New and old ideas

Do modern day scientists, researchers, theorists depend on or even copy the ideas of deceased Theosophists? In a very brief research I have found that they do.

Within the past year, I have seen several people on this forum make mention of the term "multiverse". The coinage of the term is relatively new, however the principle standing behind that term is just a few years older than the term 'multiverse'. The principle was first mentioned in 1888 by a lady named Helena Blavatsky (^ Blavatsky 1888, p. 17 [Volume I: "Proem"].) Whereas the term 'multiverse' was coined in 1895 by the American philosopher and psychologist William James.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madame_Blavatsky#Definition_and_origin
and
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/multiverse

The language used by Blavatsky was "The second proposition is "the absolute universality of that law of periodicity, of flux and reflux, ebb and flow". Accordingly, manifest existence is an eternally re-occurring event on a "boundless plane": "'the playground of numberless Universes incessantly manifesting and disappearing,'"[54] each one "standing in the relation of an effect as regards its predecessor, and being a cause as regards its successor",[55] doing so over vast but finite periods of time.[56]" See footnote #54

Helena Petrovna Blavatsky was a Russian occultist.

So, here we have today, many people who claim to be non-theists hammering down the nails in a theory created by an occultist. How ironic. She is also the founder of the Theosophical Society. The term 'theosophy' as described in the article about Blavatsky simply means "Divine Wisdom".

At any rate, I found the article interesting reading and thought it would be worth discussing.

 

Trying to understand your interest in this.
The only point you seem to be making is a devil-spawn occultist originated a theory that has gained scientific traction.
Does this make some kind of point?
What am I missing?

 

The point he is missing is that if someone has valid data, and a good theory, it does not matter if he / she is a gorilla or a cross eyed canadian.

If a bit of irony is sought, it would be that the creos always are claiming that scientists wont look at let alone accept any idea from creationists, just because they are biased.

Sir Issac that they love to quote was an alchemist. So what, if other of his ideas were sound?

 

No doubt you could find many such examples. The only reason we see so far is because we stand on the shoulders of giants. Those giants, though, are just ordinary humans, with all their flaws and mistakes.

It is indeed a little ironic, and mildly amusing, but not surprising or particularly unexpected. Hitler (sorry if this counts as Godwinning the thread) was among the earliest leaders to campaign against smoking, that didnt mean that anti-smoking campaigns are bad. As has already been pointed out, ideally the source of an idea should not cloud our judgement of the idea itself.

 

Three points about your post. One: indeed it is an unproven theory. Two: It shows the hypocrisy of some folks who are willing to accept the writings of a "devil-spawn occultist" (as you quoted from TBB) but are unwilling to accept the writings of the authors of the books of the Bible.

Three: "always" is an absolute and used in conjunction with "creos" would imply that all creationists make that claim that you suggest. Therefore, your claim as to that part is false.

 

No irony regarding the belief in an occultist's theory and the alleged reporting by bible scribes. Poor logic again.
The point is the message is being judged, not the messenger.
Pretty basic stuff.

 

Take your pick, you will likely misrepresent what I state anyway.

Does a degree in Computer Sciences qualify me?

"devil-spawn occultist" is not my terminology. Ask that question of your protege' TBB.

So you are now suggesting that a 'gorilla' can write a theory? How novel.

Review your opening paragraph.

Then as the world grew more toward the 'if it feels good do it" philosophy, the adherents of science (that which is practiced today) felt the political correctness syndrome and bent with the breeze of liberal agendas.

Not all people accepted the findings of science.

I have... and I concluded that none of those writings have been 'proven' to be false.

Take your pick, it will have to be considered in your mind for you to come to a conclusion.

Hypocritical anyone. Either you accept or don't accept the writings of someone who is all wrapped up in occult literature.

Just like yours.

 

So much wrong here.
The degree should qualify you, but you have abandoned the thought processes that allowed you to gain that degree.

You have said that people are from Satan if they don't conform to the bible. Since an "occultist" does not, where would they be spawned from? God?

It is unlikely that a gorilla will write a theory, but if it happened it could not be discounted because of that fact. That was the point you chose to ignore. In all likelihood it would be gibberish, but that would be a judgement of the theory, not the theorist.

You then propose that science is a huge liberal conspiracy theory that has to undergo peer review to maintain itself. What part of your degree supports this absurd conclusion?

One does not, ipso facto, accept everything that a person says because they concur with a single thing they say. You and I have even found points of agreement on the rare occaision. If you judge the post and not the poster, it is never an "all or nothing" proposition. That also would not float as you pursued your degree. It is powerful poor thinking.

 

The track record of the non-theists on this forum. It has nothing to do with what I know about theory.

Presumption on your part. The fact that theories cannot be proven, tells volumes about the claims made by various non-theists on this forum... such as the adamant claim by many of them relating to the theory of evolution: or the big bang theory. Seemingly it is some of your cohorts that don't know that theories can't be proven.

And your point is what? Are you suggesting that non-theists have not represented something from the Bible, or that they have not rendered their own interpretations of the Bible?

Well, if you stated it without having a belief in what you are saying, then it show that you are prone to fabricating fairy tales. Do you believe in fairy tales? Do you often state things in a manner that is not full of 'truth'?

Now you are labeling the non-theists in this country (because they live in the USA and some of them were educated in the USA) as being "overfed, lazy and uneducated." Amazing that you would through your all inclusive language include those from the USA who are non-theists.

Likewise it is true that the sarcastic 'if it feels good, do it' non-theists will "NEVER" accept anything that doesn't match their wrong and twisted interpretations of scripture. Persons that have an indwelling of the Holy Spirit don't seem to have that problem.

I did and the conclusions I have reached are the same as before.

Just saying "contradict" doesn't mean it applies, and it doesn't. You do though provide a fine example of the "locked in a box" thinking of the "if it feels good, do it" liberal agenda non-theist. Are you suggesting that those things you listed are not absolutes?

So go hand a pen and paper to the nearest gorilla and have it provide you with the next theory that science will embrace with open arms. Your "nor should anyone" seems like you are attempting to promote yourself to the level of a 'god' and are making a mandate on all of the people of the world. Wow!

Well don't hold your breath while waiting on that gorilla to write something that is "sound" with regard to theory.

Are you suggesting that Newton was human? Gee. Wow. I am amazed at your astute observational skills.

 

Tell you what, incinc. It was dumb of me to even attempt a conversation with you. Give me ten demerits if I ever respond to you, or anyone a tenth as unreasonable
again.

 

Oh geee. Is there a problem with you and the possibility of you at least attempting to refute what I have stated? Your response above is the equivalent of a total abandonment of the battle field. If your closing words are true, then ten demerits does not even begin to give proper character of the action you would be taking if you did respond.

 

People with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit display these traits, according to Paul in Galatians:
Peace, love, joy, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control.
So you would not qualify as one of these persons, based on your posting style on PF.
Why do you bring it up? You clearly aren't dedicated to these traits.

 

Abandoning the battlefield to you is like abandoning the battlefield to the knight that protects the bridge in Monty Python's "Holy Grail". Full of fight, but all the tools for battle are missing.

 

Are we to understand that this point is the main topic in this topic? I can agree with whoeveritwas that it wasn't quite clear.

I feel fairly confident that the origins of the multiverse idea as it is mostly used today is not accepting these particular writings (I'm assuming a certain definition of multiverse here, if another definition is in effect, things might change). There may be things in such writings that are true, just as there are things in the Bible that are true, and similarly, the forming of the idea may in some way be inspired by these writings, just as several ideas have been inspired by the Bible, but it would be irresponsible to accept the idea just because it is in these writings, just as it would be irresponsible to accept ideas just because they're in the Bible.

I have no problems with the fact that modern theories may overlap with old ones, but what is the results of the research you have done that indicate that they "depend on" or "copy" these old ideas?

 

Are they original ideas of the people speaking and writing about them in this day and age? No? Then there is no refutation being offered other than rationalizations. The same thing that non-theists accuse the theists about doing... rationalizing... the making of excuses for ones behavior. My research (as indicated in the OP) was a rather short one... but the details are presented as printed on those two websites. Those that don't like what is printed on the wiki page, have the option of offering more data to either suppress what has been printed or to add more detailed information. As for the other website, I suppose one would have to address the author of that webpage in order to attempt a change of what is printed there.

Main point? Did I suggest that there was a main point. I merely suggested that it could lead to an interesting discussion. I did stress that view, however without further investigation into the matter, I am not certain whether that should or could be called the "main point". I am equally CERTAIN, that upon further investigation, I could find some other issues.

 

What exactly is the rationalisations you're referring to? Is it criticism against people who start with a preconception and then try to prove it? Because I don't think the people who have come up with today's understanding of the multiverse had set out to prove some papers from the 1800's. Your links prove that the concepts are similar, but not that one gave rise to the other.

Rationalisation is avoiding the true explanation by introducing another explanation which may not be logically sound. If this truly was a rationalisation in the way that I understand your post, then that would mean the scientists believed the 19th century papers and drew conclusions specifically to match it, which I find incredible at best.

Don't worry about it, I was just trying to make sure that I didn't put the thread off topic.

 

I suppose this is going to turn out to be another one of those 'speculation' projects without the further investigation on the subject matter. In the absence of data that shows one side of the fence or the other, , , I have read somewhere that it is better to accept the simplest explanation... which in this case (for the moment and purposes of this discussion) is that because the writings were in print prior to the modern day writers and speakers, that the assumption that they were copied ideas would be the simplest conclusion to make. Your comment "I don't think" would be nullified because of knowing that currently there is insufficient data for you to make an informed and knowledgeable decision.

 

Presumably that would mean you have insufficient data to come up with your conclusion as well.
Or is this a one way street we are on?

 

I think it is more like abandoning the field to a snapping turtle, or a skunk.

 

Snapping turtle, skunk, is irrelevant. Have you ever been bitten by a snapping turtle or sprayed by a skunk? Both will make a pretty good mess of the recipient of the infliction. In my opinion, that is just your politically correct way of saying that you got the mess beat out of you.

 

I'm not convinced by your assertion that copying is the simplest explanation. Seeing how different the two versions still are, and how we know the logic behind the many worlds interpretation, I think assuming a link would be the longer leap to make. We know the logic behind the creation of the many worlds interpretation, to resolve the nature behind the wave function collapse. I find adding an element of shoehorning the theory into the writings of a 19th century occultist makes the idea more complex.

And even if the creators did, the criticism you present is against modern scientists, researchers and whatever, who are less likely to know about the occultist's writings.

 

I find that your argument above is not at all convincing considering the highlighted text above. This comment of yours would indicate that the lay person is more capable than the scientist and researcher and whatever to do adequate research in able to become knowledgeable of those writings. Not a very impressive image you paint for those that you speak about.

 

Why would that be implied? The scientists wouldn't be worse than the layman at the research in question, but since I believe scientific breakthroughs should not be based on occult writings anyway, I see no reason why the researchers should be spending their time looking up 19th century theosophy.