Author Topic: Relativity Supports Buddha's Words  (Read 7686 times)

Offline philboyd

  • Member
  • Posts: 62
    • View Profile
Re: Relativity Supports Buddha's Words
« Reply #30 on: May 21, 2016, 08:41:17 am »
Thanks KC for the clear explanation of wave-particle duality. I believe that supports your original posit better than relativity.That being said I don't agree with the need of western science to adopt eastern science. Each of these two schools has it's own predicate ends, one a gods eye view of the nature of phenomena , the other an experiential understanding. Each with it's own virtues. The combination of the two would be the means for something altogether different. Not necessarily without virtue, but new. Thus the new age assertion is valid. Somehow it seems Rudayd's "The Ballad of East and West" is appropriate here.
Peace

Offline Kenneth Chan

  • Member
  • Posts: 124
    • View Profile
Re: Relativity Supports Buddha's Words
« Reply #31 on: May 21, 2016, 05:57:28 pm »
Thanks KC for the clear explanation of wave-particle duality. I believe that supports your original posit better than relativity.That being said I don't agree with the need of western science to adopt eastern science. Each of these two schools has it's own predicate ends, one a gods eye view of the nature of phenomena , the other an experiential understanding. Each with it's own virtues. The combination of the two would be the means for something altogether different. Not necessarily without virtue, but new. Thus the new age assertion is valid. Somehow it seems Rudayd's "The Ballad of East and West" is appropriate here.

Thank you, philboyd, for your insightful comments. I agree essentially that there is no serious problem with both schools continuing with their own methodology, although I agree also that the combination of the two would lead to something new and interesting. In fact, I believe it could turn out to be very revealing and beneficial. The Dalai Lama certainly feels that this bridging of the two approaches would be beneficial, and he has taken part in many Mind and Life Conferences (that continue regularly to this day) with western scientists and philosophers, in order to initiate better cooperation between the two. 

There is, however, something of a greater concern than the issue of getting experimental science and experiential science to coordinate in the quest for truth. This is a concern that disturbs me far more, and that is the concern that contemporary science is actually misleading a large section of the world’s population by not acknowledging that our science is an observer-dependent science. More to the point, they are misleading the public by repeatedly insisting, without any scientific evidence whatsoever, that the mind is only a secondary, and hence unimportant, phenomenon that is purely derived from matter. This is the positively harmful effect of a science that chooses to suppress and ignore what its own science is telling them.

What this misinformation from the scientists does is that it turns people away from exploring their own minds in the quest for truth and understanding. In other words it has the harmful effect of causing people to ignore the Buddha’s exhortation to look into our own minds for the truth and for the means to free ourselves from suffering. This is a tragedy, and it continues to this day, simply because scientists refuse to acknowledge what is staring them in the face. And what is staring them in the face is that their own science is telling them that their science is an observer-dependent science, and that the mind has a crucial and central role to play.

Both relativity and quantum physics point directly to this fact that our science is an observer-dependent science. Actually, I agree with you, that, if anything, the evidence from quantum physics is even more striking. Quantum physics is practically tells us that our reality is, in a sense, almost created by the observation of the conscious mind.

The problem, unfortunately, is this. Scientists have been trying, for a century now, to devise alternative interpretations of quantum physics in attempts to negate the role of the observer. While they have failed so far, they are still at it, and some scientists even try to convince others that their failed attempts actually work (they actually don’t work if one looks carefully at them, and this has already been pointed out). All this nonetheless means that scientists get away with ignoring what quantum physics is telling them.

The scenario is quite different with relativity. Scientists have no explanation whatsoever (not even attempted explanations) to account for the constancy of the speed of light, other than the one that I have pointed out, and that is that it is the direct result of our science being an observer-dependent science. The key point is this: that conclusion is an inevitable conclusion, in the sense that it cannot be avoided.

