Case Against The Predictability Of The Universe

[Thomas Knierim]

We could imagine a very large computer powerful enough to compute anything we feed it. We could imagine that this computer has an extremely large set of real world data reflecting real entities in the universe and is capable of computing causal event trees for these entities. In other words, it could compute the future state of any given deterministic process. Taking a single instant we could chart out an infinite number of nodes and causes to later effects, depending on our scale and resolution of our nodes. Our nodes could be as complicated as sub-atomic physics or as general as galactic movement.

Is this really possible?

There are several factors that speak against it:

a) Many phenomena in nature, such as weather and climate, terraforming, populations, ecosystenms, etc. are subject to non-linear dynamics. Such NLS are extremely sensitive to initial conditions. Minute changes in these conditions can have large effects. However, they cannot be understood as causes in the classical sense, where locality, continuity, and uniformity are required attributes.

B) The measurement system is coupled to the observed system, and hence, measurement itself affects the inputs of the dynamic system. This is essentially the same problem as stated in the uncertainty principle, although one does not even need to resort to the quantum level. For example, by measuring an airstream using a windmill, the airstream is changed, because the windmill acts as a resistor. If a butterfly flap is in the set of preconditions for the accurate prediction of a Hurricane, one can imagine what a windmill would do to the computation.

c) If the state space that is about to be computed contains the computer or the measurement instruments itself, the computer would have to make accurate predictions about its own future states.

d) Physical instruments -even if very precise- cannot be infinitely precise. Besides, one is usually restricted to adding measurement points (such as windmills) one by one. Thus, by adding measurement points the uncertainty of an initial system state A(0) is decreased in a linear fashion. However, entropy in a NLS grows non-linear, i.e. faster than you can add measurement points (entropy is a probabilistic measurement of variety), which means that there is always a point in time A(n) -let's call it predictability horizon- beyond which meaninfgul predictions are impossible. Figuratively speaking, the number of input data converges against the predictability horizon.

There is an interesting paper by David H. Wolpert who attempts to prove that one cannot build a computer which can, for any physical system (including classical linear systems!), take the specification of that system’s state as input and then correctly predict its future state before that state actually occurs. It involves a proof using turing machines. See: http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/publications/Ab...-03-008abs.html (http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/publications/Abstracts/96-03-008abs.html).

Predictability is of course not the same as predetermination. The case against predictability is not yet a case against classical determinism and the Laplacian idea of an iron block universe. But, it seems that we require the notion of classical causality to support the mechanistic view and it also seems that probabilistic computation models have eroded that view.

When speaking about classical causality I mean the notion of linear progressions in the form of "A causes B", "B causes C", and so on. Thomas Hobbes was the first to put forward systematic thought on multiple causes. He introduced the term "necessary cause", by which he means something that makes the occurrence of the effect absolutely necessary, as opposed to insufficient causes that are not guaranteed to bring about a given result, but which may do so either alone or in conjuction with other causes. Confusingly, John Stuart Mill used a similar terminology in exactly the opposite meaning. He defined "necessary cause" as an event that necessarily precedes a given effect; i.e. we can conclude the cause from the presence of the effect with certainty. A "sufficient cause" is according to John Mill an event from which we can can conclude the occurrence of the effect with certainty. Mill also mentioned causes which are sufficient and necessary at the same time.

If you think of causation as mathematical relations you could say that "necessary" causes are a surjective map F: C -> E, and "sufficient" cause are a surjective map of the form F: E -> C. Note that the presence of cause and effect always have truth values "true or false". They are either present or absent. This is what I mean with classical causality.

Now, why does probabilistic logic erode the framework of causal determinism? At the bottom, because of its underlying logic. If we look at reality as a discrete sequence of states, each of the states having a certain probability assigned to it, then we can formulate mathematical relations for the transition between any two states that lie within the the interval of their respective predictability horizon. Actual past states (i.e. states that already occurred) have a probability of 1, past states that did not occur have a probability of 0 and future computed from the past states have probabilities between 0 and 1 until decided. That means that "true" and "false" (the values of classical logic) are attributes that only apply to the past. Truth and falsity only exist in relation to the past. It is easy to see what this insight does to classical causality.

