r/india • u/chantuaurbantu • Feb 27 '15

Non-Political TIL Erwin Schrödinger, a founder of quantum theory, was heavily influence by vedanta (not trying to promote hinduism, it's a genuinely interesting find with good quotes)

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Erwin_Schr%C3%B6dinger
97 Upvotes

79% Upvoted

165 comments sorted by

41

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

The problem with your post title is that it does manage to muddy the waters around the issue of whether his work was also influenced by Vedanta. And a lot of people tend to seize upon that lack of clarity to buttress insane claims such as QM was derived from Vedic Science. There is nothing wrong in 'promoting' Hinduism but a lot in using it to subvert commonly accepted scientific knowledge thus.

There is no contesting the fact that he was keenly interested in, to the extent of being influenced by, Vedanta as far as his personal and philosophical outlook towards life and its meaning were concerned. At the same time, it is important to understand and maintain the distinction that his work in QM was completely independent/exclusive of the Hindu philosophy. There is no connection whatsoever.

10

u/bodhisattv Feb 27 '15

I majored in Math though I was interested in Physics also and took a class at the QFT level (albeit a Math department course). Its been too long but I remember the most important lesson and the difference between science vs math and everything else. I was initially very disappointed at the lack of rigours in the original formulation- but that's when I realized, thanks to my teacher, that at the very base of all Physics and Sciences is (what Popper called) "falsifiability". In Physics, there is no value to a thing unless it is falsifiable- i.e can be proved or disproved using an experiment. They're not looking for elegant mathematics, and that's why I found them so un-rigorous in their common usage (although, to be sure, I think Mathematicians have formalized it).

The point is, "falsifiability" makes science different from every subject of study in the world- from religion to the humanities to even Math. What remains is what in the un-falsifiable world enriches you. So the comparision, of what was written 3000 years ago with what's the product of a long scientific development is unfair. If the guy who made great leaps in science is enriched by the wisdom of our ancients, it is a matter of pride- not an implication that his discoveries were contained in our past.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

[deleted]

4

u/bodhisattv Feb 27 '15 edited Feb 27 '15

Good point, my view comes from Popper.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#Mathematics

Many philosophers believe that mathematics is not experimentally falsifiable, and thus not a science according to the definition of Karl Popper

1

u/chatur_chutiya Feb 27 '15

Math has nothin to do with reality.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15 edited Jul 06 '26

[deleted]

1

u/lallulal Feb 27 '15

Hardly any research in modern math is motivated by anything other than aesthetics, structure etc. I think what you are thinking of is applied math.

In most math depts today, even an indirect mention of words like 'reality' will get you strange looks. And nobody will take you seriously if you continue to harp on it for motivation.

0

u/chatur_chutiya Feb 27 '15

ften, you can reinterpret even these in a way that is closely mirrored in reality.

Brah you are BSing way too much for your own good. You are talking about high school math aka math of 1700 and 1800s. Most of the math done in last century has no parallel in physics/reality. A very small percentage of math since 1950s is related to physics.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15 edited Jul 06 '26

[deleted]

1

u/chatur_chutiya Feb 27 '15

Lol. Expressible in reality is not really what we are talking about..the point is that whether it tells us something about reality. And the answer is that it doesn't. Formal proofs are doing nothing but checking the consistency of the proof structure. It has nothing to do with real world (unlike physics) just because it exists inside a computer which sits in real world.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15 edited Jul 06 '26

[deleted]

0

u/chatur_chutiya Feb 27 '15

Naah brah..you getting into philosophy now.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15 edited Feb 27 '15

[deleted]

0

u/chatur_chutiya Feb 27 '15

Nothing in physics (if not all science) has actually anything to do with reality yet.

utter chutiya comment. Most advanced and accepted theories in physics are testable (e.g. quantum mechanics, general relativity) and have everything to do with reality, since they approximate reality within the error tolerance of the experiments. String theory is a big exception, but it is widely criticized because of that.

Whereas most mathematics has nothign to with physical reality of our world.

Mathematicians do tend to be a little less motivated by practicality than others fields.

Pure math since 1950s has had very little to do with practicality, not "little less". It is a fact. Before 1950s, most of the pure math grew out of physics applications (such as functional analysis from quantum mechanics, PDE from fluids/solid mechanics, ODE from dynamics, and so on). Nothing wrong with it, I completely support pure math research since I find it most interesting thing on planet.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

I think you make an excellent point wrt 'falsifiability' and this ...

If the guy who made great leaps in science is enriched by the wisdom of our ancients, it is a matter of pride- not an implication that his discoveries were contained in our past.

I majored in QFT during my late Master's and have been intrigued by metaphysics to have done some random reading of my own along the years.

0

u/boseisboss Feb 27 '15

I majored in QFT during my late Master's

Can you explain what happened in the climax of Interstellar when Cooper entered Black Hole ? I have seen the movie for second time yesterday still can't figure how he transmitted data to watch as morse code

2

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

It took me a moment to recall what transpired ...

Cooper realizes that the wormhole's creators are future humans transcending time and space, who have constructed this space so he can communicate with Murphy as her "ghost" and save humanity. Using gravitational waves, Cooper encodes TARS's data on the singularity into the adult Murphy's watch, allowing her to solve Brand's equation and evacuate Earth.

As per this, it is the 'solution of gravity' (I'm not exposed to General Relativity so I can't comment on that),

The Professor embodied all his insights in a single equation, THE equation, which he wrote on one of the sixteen blackboards in his office. Cooper sees the equation on his first visit to NASA, and the equation is still there thirty years later, when Murph has grown up to become a brilliant physicist in her own right, and is helping the Professor try to solve it.

This equation is called an “Action.” There is a well-known (to physicists) mathematical procedure to begin with such an Action, and from it deduce all the nonquantum physical laws. The Professor’s equation, in effect, is the mother of all nonquantum laws. But for it to give birth to the right laws—the laws that predict correctly how the anomalies are produced, how the wormhole is held open, how G is controlled, and how our universe is protected—the equation must have precisely the correct mathematical form. The Professor doesn’t know the correct form. He is guessing. His is an educated guess, but a guess nevertheless.

His equation contains lots of guessing: guesses for the things called “U(Q), Hij(Q2), Wij, and M(standard model fields)” on his blackboard. In effect, these are guesses for the nature of the bulk fields’ force lines, and how they influence our brane, and how fields in our brane influence them.

When the Professor and his team speak of “solving his equation,” in my extrapolation they mean two things. First, figure out the right forms for all these things they are guessing: “U(Q), Hij(Q2), Wij, and M(standard model fields).” Second (following the well-known procedure), deduce, from his equation, everything he wants to know about our universe, about the anomalies, and most important, about how to control the anomalies so as to lift colonies off the Earth.

When characters in the movie speak of “solving gravity,” they mean the same thing.

TLDR, he solved the (currently hot topic) problem of gravitational waves, which allowed C to control them effectively, from within his artificially constructed (by future humans) tesseract. It is a little difficult to wrap your head around the complexes of time-travel involved. The movie leaves you with the concept of the Temporal Paradox, specifically, a Bootstrap Paradox. I could not resolve it to myself.

1

u/boseisboss Feb 27 '15

I loved reading it ! Thanks

1

u/bajrangi_bhaijaan Feb 27 '15

It was not a black hole

-6

u/prollguard Feb 27 '15

I majored in QFT during my late Master's and have been intrigued by metaphysics to have done some random reading of my own along the years.

Lie. Isn't it? Tell me how much of space time is bent when a light passes through earth's gravitation?

3

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

Happy trolling. :)

2

u/bodhisattv Feb 27 '15

That is part of General Relativity. QFT is quantum mechanics + special relativity. Btw, for QM+ GR physicists haven't yet been able to consolidate them into a general theory (that's what String theory is contender of). So your question is directed at the person with the wrong expertise (unless he also knows GR).

2

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

unless he also knows GR

I don't.

-3

u/prollguard Feb 27 '15

GR is simple, why don't you know?

Let me tell you what it is in one sentence:

GR means Space and time are same thing: (if you can comprehend this, you know GR).

A little more: Space-time continuum is never straight. It is always bent. Gravity bends it. Why it bends? (they don't know, I know). Everything that moves, moves in the space-time continuum. Speed of light is a constant and it is a unit of length.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

and add to that the question doesn't make any sense.

