Philosophy Now Forum

Where Science and Buddhism Meet PART 1


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj_i7YqD ... re=related




Where Science and Buddhism Meet PART 2



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlmrHMBW ... h_response




Where Buddhism and Science Meet pt. 3



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSf0FSB7 ... re=related

Dear Gerald,

I've seen your nice and sensitive movie on Youtube: Where Science and Buddhism Meet PART 1.

I agree with you that Buddhism and Science, especially physics, are only two different ways of looking at the same reality (ONENESS). Since more than twenty years I am actively investigating the meeting points between Buddhism and Physics and made meanwhile some astonishing discoveries.

The most important one is certainly the discovery, that the archetypal structure of the MANDALA is a hidden blueprint of the physical universe. Being composed of an "entangled" structure of a square and a circle it shows how space and time are organized at the most fundamental level. This Buddhist structure can be "read" in such a way, that it generates a sort of Lorentz symmetry. It is just this symmetry that was found by Albert Einstein in his Special Theory of Relativity 1905, but there is a subtle difference between the relativistic view of the universe and the Buddhist view.
If the MANDALA is really the blueprint on which our universe bases upon then the fundamental constant of c is actually given twice: It is geometrically determined as a square and as a circle. This "dual parametrization of c" is - as conceived by me - integral part of the wave-particle-duality. (You are talking about this aspect in your movie.) Light does not only behave in a dual way, its fundamental parameter c is of dual nature as well.

To get an impression of my ideas look at the following webpage:

http://www.worldsci.org/people/Helmut_Hansen

The easiest way to understand my approach is the recently published paper:

The Hidden Face of c or: The True Meaning of the Kennedy-Thorndike Experiment
(Abstracts Online - 2011)

It is a simple, non-technical paper, which investigates the inner geometrical core of the Mandala. It makes only use of very elementary mathematics (only the Pythagorean Theorem is applied). The central idea may already be grasped by simple pattern recognition.

May be you will find this short paper somehow interesting...

Best Regards
Helmut

Have you ever stopped and thought that Buddhism has basically zero to do with the development of science and maybe that means Buddhism is false and that any alignment to your faith is simply random and you are making a mountain out of a molehill to justify it?

I'd go so far as to say that such a video represents the recognition Buddhism is false by you in the same way Muslims argue for Islamic Scientific Miracles (tm) in order to save face for the lack of contribution to the world Islam has made.

As Buddhists I entirely encourage you two to 'relax and let go'.

Hmm...I think you'll find that if not for Islam there would have been no western science nor mathematics.

I'd encourage you to look to the mote in ones own eye.

Nonsense. Islam ravished the world and any science that came from it was merely the death throes of the consumed cultures.



Always do Arising.

Read the history of Mathematics. Read history per se and see who was the culture that was making the advances in astronomy, architecture, metallurgy and mathematics whilst the christian 'west' was killing each other.
Not close enough I think.

arising say read the history of mathematics like that means islam means sciences actually science has little to do with math..and btw where are arisings sources to prove their wild claims? Science is about testings..not illogical py equals

Didn't watch the videos, but have read in the past about the purported links between Buddhism and science...

But, was it really a question of Buddhism having anything to do with the development of science? I thought it had been a discussion regarding similarities between the ways in which understandings are formed, similarities between the scientific method and Buddhist thinking...

I also don't know how it would mean that Buddhism is false if it doesn't have anything to do with the development of science. Without being a Buddhist but only someone who has read about Buddhism, I have trouble understanding what meaning a statement like "Buddhism is false" would imply. What exactly would be false?

The tenants of any system of thought could be judged true or false.

Experience outside of thought is neither true or false. It just is.

Systems of thought have tenets.
Tenants have landlords. . .

BULLOCKS!!! BLASPHEMOUS TRIANGULATED SEMANTIC SYNTAX FALLACY WITH CONSPICUOUS CONTENT CONSTRUCTION ERROR AND LOGIC TRAJECTORY MISMANIPULATION!!

Typist has met his match.

Definitely, but I was referring more specifically to what would be false in Buddhism if it followed that "Buddhism doesn't have to do with the development of science". I'm trying to understand this relation to the "development of science" and how the lack of it would thus falsify Buddhism, or, specifically, parts of Buddhism (of which I was inquiring).

Personally, I would feel that it would require something to be demonstrated scientifically that would subsequently negate the basis on which a Buddhist belief would stand. If a Buddhist belief doesn't have a relation with the development of science, it doesn't mean that it just follows that it's false. Many things happen without relating to how science has developed which, quite separately, can be verified or falsified scientifically.