Symphony of Science June 6, 2012
Posted by julfire in Uncategorized.add a comment
For me, this captures the spirituality of science–the beauty, mystery and wonder!
A Life of Inquiry October 30, 2009
Posted by julfire in Uncategorized.add a comment
Julia Bystrova
Socrates said that a sense of wonder is the mark of a philosopher. He went so far as to say that philosophy itself had no other origin than this.
The natural world contains enough marvels to reward our contemplation without end. Simply looking upon the complexities and beauty of nature can lead one to ask deep and probing questions about the nature of things . Every lightening bolt is a jagged finger pointing to the heavens– like all the questions that point our minds to places where flashes of insight will illuminate our way. This world where the simple song of a bird stirs something within us that invites us to listen still more deeply.
The philosopher living a life in the natural world, is compelled to ask questions regardless of the fact that secrets are often not given up easily. The philosopher strives to know the overall harmony and in order to have a relationship with it.
To live an examined life is to contribute to the evolution of our species, to bring us small steps forward toward a considerate, and deeper dialogue with our fellow humans and our natural world.
Science and spirituality are natural expressions of the inquiring mind, albeit very different in both method and expression. Both are attempts to make inroads into the great mystery we inhabit in order to understand and work with it in more rewarding ways. Both have their origin in the natural philosophical tendencies of the human mind.
And you,
How do you pursue understanding in your life? Do you gather data and quantify it? Do you feel into the experience of it? Where has that led you in your life?
What grand questions keep you up late at night? October 30, 2009
Posted by julfire in Uncategorized.add a comment
For me, the first is
“is there an end to the bigness of space? If so, what’s past that?”
and also
“is my brain real? If so, how come I can’t see it?”
the first question short-circuits my brain
the second one shuts it down…
then I can go to sleep. ahh.
–julia
SEVEN QUESTIONS THAT KEEP PHYSICISTS UP AT NIGHT by Ivan Semeniuk October 30, 2009
Posted by julfire in Physics and More..., Uncategorized.add a comment
SEVEN QUESTIONS THAT KEEP PHYSICISTS UP AT NIGHT
by Ivan Semeniuk
New Scientist
October 23, 2009
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18041-seven-questions-that-keep-physic
ists-up-at-night.html
It’s not your average confession show: a panel of leading physicists
spilling the beans about what keeps them tossing and turning in the wee
hours.
That was the scene a few days ago in front of a packed auditorium at the
Perimeter Institute, in Waterloo, Canada, when a panel of physicists was
asked to respond to a single question: “What keeps you awake at night?”
The discussion was part of “Quantum to Cosmos”, a 10-day physics
extravaganza, which ends on Sunday.
While most panelists professed to sleep very soundly, here are seven key
conundrums that emerged during the session, which can be viewed here.
Why this universe?
In their pursuit of nature’s fundamental laws, physicists have essentially
been working under a long standing paradigm: demonstrating why the universe
must be as we see it. But if other laws can be thought of, why can’t the
universes they describe exist in some other place? “Maybe we’ll find there’s
no other alternative to the universe we know,” says Sean Carroll of Caltech.
“But I suspect that’s not right.” Carroll finds it easy to imagine that
nature allows for different kinds of universes with different laws. “So in
our universe, the question becomes why these laws and not some other laws?”
What is everything made of?
It’s now clear that ordinary matter — atoms, stars and galaxies — accounts
for a paltry 4 per cent of the universe’s total energy budget. It’s the
other 96 per cent that keeps University of Michigan physicist Katherine
Freese engaged. Freese is excited that one part of the problem, the nature
of dark matter, may be nearing resolution. She points to new data from
experiments like NASA’s Fermi satellite that are consistent with the notion
that dark matter particles in our own galaxy are annihilating with one
another at a measurable rate, which in turn could reveal their properties.
But the discovery of dark energy, which appears to be speeding up the
expansion of the universe, has created a vast new set of puzzles for which
there are no immediate answers in sight. This includes the nature of the
dark energy itself and the question of why it has a value that is so
extraordinarily small, allowing for the formation of galaxies, stars and the
emergence of life.
How does complexity happen?
From the unpredictable behaviour of financial markets to the rise of life
from inert matter, Leo Kadananoff, physicist and applied mathematician at
the University of Chicago, finds the most engaging questions deal with the
rise of complex systems. Kadanoff worries that particle physicists and
cosmologists are missing an important trick if they only focus on the very
small and the very large. “We still don’t know how ordinary window glass
works and keeps it shape,” says Kadanoff. “The investigation of familiar
things is just as important in the search for understanding.” Life itself,
he says, will only be truly understood by decoding how simple constituents
with simple interactions can lead to complex phenomena.
Will string theory ever be proved correct?
Cambridge physicist David Tong is passionate about the mathematical beauty
of string theory — the idea that the fundamental particles we observe are
not point-like dots, but rather tiny strings. But he admits it once brought
him to a philosophical crisis when he realised he might live his entire life
not knowing whether it actually constitutes a description of all reality.
Even experiments such as the Large Hadron Collider and the Planck satellite,
while well positioned to reveal new physics, are unlikely to say anything
definitive about strings. Tong finds solace in knowing that the methods of
string theory can be brought to bear on less fundamental problems, such as
the behaviour of quarks and exotic metals. “It is a useful theory,” he says,
“so I’m trying to concentrate on that.”
What is the singularity?
For cosmologist and Perimeter Institute director Neil Turok, the biggest
mystery is the one that started it all, the big bang. Conventional theory
points back to an infinitely hot and dense state at the beginning of the
universe, where the known laws of physics break down. “We don’t know how to
describe it,” says Turok. “How can anyone claim to have a theory of
everything without that?” Turok is hopeful that string theory and a related
development known as the “holographic principle”, which shows that a
singularity in three dimensions can be translated into a mathematically more
manageable entity in two dimensions (which may imply that the third
dimension and gravity itself are illusory). “These tools are giving us new
ways of thinking about the problem, which are deeply satisfying in a
mathematical sense,” he says.
What is reality really?
The material world may, at some level, lie beyond comprehension, but Anton
Zeilinger, professor of physics at the University of Vienna, is profoundly
hopeful that physicists have merely scratched the surface of something much
bigger. Zeilinger specialises in quantum experiments that demonstrate the
apparent influence of observers in the shaping of reality. “Maybe the real
breakthrough will come when we start to realise the connections between
reality, knowledge and our actions,” he says. The concept is mind-bending,
but it is well established in practice. Zeilinger and others have shown that
particles that are widely separated can somehow have quantum states that are
linked, so that observing one affects the outcome of the other. No one has
yet fathomed how the universe seems to know when it is being watched.
How far can physics take us?
Perhaps the biggest question of all is whether the process of inquiry that
has revealed so much about the universe since the time of Galileo and Kepler
is nearing the end of the line. “I worry whether we’ve come to the limits of
empirical science,” says Lawrence Krauss of Arizona State University.
Specifically, Krauss wonders if it will require knowledge of other
universes, such as those posed by Carroll, to understand why our universe is
the way it is. If such knowledge is impossible to access, it may spell the
end for deepening our understanding any further.
Turok says that’s exactly why the Perimeter Institute exists, to harness the
thinking of the world’s brightest young minds in an unrestrained
environment. By optimising conditions for creative thinking, it may be
possible to avoid such an impasse.
“We’re used to thinking of theoretical physics as accidental,” says Turok.
“We need to ask whether there’s a more strategic way to speed up
understanding and discovery.”
Perhaps then all those troubled physicists can finally get some rest — or
at least switch to more mundane worries.
the problem with science vs religion; a philosophical discussion October 26, 2009
Posted by julfire in Uncategorized.Tags: Philosophy
add a comment
‘Let me explain the problem science has with religion.’
The athiest professor of Philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of His new students to stand.
‘You’re a Christian, aren’t you, son?’
‘Yes sir,’ the student says.
‘So you believe in God?’
‘Absolutely. ‘
‘Is God good?’
‘Sure! God’s good.’
‘Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?’
‘Yes’
‘Are you good or evil?’
‘The Bible says I’m evil.’
The professor grins knowingly. ‘Aha! The Bible! He considers for a
Moment. ‘Here’s one for you. Let’s say there’s a sick person over here and
You can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?’
‘Yes sir, I would.’
‘So you’re good…!’
‘I wouldn’t say that.’
‘But why not say that? You’d help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn’t.’
The student does not answer, so the professor continues. ‘He doesn’t, does He? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Can you answer that one?’