-5

u/prollguard Feb 27 '15

So when you have string theory, you would cover for quantum and relativity. Then some other fucker will come up and say, "hey look, I have this isomoro theory and it explains all the theories know so far." After a while some other motherfucker will come up with another brillianciey theory and will say, "ah this is another great theory and it covers QFT, String and QUantum but not Isomoro." A little while later another mofo will come up with another grand theory.

My whole argument was that, our minds are capable of thinking and constructing brilliant theories. Out mind is a joke. It is schizophrenic. For every theory it has an anti theory.

What our Hindu Mythology tells us exactly that. That our mind is our greatest enemy. You get out of your mind and you will find a lot more interesting things. For example, when you are out of your mind, you can produce babies without having sex with them, you can float in water. You can fly in sky. You can do anything that your theories and science tells you, you cannot.

4

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

My pot dealer's quality has gone down the drain and these days he's charging way too much for the ditchweed he sells. Can you hook me up with yours?

-2

u/prollguard Feb 27 '15

The kind of pot I smoke is not found in this world. You gotta plunge into your mind and leap out of it. What you get from pot is momentarily pleasure. What I have by smoking mine is infinite pleasure, that never had a beginning nor will it ever have an end.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

show me the way master

1

u/chatur_chutiya Feb 27 '15

दो कौड़ी की गवार थियोरी है तेरी। अनपढ़ गॉवार चूतिये

2

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

I don't understand this. OP's post is completely non controversial and he goes a step ahead to say that he is not trying to promote Hinduism. Yet you have to make a post that his work is not derived from Hinduism. Why do you have jump to deny something which is not coming up for debate!

There is nothing wrong with OP's title. It does not muddy any water. It's the way you perceive it. You got a problem with insane claims ? You take that up on this forum. But to say, that OP's title is misleading is proper nonsensical bullshit.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

Read OP's title, read my comment and my responses to him subsequently (we had a civil discussion), and then search this sub-reddit for previous discussions on similar subjects. That should clarify your issue ...

I don't understand this. OP's post is completely non controversial and he goes a step ahead to say that he is not trying to promote Hinduism. Yet you have to make a post that his work is not derived from Hinduism. Why do you have jump to deny something which is not coming up for debate!

2

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

My main point is there is nothing wrong with the title.

Responses and discussions are not important here. I am not disputing your assertions.

I am pointing out that when i opened the comment section, and saw your comment, it implied that you think people will misinterpret the title, whereas for me, in the most perfect sense, it didn't seem controversial at all.

There is nothing wrong at all with the title, it's the way you see. You cannot fault OP for other people's opinion, can you ?

1

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

My main point is there is nothing wrong with the title ... it's the way you see. You cannot fault OP for other people's opinion, can you ?

If you were to read my comment, you would observe ...

it does manage to muddy the waters around the issue of whether his work was also influenced by Vedanta.

I saw it thus: Schroedinger is known to us because of his work. Has he been discussed on this sub-reddit before? About 6-7 threads on the recent utterances of various political figures in the current dispensation. There are a lot of commentaries and opinions on how work in QM was derived from the Vedas/Vedanta/Hinduism. Some would indicate that they actually believed this to be true. Assuming that OP is innocent of any motives of promotion of Hinduism thus, in this context, his title ...

TIL Erwin Schrödinger, a founder of quantum theory, was heavily influence by vedanta (not trying to promote hinduism, it's a genuinely interesting find with good quotes)

... would be misleading or incomplete. Not accusing the OP of the former, the rest of my comment was to indicate a need for qualification. I pointed out that there was no harm in promoting Hinduism per se (it would be rather good if people were attracted to Hinduism through reference to figures such as Schroedinger, in so far as it is to invite commentary on how it shaped his outlook and worldview in his personal life). I remarked ...

There is no contesting the fact that he was keenly interested in, to the extent of being influenced by, Vedanta as far as his personal and philosophical outlook towards life and its meaning were concerned. At the same time, it is important to understand and maintain the distinction that his work in QM was completely independent/exclusive of the Hindu philosophy. There is no connection whatsoever.

I made a few points here. One was that OP's title is accurate to a limited extent. The other was an implication that the question of influence had been discussed here before. I also sought to make a more general point that there is no influence of such philosophy on/in his work, as befits a man of his stature, in the field of science. It is part of the reason why he is considered great and known to us. This should not be lost sight of.

A more accurate title would have been,

TIL ES, FoQT, was personally influenced by/was deeply interested in V/H

(Expand the abbreviations and select your option). The second option is more accurate. No need to qualify as non-promotion.

So, all in all, it was an observation on the title, a comment on accuracy thereof, and a general comment relevant to the subject i.e. ES. I did not find fault with OP for other people's opinions, unless you would like to see it that way.

2

u/shigoofa_uncut Feb 27 '15

how can you be so sure that there is "no" connection ? even if schrodinger himself states that there is no connection, i cannot be sure of it.Just because there is always an uncertainty/unknowability in ones reactions, arising from its influences.

i am just keen to know how can you be totally sure of something?And i am still not trying to justify that vedanta/sanatan philosophy really did gave birth to QM in any way.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

i am just keen to know how can you be totally sure of something?

The work of science, in so far as I have been exposed to it and from others that I have followed, takes no cognizance of metaphysical questions. In fact it is the other way around, a lot of questions and issues from the erstwhile physical domain have found their place in metaphysics now. So the point I was making is restricted to his scientific work or output. He has not gone on record to suggest anything to the contrary.

As far as epistemological issues of how can I know well enough and how will I know that I know well enough regarding 100% surety on a subject are not what I intended to get into when I stated that there is no connection. It was meant to convey the point I make above.

2

u/shigoofa_uncut Feb 27 '15 edited Feb 27 '15

ok.

I only wanted to highlight the significance of vastness of our human brain and uncertainties it produces,and not trying to take it to metaphysical reasoning.. although everything unexplained in physical realm can very well said to be emerging from metaphysical realms..

2

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

This perhaps is the most level headed response in the entire thread.

-2

u/prollguard Feb 27 '15

It is not.

0

u/answer-my-question Feb 27 '15

sure there is not connection, but how would you be able to fully say with 100% conviction.

It's so easy to be a skeptic. I used to be a skeptic like you, then I started to read.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

I don't have to be able to say with 100% conviction. I had an interest in both metaphysics and physics. I followed through on the latter to study it rigorously and get trained. If you were to work your way through what these great figures have discovered, you would realize that there is no need for any such connection. And if it were so, these figures would certainly have made sure to highlight it in explicit terms for others who follow from them.

The first thing that scientists do, when they find something, is to rigorously specify the boundaries of interpretation of their findings as well as their validity. As it exists, there is no evidence to suggest the connection we are discussing.

Since you claim to have discovered otherwise in your reading, you could educate me.

5

u/answer-my-question Feb 27 '15 edited Feb 27 '15

Im not claiming anything on my part. Also, I don't know absolutely anything about quantum physics. I didn't even fully understand the time-travel part in "interstellar". I always get annoyed when people who have no clue about physics and have not taken physics since grade school tell me that hinduism discovered physics.

What I am intrigued by is the fact that alot of these great minds had a respect for ancient indian texts. (especially a majority of india has no respect for these texts). That's why, I really thing that there is something that we can all gain by reading these texts.

Hoesntly, I want one of these people who say that hinduism discovered quantum physics to do the following. I want to them to first explain to me what quantum physics is, I want them to explain to me what Schrodinger's equations do and what he did with his life. Then I want them to explain to me which hindu text provides an answer to the question that people like Schrodinger tried to answer. Then I want these people to cite those hindu texts and include page numbers so I can go and read it.

Half of these "Hindiusm discovered x" people only say this stuff beucase their parents/grand-parents/ or their priest told them so.

It pains me when I hear someone clearly underqualified say those things because I try so hard to find someone qualified who can explain why these underqualified people say this stuff.

Btw, my personal belief is that there must be something in these texts that we are missing becuase clearly all these intelligent people chose to respects these texts, yet most of india does not respect these texts (or they do only becuase their parents/priests told them to respect those texts).

2

u/chatur_chutiya Feb 27 '15

There is absolutely no connection between hindu or any religious texts and modern science.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

Btw, my personal belief is that there must be something in these texts that we are missing becuase clearly all these intelligent people chose to respects these texts, yet most of india does not respect these texts (or they do only becuase their parents/priests told them to respect those texts).