All we have to do is to begin with the fact that what we define as time and space depends on our experience, and we can deduce, by pure and simple logic, step by step, that the speed of light will be found to be constant for all frames of reference. There is no way that the scientists can run away from this fact. And that is why I believe we now have a tool to force them to finally acknowledge what has been staring them in the face for an entire century: and that is that our science is an observer-dependent science, and that the mind has a central role to play. The Buddha has essentially been telling us this all along!
« Last Edit: May 21, 2016, 06:22:44 pm by Kenneth Chan »

Offline Kenneth Chan

  • Member
  • Posts: 124
    • View Profile
Re: Relativity Supports Buddha's Words
« Reply #32 on: May 25, 2016, 06:59:36 pm »
For those interested, I have just written and posted a new article on relativity that is more relevant to Buddhism, entitled “Relativity Proves that Time and Space are Empty of Inherent Existence,” at this site: http://kenneth-chan.com/physics/relativity-proves-time-space-empty-inherent-existence/
« Last Edit: May 25, 2016, 07:07:16 pm by Kenneth Chan »

Offline stillpointdancer

  • Enlightenment through insight
  • Member
  • Posts: 549
  • Dancing at the Still Point describes my meditation
    • View Profile
    • Enlightenment for Grown Ups
Re: Relativity Supports Buddha's Words
« Reply #33 on: May 27, 2016, 06:15:57 am »
The human body emits electromagnetic radiation, which can be picked up by scientific detectors (and natural detectors used by sharks too)! Conversely, recent studies have shown that the brain responds to external electromagnetic stimulation, with different areas reacting in different ways: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/brain-stimulation-therapies/brain-stimulation-therapies.shtml

My theory is that meditation uncovers the truths of the universe, but not in ways that can be followed up scientifically. I find it useful, instead, to reflect on how meditation and science are two sides of the same coin.
“You do not need to leave your room. Remain sitting at your table and listen. Do not even listen, simply wait, be quiet, still and solitary. The world will freely offer itself to you to be unmasked, it has no choice, it will roll in ecstasy at your feet.” Franz Kafka

Offline chowkit74

  • Member
  • Posts: 39
    • View Profile
Re: Relativity Supports Buddha's Words
« Reply #34 on: May 29, 2016, 08:54:15 pm »
space x time = frequency x becoming process

Space = a conflation of vibrational, translational & rotational frequencies a.k.a. the characteristics of energy
Time = a dimension for becoming process

So energy is space in tango and space is energy in play.

The general prescription is that any realms of higher vibrational frequency would be able to discern the realms of lower vibrational frequency.  However, the realms of lower vibrational frequency would not be able to discern any realms of higher vibrational frequency. 

In other words, the object or matter must keep on within the purview of the subject’s frequency horizon; without it, the observation would be impossible.  It is akin to any beings of higher vibrational frequencies having an aerial perspective on the affairs of beings with lower vibrational frequencies rather than the other way round.  Therefore, beings of grander vibrational frequency span are able to discern at-will basis on all other beings with common vibrational frequency span via a tweak of frequencies.   

With the progress of civilisation, the human mind frequency span would be altered progressively as well.  For example, it is unknown to mankind the existence of cosmic rays previously.  The advancement of science and technology has made it possible for humans to detect and realise its existence in the cosmos.  In other words, what exists is defined as that which can be known.  If it cannot be known by the mind, then it does not exist.  Therefore, previously, those cosmic rays did not exist to mankind as it was not discerned by the human mind frequencies.  Only in modern days, with the advent of advanced astronomy studies and experiments, did humans alter and expand their innate mind frequency span to a grander scale to enable the detection of things with higher vibrational frequencies. 

As a human, the traits of consciousness are not within the physical body per se.  Instead, it is the physical body that is within the traits of consciousness with the mind functioning as the forerunner of all things.  Basically, mind is a pattern of consciousness which is born from awareness and it can be categorised into two terms i.e. prevailing consciousness and subtle consciousness.  The prevailing mind consciousness is closely related to the physical body, whereas, the subtle mind consciousness is somehow independent from the physical body.  This is because when the physical body is being ‘switch-off’ temporarily the subtle mind consciousness would continue to work unpretentiously as in the experience of lucid dreaming.

