M-Theory & the seven astral planes
- Thread starter FuzzyQuark
- Start date
DrMatt
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 10, 2002
- Messages
- 1,414
A few observations.
The physical notion of "dimension" is very specific and is not at all compatible with mysticism. The physical notion of "plane" is exactly the sort of "plane" which the quoted mystic text is denying--locally, at least, whereas globally, it need only be a manifold (i.e. something that gets more like the usual plane the less of it you look at).
Accessibility to conciousness is irrelevant to physical dimensions, which are meaningful only in the sense that they are accessible to measurement.
The fundamental topic of mysticism is a "reality" which cannot be observed in any way, and must be "known" through introspection. Science is mute on such topics, and deals with the observable universe.
The number seven and the idea of sevens in sevens occurs numerous independent ways in our cultures, including the division of lunar months by four to get manageable work-weeks, the classical Liberal Arts comprising the trivium and the quadrivium, etc. The use of the number 7 in a physical model does not occur for a reason based on any of these ideas, but because it appears that 7 independent measurements are the the number needed to describe observed phenomena, 6 or fewer leaving the situation ambiguous, and 8 or more over-specifying it to the point of contradiction. This has nothing to do with any cultural use of the number 7, neither a seven-ness of chakras, nor a 7-ness of spiritual planes, nor a seven-ness of weekdays. The confusion of such realms is what we mean when we say "sympathetic magic", i.e. the notion that if A reminds me of B, then A is causally connected to B. For instance, the use of hard roots to promote male erections is sympathetic magic, and has no basis in reality.
The physical notion of "dimension" is very specific and is not at all compatible with mysticism. The physical notion of "plane" is exactly the sort of "plane" which the quoted mystic text is denying--locally, at least, whereas globally, it need only be a manifold (i.e. something that gets more like the usual plane the less of it you look at).
Accessibility to conciousness is irrelevant to physical dimensions, which are meaningful only in the sense that they are accessible to measurement.
The fundamental topic of mysticism is a "reality" which cannot be observed in any way, and must be "known" through introspection. Science is mute on such topics, and deals with the observable universe.
The number seven and the idea of sevens in sevens occurs numerous independent ways in our cultures, including the division of lunar months by four to get manageable work-weeks, the classical Liberal Arts comprising the trivium and the quadrivium, etc. The use of the number 7 in a physical model does not occur for a reason based on any of these ideas, but because it appears that 7 independent measurements are the the number needed to describe observed phenomena, 6 or fewer leaving the situation ambiguous, and 8 or more over-specifying it to the point of contradiction. This has nothing to do with any cultural use of the number 7, neither a seven-ness of chakras, nor a 7-ness of spiritual planes, nor a seven-ness of weekdays. The confusion of such realms is what we mean when we say "sympathetic magic", i.e. the notion that if A reminds me of B, then A is causally connected to B. For instance, the use of hard roots to promote male erections is sympathetic magic, and has no basis in reality.
Fuzzyquark-
I have not read the book you mention, but the idea of comparing science and metaphysics is hardly new.
I recall books like "Zen & The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" and " The Dancing Wu Li Masters", which drew parallels between science as she was in the 1980s and philosophy as well as mystical thinking of various sorts.
Interesting and enjoyable reading, but they sometimes struggled to make more of rather vague (often semantic) similarities than was really there.
It is always tempting to assume that a vague similarity between two systems of thought implies an underlying identity between the systems, where none really exists..
What genuinely is real, is the underlying nature of the human brain which dreams up more than one view of the world, using the same wetware.
It's not possible for any human thought pattern to be both internally consistent and utterly alien, because it's derived by a brain, like yours or mine, and a shared experience, which follows certain rules. One might draw parallels between any two human activities, merely because they are human.
When we deal with data outside human experience , things do get fairly wierd. (QED/ General Relativity / String theory)
How "right" these models are, must be judged by comparison with nature. Wierdness itself is no guarantee of correctness. The essential difference between (say) QED and PSI is that , while equally bizarre, one gives predictions that experiments confirm, while the other repeatedly fails to do so.
I feel the hazard of such books is that the casual reader, while really understanding neither system deeply, may emerge with a shallow and false idea that they are saying the same thing. If the authors wrote about the similarity between marketing theory and primary education, they might make as good a case, but who would care to read it?
I have not read the book you mention, but the idea of comparing science and metaphysics is hardly new.
I recall books like "Zen & The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" and " The Dancing Wu Li Masters", which drew parallels between science as she was in the 1980s and philosophy as well as mystical thinking of various sorts.
Interesting and enjoyable reading, but they sometimes struggled to make more of rather vague (often semantic) similarities than was really there.
It is always tempting to assume that a vague similarity between two systems of thought implies an underlying identity between the systems, where none really exists..
What genuinely is real, is the underlying nature of the human brain which dreams up more than one view of the world, using the same wetware.
It's not possible for any human thought pattern to be both internally consistent and utterly alien, because it's derived by a brain, like yours or mine, and a shared experience, which follows certain rules. One might draw parallels between any two human activities, merely because they are human.
When we deal with data outside human experience , things do get fairly wierd. (QED/ General Relativity / String theory)
How "right" these models are, must be judged by comparison with nature. Wierdness itself is no guarantee of correctness. The essential difference between (say) QED and PSI is that , while equally bizarre, one gives predictions that experiments confirm, while the other repeatedly fails to do so.
I feel the hazard of such books is that the casual reader, while really understanding neither system deeply, may emerge with a shallow and false idea that they are saying the same thing. If the authors wrote about the similarity between marketing theory and primary education, they might make as good a case, but who would care to read it?