On Mar 23, 2009, at 8:04 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jr_...@...> wrote:
Judy,
The jury about the reality of physics may still be out. For now,
all of these scientists are still speculating. Even Hawking, the
English physicist, has bet $100 that the scientists of the Hadron
Collider in Switzerland will not find the missing particle needed
to prove the unification theory in physics. Instead, Hawking is
predicting that the scientists will find more particles to confuse
the physics pot, so to speak.
Intuitively, I do appreciate the idea that a musician like Andrea
Bocelli can be considered a scientist of the genius kind. The same
could be said for Monet and other artists--writers included.
Regards,
JR
Quantum mechanics explains a lot, but the big problems arise when
trying to form a unified field theory, which Hawking and others
continue to struggle with. But there is no unified field theory
yet, despite what Haglin says. As the quote in the first post says,
". . . if there's something about the physical world that quantum
mechanics isn't telling you, it doesn't follow that those gaps can
be filled with poetry." Mystical answers are not necessarily the
correct answers.
Quantum Mechanics is often misused to explain more than it does.
Consciousness is a big example. And classical physics still
explains behavior of "large" objects. Classical physics isn't wrong,
it just isn't the whole picture.
I really appreciate Ken Wilber's slant on physics, which is really the
same slant anyone who is actually trained in physics will get right
away: physics, at best, describes the gross--the very gross--physical
world. Physicality. There's nothing spiritual about it at all. It a
nuts and bolts worldview. It's only en extenso spiritually interesting
at all. Consciousness is not the unified field, not by a long shot. In
fact, if we really understand what spiritual paths who touch on this
subject have to say, we realize it's not consciousness at all that is
the unified field, it's prana. Interestingly, by Nirukta, prana
actually means "first unit of energy", first as in "primary".
If you look at early MIU textbooks (privately printed), students were
required to take an interdisciplinary set of courses which included
physics. The physics module, as per the overriding TM mythology,
compared the experience of TM to physics and the imaginary unified
field of consciousness. But--and a very important "but"--at the end
they explained in no uncertain terms, that you can only take analogies
"so far". They admitted right up front they were "pushing it". But
eventually these edges were blurred...and eventually, ignored. The
Marshy said they should. So they did.
