Is there any true enlightenment which science cannot measure?

[lisagurl]

And science has declared that if you let go of an apple while standing on the earth, it will probably fall to the ground.

Not if you are 250000 miles tall.

[finewine]

Not if you are 250000 miles tall.

Hehe...

[pedant on]
Well, you'd still be within Earth's gravity well (the Moon is about 221k miles away and still held in orbit, albeit moving away at about 1 inch per year).
[/pedant off]

[NicholeW.]

Not if you are 250000 miles tall.

Yeah, I have to admit that I get really annoyed when those 250,000 mile tall people drop things!

And couldn't they rig up some sorta observation thingie where they aren't always stepping on things down here?

I mean the repairs to the roads alone cost $millions!

[tekla]

It will fall somewhere.  Matter at infinitely large distances attracts and matter at infinitely small distances repels.

[tekla]

I do believe our senses is limited.

Well yeah, we know that.  We only see a small portion of light, hear a small portion of sound, etc.  But... we also know we can invent Chandra and Hubble to see beyond our eyes (and not by faith, but by science and technology - and in the case of Hubble, like lots of science, by trial and error.)

Still, all of that give no reason why a non-material world exists beyond the material, that is faith.  And just because physics can not explain all at the present time, is no reason to leap into metaphysics.

And no matter what limits our senses have, our grammar is very exact.  It's senses (plural) ARE limited, not is, which is singular.

[Bombi]

maybe enough enlightenment cannot be found to measure and then if enough was found then the tedious sorting and classification would begin. true, not true, somewhat true....

[tekla]

I'm not trying to proof the existence of any spaghetti-monsters or flying teapots,

Makes as much - if not more - sense then the other stories I've been told.

[Nicky]

I was reading an interesting article the other day about how our universe could in theory be within a 5 dimension black hole.....don't know if this adds anything to the conversation, take it or leave it 

[lisagurl]

But the end fact is, we have a limited life and a clearly defined limited world with pretty reliable nature. Why not just enjoy the time and materials we have? It might be fun to dabble with metaphysics but it is a small part of life.

[tekla]

What science and technology can do is use biometric feedback devices to help you reach - if not enlightenment - at least 'right relationship.'

[lisagurl]

What science and technology can do is use biometric feedback devices to help you reach - if not enlightenment - at least 'right relationship.'

But then some think drugs will do it.

[NicholeW.]

But then some think drugs will do it.

And others think that vipisana meditation will do it, or kundalini yoga. What works works, perhaps there are multiple answers as well as multiple worlds?

Can you say, multiple answers, Lisa?

[lisagurl]

Can you say, multiple answers, Lisa?

No, this machine will not let me make a sound.

[NicholeW.]

No, this machine will not let me make a sound.

Machine have you locked away again, my friend? Rage against the machine and stop being the ghost the machine swallowed!

Go ahead, shout it, Lisa MULTIPLE ANSWERS!

[tekla]

Almost all rivers lead to the sea.  Eventually.

[FairyGirl]

Well remember, or find out, that quantum mechanics at least suggests that the very act of observing is changing the outcome. Objective may not be possible at some levels.

objectivity is an illusion altogether, on every level. Nothing is truly "objective"; everything we experience is filtered through squishy wetware that defines the limits of that experience. We agree on certain outcomes, and those are more or less what we call reality. Certainly there are those who do not agree, but we tend to lock those people up in asylums. Unless of course a whole lot of people share the same delusion, in which case we give them tax exemption.

[NicholeW.]

objectivity is an illusion altogether, on every level. Nothing is truly "objective"; everything we experience is filtered through squishy wetware that defines the limits of that experience. We agree on certain outcomes, and those are more or less what we call reality. Certainly there are those who do not agree, but we tend to lock those people up in asylums. Unless of course a whole lot of people share the same delusion, in which case we give them tax exemption.

So if two or three are in agreement about that ... can we, too, get a tax exemption?  

[FairyGirl]

So if two or three are in agreement about that ... can we, too, get a tax exemption?  

Nope, they'll raid your farm and take your guns. You have to have a LOT of people, think VOLUME lol

[finewine]

It's true that we can only perceive the world, and the readings of our scientific instruments, through the subjective interface of our senses. The problem with the strict "brain in a jar" view is that it forces us to abandon any further inquiry into the extrinsic.

I touch on this in my short post about the futility of the brain in a jar argument. As it is unknowable and self-defeating, it cannot add value to the growth of knowledge, so aside from noting it as a metaphysical & philosophical conundrum, it may as well be discarded.

Put simply, so what?

[FairyGirl]

I'm as fascinated about where stuff comes from as anyone and think it is important to make those inquiries, even if I also believe somewhat in "as above, so below". Or in other words the external unfolds from the internal, and both are infinite- none of us will ever figure it all out but it's really fun to try. I'll humbly concede to the multiple answers argument.