Lao Tzu & the Ultimate Theory

[Blue Sky]

The beginning of the universe (or Tao) can never be known, because we can never understand something that is of itself. To see a molecule, we need to know the atom - to see the atom, we need to know particle physics - to see particles, we need to know string energy, etc. Chuang-tzu said, "The most extensive knowledge does not necessarily know it; reasoning will not make men wise in it. The sages have decided against both of these methods." Lao-tzu said, "The spoken Tao is not the true Tao, the written Tao is not the true Tao." Isn't this because words are only a small part of Tao, and cannot be used to know the whole Tao? And for the same reason, no one can ever know the true Tao, except for Lao-tzu? I am dissapointed that when science realizes what Lao Tzu realized 3000 years ago, scientists will name their their Unifying Theory something other than Tao, labeling it with their egos. (Truly, the Ultimate Unifying Theory of the Universe has already been found and named, it is Tao and Lao-tzu named it so.)

[doc]

So, what is your reasoning behind Lao Tzu being the only one who can ever understand the true Tao? What makes Lao Tzu not one of us? ("because we can never understand something that is of itself...")

[zachsan]

what makes you assume that science will "realize what lao tzu realized 3000 years ago"? to make an assertion about what science "will realize" does not demonstrate an understanding of science. neither, for that matter, does equating principles and questions arrived at through the scientific method with the rather vague (no matter how wise) writings of an old philosopher, demonstrate an understanding of science.

[pazman]

While there may have been many philosophers ahead of their times, Lao-zi was not one of them, especially considering that his writings are POLITICAL in nature and has very little to do with understanding the nature of the universe.

[daodejing]

Anyone who is looking for a grand ultimate unifying theory of astrophysics will not "realize the tao" unless its completely by accident.

In order to find something one must stop seeking it.

[pazman]

Dao,
Great post...I don't know any scientists who go around attempting to 'solve' the universe; they all choose some small phenomena to examine and figure out. Even a 'Grand Unified Theory' would only explain so much...certainly not anything in the human realm of things.

[zachsan]

very true. the scientific community in general moved away from reductionism a long time ago. that's why we don't ask a psychiatrist to solve global warming or a physicist to decode the genome. smart people have realized that there is just way too much to be known about the world to try to reduce it to a simple, all-unifying theory (trying to reconcile quantum mechanics and macroscopic physics is something else entirely). no single formula can solve all the world's problems.

which is another reason why to assert that science will eventually come up with such a Tao is demonstrating a misunderstanding of science.

[daodejing]

Doc, on a sidenote, because for some ungodly reason the forum won't let me reply to your post about this reputation pts business............. Whats up with the stars and little green squares?

[doc]

You can't post in those sections, sorry. They're for news and information only.

The stars reference the amount of posts, the reputation stuff is discussed in the Announcements and Technical Support / Discussion Forum section.

I still don't understand it. Still trying to fix all the bugs in this new site...

[Blue Sky]

Reply

Are you asking, "You are unique, just like everyone else?" The reason Lao Tzu is not one of us is because of the same reason that you are not Lao Tzu.

So, what is your reasoning behind Lao Tzu being the only one who can ever understand the true Tao? What makes Lao Tzu not one of us? ("because we can never understand something that is of itself...")

[Blue Sky]

reply

Science will realize the truth. It is in search of the truth. And. everything science has found so far is tending towards proving Lao Tzu's explained to us 3000 years ago. The first stanza of the Tao Te Ching says, 'the true Tao is not the spoken Tao, etc.' String theorist are now saying we will never be able to 'get to the bottom' of a unified theory, anything we say about it is not going to be exactly what the truth is. Just by accknowledging something changes the properties of it. I see no difference in these writings except one was said long ago by a very inciteful monk, and the other was derived at by the most extreme scientific methods.

what makes you assume that science will "realize what lao tzu realized 3000 years ago"? to make an assertion about what science "will realize" does not demonstrate an understanding of science. neither, for that matter, does equating principles and questions arrived at through the scientific method with the rather vague (no matter how wise) writings of an old philosopher, demonstrate an understanding of science.

[Blue Sky]

Reply

Er...I don't follow you. The biggest argument of all time was between Lao Tzu questioning the need for POLITICS at all and Confucious, who related everything to POLITICS. I believe you are confusing these two philosophers. As far as science goes, it requires a language based on some unquestioned framework. Semantically, therefore, an attempt to explain all concepts can hardly be called 'scientific'. The TTC says, "Man follows the laws of Earth; Earth follows the laws of the Universe; The Universe follows the laws of Tao; and Tao follows the laws of its intrinsic nature".

While there may have been many philosophers ahead of their times, Lao-zi was not one of them, especially considering that his writings are POLITICAL in nature and has very little to do with understanding the nature of the universe.

[Blue Sky]

reply

Science is looking for the truth, The truth has already been found - it is the Tao. When science does all that is 'said and done' it will have found the Tao. My argument is the name 'Tao' will not be given to the Theory of Everything. Science is proving more and more every day that the grand ultimate unifying theory of astrophysics, and everything else, is Tao.

Anyone who is looking for a grand ultimate unifying theory of astrophysics will not "realize the tao" unless its completely by accident.

In order to find something one must stop seeking it.

[doc]

I think it's pretty easy to say that everything is the Tao. But, what I'd like to hear, is what your interpretation of the Tao really is. A definition. (Ive read it a few times, I'm looking for your interpretation). Educate us.

Singapore. I love Singapore. Great little country.

[zachsan]

The first stanza of the Tao Te Ching says, 'the true Tao is not the spoken Tao, etc.' String theorist are now saying we will never be able to 'get to the bottom' of a unified theory, anything we say about it is not going to be exactly what the truth is. Just by accknowledging something changes the properties of it. I see no difference in these writings except one was said long ago by a very inciteful monk, and the other was derived at by the most extreme scientific methods.

string theory is still a very controversial subject and is hardly accepted as fact by the scientific community. the idea that acknowledging something changes its properties is also not agreed upon by physicists, and those who agree with it generally treat it as a question mark rather than a conclusive clue that will eventually lead them to The Truth.

it's common practice today for mystical advocates to take these question marks that deal with subatomics and present them as an absolutely certain version of "scientific truth" that corroborates their claims about the world. these people aren't interested in direct scientific testing that fails to offer proof of their magical abilities, but only in the more confusing issues on the scientific fringe. most of them do this because they don't understand it. some of them do it because they are being deliberately deceptive. there are no leading authorities on subatomics who will tell you that string theory or quantum mechanics lends credit to any mystical world conception.

question marks are an integral part of, and in fact the reason for, scientific enterprise. you say that "Science will realize the truth", but in fact, the more that we find out, the more question marks are likely to be raised. if you want an introduction to quantum theory as it is actually understood by most scientists, i posted a link in the thread called "On Science" that DDJ started somewhere else on this board. i think it's probably the last post in the thread.