The student remains silent. ‘No, you can’t, can you?’ , the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. ‘Let’s start again, young fella. Is God good?’
‘Er..yes,’ the student says.
‘Is Satan good?’
The student doesn’t hesitate on this one. ‘No.’
‘Then where does Satan come from?’
The student falters. ‘From God’
‘That’s right. God made Satan, didn’t he? Tell me, son. Is there Evil in this world?’
‘Yes, sir.’
‘Evil’s everywhere, isn’t it? And God did make everything, correct?’
‘Yes’
‘So who created evil?’ The professor continued, ‘If God created
Everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.’
Again, the student has no answer.
‘Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?’
The student squirms on his feet. ‘Yes.’
‘So who created them?’
The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his
question. ‘Who created them?’ There is still no answer. Suddenly the
lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is
mesmerized. ‘Tell me,’ he continues onto another student. ‘Do you believe in
Jesus Christ, son?’
The student’s voice betrays him and cracks. ‘Yes, professor, I do.’
The old man stops pacing. ‘Science says you have five senses you use to
Identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?’
‘No sir. I’ve never seen Him.’
‘Then tell us if you’ve ever heard your Jesus?’
‘No, sir, I have not.’
‘Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelled your
Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ,
Or, God for that matter?’
‘No, sir, I’m afraid I haven’t.’
‘Yet you still believe in him?’
‘Yes’
‘According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn’t exist. What do you say to that, Son?’
‘Nothing,’ the student replies. ‘I only have my faith.’
‘Yes, faith,’ the professor repeats. ‘And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.’
The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. ‘Professor, is there such thing as heat?’
‘ Yes.’
‘And is there such a thing as cold?’
‘Yes, son, there’s cold too.’
‘No sir, there isn’t.’
The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested.
The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain.
‘You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat,
unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don’t have
anything called ‘cold’. We can hit down to 458 degrees below zero, which is
no heat, but we can’t go any further after that. There is no such thing
as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458
degrees. Everybody or object is susceptible to study when it has or
transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit
energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir,
cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat
is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.’
Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.
‘What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?’
‘Yes,’ the professor replies without hesitation. ‘What is night if it isn’t darkness?’
‘You’re wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence
of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it’s called darkness, isn’t it? That’s the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, darkness isn’t. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn’t you?’
The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will
be a good semester. ‘So what point are you making, young man?’
‘Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to
start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.’
The professor’s face cannot hide his surprise this time. ‘Flawed? Can you explain how?’
‘You are working on the premise of duality,’ the student explains. ‘You argue that there is life and then there’s death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can’t even explain a thought.’
‘It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be
ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.’
‘Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved
from a monkey?’
‘If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.’
‘Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?’
The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.
‘Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and
cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?’
The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided. ‘To continue the point you were making earlier to the other
student, let me give you an example of what I mean.’ The student looks
around the room. ‘Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor’s brain?’ The class breaks out into laughter. ‘Is there anyone
here who has ever heard the professor’s brain, felt the professor’s brain,
touched or smelled the professor’s brain? No one appears to have done so.
So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.’ ‘So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?’
Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face
unreadable. Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. ‘I
guess you’ll have to take them on faith..’
‘Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,’ the student continues. ‘Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?’
Now uncertain, the professor responds, ‘Of course, there is. We see it
everyday. It is in the daily example of man’s inhumanity to man. It is in
the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These
manifestations are nothing else but evil.’
To this the student replied, ‘Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God’s love present in his heart. It’s like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.’
The professor sat down.
Science and Nonduality Conference October 26, 2009
Posted by julfire in Uncategorized.add a comment
I just returned from the science and nonduality conference in Marin County CA. It was rollar coaster ride through a variety of perspectives and angles on the idea of nonduality and the sciences that may have some corresponding things to say about it. It was heavy on the philosophy, which makes sense as this is the discipline that most adequetely brings them together in conversation.
Philosophy is a tool. I feel it must be used that way–as a tool for facilitating dialogue and for deeper inquiry. However, just as in any discipline, it can ‘turn in on itself’ and become a hamster wheel of intellectual effort. I have little interest in intellectual excercises for their own sake. What matters to me is getting as close as I can to talking about what’s real and what’s true. That’s it.
Julia
Science and Spirit 