Nevertheless, all objects or matters as observed by the mind consciousness must transpire within the purview of the group traits of consciousness.  This includes all the projections and reflections of reality or fallacy being identified and experienced by the respective mind consciousnesses.  In fact, the group traits of consciousness would perform like a powerful microscope and telescope whereby nothing can be discerned outside its horizon.  In other words, the object’s frequency span must transpire within the purview of the subject’s frequency horizon.  In the dependent nature, the mind consciousness is known as the perceiver, whereas, the object or matter is known as the perceived.  It is the perceiver’s mind as a non-physical faculty integrating with the five physical faculties namely, eyes, ears, nose, tongue and body that provides the observation and the interpretation, thus the arising of the conditional phenomena.  If the vibrational frequencies of the perceiver are lower than the perceived, the cascading events are deemed impossible.

Basically, consciousness is synergy i.e. energy that expands through cooperation.  In Albert Einstein’s relativity equation, E = mc2, one quantum of energy is defined as the diffusion of one mass at the speed of light squared.  Therefore, we could conclude that the speed of consciousness is equivalent to the speed of light squared (c2) and it is comparatively much higher than the speed of light per se.  Generally speaking, the mind trajectory is matrix-centric, whereas, the light trajectory is linear-centric.  This means the light particles that vibrate in constant waves would travel for example, from point A to point B and then to point C in one destination at a time.  On the other hand, the mind frequency waves would travel to any intended destinations in a virtually instantaneous time.  This means the mapping of consciousness within the group traits is basically like a central monitoring station for security with a huge monitor screen displaying simultaneous video images from all the strategic angles or positions. 

Offline Kenneth Chan

  • Member
  • Posts: 124
    • View Profile
Re: Relativity Supports Buddha's Words
« Reply #35 on: May 30, 2016, 09:15:06 am »
space x time = frequency x becoming process

Hi chowkit74. Thank you for your interesting post. I would, however, like to point out that it is crucial that we clarify what is hypothesis and what is scientific fact.

An hypothesis is merely an assumption that has not been verified. That means, strictly speaking, it should not be considered as science until it is actually verified. Scientists do make use of a lot of hypotheses in their work, but it important that they acknowledge their hypotheses are only assumptions and not science. There is a very important reason why I am raising this point in this discussion thread.

What I have posted on this thread is scientific fact. It is not hypothesis. There are no speculative elements whatsoever in what is contained in my posts. This is important because it means that there is actual scientific evidence that supports what the Buddha has been telling us. And because it is actual scientific evidence based on verified scientific facts and clear logical deductions, even the scientists will have no choice but to take it into consideration. Hypotheses simply cannot do this.

The concrete scientific evidence behind what I presented can be found in my articles “Why Relativity Exists” (at http://kenneth-chan.com/physics/why-relativity-exists/ ) and “Relativity Proves that Time and Space are Empty of Inherent Existence” (at http://kenneth-chan.com/physics/relativity-proves-time-space-empty-inherent-existence/ ).

This evidence clearly shows that our science is a science of our experience (and not a science of a universe “out there” that is independent of us as observers), and it supports the Buddhist teachings that “mind precedes all phenomena” and that “all things are empty of inherent existence.”

We actually have infallible scientific evidence, from the theory of relativity, that even time and space are empty of inherent existence. Now, even the scientists will have to acknowledge that the Buddhist teachings are indeed correct with regards to time and space. Hypotheses or assumptions cannot possibly have this effect. That is why it is crucial that we distinguish between scientific facts and hypotheses.