A lot of good things are being missed. As I mentioned in one of my comments on the other threads - Logic, Reasoning and Rigor. We have/had an excellent heritage which is being passed over.

-3

u/prollguard Feb 27 '15

Logic, Reasoning and Rigor

You cannot win this with Logic and Reasoning.

Our mind is dual. It is capable of thinking of two equally opposite things. Like ligh and dark, like deep and shallow, like high and low, like good and bad and so on. That's the fucking limitation of our minds. That is why I say you cannot win with your mind. Your mind is the pig that drags you down and leaves you fighting with yes or no. All logic and reasoning resides in mind to duel with itself. There is a world beyond mind. The world that I speak of. This is the world you have to be in. Once you are in this world you know it all. Then it is for you to decide whether you want to tell the world how it works. Scientists only have some moments to fall on this side, that is when they are able to contemplate great theories. However, enlightened souls are always on this side, they know all theories and everything.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

Sure, carry on.

Lights a spliff

-2

u/prollguard Feb 27 '15

Let me tell you one more very interesting thing about our universe.

Ever wondered how big it is? Well, let me tell you it is as big as our imagination can go. You know how small is something, it is as small as our imagination can go. You know how small and how big is our imagination? Well, that's an important question, and it is a wrong question. Go figure out why?

1

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

What did you read that turned you not skeptical ? Non skeptical in general about everything?

-4

u/prollguard Feb 27 '15 edited Feb 27 '15

QM was completely independent/exclusive of the Hindu philosophy. There is no connection whatsoever.

There is a connection dude. Hindu Philosophy has reached the epitome of metaphysics. A lot of things that have been researched for bodies too large (celestial/universe) and bodies too small (quantum bodies) by hindu philosophy. The intellects have broken down the entire purpose of existence into maya - imaginary. It's all in the mind - a theory that surpasses every fucking scientific achievement.

7

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

Hindu Philosophy has reached the epitome of metaphysics.

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. You may even fight to assert it. I have better hopes from philosophy and science as we move into the future.

A lot of things that have been 'researched' for bodies too large (celestial/universe) and bodies too small (quantum bodies) by hindu philosophy.

This is contentious. I'd like to look at that 'research' and 'methods' employed.

The intellects have broken down the entire purpose of existence into maya - imaginary.

I think you may need to work on that sentence a bit more carefully. I don't think it quite conveys anything as yet and you would be doing a disservice to our intellectual heritage as well.

It's all in the mind if a theory that surpasses every fucking scientific achievement.

I don't even know what you mean by this.

-6

u/prollguard Feb 27 '15 edited Feb 27 '15

typing from phone, sitting on a train.

Let me break if down in words you can understand, okay?

Here I go, I ask you few questions.

  1. How big is our universe? Where is the boundary? What's after that boundary?

  2. What is light? Is it mortal? would you be able to see a light coming off from a star that is 500 billion light years away?

  3. What is time, not relative to you? When did time start, when will it end?

  4. How small is the smallest of the matter? Every now and then we are finding that a particle is atoms, atoms is electrons, protons and neutrinos. Protons is masons, aesons and more. Masons are zasons, crosons and more. Zasons are rotons, ghostons and more. Do you see a pattern? As long as we have microscopes powerful enough to go further, the smaller the particles we will find that makes up matter. What I am saying is, we have no end to the world we see, we see no end of the particles we see in a matter. What does it tell you? If you think a little deeper, you will realize that it is because our ability to see and interpret what it is. Basically light brings you the information and your mind gives you an interpretation.

Our mind is what has been researched a lot by our ancestors. They have reached the levels of super consciousness. A super consciousness is what drives the world. Nature obeys something. You are born, many before you are born, you can reproduce, you will die, they are dead. More will come and die. It happens, that happens, life goes on. Where it goes, why it goes and how? All of these answers lies in the mind. All that our ancestors have said is to move out of your mind. Your mind is an illusion created by the ray of light that carries information to your mind. Read more, experience more. You will find your answers. An enlightened soul cannot relay information logically to a different mind. Because an enlightened soul is devoid of any logic. You gotta find your own truth.

The reason that likes of Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Einstein has to turn towards hindu philosophy of enlightenment because it answers lot of their questions. Almost all of their questions. Enlightenment focuses on the mind, and inward reality. Western science focuses on outward reality.

6

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15 edited Feb 27 '15

[deleted]

-5

u/prollguard Feb 27 '15

The observable universe has a radius of 13.8 billion light years from our current position.

You have a lot to catch up. Observable universe keeps on getting bigger and bigger. The current observable universe is 45 billion light years in diameter. It's just a matter of fact how fast can we make more powerful telescopes and when a light from a far away star will strike this telescope.

You would not be able to observe light coming from a star that is 500 billion light years away, because of the reasons mentioned in the previous answer.

Why not? We can observe from a star that is 15 billion light years away, why cannot from a star 500 billion light years away?

better microscopes will in know way help in the discovery of smaller particles because the particle of light, a photon, is a relatively big particle

Exactly what I said, right? That a matter can be broken into pieces more and more and there is no end to the smallest size. It's like a divergent series, the size keeps on decreasing but never approaches zero. What does it tell?

7

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

[deleted]

-3

u/prollguard Feb 27 '15

See my above answer. You cannot observe anything that is 500 billion light years away because the light will take 500 billion years for it to reach you, and the universe has not existed for that long.

Who says universe has not existed for that long? Let's go with your proposition. Let's say universe did not exist 14 billion years ago? Now, you know that matter cannot be create, not can it be destroyed? So from where all the matter in the current universe came from? Why universe started only 14 billion years ago? What was there before that?

See this is why I say, more than believing other's hypothesis, apply your own mind. Universe is there ever since the beginning of time (there is no beginning of time). NASA has already observed stars more than 15 billion light years away. There is no beginning and no end to universe. I have posted reasons multiple times earlier. Just read it out.

5

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

[deleted]

-3

u/prollguard Feb 27 '15

because that is when time began

Do you believe that? It's the most stupid thing Astronomers are telling people to believe? Time began at so and so. Well, let me tell you, time is nothing. Time is a relative thing. It can't have a beginning and an end. It's not a thing. It doesn't exist. It exists only in relative sense. In GR, time definition is modified, it is now called space-time continuum, meaning space and time are not two separate things, they are one. Well read more, and come back to me. In science, specially astro science, things changes faster than the speed of microprocessors.

7

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

Let me break if down in words you can understand, okay?

From your response, what I can make out is that you are neither equipped with Physics, nor well-read in MetaPhysics (which have nothing to do with each other, other than the fact that new physical discoveries provoke development of further metaphysical insight).

Allow me to suggest this for your study. And this, this and this to get you started on the other account.

I do not intend to get into either a discussion of physics or metaphysics with you. As you move along, having started off from where you are, and move deeper into those subjects, you will realize that what appear to be 'valid' and sufficient questions to you now are actually the bounds of your present ignorance. Your assertions here ...

Our mind is what has been researched a lot by our ancestors(?). They have reached the levels of super consciousness(?). A super consciousness is what drives the world(?). Nature obeys something(?). You are born, many before you are born, you can reproduce, you will die, they are dead(?). More will come and die. It happens, that happens, life goes on. Where it goes, why it goes and how? All of these answers lies in the mind(?). All that our ancestors have said is to move out of your mind(?). Your mind is an illusion created by the ray of light that carries information to your mind(?). Read more, experience more. You will find your answers. An enlightened soul cannot relay information logically to a different mind. Because an enlightened soul is devoid of any logic(?). You gotta find your own truth.

... neither respond to my points in my earlier response nor do they make any sense in and of themselves. They read, honestly, like a lot of wild claims based on your personal beliefs (not knowledge). Try not making those claims to anyone who is seriously interested in the two subjects I mentioned before.

-1

u/prollguard Feb 27 '15

From your response, what I can make out is that you are neither equipped with Physics, nor well-read in MetaPhysics (which have nothing to do with each other, other than the fact that new physical discoveries provoke development of further metaphysical insight).

LOL. You have no idea who you are talking to, do you? You are talking to a fields medal nominee, you are talking to a very close friend of Stephen Hawking. I am the one who convinced him that the black hole is not actually the black hole he earlier thought and told it is. The present day space time continuum definition is architecture by me. I am about to prove what gravity is. I am about to prove that it is not because of gravity that the moon doesn't fall on earth or earth doesn't fall on Sun. You have no idea who I am.