Cheers, Thomas

[rich]

The predictability of the universe, is about the same as predicting the winners of the daily double consistently. No machine can predict when
any one, even a horse, gets a bug up his arse. :o :D

[dog goddess]

were you high when you wrote this thomas?

[Craig]

What you are saying is that there are no absolutes in this unvirse and only probabilities. Is this statment an absolute or is there a probability that you are right but at the same time a probability that well it is an absolute. There are absolutes everywhere in this unvirse and by you saying that there are no absolutes only probabilities proves my case by making an absolute statement.

[Thomas Knierim]

Originally posted by Craig@Jun 28 2003, 12:55 PM
There are absolutes everywhere in this unvirse and by you saying that there are no absolutes only probabilities proves my case by making an absolute statement.
Craig,

There are doubtlessly many statements about the universe that are either absolutely true or absolutely false, i.e. statements that we can judge as 'decided'. Some of these statements are absolute, because they are synthetic a priori, such as "the shortest distance between Earth and Sun is a sraight line," while the vast majority of statements are absolute empirical statements, such as "yesterday Mercury was closest to the Sun". My point was that the predictability of the future of any entity in the universe is limited by mathematical laws from which I conclude that causal determinism is a problematic point of view.

Cheers, Thomas

[Craig]

Thomas,

What is the probabillity that this mathmatical formula you would like to use to predict what will happen in the future will still be there tommorrow? Are you absolutly sure that probablities will still exist or ceast to exist and become absolutes?

[sylph]

It makes no sense to talk about the 'probability' of the truth of 'probability'.

[dog goddess]

there is no future, only the present. the future is only something to talk about. we can hope for it, we can plan for it, but we cannot predict it.

why would you want to have a computer to predict everything anyways? it's much more interesting to learn things first hand. how boring everything would be. how mindless we would become. i like depending on my flesh and blood.

this is all to much terminator meets matrix for me.

[Thomas Knierim]

dog goddess: there is no future, only the present. the future is only something to talk about.

I hear this often. Time is a mentally-created phenomenon that we project onto the "timeless now". Without the mind, there would be no past or future. Of course not. Without the mind there would be nothing to perceive and nothing to talk about whatsoever. Mind (the observer) cannot be separated from time and space.

why would you want to have a computer to predict everything anyways?

Oh, I think I can come up with some good reasons. For example, if I had such a machine in the 1980s, I would have asked it to predict the stock market of 2000. And I would probably have bought a lot of Microsoft stock.

Yet, I did not say that we should try to build such a computer. I said that such an endeavor is doomed to fail. It is doomed to fail for very specific reasons that can be demonstrated with mathematical precision. I consider the unpredictability of the world to be a good thing, and I guess that most people would agree.

The philosophical implications are that (1) the Laplacian worldview (or mechanistic worldview) is proved wrong, and that (2) causal determinism suffers a blow.

The key words here are uncertainty and potentiality. I don't mean uncertainty as a psychological entity. Uncertainty is a numerical property that defines the likeliness of present and future states of any physical object in nature. E.g. it says how many of a million atoms are going to decay in the next second, or whether a person is likely to die in a traffic accident the next day. Events in quantum realm unfold with the same uncertainty as in the macro realm. It's only that in the macro realm uncertainty becomes more apparent. To think of either as an iron block is misguided logic.

If one looks at reality as a discrete sequence of "frames" or states (which is what Quantum Mechanics does), then the probabilistic models describing state transitions would mirror nature perfectly. There would be no continuity. At any given moment (or frame) a particle would have a certain likelihood to be in a certain state or position. In other words, uncertainty would be a fundamental property of nature and determinism would collapse. That which appears to us as a causal relation between two objects is simply the result of statistical smoothening that occurs when observing a "trend" in millions or billions of singular microscopic events.