I have even published mathematical proof that what I have shown regarding time and space is found in Einstein’s theory of relativity. Specifically, I have shown that the fundamental mathematical equations (known as the Lorentz Transformation Equations), used by Einstein in the theory of relativity, can actually be derived purely from the fact that we have defined our time and space based on how we experience the universe as observers. This can be found in my paper “Time and Space” at http://kenneth-chan.com/physics/time-and-space/. Note that this paper was refereed and approved for publication by Professor Kip S Thorne, who is a world authority on General Relativity. Prof Thorne would not have approved the paper if the dramatic conclusions found there were based on speculation of any kind.

It is important to demonstrate to the world that the Buddhist teachings are indeed backed by concrete scientific evidence. The reason why this is important is that it will encourage people to heed the words of the Buddha and, hopefully, also put it into practice. I think we would all agree that this would be a very beneficial thing.

A lot of what was written in your post appears to me to be hypotheses that have not been verified. While some of it may turn out to be true, it has nonetheless to be considered merely as assumptions at this point. Hypotheses may be useful as an investigative tool, but they cannot be considered as science until they are verified. Of course, I may be mistaken and you may actually have a scientific or logical basis for what you wrote; in which case, I would certainly be most interested to learn what that basis is, and I think all of us would be grateful if you would share this with us.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2016, 09:47:59 am by Kenneth Chan »

Offline chowkit74

  • Member
  • Posts: 39
    • View Profile
Re: Relativity Supports Buddha's Words
« Reply #36 on: May 30, 2016, 11:42:10 pm »
Hi KC,

I could see where you are coming from with regard to your discovery of scientific facts on the relevance between mind and phenomena.  Perhaps, you may have pushed a bit too hard to sell it here in this forum but it remains a fact that your discovery is not new to mankind nowadays.

What is science?  Science is full of observable facts.  And observable facts are observable facts because it doesn’t matter who does the experiment or makes the measurements.  But who does the observation and the interpretation, by the way?  It is the observer’s mind as a non-physical faculty integrating with the five physical faculties namely, eyes, ears, nose, tongue and body.  In other words, we could mention that observable facts are dependent on the observer’s mind to provide the description, definition, recognition, valuation, etc. on the other side of the object or matter – therefore, it is also known as subjective facts. 

For instance, if you show an I-phone to a caveman, he would describe it as merely a useless hard object.  And if you show it to let’s say, an ant, it becomes a gigantic heavy object.  Therefore, unless the caveman or the ant could perform a magical transmigration into the modern human mind frequencies, their respective perception on the same object would remain unchanged as a matter of fact.  Likewise, you can be named as a human, a son, a father, a preacher, a student, a Caucasian, an American, a thin man, an old man, a buyer, a supplier, a stranger, etc. concurrently.  At the end of the day, the observer (be it your own self or another third party) would provide the definition or recognition based on their respective perception on the same referred object or matter. 

In fact, one does not need to be served with the truth because it is not out there.  But then, where is the truth and how could one look for the ultimate truth?  The truth actually arises in you.  You are the truth.  You create truths and not someone else out there.  Literally, it is difficult for one to see the truth because one’s eyes couldn’t see one’s own eyes.  For instance, both the duck and the cow are created truths.  Precisely, this kind of truth is also known as a subjective cum relative truth.  This means the truth orientation is dependent on the observer (i.e. the subject’s mind) to provide the description, definition, recognition, valuation, etc. on the other side of the object or matter.  And the truth conclusion varies among different observers or minds.

In order to seek for the ultimate truth, it is imperative for one to abandon the stereotyping mindset that is associated with the ‘-ism’ or ‘-ology’ for it is a system of pre-conditioning or pre-disposition.  Generally, liberation is the only right potion to the ultimate truth discovery and with the inculcation of right determination, the ultimate truth can be discovered by anyone right here, right now.  This would mean observations on all the phenomena would need to be based on unbiased grounds i.e. on neutral and upright positions.   In Buddhism, enlightenment is about seeing and knowing it all by our mind consciousness i.e. seeing and knowing into the true nature and its orientation all the time.  As a start, one would realise that Mother Nature is the pinnacle of all the dependent and non-dependent circumstances in the cosmos.  It is considered as the supreme state of all things with the attributes of emptiness. 