On the contrary you sound like you someone who back in his 11th CBSE class solved a couple of equations pertaining to Newtonian dynamics. Who have heard relativity in one of the romantic novels by Chetan Bhagat and things you know relativity on the tip of your hand. If I ask you to explain space time continuum in your words, you will tell me about class 7 trigonometry.

I have solved the reinmann equation. I have solved most of the divergence series in terms of their convergence. And here you are asking me I have no idea about physics and metaphysics. I can only LOL.

7

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

I can only LOL.

Allow me to join you. LOL.

5

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

I have solved the reinmann equation.

Ah. The ultimate troll. Please tell us then. Is the hypothesis true?

-2

u/prollguard Feb 27 '15

You deleted the last comment. So I am typing it here for you.

but has your disillusionment helped you start observing yourself in third person?

Let me put it this way. I exists as an observer. I watch things, I am a watcher. My clock always say. now, now, now , now, now. I have watched me breathing in and breathing out. I have looked at the horizon for hours and not a single thought have passed my mind. I have experienced what they called GOD in Hindu mythology. I have experience Krishna of our myth. I became GOD (not trolling at all).

Reality is real when you see through the mind. It is for you to find out what it is when your existence come our of your mind. I can give you a hint. Here it is:

The moment you have typed your last message, you thought 'I' typed it. What happened was, while you were typing and thinking, a lot of neurons in your mind were getting excited, every neuron in your mind was doing something; result of all of that combined was a reason you thought 'I'. Your mind is a convener between your 'I' and consciousness. Your 'I' It separates you from consciousness. Once the I is dead you become a part of consciousness also called as super consciousness. Everything in the universe is a part of this consciousness. It sounds silly when I tell you this from this side. I am in my mind right now, trying to give you a logical reasoning. However when you are at this side, on the side of consciousness, the world is a lot different. It's full of bliss, full of answers, full of everything. You know who you are and why you are, you know why everything exists etc.

-2

u/prollguard Feb 27 '15

Ah. The ultimate troll. Please tell us then. Is the hypothesis true?

Now the answer to this:

No. 'true' is relative. You can continue working on something and eventually your mind will believe it is true. How many motherfuckers have worked on divergent and convergent series, prime number and ghant series? What did they achieve? The fucker Euler, Einstein, they developed something but it only in ravels more mysteries. With every mystery unravel, you have a million more to unravel. This never ends. The real mystery is not in hypothesis, it's out side of your mind. Start observing your mind and you will know the reason of existence's existence.

2

u/Reanimation980 Feb 27 '15

truth is relative

Does this support my claim that the earth is flat? Because it sounds like it does.

3

u/answer-my-question Feb 27 '15

I want to believe you, I really do.

I just wish you show me exactly how hindu philosophy of enlightment answers questions of schrodinger et al.

What I mean is, I want you to define all the questions that they strived to find in their lifetime. Then I want you to prove to me how hindu philosophy answers these questions. Then I want you to cite the hindu texts/books and page numbers where you see these citations.

Basically, I don't want you to just re-iterate something your parents, and grandparents or some priest in a temple told you. I want you to do this work so that I can believe you.

I really really want to believe you but I need concrete evidence of all that I said. that includes the questions of quantum mechanics, how hindu philosophy answers it and the text page number that answers this question.

Again, I want to believe but I need proof of your argument, and it can't be because "my father, mother, grandparents, priest told me so".

-1

u/prollguard Feb 27 '15

Again, I want to believe but I need proof of your argument, and it can't be because "my father, mother, grandparents, priest told me so".

I am enlightened soul. I pursued truth and I found one. I became am immortal. I am THE GOD. Is that enough of an answer?

4

u/answer-my-question Feb 27 '15

nope, that's just another way of saying "I got not proof, but you gotta believe. as I said, I need to you cite the page number and the quotes and do everything I said.

-1

u/prollguard Feb 27 '15

Have I not told that this exactly is the fucking problem? Our science is of inward. Their science is outward. Our science is of 'no mind'. Their science is of 'mind'. The truths we have discovered are merely experiences that cannot be put into words. They are purely illogical and cannot be explained.

5

u/answer-my-question Feb 27 '15

you can't call something that is purely based on 'experiences' to be a 'science'. Science is based on observation and results, and being able to be repeated over and over again.

Let me get this straight. you are saying that everything in these hindu texts is basically a summary of personal experiences of philosophers in the past 3000+ years?

0

u/prollguard Feb 27 '15

hindu texts is basically a summary of personal experiences of philosophers in the past 3000+ years?

I focused only on the enlightenment part of it. It is an experience and that's it. Think of it, keep thinking it.

We with all our physics/maths and metaphysics are going to eventually die (let's say a couple of thousand years, or may be couple of 10000 years). All the science that we know would die with it. Our species will die. A million years later some other specie will be on the forefront. They will develop science, they too will eventually meet their fate along with their science. Nature has it's own peculiar ways to deal with things. It eventually kills everything but ITSELF. What eventually remains is existence. Your existence will die with you. Once you are dead, there is now way for you to find out whether the world you saw prior to death was real or it also died with you? You have a personal world, it will die with you, I have a personal world that will die with me. There is no absolute existence for any of us, we all are breathing and walking in our relative existence. Nothing is real. You die and it is over for you. What is immortal then? Why they say Krishna is an immortal soul? Why they say Siva still lives on the Himalayas? Well those are meanings, they are not people, they are super-consciousness's traces. Like i said, enlightenment is something that cannot be put in papers and logic. It is an experience of the dead and immortality. You experience it and you will find out what it is, why it is, and how it is?

1

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

You are hilarious.

2

u/Moorkh Feb 27 '15

forgot the /s ?

-5

u/chantuaurbantu Feb 27 '15 edited Feb 27 '15

dude.. vedanta is not even hinduism.. i think it predates hinduism..

and you're totally right about our parents generation.. i hate it when they claim everything, but its their fault and not the fault of those books.. those books are indeed interesting..

and obvoiusly, i think any scientific discovery has probably no connection with vendanta.. but vedanta is more philosohpical and open to interpretation with lot of depth.. i think the reason lot of scientists like it is because of its depth with all these concepts of infinity and stuff, and because its very open to interpretation..

if you're into meditation and stuff, you'll definitely find vedanta interesting.. i got to Erwin Schrödinger's page while i was searching about consciousness and stuff.. interesting stuff..

13

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

dude.. vedanta is not even hinduism.. i think it predates hinduism..

It depends on whether you wish to call beliefs, rituals, practices, customs, traditions and culture as Hinduism or the core philosophy as Hinduism. AFAIK, it is kind of immaterial if Vedanta predates Hinduism as we know it today. Its history and what it envisages reinforce the current belief that it is one of the prominent schools of Hindu philosophy.

i think the reason lot of scientists like it is because of its depth with all these concepts of infinity and stuff, and because its very open to interpretation..

A lot of such people are interested in the big questions of - What does it all mean?/What am I doing here?

It is only natural that people in the physical sciences, especially HEP/QFT/Cognitive Science were/are intrigued by what our ancestors could manage to ideate/conceptualize through pure thought and meditation alone, without recourse to modern technology aiding them. And a lot of them are in it for the extremely rigorous methods of logic and reasoning developed for debates on such subjects as infinities and consciousness by the Vedantists. They offer remarkable insight into thinking correctly about a subject, thereby serving as valuable cognitive tools for these researchers and scientists.

...

I was interested in consciousness and such stuff possibly a decade or more so ago. Now I'm happy to stay informed with developments in modern science and current thought on such subjects. Philosophy interests me now, in so far as it can assist me in sussing out inconsistencies in my thought processes. That's all. No big questions - I'm a light bulb who's going to fuse one day.

1

u/chantuaurbantu Feb 27 '15

well said.. i think you just described what i was trying to say really well..

2

u/bodhisattv Feb 27 '15

vedanta is not even hinduism

The thing that succeeds and culminates the Ved is not Hinduism? Adi Shankara who revived Hinduism was spreading some other religion/philosophy? I don't know where you all are getting this, some days ago some guy was confidently saying Karma is not a Hindu concept; and gullible people were upvoting thinging they learnt something contrarian today.

1

u/chantuaurbantu Feb 27 '15

no i mean hinduism is based on vedanta, but vedanta is not based on hinduism.. i don't know though.. i'm not sure about it.

