That Quantum Connection

Post #1Matthew Clark wroteon December 28, 2009 at 12:48am
Quantum Theory, for those who have ears to hear, is a theory of Consciousness and how That One Consciousness creates out of Itself ... creating the spectrum of life, from higher forms of mind to matter itself. Initially QT was conceived to explain the inner workings of the atom and the formation of matter. In 1900 Max Plank postulated that energy is quantized, existing in discrete discontinuous units named “quantum” and thus QT was truly born. Twenty years later Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrödinger & his cat discovered the mathematics of QT.

The seeming duality of life, between Spirit & matter, between mind & body, between subject & object, between the non-tangible & the tangible has always been the bane of scientific thought. So much so that material scientists banished the very existence of Spirit & consciousness, of subjectivity & the non-tangible. Saying that consciousness must inexplicably arise out of matter. Yet it is just this dynamic, this connection, this communication which Quantum Mechanics is trying to explain.

Life & consciousness are not just a physical processes of chemistry, biology & neurology, they are multidimensional quantum processes allowing for creativity, subjectivity & free-will.

Max Plank told us all those years ago: “… there is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."

And Schrödinger told us: “Quantum Physics thus reveals a basic Oneness of the Universe.”

Materialistic science seems to have tuned off the light within matter, the intelligence within life, but QT is pointing the way back, enabling us to find our own “Inner Light” & turn it on, to connect with That Intelligence which lies in the heart of all life. It is giving us the mystical key to the science of creativity, to Creation itself.

Mathematically a masterpiece, QT tells us of a non-local wave-world of possibility, a non-existent realm of Pure Potential, standing outside of Time & Space, out of which we multidimensionally create both our inner & outer worlds. Out of That One Consciousness we create our subjective personal consciousness & our objective material reality, both of which are just different vibrations of That One Consciousness perceived/collapsed into separation/existence by That same One Consciousness.

Once we realize the dynamic quantum process in all aspects of our life: sensation, emotion, thought & intuition, of how we are conditioned through experience into probabilistic responses, we can disidentify from our habitual reactions and identify with That Soul Awareness, That Quantum Consciousness which is our True Inner Nature.

Carl Jung told us: “All science however is a function of the soul, in which all knowledge is rooted."

Quantum Consciousness is both the ground of being & the Being who sees through each & everyone of us. Spirit is the non-local 'Beingness' which is "immortal, invisible, god-only-wise," the Conscious Intelligent Light at the heart of everything, & the everything into & out of which That Light creates, moment by moment, the illusion of subject & object separation.

The Mystic Sri Aurobindo told us: "Behind the appearance of the universe there is the reality of a being & consciousness, a self of all things, one & eternal. All beings are united in that one self & spirit but divide by a certain separation of consciousness, an ignorance of their true self & reality in the mind, life & body. It is possible by a certain psychological discipline to remove this veil of separative consciousness & become aware of the true Self, the divinity within us all.”

Whilst Quantum Physicist D Bohm told us: "Particles (& the universes built of them) being essentially light & variations on light, are subject to the speed of light as their ultimate limit of movement. On the other hand, the wave-field from which they manifest are of a different state entirely, not ‘movement' or light but the frequency from which light itself springs, not in time-space, but the source of time-space. They are, in a word non-localized, whereas the particles they display are localized.”

The wonder of Quantum Theory is that it gives us a 21st Century scientific understanding of the Dynamic Process which is Life and we are That Process becoming aware of Itself. Yet as the mystics told us, to enter it we must construct a perceptual vehicle for that kind of awareness and as Gurdjieff told us, “not everyone is capable of this type of awareness, only those who really want.”

Do you want That Quantum Connection?Report
Post #2Shaun Young wroteon December 28, 2009 at 7:40pm
Do i want the Quantum Connection? No. But i want 3 of whatever you took before writing this.Report
Post #3Michael Johnson wroteon December 28, 2009 at 7:53pm
No you don't! Those mushrooms are fucking dangerous!Report
Post #4Matthew Clark wroteon December 28, 2009 at 11:44pm
You guys are so ... one dimensional in your arguments (maybe that is the answer to the first question on the wall MJ), so ... classical in your consciousness & in your perspectives. Clearly you wish to stay with your one sided, one dimensional beliefs. No discussion really necessary or warranted for you. Have a happy new year! mc xReport
Post #5Victor Laszlo wroteon December 29, 2009 at 2:40pm
Yes, i do. Happy New Year Matthew! And thanks for your post!!!Report
Post #6Michael Johnson wroteon December 29, 2009 at 6:35pm
Hang on Matt, some guy asked something like: 'What has one dimension?' and I replied 'A one-dimensional object.'
How exactly did you deduce from that answer that my beliefs are one-dimensional?