The other alternative is to assume that determinateness exists. As far as I can see, this would leave us with a twofold dilemma:

(a) The idealistic position that reality is exactly that and only that which can be experienced must be abandoned if one wishes to recognize electron trajectories as continuous, or particle states in general, as “manifest”. In other words:

One may choose to see quantum states as Einstein did. He dismissed the probabilistic model in which states are partially random and thus apparently uncaused as inadequate and assumed that particles have a defined (manifest) spin, charge, momentum, etc. at all times. Perfectly valid. However, this point of view (realism) entails the concession that not all of reality can be experienced. Because the measurement of one quantum property excludes the measurement another property at any point in time, the complete state of a particle is forever hidden. Reality necessarily includes the unknowable.

(b) If one holds onto the idea that particles possess real properties that do not depend on whether we measure them, it follows from Bell’s inequality that events affecting one particle instantaneously influence the properties of other particles. Since the idea of simultaneity itself is subject to relativity, this means that the spatiotemporal sequence depends on the relativistic reference frame from which it is observed. If a quantum event A prompts a quantum event B at any distance, there will always be a reference frame from which A and B are not simultaneous. A may occur before B, or B may occur before A. Theoretically, this means there may be causes in future which have effects in the present, (this follows directly from non-locality and relativity).

What would this do to causal determinism? Does it survive this argument?

Cheers, Thomas

[dog goddess]

so if one random event starts a chain of other random events does a pattern begin? can an equation be formed to figure out what the next random event will be? or do the events cease to be random because there is now a "casual determination" of what is likely to occur next?




what about coincidences?

[Thomas Knierim]

dog goddess: so if one random event starts a chain of other random events does a pattern begin?

The sentence is self-contradictive. Even if we assume that randomicity is possible, the event that follows from it is caused by that event and can therefore not be called random.

dog goddess: can an equation be formed to figure out what the next random event will be? or do the events cease to be random because there is now a "casual determination" of what is likely to occur next?

If an equation can be formed to describe an event then it is not random by definition. We would call it a deterministic process instead.

Non-linear systems are an excellent example for this, because they are deterministic, yet appear random. Most of the readers of thebigview.com are probably familiar with the butterfly effect, a popular example of how non-linear systems work. The butterfly effect goes back to a scientific paper by Edwared Lorenz written in 1963; it was later popularized in numerous books. Mathematicians generally agree today that this picture is not only inadequate but fundamentally misleading. The entities at the level of butterfly flaps are far more likely to cancel each other out than being amplified. A butterfly flap may still be one of the beginning conditions of a Hurricane. However, despite the fact that NLS are highly sensitive to initial inputs, the butterfly flap is insignificant compared to the occurence of amplifiers along the way.

The said should not give rise to the impression that I am arguing in favor of philosophical determinism. Although dynamics in nature can be explained in terms of cause and effect, this does not mean that fate of everything is predetermined. Causality is not prescriptive but descriptive. What we call "causes" are basically mind maps, rational explanations of how the phenomena we observe are linked together. The problem with causal determinism is the fuzziness of these descriptions. The most clear-cut descriptions mankind has invented so far are mathematical equations, for example those of classical mechanics. However, these equations can only describe events and processes at the macro level which occur after statistical smoothening. They are mere abstractions, because they describe an isolated process or object and do not account for the interrelatedness of all things. At the quantum level, equations cease to describe causal processes.

dog goddes: what about coincidences?

Coincidences are either caused or random, depending on the way you look at them. Coincidences are not really different from any other event, although they might appear so. Every event is a coincidence. Generally we call a predictable event "caused", while we call an unpredictable event "coincidence". The difference is that we do not have a rational explanation for the latter.

Cheers, Thomas

[sahyo]

mathematics:
thinking thinks separate (which not)
and then 'trys' to equal (which not)
to prove or disprove (which not)

:D hehehhehehe

[rich]

Don't you think that a new day begins at 12:00 AM, and ends at 12:00PM. So what time is it, 12:00 AM, or !2:00 PM?

How should the chimes on the clock be set, for the 1st bong be midnight, or the 12th bong be midnight?
Me thinks that 12:00 AM= a new day= 12th bong, = 0 seconds after midnight, while 12:00 PM= noon= mid-day or 12 hours after midnight.