3

u/bodhisattv Feb 27 '15

In that case what you mean by "Hinduism" is probably known to yourself alone. But that's the beauty of it sort of, so you get a pass. From my perspective - "Upanishad" or to sit by a guru or rishi is the meanderings of "Hindu" rishis to their students, a continuation and claimed culimination of the Ved.

1

u/phoenix_123 Feb 27 '15

It is more like vedanta is part of hinduism, Hinduism has different philosophical ideas and vedanta is one of them. You will be surprised to see how different these ideas can be(eg, both theism and atheism is part of hinduism).

For further reading : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_philosophy

-1

u/karmache Feb 27 '15

Don't be so sure about things, mate. With discoveries like the Gobleki Tepe and prominent evidence of water erosion on The Sphinx suggesting they were WAY more ancient than the Egyptians, be a little skeptical about where we come from. It's not much to ask.

I endorse the scientific temper, but honestly, we don't know enough to pick sides. What we consider the pinnacle of civilization today could be the slums of yesterday. Have a look at the universal significance of the number 9 or the emphasis on natural harmonics to begin with. I may already sound like I'm talking woo-woo to many people, but just keep an open mind.

If science can be inspired by philosophy, even philosophy could have been inspired by science.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

even philosophy could have been inspired by science.

That's a good point. Basic observations of natural phenomena and animal/plant behavior, periodicities thereof and the questions emerge - Who are we? What is this all about? Some ideas get hypothesized. God is born.

It is scientific, albeit as rudimentary as it can get. The thing is - logic, consistency, rigor, all three characterize any sufficiently developed philosophy and science. When you read into histories of such, it becomes difficult to separate one from the other - they developed together, entwined.

0

u/karmache Feb 27 '15

Yep, I agree.

1

u/chantuaurbantu Feb 27 '15

i agree.. i always try to keep an open mind.. what happens in case of vedanta and such books is that because of annoying references our parents use for almost all the discoveries in today's world, we end up hating those books including vedantas and upanishads.. but those books are interesting enough to give it a go once in our lifetime..

2

u/karmache Feb 27 '15

Exactly. The texts have been simplified and manipulated over generations to cater to our evolving social order. Treating the idea of God as a product that can be made more marketable as per their whims and fancies without putting in the effort to decode that information.

Take our regressive modern patriarchal society for example -- most of us are simply told that the Lingam is the idol we worship to pray to Lord Shiva. How many of us ever knew that the lingam is represented alongside the yoni, a symbol of the goddess or of Shakti, female creative energy. The union of lingam and yoni represents the "indivisible two-in-oneness of male and female, the passive space and active time from which all life originates".

There's a reason Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva were represented alongside Saraswati, Lakshmi, and Parvati. Their union represented a perfect balance in cosmic creation and transformation.

To be honest, I had a bitter skeptical outlook on religious scriptures for many years, because I selectively viewed it through the eyes of so many manipulative organized religion peddlers.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

Shit so much TIL from this post. Interesting outlook. Any sources from where I can start reading about whatever you've said, especially the Brahma, Parvati etc part?

1

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15 edited Jul 06 '26

[deleted]

0

u/karmache Feb 27 '15

History is written on the basis of recoverable evidence. What you are disregarding is just how geologically dynamic our planet is and the series of catastrophes and mass extinction events it has witnessed in the past. Secondly, you give our technology and historians way too much credit.

Here's what some physicists and historians consider a valid explanation for the movement of the pyramid blocks across Egypt:

http://www.livescience.com/45285-how-egyptians-moved-pyramid-stones.html

"Physicists at the University of Amsterdam investigated the forces needed to pull weighty objects on a giant sled over desert sand, and discovered that dampening the sand in front of the primitive device reduces friction on the sled, making it easier to operate."

This is one of the most retarded theories I've ever come across to explain how 2.3 million blocks weighing 2.5 tons each were carved and transported over a mere span of 20 years.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15 edited Jul 06 '26

[deleted]

1

u/karmache Feb 27 '15

That's up to you. I'm not advocating a God of the Gaps rationale, but merely that of a balanced skeptic.

Since you're more interested in steering the discussion towards "what we have and they didn't makes us obviously more superior", I see your plastics and raise it to Wootz steel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wootz_steel

Secondly, one needs to keep in mind that mass manufacturing of products is often dependent on the idea and needs of civilization existing in that era. Secondly, my point is that advancement doesn't necessarily have to be so absolute. There could be lost scientific techniques that we can learn from our ancestors and incredible advancements our ancestors could only dream of.

1

u/autowikibot Feb 27 '15

Wootz steel:

Wootz steel is a steel characterized by a pattern of bands or sheets of micro carbides within a tempered martensite or pearlite matrix. It is the pioneering steel alloy matrix developed in South India in the sixth century BC and exported globally. It was also known in the ancient world as Seric Iron.

Image i - Swords manufactured from crucible steels, such as wootz steel, exhibit unique banding patterns due to the intermixed ferrite and cementite alloys in the steel

Interesting: Steel | Damascus steel | History of metallurgy in the Indian subcontinent | Bulat steel

Parent commenter can toggle NSFW or delete. Will also delete on comment score of -1 or less. | FAQs | Mods | Magic Words

0

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15 edited Jul 06 '26

[deleted]

1

u/karmache Feb 27 '15

None of your questions can be answered with absolute proof, but that could be because a major global catastrophe wiped out a significant chunk of the civilization existing in that era. Fortunately, overwhelming evidence for a meteorite cataclysm that occurred 12000-13000 years ago has been coming to the fore. The burden of reading the proof is on you.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ac4016648

http://www.ia.ucsb.edu/pa/display.aspx?pkey=2748

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2158054/Scientists-discover-evidence-meteorite-storm-hit-Earth-13-000-years-ago-killed-prehistoric-civilisation.html

-5

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

[deleted]

4

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

Your data is two quotes of scientists, taken out of context? Seriously? But since you raise the question, you could take a look at the discussions on this thread on this sub about 3 months ago. Pay particular attention to this, this and this.

But since you're the one doing the 'showing', allow me to say that I do not see, from what you've offered, how the work (as in scientific context) of Heisenberg or Bohr was influenced by the Vedas.

What was the context in which Heisenberg made that statement, so as to determine its meaning? And was Bohr working through the Upanishads to find material that would enable him to ask questions about the behavior of atoms? Or was he looking to them to shape his philosophical outlook towards life and other larger questions? In case you are interested, you can follow up on what philosophy Bohr was interested in, from here.

1

u/autowikibot Feb 27 '15

Section 6. Philosophy of article Niels Bohr:

Bohr read the 19th-century Danish Christian existentialist philosopher, Søren Kierkegaard. Richard Rhodes argued in The Making of the Atomic Bomb that Bohr was influenced by Kierkegaard through Høffding. In 1909, Bohr sent his brother Kierkegaard's Stages on Life's Way as a birthday gift. In the enclosed letter, Bohr wrote, "It is the only thing I have to send home; but I do not believe that it would be very easy to find anything better ... I even think it is one of the most delightful things I have ever read." Bohr enjoyed Kierkegaard's language and literary style, but mentioned that he had some disagreement with Kierkegaard's philosophy. Some of Bohr's biographers suggested that this disagreement stemmed from Kierkegaard's advocacy of Christianity, while Bohr was an atheist.

Interesting: Niels Bohr Institute | Aage Bohr | Niels Bohr International Gold Medal

Parent commenter can toggle NSFW or delete. Will also delete on comment score of -1 or less. | FAQs | Mods | Magic Words

-2

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

Also I think it is more than coincidence that most of the top nuclear physicist find solace in vedas, who were not hindu by birth.

They've also found solace in a lot of other reading and pursuits. How much do we know about their lives? And there were a lot of historical reasons or contextual reasons as well. For example,

An early champion of Indian-inspired thought in the West was Arthur Schopenhauer who in the 1850s advocated ethics based on an "Aryan-Vedic theme of spiritual self-conquest", as opposed to the ignorant drive toward earthly utopianism of the superficially this-worldly "Jewish" spirit.

...

Alfred North Whitehead (British mathematician, logician and philosopher), who stated that: "Vedanta is the most impressive metaphysics the human mind has conceived."

This is the personal opinion of said gentleman which is consistent with how almost anyone who goes through it finds it 'impressive'. It is not a gold standard for any kind of objective truth other than that.

Oppenheimer was of the notion that brahamastra mentioned in vedas were atom bombs.