However, an ultimate truth is a reality that exists beyond mind and beyond concepts and words in the sense that it is beyond our usual ways of perceiving things.  Language and conception only imply that things exist in distinct manners i.e. wise person, dumb person, saint, devil, etc. - in such well-defined and independent categories.  Perceiving ultimate reality is seeing that things do not exist in these fantasised, impossible ways, in black and white categories.  Therefore, it is imperative for one to emphasise on seeing things or matters in all angles while pursuing the ultimate truth or reality.  Without it, any conclusions made out of one’s observation would not be balanced or in a wholesome nature. 




“The Buddha’s original teaching is not a religion as the word is conventionally understood.  The Buddha taught ‘Dhamma’ – a moral, wholesome way of life which is universal, and can be practised by anyone.  He did not teach 'Buddhism’, and was not interested in
making anyone a ‘Buddhist’.”  ~ Acharya S. N. Goenka (1924 – 2013) ~

Offline Kenneth Chan

  • Member
  • Posts: 124
    • View Profile
Re: Relativity Supports Buddha's Words
« Reply #37 on: May 31, 2016, 06:54:49 am »
Hi chowkit74

Thank you for your post. What you are discussing is about the direct experiential insight into reality that, I believe, all Buddhists aim for. So no one is questioning any of that. Also, I am definitely not suggesting, in even the slightest way, that I am bringing the understanding concerning direct experiential insight to the attention of Buddhists, as though it was something new. That would be utterly ridiculous and silly of me. Practicing Buddhists are already well aware of all that.

What I am bringing up, however, is nonetheless something new, in a very different sense. What is new is that there is now concrete scientific proof, from the theory of relativity, that the teachings of Buddhism that “mind precedes all phenomena” and that “time and space are empty of inherent existence” are correct.

The purpose of bringing this up is actually more in the hope of contributing, in some small way, towards the aim, in Mahayana Buddhism, of saving all sentient beings from suffering. The purpose is therefore more targeted at bringing the teachings of the Buddha to the attention of non-Buddhists. There is a good chance of doing this because it is concrete scientific evidence that even the scientists themselves cannot ignore.

What I am particularly concerned about is the tendency of many scientists to claim, without any scientific evidence whatsoever, that the conscious mind is purely derived from matter, and hence not important. This is very detrimental because it misleads people into not focusing on their own minds in the quest for truth and the means to escape from suffering. It is therefore in the hope of countering such a misconception spread by these scientists, that I feel the need to highlight, instead, the concrete scientific evidence that actually supports the teachings of the Buddha.

Offline VincentRJ

  • Member
  • Posts: 275
    • View Profile
Re: Relativity Supports Buddha's Words
« Reply #38 on: June 04, 2016, 09:17:17 pm »
I have to say, Kenneth Chan, although a bit late to the discussion, that I find your explanations for the constancy of the speed of light, fascinating and revelatory.

That the speed of light is always measured as a constant, regardless of the speed of the observer who is measuring the speed of that light, from any particular source, is something that I've not really thought much about, until now.

However, I have in the past sort of grappled with the philosphical concepts, that the external reality which we observe is always a construct of the human mind. This now seems quite clear to me, and this understanding is what attracts me to certain aspects of the Buddhist teachings on this issue because I'm rather amazed that such ideas existed 2,500 years ago and more.

Everything we perceive and experience has to be interpreted, and that interpretation will vary, not only from individual to individual, but from species to species.
When one reads about certain 'laws' of science, such as the 'Laws of Physics', we tend to be oblivious to the fact that such laws exist only in the human mind. The laws are created by us, just as the sensation and description of the color green is created by the human mind when we observe leaves on trees.