Silly, aren't I, but was finding answers all by myself.
When I started this post, I did not know what time it was, but I think by going through that exercise did help me or the case for the predictability of the universe. :wacko: :blink: :P

[Polaris]

But 12:00PM is 12 noon which should make it still AM since the AM time goes until 12:00 and PM time also goes to 12:00 only it midnight then.
So 1:00, 2:00, 3:00, 4:00, 5:00, 6:00, 7:00, 8:00, 9:00, 10:00, 11:00, 12:00 AM[/i] until noon and then 12:01:01 [b]PM right after noon.

I guess I never really paid much attention. Maybe it does work that way. :blink:

I go by my internal clock anyhow.... "yep... quarter past 40.. time for mid-life crisis!!" ;)

[rich]

1 quarter past 40 =50
2 quarters past 40= 60
3 quarters past 40= 70 :P
4 quarters past 40 =80 :D

I think I am in overtime. :lol:

I wonder if its sudden death? :ph34r: :unsure:

[sonrisa]

for your sake I hope not! :)

[sneakyomen]

Another thing to note on this topic is that the very act of our observation on anything will change the outcome. For example, if you are looking at an organism under a microscope, shining the microscopes light on the slide changes the environment so that we can never see what's happening without the light.
Our observation skews the results, the results which would be implanted into the computer for it to predict. Garbage in, garbage out. In our creation of the computer, we create it with the same subjective results we have in our heads; it is impossible for humans to obtain ultimate objectivity. So an all powerful machine would only combine what the human mind knows and sees, and would still contatin the limitations that prevent it from being able to see the future. Because of this no computer would be able to predict the future for the same reasons that we can't.
One last thing to consider is that our own consciouness of the universe plays a role in how we explain the way things are and how they exist. So if a computer lacking consciousness were to attempt to explain the universe and what will happen, would it come to a different conclusion about things than we would, and would we be able to understand the answer? Imagine if the machine spit out the answer 42 and we can't understand because we never understood the question.

[a random hack]

I've heard before that measurement changes the outcome of an experiement, presumaly also the observation changes the observer (in some fashion). But is all of living an experiment? Does it need to be measured? Does measurement necessarily change the measured process?

[DavidS]

Greetings Everyone -

I'm a Newbie here.

A little about my 'professional' background, for whatever significance this may have to anyone: I majored in Physics as an undergrad; became a Psychologist 12 years later (Ph.D in Counseling Psych); became a 'Spiritual Philosopher' of sorts somewhere along the way; quit being a would-be 'healer' or 'helper'; took the next nearly 20 years to put my 'world view' down on e-paper (it is readable and downloadable from www.godspeak2000.net - note: the 'net' appendage - should anyone be curiuus and intersted enough to find about more about where I'm 'coming from').

That being 'done' and having 'retired' from all that, I am looking to see what else, if anything, there may be to be-n-do in my remaining time on the planet (I am 61 now).

My comment in relation to the part of the discussion pertaining to 'causality' is that I recently came across and read three books by David Hawkins which approaches Reality, and/or Truth, from the point of view of 'Consciousness' which argues - persuasively, IMO, as it 'knocked my mind-socks off' - that 'causality' is really an 'illusion', that creation, evolution, etc. are really the 'manifestation' of unfolding 'consciousness' in the context of an ubiquitous, time-space transcendent 'Presence' which is 'alive' everywhere.

Too much to summarize. Don't think I could do so with any degree of justice in any event because of the depth, breadth, and comprehensiveness of Hawkins' world-view. However, I wish to mention his work in case someone here is interested in 'plowing' that field.

One may get a 'feel' for what's in his books by searching for "David Hawkins" at some place like amazon.com.

Hawkins' idiosyncracies aside, this is not 'light weight' stuff (tho is is very readable/understandable - the guy is exceptionally intellignet and articulate, IMO).

Sincerely, David

[...]

..that 'causality' is really an 'illusion', that creation, evolution, etc. are really the 'manifestation' of unfolding 'consciousness' in the context of an ubiquitous, time-space transcendent 'Presence' which is 'alive' everywhere.

Ofcourse it is. What else could it be?

[Thomas Knierim]

Welcome to thebigview.com, David.

Physics and psychology are discussed intensively here on thebigview.com. Considering your background it would be great to hear about your views about consciousness. We used to have a 'Mind and Consciousness' forum in the previous version of this discussion board; perhaps I should reopen it.

The topic of free will and causality pops up every now and then, since it is a classic in philosophy. My article on non-linear dynamics and causality was meant to show that neither free will nor causality do really exist. Both are descriptions that paint pictures of the world we perceive. Obviously, descriptions are products of mind. Although causality is usually treated as an element of reality, I think that Kant found a superior categorization. He put causality into the basket of "Anschauungsprinzipien", principles of perception/understanding, along with time and space. This places causality at the intersection of matter and consciousness.

Which of Mr. Hawkins books do you suggest for reading? Is this the same guy who advocates kinesiological testing? Unfortunately I just placed a large order with Amazon, so the next one has to wait until winter.

Cheers, Thomas

[Thomas Knierim]

Welcome to thebigview.com, Sneakyoman.

sneakyoman: Imagine if the machine spit out the answer 42 and we can't understand because we never understood the question.

Didn't the supercomputer from "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" find out that the answer to the meaning of live was 42?

Cheers, Thomas

[Polaris]

OMG!!! I'M 42!!



:o ;) :lol:

[sonrisa]

HAPPY B'DAY POLARIS!! :D

[Polaris]

:unsure: 'Cept my birthday's not till October but I'll take the well wishes and hold them in reserve till the real date... thank you, Sonrisa :)
But then I'll be 43 and no longer the meaning of life. :(

;)

[DavidS]

Hello, Thomas –

Yes, kinesiology and kinesiological 'testing' is the 'truth'-investigative tool Hawkins uses. This is why I spoke in terms of "Hawkins' idiosyncracies aside, ..." I personally think-n-believe, based on evidence, that kinesiological testing taps into unconscious knowledge, and that we are all, potentially at least, unconsciously 'all' knowing. However, I also think-n-believe that the 'answers' one arrives at by tapping one's 'unconscious knowledge' (for want of a better term) will necessary be biased by one's emotions, wishes, beliefs, etc.

My own guessessment, based on his self-report as well as his stated conclusions (by the way, I also have seen and heard him speak in person – he happens to live and lecture in Sedona, AZ where I moved to a year and a half ago for totally unrelated reasons), is that Hawkins is very 'advanced' in these regards ('these' referring to emotions, wishes, beliefs, etc.). But I cannot go along with his assumption-n-belief that his 'answers' are absolutely 'on target'. Some of his specific conclusions/statements struck me as being tinged with personal-Hawkinsian 'bias'. This guessessment may, of course, just be a function of my personal biases, but, that being said, I must say that I found myself 'in agreement' with most (and I mean MOST!) of what he said. I found his 'layout' of Life/Reality extremely cogent and comprehensive.

In response to your query, Hawkins begins to really get into reframing the Causality 'paradigm' around the middle of his second book: The Eye of the I, and I think, if one reads the Intro and the Appendices of the book first, one can 'get' what he is saying there without having read the first book. However, to fully appreciate Hawkins own paradigm, I think reading the first book is advisable. One can always go back and 'get' what's said there later, however, if one finds the material in the second book intriguing enough to do so.

His descriptions and 'explanations' of the 'paradoxes' arising out of linear logic/analyses vs. non-linear (wholistic) logic/analyses, of Duality vs. Oneness, etc. are extremely lucid – the best I have ever come across. Whatever the word 'enlightenment' refers to (and Hawkins goes into the subject in depth with great clarity), IMO, Hawkins is 'up there' with the very best of them, and I mean the VERY best.

Given my 'rave' review, I think I had also better add the following caveat from the front of his third book, I: Reality and Subjectivity:

"The traditional religionist or the spiritually timid are forewarned that the material presented herein may be disturbing and therefore better bypassed. The teachings are presented for the seriously committed spiritual student who is seeking God as Enlightenment."

Tx for the welcome. No need to revive the Mind and Consciousness forum at the BigView on my account. IOW, I don't have any specific agenda or area of interest, and am very comfortable just going with the 'flow' anywhere.

David

[rich]

Welcome to the forum David. Read your last reply, above, and you sound as a very interesting person, and a good writer. Veryinteresting review and assessment about Hawkins, although have never heard of him before you mentioned his name. Please continue posting, maybe I'll learn something.

BTW, you wrote in your 1st post, you are 61 years old. Unfortunately for me, fortunately, for you, I am your senior by 20 years.LoL :lol:

Best Wishes,:D
Rich

[Thomas Knierim]

David,

It is funny how the mind works. When you first mentioned David Hawkins, I thought of someone else who has written a book about molecular biology and evolution, and who is also an outspoken determinist. His name is Richard Dawkins. Sounds similar, doesn't it? Richard Dawkins wrote a famous book called the "Selfish Gene". This book offers an unusual perspective on genetics by linking evolution to molecular biology and somehow bridging scientific reductionism and emergentism. Very interesting stuff. The book was quite influential at its time. Mr. Dawkin's ideas made it into pop science and gave new thrust to Darwinism. It also inspired the philosopher Daniel C. Dennett to formulate his ideas about consciousness (Consciousness Explained 1991, Darwin's Dangerous Idea, 1995).

Mr. Dennett describes the mind as a sort of self-organizing computer. He rejects several classical ideas about consciousness, such as Cartesian dualism, Bacon's idols, the idea of a location of consciousness, Cartesian materialism. The "wet hardware" view became fairly popular in the 80ties and the 90ties and there is a good number of people who still believe that the brain is nothing more than an advanced Intel chip. Needless to say that this is a conceptual deadend, although we can expect fairly entertaining science fiction movies ala "Matrix" from this. Naturally, Mr. Dennnett also advocates determinism.

BTW, thanks for the book recommendation. I have checked amazon.com and it seems that all the reviewers are praising this book. Unfortunately it is marked as a hard-to-find title by Amazon and it takes four weeks to ship. But, since causality, consciousness, and enlightenment are topics that interest me, I am going to order it anyway. Perhaps some questions in advance: What does seeking God as enlightenment mean for Mr. Hawkins? It certainly sounds a bit like Brahman worship. And, one of the readers portrayed Mr. Hawkin's as an enlightened teacher. What is your impression?

Cheers, Thomas

[Polaris]

A number of years ago my aunt and uncle, who are both fairly devote Christians, and myself, not a Christian and at that point not a Buddhist either, got into a fairly indepth conversation concerning Richard Dawkins and his book "The Selfish Gene". They were quite concerned that the Selfish Gene concept had caused quite a stir in the Christian community because it contradicted, well, just about everything the Bible has to say. I, as one floating around in a spiritual void with no belief in God or a creator and having studied biology as my major in university, considered what I knew of genetics and evolution and I didn't rule out the possibility that perhaps we might be controlled by a selfish gene.

This has nothing to do with this conversation here but Thomas, you reminded me of that day. It was a most enjoyable conversation I had with my aunt and uncle about the Selfish Gene. It was indepth and compelling to hear the argument from the Christian point of view and I think my relatives enjoyed hearing my point of view (they brought it up for discussion, not me, because they knew I wasn't a religious person who believes in God) because even though we were not in agreement, there was still much laughter. :)

[DavidS]

Hi senior-senior B) rich:

I appreciate the welcoming comments. Contrasting where/how I 'am' now in comparison to where/how I remember being at 41, I can barely imagine where/how I might be in another 20, assuming events permit my still being around then, that is. What an amazing journey personal evolution is!

Hi Thomas:

I have checked amazon.com and it seems that all the reviewers are praising this book. Unfortunately it is marked as a hard-to-find title by Amazon and it takes four weeks to ship. But, since causality, consciousness, and enlightenment are topics that interest me, I am going to order it anyway.

Hawkins' operation strikes me as not being especially mass market oriented, at least this point. The publisher's website where his books are listed and may be directly ordered from is www.veritaspub.com. However, I still think amazon.com is probably the best way to go, what with their discounts, etc. Hey, 4 weeks will be go by in a flash, relatively speaking of course. ;)

Perhaps some questions in advance: What does seeking God as enlightenment mean for Mr. Hawkins? It certainly sounds a bit like Brahman worship.