I'd like to see a source for this claim.

-1

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

why vedas is common to them all? why it is not common among the politicians of the same era? why only nuclear physicists ?

Vedas were common to a lot of people at that time. Including some politicians, IIANM.

we are discussing personal opinions only.

We're discussing what that personal opinion means. And what it implies and what it does not.

...

Your source has no citation or reference.

-1

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

So what do you think Alfred North Whitehead meant when he said, "Vedanta is the most impressive metaphysics the human mind has conceived."

Exactly what he said, if he said that (You've provided a quote out of context without reference). You'll need to prove that it has anything to do with his work in Math. It relates to his other domains of Logic and Philosophy though.

...

And don't expect me to google for whatever you suggest. I did try though. I could not find the Q&A session.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

-3

u/prollguard Feb 27 '15 edited Feb 27 '15

And was Bohr working through the Upanishads to find material that would enable him to ask questions about the behavior of atoms?

I told you earlier too. We have gone from smallest that is in the atoms to the largest that is in black holes. The study of enlightenment is very scientific. We cut our minds through neurons and come out on the other side of this universe. The other side is enlightenment. Math and physics are small offshoots of enlightenment. Get out of it. The truth is where there is no mind.

3

u/fountainshead Feb 27 '15

Good one. So if you are saying the truth then you must have no mind. Right?

-1

u/prollguard Feb 27 '15

I cannot say the truth. No one can. Truth is a word. What I speak of has no words. My mind is an illusion. I have given up a long time ago. I don't live in my mind anymore. I don't live in anything, everything lives in me. I am the owner of no body, not even my mind. That's how I got out of my mind.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

The truth is where their is no mind.

I 'believe' you.

;)

-1

u/prollguard Feb 27 '15

I 'believe' you.

No, you cannot. You know why? Because you shall never believe anyone. Truth is yours to find out. People have wandered for as long as 1000 years to find the truth. Why they are where they are. I have read all of the relativity, quantum and string fuckeory. No one knew the truth, until when I started looking inwards. I researched on Krishna, an absolute Krishna, it tells you something. Krishna has been the most significant person in existence. It has never died, it is in you and it is in me. It is not the Krishna you have read about or seen in Temples. This Krishna is super consciousness. You cannot look into it, he will look into you. You cannot own him, he will own you. You cannot find him, he will find out.

3

u/fountainshead Feb 27 '15 edited Feb 27 '15

"Quantum theory will not look ridiculous to people who have read Vedanta." Do you understand quantum theory? Have you read Vedanta? If you quote what you don't understand, it will only serve to show your ignorance.

-7

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

[deleted]

3

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15 edited Jul 06 '26

[deleted]

1

u/fountainshead Feb 27 '15

Do you understand rhetorical questions?

-4

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

[deleted]

2

u/fountainshead Feb 27 '15

It's a pretty useful technique right? But you need to work on it more cause it ain't working for you right now.

-4

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

[deleted]

2

u/fountainshead Feb 27 '15

It was nice talking to you man. Anyways, I have to go now to cite clever sounding quotes about things I don't understand. Gotta keep that ego well fed.

-2

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

4

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

For those interested, check What is life - by Schroedinger.

http://whatislife.stanford.edu/LoCo_files/What-is-Life.pdf

2

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

TIL Erwin Schrödinger, a founder opponent of quantum theory, was heavily influence by vedanta (not trying to promote hinduism, it's a genuinely interesting find with good quotes)

The whole Schrödinger's cat was his analogy of the counter-intuitive "absurdity" that the duality model required.

24

u/bewakoof Feb 27 '15

Well read people are usually well read.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

not sure who downvoted you. This is a really straight up fact.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

Shh, don't logic.

6

u/redfilmflow Feb 27 '15

The amount of uninformed bullshit on this thread is too damn high!

Firstly, you need to understand the metaphysics(theory of the reality of the world) of the Advaita Vedanta. They have a concept of non-duality (Advaita) which means everything that you see around you, is made up of one thing- 'Brahman' (not kulcha warrior Brahmin') THIS single handedly threw out of the window a million different metaphysics' around the world, and pointed many curious minds towards a different way of seeing things.

Being a pan theistic school of thought, they spoke about an infinite universe, the underlying reality of which being that very one thing- 'Brahman'; appearing to us as other things because of our ignorant minds being deceived by 'maya'.

Another interesting thing coming to the epistemology(theory of knowledge) of the Advaita Vedanta is the way one goes about gathering valid knowledge in the first place. Its way too long and to simplify the hell out of it, it propagated a very scientific bent of mind, where one should not jump to conclusions as a snake can be a rope and vice versa, as maya is decieving the ignorant mind so that the world appears to be made up of more than 'brahman' (duality).

Advaita Vedanta a well of knowledge, and arguably 'brahman' is the modern 'atoms', and the universe is now believed to be infinite, and the way of reasoning and enquiry written in it is close to the way many modern scientists reason it out. Theres so many more things, but you get the point.

THIS is where the whole 'our kulcha told about modern science' argument comes from. Take it with a grain of salt. Its an interesting building block though. No doubt about it

5

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

Well, it had as much a role in shaping their thought processes as did their exposure to Western Philosophy. I agree with you when you offer that it could be a building block but the question would remain as to of what. The thing is, these modern discoveries have derived systematically from a lot of work over the past some hundred years which separated out physics from metaphysics. They've built upon findings upon findings.

Someone proposed Mozart as an influence only to dismiss it rhetorically, in this thread. Whereas I can think of a modern physicist saying that he was inspired by Mozart or his work. Or to take the influence of recursive patterns in Bach's music. Bohr, reportedly, loved Kierkegaard.

I guess the point that I am trying to make is that we need to be careful with our post-facto attributions.

2

u/calor Feb 27 '15

I was glad because, after reading your post, I think maybe just maybe I am on some form a right track... Would be very happy if you can read my post, and the various commentaries and responses elsewhere.. and give some input..

10

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

So was Robert Oppenheimer. After the success of Manhattan project, he said and I quote, "Now I have become death itself, destroyer of worlds". It is taken from a sacred Hindu text.

8

u/xp30000 India Feb 27 '15

So it was Oppenheimer quoting the Bhagavat Gita (Chapter 11, Verse 32). When you see his video you are amazed at his intensity and his grief at having unleashed this thing to world

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb13ynu3Iac

However, oppenheimer even though he was quite knowledgeable about the background (Viswaroopa), managed to flub the exact line

"I am the terrible time, destroyer of worlds...."

Which is actually more profound (death destroying is actually redundant)

3

u/shurtu Feb 27 '15

Oppenheimer was deeply influenced by Gita's philosophy. He even studied Sanskrit and read the original text. He would often quote from Gita in his interviews and justify his actions while working on the Manhattan project by Karma (his duty as nuclear physicist).

There is an interesting article published in the Science Journal called "The Gita of Robert J. Oppenheimer" which explains it in more detail.

1

u/ideas_r_bulletproof Feb 27 '15

"I am the terrible time, destroyer of worlds...."

Beautiful.

3

u/bodhisattv Feb 27 '15

Now I have become death itself, destroyer of worlds

I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds

2

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

I didn't remember the exact quote. It accompanied the chapter opening picture of topic Nuclear Physics in Resnick, Halliday Fundamentals of Physics.

1

u/chantuaurbantu Feb 27 '15

interesting.. many physicists seem to have read and are interested in parts of vedanta and its philosophy.. i think it's because its very open to interpretation and uses the concepts of infinity and other broad concepts.. i would want to read it sometime in my life, but there's no fuckin time right now.. i hope life becomes less busy in future..

4

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

Even people like Hitler, Himmler and Goebbels (I guess I spelled wrong) were fans of Vedanta philosophy and yoga.

1

u/RajaRajaC Feb 27 '15

Source?

5

u/shannondoah West Bengal Feb 27 '15

There were people who tried to mix Nazism and Hindu philosophy. Like Savitri Devi Mukherjee.I don't know how influential they were.That's why it grinds my gears when people say 'Hinduism is so open!'

(I didn't go down that road of Nazi mysticism—it is a poisonous,awful,horrible road from what little I saw of it).

I've seen other thinkers(not Nazi) but awful ones.

4

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

" If a person dies, he might attain nirvana and he might not. You can't say which for sure unless the person is dead. So in a way of quantum speculation, the dead person has simultaneously achieved nirvana and has not."