Scientific theories should be simple, explain what we observe in the universe, and testable by repeated experimentation.

Your theory made absolutely no fucking sense. All I could understand was the odd phrase from Heisenberg here and there.Report
Post #7Matthew Clark wroteon December 30, 2009 at 8:54am
Hey MJ, no worries, sorry if I was offensive. I try to follow the deductions of the likes of Shroedinger, Heisenberg, Oppenheimer, Plank, Pauli, Plato, Pythagorus, Jesus, Bhudda, Hermes, da Vinci, Jung etc in my understanding of life, QT & consciousness, & explain them as simply as I can. I was just playing with our two discussions, & being a little truculent, not really meaning to cause offense but trying to get further insight rather than a dogmatic belief (opps! more playful truculence).

But what exactly is a one dimensional object? Can you show me one? Or are they purely idealistic & mental? Which doesn't mean they aren't real, just subjective not objective, & do you believe in subjectivity, in consciousness?

Do you guys thinks those mentioned were also on hallucinogenic drugs too? & do scientific observations only work for exterior observations & not inner ones (serious question)? & if so, how will science be able to study consciousness then? & if they can't, surely they should let others use QT to understand subjectivity, consciousness & the dynamic process which creates it, or is that outlawed by material scientists?

Personally I feel that QT is a theory of how we create, as explained above. Not only how we create matter (which isn't really physical as Einstein's 'Relativitys' & QT show) but also how we create our own subjectivity out of the Matrix of Life, out of That One Consciousness, as both Plank & Shroedinger talk about above.

Just humble ideas which I like to discuss, rather than just have them dogmatically denied.

as always with interest
mc xReport
Post #8Shawn Man wroteon December 30, 2009 at 4:09pm
i agreeReport
Post #9Shaun Young wroteon December 30, 2009 at 5:11pm
"out of one consciousness" This is a eastern philosophical concept derived some 5000 thousand years ago. It is hardly new and cutting edge keeping pace with advances in quantum physics. For all of history consciousness has been untouchable by science , and as of yet there is no reason or evidence to believe that will change any time in the near future.Report
Post #10Michael Johnson wroteon December 30, 2009 at 7:39pm
Okay Shaun. I was a little out of line.
It's good that you're not following the dogma, and that you're also interested in Pythagoras' teachings.

I also agree to a point that our consciousness plays an important part in how reality is manifested, but I use quantum mechanics as a starting point, and ask how we can build from that an explanation, not trying to shape it to fit ancient teachings.Report
Post #11Matthew Clark wroteon December 30, 2009 at 10:31pm
not wishing to be pugnacious but ...

So you ignore ancient teaching, perennial philosophy, mystical wisdom, how far back do you ignore? why not correspond what we know today with those greats of the past? why not see how QT corresponds to thoughts & emotions? why not see how QT correspond to biology & neurology, to psychology & philosophy, to consciousness & evolution?

Still ... good luck with your quest. As a layman I very much like Quantum, String & Holographic Theories, & how they relate to ancient wisdom. They very much help me with my own inner conscious practice.

Have a Great 2010
mcxReport
Post #12Matthew Clark wroteon December 30, 2009 at 10:32pm
with whom do you agree Shawn Man, with whom & what do you agree?Report
Post #13Matthew Clark wroteon December 31, 2009 at 12:29am
& one more thing ...

It is only an interaction that is required, not a measurement or observation of any kind. WFCIII

I also agree to a point that our consciousness plays an important part in how reality is manifested MJ

What is it that cause collapse? What is interacting?
Is conscious now agreed not to play a part? Agreed by whom?
What happened to the observer effect? Report
Post #14Michael Johnson wroteon December 31, 2009 at 4:51am
The fact is we don't know what causes a wave function to collapse. It just happens when it's observed/measured. It's something I find mystying.

However, I do have a theory - that there is no objective observer. The person observing the experiment IS a part of the experiment. Perhaps there is no separation between the wave function and the observer.Report
Post #15Matthew Clark wroteon December 31, 2009 at 4:52am
ah! now you are getting it ... where did you find the mushrooms?Report
Post #16Matthew Clark wroteon December 31, 2009 at 4:53am
& who or what is doing the observing/measuring?Report
Post #17Michael Johnson wroteon December 31, 2009 at 4:56am
I had a few left over from the mushroo-picking season.

