Theos-Talk Archives (February 2002 Message tt00561)

Adelasie,
In the latest issue of New Scientist I think they answer your question in regards to metaphysical philosophy and mainstream science. I shall provide a quote to demonstrate my point:
"What are the fundamental building blocks of the Universe? Once we were told they were atoms. Then it turned out that these were not fundamental at all, but made of protons, neutrons and electrons. Protons and neutrons are in turn made of quarks. Deeper still, we now learn, come tiny vibrating strings and membranes living in space of 10 or 11 dimensions. But we all expect that one day physicists will finally discover the deepest structures of nature. Won't they?
"Not necessarily. Maybe it's impossible to discover these deepest structures. What's more, maybe it doesn't matter what they are. That's the startling claim of Robert Laughlin, a Nobel laureate at Stanford University. According to Laughlin, it may be that what we call reality is a spontaneous phenomenon, emerging like a wave out of some forever unknowable cosmic medium."
Samuel, E (2002). What lies beneath. New Scientist, 9th February 2002, Pp: 24 - 27.
Slowly getting there!!
Mic
adelasie <adelasie@surfari.net> wrote: Dear Leon,

Thanks for your comments. You always put these scientific issues in 
better perspective for me. It seems from what you say here that 
science is indeed moving toward discovering its link with 
metaphysical philosophy. How widespread is this trend? Is it anywhere 
near mainstream? And what about the question of ethical application? 
>From a layman's point of view, it seems that science is moving in 
some alarming directions: military science, genetic technology, 
nuclear power, etc. Does the theosophical philosophy inform science 
in any way?

Best wishes,
Adelasie

On 18 Feb 2002 at 2:26, leonmaurer@aol.com wrote:

> Maybe this definition from the American Heritage dictionary might
> clear up the confusion a bit:
> 
> Syn'chro'nic'i'ty - n
> 1. The state or fact of being synchronous or simultaneous;
> synchronism. 2. Coincidence of events that seem to be meaningfully
> related, conceived in the theory of Carl Jung as an explanatory
> principle on the same order as causality.
> 
> The first is the scientific meaning that refers to the simultaneous
> time of occurrence of two different actions or activities that depend
> solely on linked chains of cause and effect. For example, the sounds
> of speech that are synchronous or simultaneous with the movements of
> the mouth and lips, or the simultaneity of a light coming on when the
> switch is thrown. Today, the scientific theory of Chaos that links
> the fluttering of a butterfly's wings in Africa with a tornado in
> Kansas, as well as the theory of Superstrings/Membranes that links
> together the 10 dimensional fields of energy in both the material as
> well as the immaterial vacuum of physical space, all depend on the
> same concept of cause and effect as does the fundamental principles of
> theosophy. These theories along with relativity and quantum theories
> (as they are correlated by Superstring theory) are what HPB predicted
> would happen in the 20th century to eventually bring theosophical
> science and physical science together in perfect synchronicity... As
> I've tried to show by linking together all the above mentioned
> scientific theories in my theosophically rooted ABC multidimensional
> [chakra]field theory. 
> 
> The second definition, as posed by Jung in his introduction to the
> Wilhelm translation of the I-Ching -- in order to explain its oracular
> power that depends on the apparently random throwing of coins while
> thinking of a question to effect the changes in the hexagrams and,
> simultaneously, their interpretations -- refers to his theory that the
> simultaneity of the patterns of actions that occur on the physical
> plane are synchronous with the similar patterns in the mind, and also
> those on the higher universal planes... Implying a causal link between
> these different fields of action. The Native American's
> interpretations of the environmental signs, that they assume come
> directly from their Great Spirit Guide, also relates to this
> definition. 
> 
> All the above, it seems, would certainly confirm that there is no
> possibility of coincidence or synchronicity without lawful cycles or
> chains of cause and effect -- as held by theosophy. 
> 
> I hope this helps clarify the meaning of the word "synchronicity" in
> its various usage's.
> 
> LHM
> http://tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics
> http://users.aol.com/unIwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/einstein.html
> http://members.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield
>



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 




---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]