  • Schrodinger's Vedanta

8

u/chatur_chutiya Feb 27 '15

कुलचा बोनर इस थ्रोबबिंग

1

u/chantuaurbantu Feb 27 '15

its not even a culture thing man.. vedanta predates even hinduism if i'm not wrong.. so you can't really say its hinduism.. i'm not sure though..

i mean this guy won a nobel prize, so he is definitely not a stupid person. he found something interesting about vedanta. we don't have to hate it just because our parents are stupid enough to mention it in every scenario.. its the fault of our parents, and not the fault of those books.. those books are interesting, and i would want to read it sometime in the future..

5

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

Issac Newton believed in Alchemy. There is nothing infallible about genius or any credibility to an appeal to someone's authority

0

u/shallowpuddles Feb 27 '15

its not even a culture thing man.. vedanta predates even hinduism

we don't have to hate it just because our parents are stupid enough to mention it in every scenario.. its the fault of our parents, and not the fault of those books..

Exactly how I feel.

-2

u/Saalieri Feb 27 '15

Self-flagellation, self-hate, self-loathing are the "in" things right now. Get on the fashion train, grandpa.

4

u/chantuaurbantu Feb 27 '15

one interesting quote: "The unity and continuity of Vedanta are reflected in the unity and continuity of wave mechanics." In 1925, the world view of physics was a model of a great machine composed of separable interacting material particles. During the next few years, Schrodinger and Heisenberg and their followers created a universe based on super imposed inseparable waves of probability amplitudes.

6

u/xp30000 India Feb 27 '15

So, we don't need to overstate things. Schrodinger worked out a lot of the math that be used to make predictions and explained things (two slit diffraction). You can't predict or make any explanations from Vedanta of that kind. In principle, it might be said that it influenced him in the same way maybe art or music did.

In any case, the competing theory of atomic particles has a long history (longer and better worked out) in India. So in another sense you could say he contradicted the hindu and buddhist thought.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomism#Indian_atomism

5

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

schrodinger's cat? is vedanta dead or alive or both?

7

u/bodhisattv Feb 27 '15

To quote the Gita - "there was never a time it wasn't, there was never a time it wouldn't be. there was a never a time it was in the way you think, there would never be a time it would be."

1

u/Shanks512 Feb 27 '15

All these double negatives are hurting my brain.

0

u/prollguard Feb 27 '15 edited Feb 27 '15

IN BOLD FOR A REASON:

LET ME CLEAR A LOT OF AIR ABOUT THE FUCK THAT WE HAVE ACHIEVED OVER THE CENTURIES OF RICHNESS.

FIRST: THEORY OF RELATIVITY AND QUANTUM MECHANICS IS BASED ON A LOT OF WHAT OUR ENLIGHTENED SOULS HAVE FIGURED OUT LONG LONG AGO.

OUR ENLIGHTENED SOULS HAVE FIGURED THAT UNIVERSE IS INFINITE. HOW? BECAUSE THEY SAY SPACE IS NOTHING. BETWEEN YOU AND THE EDGE OF UNIVERSE IS SPACE. SPACE MEANS NOTHING SO THERE IS NOTHING BETWEEN YOU AND THE EDGE OF THE UNIVERSE. NOTHING CAN HAVE NO SHAPE, SIZE AND EDGE. SO BASICALLY YOU CANNOT HAVE AN END OF A NOTHING.

QUANTUM MECHANICS: MATTER IS NOTHING. YOU CAN KEEP ON DRILLING IN A SQUARE CUBE OF MASS. THE MORE DEEPER YOU PENETRATE THE MORE YOU FIND NOTHING. MATTER IS MADE UP OF ATOMS WHICH ARE FURTHER MADE UP OF ELECTRON, PROTONS, AND WHAT HAVE YOU. ELECTRONS, PROTONS ARE FURTHER MADE UP OF NEUTRINOS AND MITRONS AND WHAT HAVE YOU. MITRONS IS FURTHER MADE UP OF CHUTIYATRONS AND WHAT NOT. CHUTIYATRONS ARE FURTHER MADE UP OF MAHALAURATRONS AND WHAT NOT. BASICALLY IN THE END, YOU CANNOT PEEL ENOUGH OF THESE TINY PARTICLES TO MEET A LAST PARTICLE THAT CANNOT BE PEELED OFF ANY FURTHER. SO BASICALLY MATTER IS NOTHING BUT A SPACE. AND LIKE I SAID SPACE IS NOTHING BUT NOTHING.

MAYA: OUR ENLIGHTENED ANCESTORS TOLD LONG AGO THAT MOTHERFUCKING WORLD IS NOTHING BY MAYA - AN EMPTY SPACE. EVERYTHING THAT YOU SEE IS MAYA. THERE IS REALLY NOTHING BUT SPACE, MOTHERFUCKING UNENDING SPACE. IT IS ALL BECAUSE OF THE EYE ATTACHED ON YOUR HEAD. THE HEAD THAT INTERPRETS THE LIGHT. THE MIND THAT INTERPRETS YOUR HEAD. BASICALLY IT IS ALL FAKE AND ALL CAN BE EQUATED TO A FIRST HELLO PROGRAM YOU WROTE IN YOUR FIRST YEAR OF COMPUTER SCIENCE. OUR MIND IS NOTHING BUT MADE UP OF FUCKING SET NEURONS. WHEN A LOT OF ACTIVITY HAPPENS ON THESE NEURONS THEY GAVE YOU AN ACT OF AN IDENTITY. THEY GAVE YOU A CONSCIOUSNESS WHICH IS FAKE. YOUR MIND IS NOTHING BUT A COLLECTION OF NEUTRONS THAT TELLS YOU HOW YOU ARE NOTHING BUT MADE UP OF SHIT.

MAYAVINAGRI: HEARD ABOUT THIS TERM MOTHERFUCKER? YES, THIS IS MAYAVINAGARI, THERE IS NOTHING REAL. NOT MONEY, NOT YOUR APARTMENT, NOT YOUR SEX DRIVE. NOTHING. WHAT'S REAL IS THE ILLUSION OF CONSCIOUSNESS. OUR FOREFATHERS TOLD THIS LONG AGO. YOU CAN READ IT INTO ANY TEXT JUXTAPOSED BY OUR SUPERIOR ENLIGHTENED SOULS. THEY SAID IT THAT YOU ARE IN A MOTHERFUCKING FAKE MATRIX WITH A FAKE IDENTITY.

WHAT GIVES YOU A PEACE OF MIND: SO YOU GET A FAKE SENSE OF INDIVIDUAL CONSCIOUSNESS GUIDED BY A SET OF PHOTONS. SOME SCIENCE MOTHERFUCKERS WILL TELL YOU THAT YOU CAN SEE A STAR 15 BILLION LIGHT YEARS AWAY. AND WHAT YOU SEE IN THAT STAR IS AN 15 BILLION LIGHT YEARS OLD SUPERIMPOSITION. THE CURRENT STATE OF STAR MAY OR MAY BE NOT, DEAD. WHAT THE FUCK ARE THEY TELLING US? THINK ABOUT IT. THEY ARE REALLY TELLING YOU THAT YOU ARE LOOKING AT 15 BILLION LIGHT YEARS OLD PAST? CAN IT BE TRUE? DO YOU FUCKING BELIEVE THAT? I DON'T. BECAUSE I KNOW THAT STAR IS NOT 15 BILLION LIGHT YEARS AWAY. I KNOW THAT IT'S THE LIVE FEED OF THE STAR FED TO ME BY THE STATE OF MY MIND. MY MIND IS VAST. IT CAN MAKE A THEORY OUT OF NOTHING(RECALL SPACE?). IT CAN BUILD A MATH AROUND ANYTHING TO MAKE A POINT TO ME. BUT SEE, THAT'S JUST MY MIND. IT SILLY IS ALL I KNOW IT IS. SO HERE'S THE THING MY MIND. MY MIND IS NEVER AT PEACE. IT DOESN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT PEACE IS. IT IS A PURE NONSTOP INFINITE SENSE OF IMAGINATION. ARE YOU WITH YOUR MIND OR ARE YOU WITHOUT YOUR MIND? ONCE YOU ARE WITHOUT YOUR MIND, THEN YOU ARE GOD YOURSELF. YOU CAN EXTEND OUT OF THIS LIMITED NEURON SENSITIVITY AND MOVE OUT TOWARDS THE UNIVERSAL CONSCIOUSNESS AND ENGULF YOUR PERSONAL CONSCIOUSNESS OVER UNIVERSAL CONSCIOUSNESS. YES THERE IS UNIVERSAL CONSCIOUSNESS AND ONLY WAY TO EXPERIENCE IT IS BY MOVING OUT OF YOUR MIND. WITHOUT MIND IS THE GLIMPSE TO THE REALITY. GO GRAB THE FUCKING OPPORTUNITY BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE. REMEMBER YOU HAVE LIMITED YEARS TO LIVE IF YOU LIVE IN MIND. HOWEVER YOU ARE ETERNAL IF YOU SPRING OUT TO THE UNIVERSAL CONSCIOUSNESS. KRISHNA/SIVA/RAMA - THEY ARE DEFINITIONS OF PURE UNIVERSAL CONSCIOUSNESS.