All colors are associated with a particular wavelength of the electromagnetic spectrum. We might claim that the photons transmitted at a particular wavelength have an external reality, but the response and sensation of a particular color, exists only in the individual's mind.

Having understood such concepts, it therefore seems plausible to me, that the reason for our observations that the speed of light is constant, regardless of the speed of our motion in relation to the beam of light being measured, is due to the nature and characteristics of our own biology and brain which rely upon processes operating at the speed of light.

This is certainly food for thought, and seems deeply connected to the more profound aspects of Buddhism.

Offline Kenneth Chan

  • Member
  • Posts: 124
    • View Profile
Re: Relativity Supports Buddha's Words
« Reply #39 on: June 05, 2016, 05:17:49 pm »
Thank you, VincentRJ, for your insightful post. You are certainly correct in stating that colors only exist in the individual’s mind. Thus, colors are empty of inherent existence, the same way that time and space are empty of inherent existence. And quantum physics provides evidence that even the manifestation of particles are dependent on the conscious mind, and hence particles are also empty of inherent existence.

All this means that the Buddhist teachings are correct, and there is now ample and concrete scientific evidence for this. It means that our science is actually a science of what we experience, and not a science of a universe independent of the conscious mind. Scientists need to acknowledge this fact.

In particular, they need to stop promoting the assumption that the conscious mind is derived purely from matter. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever for this assumption, yet many scientists keep insisting on it! Instead, these scientists need to stop ignoring what their own science is telling them: that the conscious mind, in fact, plays a central role in their science.

What scientists need to realize is that a crucial and necessary approach, in furthering our quest for truth and understanding, is to look into the mind itself, and to develop and hone the ability of our own mind as a probe for uncovering the truth. This is what the Buddha has been telling us to do all along!

Offline chowkit74

  • Member
  • Posts: 39
    • View Profile
Re: Relativity Supports Buddha's Words
« Reply #40 on: June 06, 2016, 03:25:01 am »
Everything in the cosmos is nothing but standing and travelling waves of energy.  In fact, the circumstances of relativity is due to the fluctuation in the vibrational frequencies of the different subjects and objects.  At the end of the day, it is all about mind and matter....

Offline Kenneth Chan

  • Member
  • Posts: 124
    • View Profile
Re: Relativity Supports Buddha's Words
« Reply #41 on: June 06, 2016, 06:26:34 am »
Everything in the cosmos is nothing but standing and travelling waves of energy.  In fact, the circumstances of relativity is due to the fluctuation in the vibrational frequencies of the different subjects and objects.  At the end of the day, it is all about mind and matter....

I think we really need to stop mixing up scientific facts with hypotheses that have not been verified. Mixing the two does not help. What I have written about are all verified scientific facts. They can even be proved mathematically. Please do not confuse the issue with unverified hypotheses. If you have a scientific basis for what you write, please share that with us.

Offline chowkit74

  • Member
  • Posts: 39
    • View Profile
Re: Relativity Supports Buddha's Words
« Reply #42 on: June 06, 2016, 03:51:01 pm »
Perhaps, one man's medicine is another man's poison.  Fact or fallacy is all within the gameplay of the mind.  :pray:

Offline Kenneth Chan

  • Member
  • Posts: 124
    • View Profile
Re: Relativity Supports Buddha's Words
« Reply #43 on: June 06, 2016, 05:56:04 pm »
Perhaps, one man's medicine is another man's poison.  Fact or fallacy is all within the gameplay of the mind.  :pray:

In Buddhism, there is the teaching of Right View. The truth is not dependent on how we like to view things. Of course, getting the right view is not easy, but that is what we have to strive for.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2016, 06:01:17 pm by Kenneth Chan »

Offline chowkit74

  • Member
  • Posts: 39
    • View Profile
Re: Relativity Supports Buddha's Words
« Reply #44 on: June 06, 2016, 08:58:31 pm »
A Right View is seeing two sides of the same coin at all times.  That is equanimity... :namaste:

 


SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal