Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Karma
in Philosophy
If you believe in quantum physics, which is part of the reason I'm a Buddhist, and you believe that the universe is infinite. If you believe in Sir Issac Newton"matter cannot be created or destroyed" and you believe Albert Einstein "E=MC2" (energy =mass) Then we are all beings that have been and always will be, then scientifically infinity equals infinite possibilities, So infinity of space and time = Infinity2. Then all possible situations have happened before, will happen in the future and are happening right now,and if this infinity2 rule is correct than Taoism is also supported by equal amounts of infinite differences, but also infinite similarities. Therefore karma disappears. Their is neither good nor bad. Right nor wrong. Light nor dark. If this is true then why must we produce good karma? Why is there a difference?
0
Comments
for example - infinity is a mathematical paradox of sorts - to convert it to nonmathematical language and then utilise it to support further logical propositions invites a host of troublesome issues.
OM YA HA HUM
Good question. There must be something telling us to choose good over bad. Perhaps we are afraid of the bad being able to catch up with us.
if everytime you see your neighbor, you curse at him, guess what will happen?
MODERATOR NOTE:I would advise that if this discussion begins to go round and round in pointless circles, questions, answers, which really do nothing to provide further insight, I will close it.
There have been more threads on this topic than we could shake a stick at....After a while, it's a pointless exercise, save to simply have a thread to add a voice to, for the sake of adding a voice to.....
Why would the process of natural selection go the route of curiosity? And the brain system develope the insinct for nurturing, compassion and even empathy?
Not to be a pain but; I see a flaw in logic with this statement. I think the nature of uniqueness is part of what makes infinity able to work. Things being repeated exactly/absolutely doesn't seem to go along with the nature of change or cause and effect.
The way I see it, if looked at in light of the two truths, relatively, a whole can be divided infinitly... Absolutely, it is all happening right now.
If a seed is watered or the conditions are right for it, a thing will manifest... If not, it stays hidden.
While we do feel, and think, why not water the seeds condusive to compassion and logic?
The main thing is that we are here, now.
The idea of non linear karma was expressed by Ibn-arabi
who says the tree calls into being the seed, from which it springs . . .
Not a gardener, that's for sure.
Spanish Sufi, known as the greatest master, Dr Maximus and a heretic.
http://www.ibnarabisociety.org/articles/nostation.html
Philosopher Nancy Cartwright has written an interesting book: How the Laws of Physics Lie (notice the pun on the word 'lie'). Of main interest we learn that phenomenological laws are meant to describe whereas fundamental laws like those found in quantum mechanics (QM) are supposed to give a true account of lasers, benzene rings, or electoral diffraction patterns, etc. But do they? Nancy Cartwright argues, no they don't. While we have perfectly good, commonplace phenomenological laws in electrical engineering, for example, the fundamental laws of physics seem not so good. Cartwright observes: I am sure this is not pleasing to the public who believes in super strings and worships at the shrine of theoretical physics. We like to think QM has tremendous explanatory power. But what does explanatory power have to do with the truth? Cartwright and others ask. Not much. Fundamental laws are only true of their symbols and models. Again, are the symbols and models intrinsic, that is, can they give us an accurate insight into the nature of the thing before it is symbolized and modeled? I doubt it. Nineteenth century believed that you could understand a phenomenon or event by finding and developing an adequate model of it. But then a lot is missing if we go by this route.
So what does this have to do with karma? Maybe nothing, but we can't reject karma based on our belief in QM's explanatory power. Karma/deed, we could say, is what we do that keeps us from seeing true reality. As long as we don't know the way which leads to the destruction of karma there is no truth for us. It could be that believing in QM is bad karma and that goes for the rest of theoretical physics.
But I don't think people can wave their hands and say "Quantum, you know!" when trying to excuse beliefs that do not confirm with our observed universe. You might as well say, "God, you know!" for all it really explains.