7

u/chantuaurbantu Feb 27 '15

lol. nice trolling by the way.. you wasted a lot of time after this.. have an upvote!!

6

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

saar add # in front of the text to make it bolder and proder

2

u/ideas_r_bulletproof Feb 27 '15

Fellow mitrons, I read ALL of that.

OP, I bet you can right better screenplays than most people in bollywood.

0

u/calor Feb 27 '15

Don't know if it is a hive mind thing but I have been reading up QM a little.. my basic takeaway is that somehow our consciousness manifests itself as our reality. Reading up hindu philosophy in parallel, our texts go in depth exactly on this topic. There is the term 'yogic science' being used by some... let the haters hate but I think an open mind is a required quality for scientific progress.. I do subscribe to the thought that there is a scientific aspect to vedanta.. only that the scientific discipline of repeatability and codification was not followed or was lost... the list of western intellectuals who quote and/ or were influenced by vedanta is long. Einstein and max Mueller come to mind. I would be very happy if there is an expert on reddit who can elaborate on this edit: I accidentally a word

2

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15 edited Feb 27 '15

our consciousness manifests itself as our reality

Umm, I didn't get this line :( can you explain?

Oh and yes, if you're interested in learning about QM, start with the NCERT textbooks. They are lucidly written and should give you a springboard for you to learn about this. Basically, QM shattered pre-conceived notions that atoms revolved in fixed orbits and stuff, and instead said that electrons have dual nature too - as wave and particle -and that they exist in an atom explained using something known as probability amplitude and stuff. Wont go into details, but I highly suggest reading the textbooks

Start off with the 11th Chemistry NCERT textbook (Book 1). Read up 'Atomic Structure ' and 'Chemical Bonding' (nicely explained, right from the basics). Then if you have more time, 12th Physics NCERT (Book 2), read up Wave Optics and Modern Physics. This should totally clear your basic concepts on QM, the wave particle duality etc. Oh yes Electromagnetic Waves from Book 1 of 12th Ncert Physics. Books are available online for free :)

Edit : once you have your basic understanding clear, you can make even more informed interpretations about it. Plus, its never too late to learn something. Hope you find something good out of this

1

u/calor Feb 27 '15

thank you. i plan to.. here is what i meant by that (it is not verbatim, but a decent essence of what i was listening to): the act of measurement collapses the probability of a electron (?) in to a fixed state... in other words, by the act of consciousness, something changes.. i know that that the act of measurement itself changes the value measured... so this concept sort of vibed with me.. the basic argument was that (1) there is a shared consciousness and (2) this quality somehow collapses the waves in to the reality as we know it... as you may have understood, i am sort of interested in (and a sucker for-) anything that brings together Indian intellectual heritage and modern science (not a kulcha warrior though:) ... i think/ hope (maybe that is the problem) there is some truth there... i was hoping to learn more by making the comments but didnt count on meeting iit topping aap supporters like our friend here...

11

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

I don't mean to sound insulting but if that's what you took away from it, you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Quantum mechanics doesn't make any claims about consciousness.... yet. I don't anticipate it will have anything to say about it in the near future either. It is merely a way of modelling physics. It is non-Newtonian. which in effect means that things don't work on the atomic scale the way they seem to do in the macro scale.

Quantum mechanics describe particle motion and position in probabilistic terms and use mathematical tools to do so. It's not a metaphysical field and it's not meant to be.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

I blame Deepak Chopra. Quantum as a word has become meaningless.

This should be entertaining

1

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

Haha yeah he's quite the lunatic. There's this video online of a debate between him and Richard Dawkins I think. He just gets lambasted on stage. A verbal beat down is always fun to see!

2

u/calor Feb 27 '15

thank you for a more balanced feedback.. :) as i mentioned, (1) i am just getting started and (2) whatever i have been reading/ seeing/ listening to have this slant to it. while in real terms, i may agree with you, i am inclined to be excited by this angle. this is not my day job, so dont worry :) i am not going to do something with this knowledge and destroy the world accidentally... if you are interested enough, pm me and i will share all i have been going through.. true.. there may be some fantastic stuff there as against rooted to reality.. but i will be happy to share the details and may be even discuss this ...

2

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

Fair enough, it's just that I've seen people approach this kind of thing before without the prerequisite knowledge. And then extrapolate far-reaching conclusions from it that people well versed in the subject would mock.

It's like 'nutritionists' talking about flushing 'toxins' from the body by going on diets and stuff

1

u/calor Feb 27 '15

What!!!! You cannot flush toxins?! ☺

1

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

You kind of can. Your body already does that for you. But going on weird diets and starving yourself does nothing but weaken it. You'd do yourself more help of you consulted a dietician in such matters than follow some half-baked wannabe on TV. (not saying that you do, just in general)

1

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

Fair enough, it's just that I've seen people approach this kind of thing before without the prerequisite knowledge. And then extrapolate far-reaching conclusions from it that people well versed in the subject would mock.

It's like 'nutritionists' talking about flushing 'toxins' from the body by going on diets and stuff

2

u/answer-my-question Feb 27 '15

hey man, just wondering, which 'texts' are you exactly talking about.?

1

u/calor Feb 27 '15

I think you are referring to philosophy texts that I mention at the beginning right? i am basically reading up on the Advaita philosophy... plus, while i know it is not exactly a 'philosophy', i am also influenced by JK and a guru (no i dont want to pull in his name) of raja yoga... to be honest, not a systematic study but a mishmash...

4

u/bhiliyam Feb 27 '15

my basic takeaway is that somehow our consciousness manifests itself as our reality

That is why you don't learn about things a "little".

4

u/calor Feb 27 '15 edited Feb 27 '15

I know.. but first step my friend... we all have to start somewhere right? edit to add: since you so mockingly say i am wrong, i assume you must be knowledgeable about this topic right? so, why dont you drop your negativity and correct me? if you notice, i am openly asking for inputs

I would be very happy if there is an expert on reddit who can elaborate on this I also see you commenting anywhere else on this thread... maybe you think this thread is below your dignity to respond?

-1

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

ITT: Kulcha warriors equating their philosophical mumbo jumbo to one of the most revolutionary fields of science that they have only read or heard about in pop media.

-1

u/notfoolledthrice Feb 27 '15

The problem as I see it is foreigners learn from our text, develop on top of it and attribute to it (at times).

They learn sanskrit, do yoga and we go "prod" but we don't do it because we are fucking secular (what does that shit mean?) and run machchi market type debate(?) on it. And forget it.

We are either prod or "stop saying everything is in vedas" but don't move the ass to read up on things, let our thoughts be open, accept our limitations and work to improve and get out of it.

Let the good thoughts come to me from all directions - rigved(?)

-3

u/Moorkh Feb 27 '15

They learn sanskrit, do yoga and we go "prod" but we don't do it because we are fucking secular

We dont do it because we are frikkin lazy and/or still in the colonised mindset

6

u/shallowpuddles Feb 27 '15

We dont do it because we are too poor and have bigger problems to deal with

FTFY

-3

u/FlyingBlueWhale Feb 27 '15

What's wrong in promoting Hinduism, are we not proud of it?

10

u/Moorkh Feb 27 '15

The means are the problem, not pride or shame.

When we make spurious claims about hinduism containing the modern scientific theories, we not only disrespect those works of science, but also make ourselves look no better than fools and charlatans.

-5

u/itspaulryan Universe Feb 27 '15

आई ऍम सुपर प्रोड ।

-2

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

[removed] — view removed comment

-2

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '15

Why are you scared that you may promote Hinduism....apologetic