One of the nice things about Hawkins' style of approach to various topics is that he visits and explores them from a variety of different angles on different (writing) occasions. Great 'depth perception' results, but it makes condensing what he means by terms, such as enlightenment, difficult if not impossible (which, I think, is a very good thing, as it precludes the possibility of a 'cookbook recipe' kind of personal or group 'following'). As to whether or not it is (like) Brahman worship, I would say that it is consonant with the following passage from the Bhagavad Gita (Ch. 13):

"I will speak to thee now of that great Truth which man ought to know, since by its means he will win immortal bliss – that which is without beginning, the Eternal Spirit which dwells in Me, neither with form, nor yet without it.

"Everywhere are Its hands and Its feet; everywhere It has eyes that see, heads that think and mouths that speak; everywhere It listens; It dwells in all the worlds; It envelops them all.

"Beyond the senses, It yet shines through every sense perception. Bound to nothing, It yet sustains everything. Unaffected by the Qualities, It still enjoys them all.

"It is within all beings, yet outside; motionless yet moving; too subtle to be perceived; far away yet always near.

"In all beings undivided, yet living in division, It is the upholder of all, Creator and Destroyer alike;

"It is the Light of lights, beyond the reach of darkness; the Wisdom, the only thing that is worth knowing or that wisdom can teach; the Presence in the hearts of all."

But he goes way beyond (or 'advances') what's in the Gita, IMO. Let me just include one of his one-liner quips on enlightenment to whet your appetite further. He says at one point: "To be enlightened merely means that consciousness has realized it most inner, innate quality as nonlinear subjectivity and its capacity for awareness." Cryptic, I know. This is 'explained' (or elaborated on) in depth in the body of his work.

And, one of the readers portrayed Mr. Hawkin's as an enlightened teacher. What is your impression?

With the qualification that my view is (and I am pretty sure Hawkins' would agree with this as well) that 'enlightenment' is not a singular state, but one with many degrees or levels, I would agree that Hawkins' certainly qualifies as an 'enlightened teacher'. Enlightened or not, however, I would definitely say he is a 'teacher' par excellence.

BTW, anyone, the above Bhagavad Gita quote is from the translation by Shri Purohit Swami who was a personal friend of Yeats, and presumably a member of his circle. It is the translation I personally have found most understandable/meaningful and least tradition/lineage-bound. It is out of print, but I would be happy to send an MSWord transcription of it as an attachment to anyone interested. Just send your request to me via email (address listed in my profile).

David

[Thomas Knierim]

David: BTW, anyone, the above Bhagavad Gita quote is from the translation by Shri Purohit Swami who was a personal friend of Yeats, and presumably a member of his circle. It is the translation I personally have found most understandable/meaningful and least tradition/lineage-bound. It is out of print, but I would be happy to send an MSWord transcription of it as an attachment to anyone interested.

Thank you for the offering. Please send one copy to webmaster@thebigview.com. I just ordered "The Bhagavad Gita According to Gandhi by Mohandas K. Gandhi." Having a second translation around is probably a good idea. Do you know about the copyright? If it should be GPL-ed or in the public domain, I could make the copy available in the download section of thebigview.com.

Hawkins: "To be enlightened merely means that consciousness has realized it most inner, innate quality as nonlinear subjectivity and its capacity for awareness."

Cryptic indeed, especially the part about nonlinear subjectivity. I can only guess what he means with that. Perception is very "nonlinear" and it it can probably be said that it builds on attractors. So I can definitely see a parallel to meterology, or nonlinear dynamics in general. Instinctively I would agree about enlightenment being a clear understanding of awareness. IMO it's about mind peeling away layers of delusion, an evolutionary process which has many degrees and levels as you already stated. It does not progress gradually, but rather in a succession of irregular and largely unpredictable "quantum leaps", each leap being a realization of some sort, sights and sounds of the spiritual journey.

Cheers, Thomas

[Thomas Knierim]

Polaris: This has nothing to do with this conversation here but Thomas, you reminded me of that day. It was a most enjoyable conversation I had with my aunt and uncle about the Selfish Gene. It was indepth and compelling to hear the argument from the Christian point of view and I think my relatives enjoyed hearing my point of view (they brought it up for discussion, not me, because they knew I wasn't a religious person who believes in God) because even though we were not in agreement, there was still much laughter.

