Goswami does go into more complicated physical experiments. There’s one involving time that seems very promising for instance. However, since I have only his word on that one, I haven’t discussed it here. It’s precisely because Schroedinger’s cat is so famous, and I’ve actually learned about it in college, that I feel safe using it as an example.

Regarding those constraints. They may be due to causes outside the realm of human consciousness.
Alternately — as each of us “represents” or “contains” a spark of divine essence — perhaps the constraining “laws” of physical manifestation exist due to the collective “agreement” upon the nature of that manifestation.

That later view tends to approach the chicken and egg problem. However, if only the most fundamental Laws are actual constraints, then (hypothetically) at least some physical constraints could be the result of collective “agreement,” an agreement which might slowly alter over time.

This might also tie into the matter of individual versus collective karma.

It goes well beyond the “Two slit” experiments and Schrödinger’s Cat. Somewhat technical term, but written for an educated layperson. It contains detailed discussions of the implications of non-locality and complementarity among other things. Also a logical presentation of why the principle of complementarity implies that it is not possible for science, or physical observation of any type, to get to the ultimate reality. (Thus, the need for the mystic).

Short of the book, one might want to look into Bell’s Theorem and especially the Aspect Experiments. The later, having demonstrated that non-locality is a fact of nature.
The implication being that a unity of existence (all existence as a single whole) is a fact of nature.

Cheers

And yes I would agree with you…we are constrained, but not truly by the limitations placed on us by the world around us, but by those placed on ourselves by ourselves.
Excellent Post, thank you for sharing!
Thanks,
David
http://www.DavidChernoff.com

You actually picked up on my point, instead of his: I think there are limits to what we can accomplish (and should want to accomplish) through meditation – and that’s perhaps Goswami’s idea too, but he’s talking not to me, but to people who think they can accomplish anything just by visualizing it (you know, The Secret, the Law of Attraction and all that – in it’s most simple form).

And to them Goswami is saying – no, that won’t work unless you meditate.

I’m saying – even if you do meditate, you should not expect to overrule the laws of physics. That was my whole point about the carbon atom. Sorry it did not come across too well. So I agree with you, I’m not sure how Goswami would answer your question.

So am I to understand that if we meditate first we can break free from the constraints that are akin to the limited carbon orbits? Or that without first meditating that it isn’t even possible to create a new reality.

I also have to ask, “Why?”

Why would the Universe be designed in such a way that individual beings could break free of the laws of nature? It seems to me that the Universe in which we live represents the reality in which we are constrained. Breaking free from our constraints would then represent a path that has a purpose. Is there an example in nature that reveals that breaking free from the laws of nature results in a benefit that otherwise wouldn’t be possible?

I hope this is received in the friendly spirit it is intended. I love the topic and look forward to exploring it further.