Now, we get to the really mysterious shit - what is THE objective observer? My only answer would be some form of universal consciousness existing outside space/time, or perhaps the universe itself is conscious in some way. But that's my personal belief, and beyond the realm of evidence.Report
Post #18Matthew Clark wroteon December 31, 2009 at 4:59am
mmm ... That Quantum Connection ... That One Consciousness which sees through us all, making us all, & everything else, out of Itself, collapsing an apparent material world in a quantum process of creativity ... enjoy the trip! ... Happy New Year! mc xReport
Post #19Michael Johnson wroteon December 31, 2009 at 5:11am
Have a happy one as well. xxxReport
Post #20Shawn Man wroteon December 31, 2009 at 9:59am
i agree that we create our own subjectivityReport
Post #21Matthew Clark wroteon December 31, 2009 at 12:12pm
but is there actually an objective reality at all?Report
Post #22Ken Halton wroteon December 31, 2009 at 1:45pm
I enjoyed reading your post. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Happy New Year to you all.Report
Post #23Michael Johnson wroteon December 31, 2009 at 6:22pm
Is there an objective reality at all? Many people have asked this over thousands of years.Report
Post #24James Maxwell wroteon January 1, 2010 at 12:21am
Well, to me it is so amazing that logic and mathematics can be applied to the world, to understand it and predict what parts of it will do. Even if quantum mechanics only allows us to calculate the probabilities of different outcomes it still allows us to calculate that with great precision.

So it seems to me that there is a reality out there. The old Rene Descartes quote "I think; therefore I exist."Report
Post #25Matthew Clark wroteon January 1, 2010 at 12:34am
Happy New Year James, but when Rene said this, didn't he actually mean that the only reality he could be sure of was his/our subjective reality? That the only proof & evidence about any objective reality came through our subjectivity, & thus couldn't be fully trusted to be real as such.

·

As Stephen Hawkin's says: 'There is a difficulty of being a realist in the philosophy of science, for what we regard as reality is conditioned by the theory to which we subscribe.

'Newtonian notions of space time seemed to correspond to common sense & reality. Yet nowadays those who are familiar with the theory of relativity, still a disturbing minority, have a rather different view.

'If what we regard as real depends on our theory, how can we make reality the basis of our philosophy? We cannot distinguish what is real about the universe without a theory. It makes no sense to ask if it corresponds to reality, because we don’t know what reality is independent of a theory (a theory of physics is just a mathematical model that we can use to describe results of observations).'

The unspoken belief in “a model independent reality” is the underlying reason for the difficulties philosophers of science have with quantum mechanics & the uncertainty principle.'

·

& what I also like to ask is who/what put the math/geometry into the relative world? Surely this, as Plank posited, means: 'We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.' or as Hermes posited: 'The Underlying Reality of the Universe is Mind; and the Universe itself is Mental' & 'THE ALL, in which Mind we "live and move and have our being."':

I hope everyone has a wondrous 2010
mc xReport
Post #26Gethyn Dylan Jones wroteon January 1, 2010 at 5:27am
I think we all accept a "model independent reality" to a greater or lesser degree.

As has been noted before (I think by Richard Dawkins, amongst others), even those individuals who claim that physical reality is an illusion usually take sufficient care to leave by the stairs, rather than the 5th floor window. If reality is truly model independent, why do this?

The only reason for introducing mathematics into the study of what used to be called "natural philosophy" is its effectiveness. This stunning and undeniable effectiveness is both unreasonable and inexplicable in terms of most philosophical systems - it is, I would suggest, the recently discovered (in the last four centuries or so) equivalent of an 'opposable thumb' in humanity's attempt to manipulate and control the universe...and one which most of us (including myself) are still running to catch up with.Report
Post #27Matthew Clark wroteon January 1, 2010 at 6:04am
Yes Gethyn, but Richard Dawkins is being particularly flippant with such a comment. To say &/or believe that there isn't a 'model independent reality' doesn't mean that you won't get run over by a bus if you step in front of one. You have to think quite a lot deeper than deterministic material superficiality to understand what Relativity & Quantum are really saying. Something which RD isn't prepared to do, especially as his income depends on his present opinions & beliefs, which are particularly dogmatic & not very scientific, yet seemingly impossible to change due to his conditioning. As with most people, our opinion & beliefs are more important than peace or truth.

Unfortunately common sense is more about conditioning than actuality, reality or science, & materialists, like Dawkins, are stuck within reason & thus will never get past their egoic beliefs, whilst fiercely trying to outlaw any other ideas. A shame for he was such a bright young man.Report
Post #28Gethyn Dylan Jones wroteon January 1, 2010 at 8:08am
Hi Matthew - Happy New Year! I hope 2010 sees you happy, healthy and prosperous.

But to continue with the discussion: I would say that if you take reasonable care to avoid (say) getting run over by a bus, then you are giving the deterministic material model more importance than some alternative non-materialistic models. In other words, your day to day actions illustrate that you accept the independent reality model to a greater degree than many of the alternatives.

I remember that as a child, I used to avoid walking on the cracks in the pavement in case some disaster should befall me. By careful empirical trial and error testing of this hypothesis, I discovered that this model did not accord with reality and discarded it (in truth, I probably got bored and forgot to avoid the cracks - with no deleterious effects). Therefore, if I now put forward the Avoid-Cracks-in-Pavement-For-Good-Luck Model, my day to day actions would clearly illustrate that I no longer accept it (at least, in its orginal form...)

Joking and argumentative point scoring aside, I think there is a valid criticism of non-independent reality models here.

As for RD, I think that he is more open minded and considerate of other viewpoints in his written work than he is when interviewed on television. He just seems to get cross quite quickly when talking about some subjects that are near to his heart. I think that "The God Delusion" is actually quite a fair-minded, persuasive book rather than an athieist materialist rant (cf Christopher Hitchens "God is Not Great" - a hugely enjoyable book is its own right, but not as fair minded). Report
Post #29Matthew Clark wroteon January 1, 2010 at 9:40am
The problem arises when we use a model for one thing, getting run over by a bus, & thus presume that it works for all other things, explaining everything with deterministic certainty. Isn't this why QT arose, because the material deterministic view couldn't account for everything.

A non-objective reality isn't saying that there isn't a reality there, just that it is a multidimensional subjective reality, which will run you over just as a 3 dimensional determinist one will. Only the cause behind the effect is very different.

Just as RD tries to deny spirit, as he equates it only with certain types of religion, so if you take a 'non-model independent reality' to mean that material reality is an illusion you will get the wrong end of the stick. The illusion about matter is not that it exists (& will run you over given the chance), only that it exists much more like the 'holodeck' in Star Trek, a creation/projection from an Absolute Realm through a subtle realm of perception creating what appears to be matter, but which is actually more an energetic/light forcefields working in a quantum dynamic process.

It still appears that the sun goes around the earth, this model in fact serves our daily life well. Whereas in fact the earth doesn't even go around the sun, but chases it in a spiral vortex as the solar system charges through space at great speed. If we could change our perspective to a more 'relative' & 'quantum' model we could start to manage our health, psychology & life with greater skill & awareness as to what is important.

Let us see how 2010 treats us & how we treat Her.
mc xReport
Post #30Gethyn Dylan Jones wroteon January 3, 2010 at 3:31am
Hi Matthew - thanks for the thought provoking reply.

"A non-objective reality isn't saying that there isn't a reality there, just that it is a multidimensional subjective reality"

If I understand you correctly here, you seem to be saying that people will have very different perspectives on a single underlying reality - I agree with you in that respect, but cannot see the value of calling this idea a non-objective reality.

"The illusion about matter is not that it exists (& will run you over given the chance), only that it exists much more like the 'holodeck' in Star Trek, a creation/projection from an Absolute Realm through a subtle realm of perception "

Again, to my mind you seem to be arguing that there is an underlying, objective reality that you call the Absolute Realm which is filtered through our perceptions, and that people can perceive this reality in very different ways.

I think we disagree on what constitutes the underlying reality: my own opinion is that in accordance with Occam's Razor we should assume that what we perceive for the most part roughly corresponds with whatever entities are 'really' there - this seems to make sound evolutionary sense as well.

Matthew Clark wroteon January 3, 2010 at 3:57am
hey Gethyn, mmm ... yes thought provoking ... occasionally to much for me, but fun to try ...

okay, what I am getting at is that the apparent objective reality isn't as fixed as we have been led to believe, yes there is an objective reality but it is much more flexible & manageable, especially regarding our own physical health, & is created our of our collective subjectivity. We are not going to start manifesting things out of nothing, yet our perception plays a big part in genetic, biological & neurological health & development, & when we can see this we can take better control of ourselves physical & psychologically.

The Absolute Realm is something our personal consciousness, & all of life, shares at its depth, the laser beam in the holographic model, a realm beyond the quantum wave-realm. And is just a deeper reality, but not objective as such, standing outside of time & space in non-local, non existent (unified) subjectivity.

It isn't so much as there isn't an objective reality, only it is created through this subjectivity. A real understanding of this is very tricky, mostly because we have been conditioned to see the universe as material, yet it is being posited that the universe is multidimensional, quantum, holographic & Conscious/Intelligent, & this is such a wondrous theory/map/philosophy for a saner & more healthy world. That Consciousness lies at the heart of life (as discussed above). Once we can take back this sort of perspective/perception, & not just regarding matter, but even more so regarding emotions & thoughts, we will start to be able to manage ourselves, our health & all of life much better. Losing our narcissistic, egotistical perspective for a flowing of Life, of That One Consciousness, through us all individually (we won't lose our individuality, it will just expand, giving everyone a deeper knowing of everything).

mmm ... let me try to work on a way to explain it better ... it isn't counter logical or anti-evolutionary, but gives us a deeper knowledge & knowing of our own consciousness & life ...

I will be back!
mc xReport
Post #32Matthew Clark wroteon January 3, 2010 at 7:09am
Einstein told us about relativity, not quantum, that: "physics is not events but observations, relativity is the understanding of the world not as events but as relations."Report
Post #33Jake Murray wroteon January 3, 2010 at 12:17pm
>As has been noted before (I think by Richard Dawkins, amongst others), even those individuals who claim that physical reality is an illusion usually take sufficient care to leave by the stairs, rather than the 5th floor window. If reality is truly model independent, why do this?<

I would just like to point that this isn't for one second what those who said that 'physical reality is an illusion' meant and, while I am sure you don't mean it Gethyn, this is a typically bone-headed example of Dawkins doing one of his deliberate knee-jerk reactions to a subtle idea in order not to have to engage with it.

When Hindus, Buddhists etc talk about 'Maya' or 'Illusion', they don't mean that physical matter is 'not there' but that it isn't all there is. 'Maya' by the Hindu definition is 'the Play of God', in other words, the flow of physical matter which is constantly changing and transient but appears to us to be all that there is. Behind that flow of physical matter is energy which eventually becomes pure consciousness, which is eternal and changeless. Eastern Philosophy regards physical matter as an 'illusion' insofar as it veils a different reality, which is one of complete unity. The Eastern view is that one should avoid being seduced by the appearance of Maya, to enjoy it but not to be enslaved to it, because if one does so one becomes bogged down in misery and strife, because Maya is transitory. We see this everywhere around us - in the pursuit of money, instant gratification, instant sensation, power, eternal youth, freedom from anxiety through externals, all of which are transient and over which we constantly fight each other. All these things come and go, they are Maya, Illusions. If we stopped prioritising them and focussed on things that were more important, we might start to enjoy being here. In one of their most beautiful metaphors, Matter, our physical Universe, is characterised as Prakriti, the Divine Feminine, dancing in unison with her consort and lover, Purisha, the Divine Masculine, who represents Consciousness and Energy. Purusha is often known as 'the Enjoyer' with Prakriti as 'the Enjoyed'. In their union, often described in terms of love making, everything in the Cosmos comes into being. So while the physical Universe is still referred to as Maya, Illusion, it is supposed to be a beautiful one, not one which is to be ignored or passed over, as Dawkins so often thinks. It is when we only see Matter as reality that we grasp at it, consume it, try to bend it to our will, fear that it will pass, fight over it etc. By seeing it as part of a greater dance, the thinking goes, we will find a greater kind of harmony with ourselves and each other.

Further, behind all this is what the East calls Brahman - Eternity, Boundless Pure Consciousness etc. Brahman is everything that we see and experience in the physical world but so much more besides. One could argue that scientific pursuits such as String Theory, Relativity, Cosmology, are all pursuits which involve seeking out the nature of Brahman, the level of reality which is beyond the immediately experiential, the area where Newtonian physics still applies. This is why figures like Einstein, Schroedinger, Wigner, Heisenberg et al all felt deeply sympathetic to these ways of thinking from 5000 years ago. They saw no contradiction at all between their pursuit of science and these spiritual ways of understanding the Cosmos. I should add that Brahman is in no way anything like the 'God' that we think we are referring to when we usually use the word in a Christian, Jewish or Muslim context. Brahman is NAGUNA, or has 'no characteristics'. In other words, it is All That Is rather than any given thing. Pure Thought is the nearest we get. In no way like any lawgiving, tribal, moral, nationalistic or gender-specific God we are familiar with. In fact the Western Traditions speak of the same thing, but not in their commonly experienced forms. Brahman is much closer to what Einstein said was his conception of God - a 'Will' or 'Intelligence' or 'Reason' which reveals itself in the workings and harmonies of the Cosmos.

