net aanvaar dat daar grense is vir wat ons kan weet,,en,Inderdaad,,en,Waarvan ek moet waak, is wetenskaplike arrogansie,,en,Arrogansie dat wetenskaplike metodes wat ons alleen voorgehou het, kan ons vrae beantwoord,,en,'N Sekere nederigheid en verwarring by dinge rondom ons sal ons almal goed doen,,en,In elk geval,,en,dit was 'n tydjie sedert ek sulke gesprekke gevoer het,,en,Dit is goed om hierdie gedagtes weer aan te wakker,,en,dankie,,en, but at some stage, we just have to accept that there are limits to what we can know.

Indeed. What I think one should watch out for is scientific arrogance. Arrogance that scientific methods we put forward alone can answer our questions. A certain humility and perplexity at things around us will do us all good.

Anyways, it has been a while since I had conversations of this kind. Good to rekindle these thoughts, thanks.

Cheers
Ranga

Comments

One thought on “What is Real? Discussions with Ranga.”

Comments are closed.