It is nice to have such memories. I can recall many similar conversations with my parents and with my teachers when I was a teenager. Like most people at this age I was fairly opinionated. My poor parents and teachers had to bear the fact that I was usually not satisfied unless I convinced everyone entirely of my own views. Since my discussion skills soon became good enough to win such debates - "veni, ori, vici" - there was no escape for them. ;) Dave Barry, the American humorist, once commented on similar occurrences in his social life: "I can win any argument. People know this and they respect me. As a sign of their great respect they don't even invite me anymore." Winning arguments may be just another form of vanity. Fortunately for my parents and everybody else I soon gave up the habit.

Cheers, Thomas

[Polaris]

Originally posted by Thomas Knierim@Jul 10 2003, 12:33 AM


It is nice to have such memories. I can recall many similar conversations with my parents and with my teachers when I was a teenager. Like most people at this age I was fairly opinionated. My poor parents and teachers had to bear the fact that I was usually not satisfied unless I convinced everyone entirely of my own views. Since my discussion skills soon became good enough to win such debates - "veni, ori, vici" - there was no escape for them. ;) Dave Barry, the American humorist, once commented on similar occurrences in his social life: "I can win any argument. People know this and they respect me. As a sign of their great respect they don't even invite me anymore." Winning arguments may be just another form of vanity. Fortunately for my parents and everybody else I soon gave up the habit.

Cheers, Thomas
Fortunately for my teachers I was too shy to do much arguing with them.... except in about grade 5 I persisted to ask my teacher what was in space because her answer "Nothing. Space is a vacuum." wasn't good enough. I recall she sounded exasperated. :)

I don't think I ever argued with my parents. I guess they never did anything to tick me off ;) Actually I was not a very rebellious kid. I was more the quiet brooding cynical type with a "see-it-to-believe-it" attitude. I'd spend more time watching and waiting to see what would happen next. :blink:

[rich]

post withdrawn, Author's Error! :wub:

[sahyo]

'ingdavid :)

One of the nice things about Hawkins' style of approach to various topics is that he visits and explores them from a variety of different angles on different (writing) occasions. Great 'depth perception' results, but it makes condensing what he means by terms, such as enlightenment, difficult if not impossible (which, I think, is a very good thing, as it precludes the possibility of a 'cookbook recipe' kind of personal or group 'following'). As to whether or not it is (like) Brahman worship, I would say that it is consonant with the following passage from the Bhagavad Gita (Ch. 13):

"I will speak to thee now of that great Truth which man ought to know, since by its means he will win immortal bliss – that which is without beginning, the Eternal Spirit which dwells in Me, neither with form, nor yet without it.

"Everywhere are Its hands and Its feet; everywhere It has eyes that see, heads that think and mouths that speak; everywhere It listens; It dwells in all the worlds; It envelops them all.

"Beyond the senses, It yet shines through every sense perception. Bound to nothing, It yet sustains everything. Unaffected by the Qualities, It still enjoys them all.

"It is within all beings, yet outside; motionless yet moving; too subtle to be perceived; far away yet always near.

"In all beings undivided, yet living in division, It is the upholder of all, Creator and Destroyer alike;

"It is the Light of lights, beyond the reach of darkness; the Wisdom, the only thing that is worth knowing or that wisdom can teach; the Presence in the hearts of all."

But he goes way beyond (or 'advances') what's in the Gita, IMO. Let me just include one of his one-liner quips on enlightenment to whet your appetite further. He says at one point: "To be enlightened merely means that consciousness has realized it most inner, innate quality as nonlinear subjectivity and its capacity for awareness." Cryptic, I know. This is 'explained' (or elaborated on) in depth in the body of his work.



no "be" enlightened....which is called 'enlightened' not think-separate-"its capacity for awareness"-whichnot


And, one of the readers portrayed Mr. Hawkin's as an enlightened teacher. What is your impression?



hawkins not "way beyond (or 'advances') what's in the Gita"....hawkins-thinking-whichnot