--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@...> wrote: > > > On May 16, 2012, at 10:59 AM, salyavin808 wrote: > > > > So are you saying that the TMO dictum "consciousness is primary, > > > matter is secondary", echoing the sentiments of Shankara, is a > > > falsehood? > > > > I would say it's a falsehood as I can't see any evidence to > > support it, I assume it's a case of mistaking an altered > > inner state for meaningful knowledge of external reality. > > I think that would be clear to anyone who actually studied physics - > it's all about physicality, and very little about "consciousness". > > > > > I guess if they believe it they aren't deliberately perpetuating > > falsehood just mistaken about the quality of the knowledge, > > but they are lying when they say it's done and dusted, even JH > > doesn't say that here even though he implies it's an explanation > > accepted or considered by other scientists, when it isn't. > > In old self-published multi-disciplinary books MIU used to produce, > they were very clear about parallels in physics being merely > analogies, and that there was a certain point where these analogies > broke down. But over time this was shelved and the "consciousness is > primary" delusion became part of TM Org dogma and sales pitches. > > But this is also a huge trend in India in general, with even the > government supporting nebulous connections between religion and science. > > > And when you start putting King Tony's weird ideas into the > > mix and claiming even that you can predict and prevent earth- > > quakes (but mysteriously choose not to) it goes over any sort > > of reasonable interpretation of even the original idea that > > consciousness is a factor in QP. I imagine the fathers of QP > > would go scampering into the trees if they heard John Hagelin > > in full flow about what he considers "knowledge." And then > > come out of the trees to give him a good slap upside his head > > when they heard his claim that he'd finished Einsteins work! > > > > > No, no, please say it ain't so, Quantum Vedism cannot go! > > > > I'm sure it will stick around for a while yet.... > > Fortunately there's a growing backlash from actual working scientists > to counter such quantum fairy tales. >
FWIW, once again, Richard Feynman: "Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, "But how can it be like that?" because you will get "down the drain," into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that." On the apparent absurdities of Quantum behavior, in The Character of Physical Law (1965) Lecture 6 : Probability and Uncertainty the Quantum Mechanical view of Nature