Indeed, everything about so much modern science points towards the fact that our macrocosmic Universe of physical Matter IS an illusion - not in the sense that it is 'not there', but in the sense that it is not all there is, that it is relative, that it emerges from a mysterious level of reality we don't understand, that Matter is just a temporary form of Energy and so on, that Matter accounts for only 5% of the Universe etc etc. This, again, is why Einstein said that 'Indian spirituality begins where science ends'.

So Dawkins is being deliberately stupid. Not walking into a bus or being eaten by a tiger has nothing to do with the Indian concept of Maya, although their view of reincarnation also meant that, at their best, they lost all fear of death, so perhaps its not so simple.Report
Post #34Jake Murray wroteon January 3, 2010 at 1:23pm
NB I am not saying that this vision of things is 'right', nor am I attacking you, Gethyn. All I am doing is clarifying what is meant by these 5000 year old (and thus clearly crap, because anything old must be) ways of thinking. Dawkins always gets my goat when he comes up with supposedly clever, bullet-headed 'common sense' comments like that while clearly showing that he has not tried to engage with or inform himself about the ideas he is slagging. Shit on an ancient culture still pursued by 650 million people by all means, but least find out what it is first!Report
Post #35Gethyn Dylan Jones wroteon January 9, 2010 at 3:18pm
Jake, I have some sympathy with your suggestion that "physical reality...emerges from a mysterious level...that we don't understand". However, I find the word "illusion" confusing in this context. After all, an illusion is a false belief or a misleading appearance, is it not?

To clarify: I would describe a mirage of a city in the desert as an illusion because when you walk over that sand dune, the city isn't really there. On the other hand, I wouldn't describe the tip of an iceberg as an illusion, simply because nine tenths of the iceberg is invisible.

I would say that our situation resembles the iceberg more than the mirage: there is definitely more going on than meets the eye, but the tip is not an illusion. In fact, it's close observation of the tip that gives the best clues as to what is going on underneath the waterline...

If you haven't done so already, I would recommend that you read the closing section (with the title 'The Mother of All Burkas') of 'The God Delusion' to see Dawkins at his open-minded best.

Your description of Indian philosophy shows a great knowledge and love of its subtleties, and you are of course correct in pointing out that many physicists have found inspiration in its ideas and have commented on resemblances between some concepts of QM and Eastern philosophies. However, for my own part, I think these resemblances are mainly superficial. The ideas and techniques of QM have been formed by a "bullet-headed" insistence on the primacy of observational data and experiment.

I hope that you do not think that I am slagging off an ancient culture that has much to teach us on a cultural or aesthetic level if nothing else, but my own view can probably be summed up best by paraphrasing Winston Churcill: "The scientific method is probably the worst way of finding anything out - except for all the others."

With respect,

Gethyn Report
Post #36Matthew Clark wroteon January 10, 2010 at 12:16am
I agree, the word 'illusion' can be confusing. Maya, physical life, has always being said to be an illusion, but as Gethyn points out with his iceberg analogy, isn't it really just a 'delusion' by thinking that physical reality (the 10%) is all there is? Yet even Einstein said: "reality is an illusion, even if it is a persistent one."

Or is life an illusion because it appears to be physical? Yet what it really is, is the play of light/consciousness/energy giving the illusion of physical reality?

Is a dream an illusion, or the mind or consciousness an illusion just because they aren't physical?

Are abstractions, like 'number' real or illusory. You can't hold the number One in your hand. Isn't this what QT is giving us, the dynamic process of making the abstract concrete, & not just for matter but for mind too. Isn't it giving us the function of Life, of Creation. Bringing quantity from quality.

Shroedinger & Heisenberg gave us the marvelous mathematics with QT. Their equations gave us the relationship between abstract & concrete, between quality & quantity, between wave & particle, but it is through number that their equations have meaning, because number is the source & quality of the equation, the source of every function of the natural world.

"In nature number is function & any calculative approach to number, whatever that approach may be, ceases to be a function & becomes a description. In functional thinking, number is active. In rationalistic, calculative thinking number is the halting of activity & finality. ... When viewing nature for what it really is, number ceases to be notation specifying quantity & becomes the expression of life itself."

"With the application of Quantum physics - the fundamental principles of nature - we have created an abstracted extension of reality & mind through the technology of cyberspace. Where we make the abstract computer software, concrete through the graphic user interface."

both quotes & many ideas taken from Edward F Malkowski & his book "The Spiritual Technology of Ancient Egypt ... sacred science & the mystery of consciousness"Report
Post #37Jake Murray wrote8 hours ago
> I find the word "illusion" confusing in this context. After all, an illusion is a false belief or a misleading appearance, is it not?<

I agree that the word 'illusion' is deeply unhelpful in this context. Its a problem with translation and its lead to a lot of stupid misunderstandings with New Age people over here. As you say, wandering around going 'all this is an illusion' doesn't stop you banging your head on the door if you don't bend down. If anything it isn't 'false belief or a misleading appearance' that is the problem here but the stupid idea that nothing actually exists.

As I think I said above, Maya actually means 'Play of God' and not 'Illusion'. The Gurus use the phrase 'Illusion' to try and encourage people not to be excessively materialistic. Part of the use of the word is to do with impermanence. The illusion is that physical things - money, wealth, riches, resources etc - are permanent and valuable in themselves and thus worth becoming obsessed with and fighting over. Vedanta and Buddhism - the two religions which use the term the most - try to encourage people to let go of the physical and turn to the spiritual, the inner, rather than continue existing in a state of conflict with oneself and the world.

Having said that, the second half of your definition: 'a misleading appearance' isn't so far wrong as we might think, as according to QM and Relativity, what appears to our eyes is not necessarily the way things are. I think your analogy of the iceberg and the mirage is bang on. That's exactly what they mean by Maya. If you refer back to the image of Purusha and Prakriti, Prakriti is that bit of the iceberg we can see - the Dance of Matter - while Purusha is everything underneath. You are more of a Guru than you know!

>If you haven't done so already, I would recommend that you read the closing section (with the title 'The Mother of All Burkas') of 'The God Delusion' to see Dawkins at his open-minded best.<

I have read it & although I know what you mean, I would compare his open-minded best as a narrow slit in a burka to the open-minded best of a lot of other people! I am not just referring to Schroedinger, Einstein etc but a lot of Dawkins' contemporaries, from Gould onwards! LoL!

>Your description of Indian philosophy shows a great knowledge and love of its subtleties,<

Thank you Gethyn. I appreciate this. Usually when such things are brought up here they are shat on!

>However, for my own part, I think these resemblances are mainly superficial. The ideas and techniques of QM have been formed by a "bullet-headed" insistence on the primacy of observational data and experiment.<

I would agree and disagree. The focus of Mysticism and Science is obviously different, as the Mystic seeks to penetrate the nature of 'reality' to understand its deeper, spiritual meaning while the Scientist is seeking to understand how the physical processes of 'reality' work with no reference to meaning. Plus, as you say, the techniques employed are entirely different. Science tends also to take things apart and break them down to see how they work (QM's incredible genius).

Having said that, for the Mystic, the reality behind the reality is, for them, utterly observable and within all the different traditions, techniques have been developed to enable this experience. The fascinating difference is that the Mystic does not mistrust consciousness as a means to understand things. Just as the Scientific Method seeks to escape subjective consciousness, the Mystic seeks to discover objective truth THROUGH subjective consciousness. This may seem ridiculous, but the idea is nevertheless there, as I am sure you know. Mystical systems, from Kabbalah to Vedanta to Buddhism etc have very complex frameworks attached to them which have evolved through the centuries. These frameworks provide an objective reference point for what these Mystics do. The attempt is to get at 'truth' from a different angle. For them, this 'truth' is as experiencable as the 'truth' a scientist encounters in the lab.

The other big tool that Mystics use which is entirely in common with Scientists is mathematics. Pythagoras, who laid down the foundations of mathematics, first pushed forward the idea that mathematics could unlock the fundamental reality of things. I could post some very interesting quotes from past masters on this, but I won't bore you! Needless to say, Heisenberg was fully aware of this when he was tackling the early discoveries of QM.

I would say, moreover, that where the Mystics are NOT superficial in their relationship to Science in is their concepts of the 'bigger picture' for want of a better word. A Mystic could not predict how a wave function will collapse or tell you how superconductivity operates or assemble a Hadron Collider, but he can probably be incredibly helpful in giving you a conceptual framework around which you might be able to grapple with the Theories of Everything we are bouncing around. Not one Big Interpretation put forward about Quantum Theory - Copenhagen, Many Worlds, Implicate Orders, even the many different aspects of String Theory - does not have its counterpart somewhere in Mysticism, from Plato and Neo-Platonism to Vedanta. To my mind, on this level, the line between Philosophy, Mysticism and Science is as it was right at the beginning of civilisation - non-existent, or at least very blurry.

As an example of this 'conceptual framework' of Mysticism/ Philosophy thing being able to help Science I would cite the theory of Atoms put forward by Democritus. Democritus arrived at the idea of Atoms by logical deduction, but no-one took it up until John Dalton thought it might be a useful idea for trying to understand how Matter worked. Democritus had the original brainwave, but Dalton used it to help him actually DISCOVER Atoms.

What is doubly interesting about this is that when Epicureans took up Democritus' idea of the Atom, he was opposed by the Pythagoreans who insisted that there was no ultimate, irreducible building block like an Atom, that there could not be. For the Pythagoreans, mathematics was the basis of the universe, so Atoms could not exist. Here is 15th C Mystic Nicholas De Cusa on this:

"And if you would wish me to be more concise, did not the mathematical demonstration of the Pythagoreans and the Peripatetics refute the opinion of the Epicureans about atoms and the void, an opinion which denies God and dashes against truth? For the Pythagoreans and the Peripatetics showed that it is not possible to arrive at indivisible and simple atoms, which destroyed the principle that Epicurus had assumed.

Proceeding in this way of the ancients, we agree with them in saying that since our only approach to divine things is through symbols, we can appropriately use mathematical signs because of their incorruptible nature."

Compare this with Heisenberg:

"...we are going to a world of very remote phenomena. Either we go to the distant stars ot to very small atomic particles. In these new fields our language ceases to act as a reasonable tool. We will have to rely on mathematics as the only language that remains. I really feel that it is better not to say that the elementary particles are small bits of matter; it is better to say that they are just representations of symmetries... The mathematical structures are actually deeper than the existence of mind or matter. Mind or matter is a consequence of mathematical structure. That of course is a very Platonic idea."

What is interesting is that the Pythagoreans appear to have been right (Plato was a student of the Pythagoreans BTW). The Atom was NOT the indivisible thing and mathematics and geometries do seem to be at the basis of reality. The issue of the Void, by the way, refers to the idea that there is Empty Space vs the idea that 'Empty Space' is a plenum. When Cusa refers to the Void denying the existence of God, he means that the plenum is filled with the presence of God. Here is where the conceptual framework comes in handy, as regardless of God, we know that there is no Empty Space but that what we thought of as 'Empty Space' is the Zero Point Field ie a plenum of Quantum Processes creating Energy.

Getting back to Heisenberg for a moment, its worth noting that he pointed out that the only difference between Science and Mysticism/Philosophy was not the conclusions that they drew but the fact that the Scientist stood on firmer ground because he was able to demonstrate his or her discoveries by experiment while the Mystic/Philosopher could only intuit them. Although even then he may be wrong, as String Theory etc are undemonstrated and possibly undemonstrable, making them as possible and impossible as anything Mysticism or Philosophy have brought forth. Is Theoretical Physics therefore more akin to these older disciplines than we thought? LoL!

>I hope that you do not think that I am slagging off an ancient culture that has much to teach us on a cultural or aesthetic level if nothing else,<

Not in the slightest! I thank you for your respect and return it accordingly.

>but my own view can probably be summed up best by paraphrasing Winston Churcill: "The scientific method is probably the worst way of finding anything out - except for all the others."<

I would agree - in some instances! The Scientific Method is unsurpassed for finding out about physical processes, but how to live? How the psyche works? What this life is? I would have to say not! Its one of the tools we can use but, as with Mysticism, Philosophy, Logic, Instinct, Imagination, it can only yield up a partial view by itself. Besides which, we use all these tools in different ways during the Scientific Method. Dawkins is a case in point. Evolutionary Theory does not per se lead to the metaphysical, moral or spiritual conclusions he makes, none of which have anything to do with the Scientific Method and are as much dependent upon Philosophical & Moral thought processes as anything else. This does't invalidate them. All I am saying is that wherever the Mind is involved, the lines will always be blurred.Report
Post #38Shaun Young wrote2 hours ago
Lets sum this up in a few words. Are there objective realities? More than likely. Can a being through whom objective realities are seen through the lens of consciousness see objective realities as anything other than subjective when consciousness is always his medium? I think no. Report