Demystifying Quantum Physics

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Guess I'll need to help you along:

"This research was pioneered by Dr. Jacobo Grinberg-Zylberbaum at the National Autonomous University of Mexico and was originally reported in the journal Physics Essays (Volume 7, pages 422-428, 1994).

Here is a link to the website 'Physics Essays', but it appears one must be a paid member to access any information here, so I cannot provide the original research. If you are a member, you won't have a problem:

Physics Essays - An International Journal Dedicated To Fundamental Questions In Physics

The results are summarized by Grinberg in his article "Brain to Brain Interactions and the Interpretation of Reality":

Symposia

"What does it all mean? If the results are accurate, they point to the existence of some form of nonlocal, instantaneous connection between human brains. The phenomena of nonlocality and quantum entanglement -- what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance" -- are often cited as possible factors in the underlying mechanism of transmission."

taken from:

Strange/True: Psi Captured on EEG? The Research of Jacobo Grinberg-Zylberbaum

I tend to see this a lot in a wide variety of places. People who get into some academic discussion or debate and direct others to the very sources they've used to form their opinions.

There's nothing wrong with that per se. However, what is the point of citing this or that reference, website, expert, or journal when you have no capacity to understand it? If you can't understand the methodological concerns of EEG or other imaging studies, have little to no idea about basic physics, and don't even have ready accesss to scientific literature (let alone the ability to understand it), what good does it do you to link to pages you do? Basically, all you're saying is that you liked something about them.

It's not just that you are unable to compare research done in some field and determine which conclusions are more likely. You can't even access the literature (not your fault, of course, but true nonetheless). What is the point of combining a very limited understanding of a subject with an even less limited access to research in that field?

 

[godnotgod]

I tend to see this a lot in a wide variety of places. People who get into some academic discussion or debate and direct others to the very sources they've used to form their opinions.

There's nothing wrong with that per se. However, what is the point of citing this or that reference, website, expert, or journal when you have no capacity to understand it? If you can't understand the methodological concerns of EEG or other imaging studies, have little to no idea about basic physics, and don't even have ready accesss to scientific literature (let alone the ability to understand it), what good does it do you to link to pages you do? Basically, all you're saying is that you liked something about them.

It's not just that you are unable to compare research done in some field and determine which conclusions are more likely. You can't even access the literature (not your fault, of course, but true nonetheless). What is the point of combining a very limited understanding of a subject with an even less limited access to research in that field?

You have consistently harped on this, and I see it as your ulterior motive manner to hoard 'Special Knowledge' to yourself and other 'intellectual types' like yourself, who don't have a basic understanding of Reality to begin with, yet proceed to analyze its peripheral characteristics and then to make 'authoritative' statements about it. It is akin to the 3 blind men trying to describe what an elephant is. Not just that, but I further read this (and you are not the only one) as the old underlying game of egotistical one upmanship operating under the color of authority. If you at all familiar with Jung's Persona/Shadow concepts, this is exactly what you are reflecting: you project your Shadow onto others as a means of propping up your Persona. This suggests to me a symptom of inner insecurity, wherein you build a facade of intellectual authority up around yourself to lend importance to yourself.

Your problem here is that, for all the techno-minutieae you broadcast about QM, you fail to understand QM and its characteristics as an integrated and seamless feature of Reality itself. Chopra and Goswami definitely do, and speak of QM in those terms. Bottom line is that it is not a matter of factual knowledge, but of seeing directly into the true nature of Reality. The factual knowledge is secondary to that. It is for this very reason that mystics see the analytical approach as having the cart ahead of the horse. The Buddha himself talked and warned about this.

If I am an expert in some field, (and I am a professional wood finisher), I can do a lot of technical mumbo jumbo that only makes sense to me, but can easily speak to a non-professional as to the gist of my work, so they can make sense of it. If my bottom line statements accurately reflect what is behind them, and is presented clearly, most people have the ability to understand what is being said, without having to go into technical and/or scientific jargon. I need to relay important information about wood finishes to woodworkers, contractors, architects, and private customers all the time, while deliberately avoiding technical mumbo jumbo, unless, of course, I am asked to provide a deeper explanation.

As for the experiment in question, I have a good, basic understanding of what was done and what it means, and how it reflects the larger issue of entanglement. That is all I, or most people need to know, or are interested in, as far as how the information fits into the 'big picture', and it is this 'big picture' which you have emphasized yourself in the past.

If you had watched the Goswami video I posted recently, what he said about the experiment and what it means in terms of the big picture is clear and concise. There is absolutely no need to go into further detail, unless you are a scientist yourself who is interested in either verification of the data or are merely interested in how the experiment was conducted, or both. We have the meat of the experiment, and that is what is important to most people. If this were a scientifically-oriented forum, the matter would be much different.

Let it be noted that you choose to focus on me rather than the information about the experiment and its implications. In fact, you've said not a word about it at all.

I point to the moon, and instead of looking to see what is being brought to your attention, you attack the pointing finger. The implications of this are hugely telltale as to the intent of the attacker.

 

[godnotgod]

.... what is the point of citing this or that reference, website, expert, or journal when you have no capacity to understand it? If you can't understand the methodological concerns of EEG or other imaging studies, have little to no idea about basic physics, and don't even have ready accesss to scientific literature (let alone the ability to understand it), what good does it do you to link to pages you do?

Sprinkles asked for it.


"What does it all mean? If the results are accurate, they point to the existence of some form of nonlocal, instantaneous connection between human brains. ..."

Who cannot understand that?

Basically, all you're saying is that you liked something about them.

No, I'm saying that here is some information that points to a way of looking at reality other than the old entrenched materialist paradigm.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You have consistently harped on this, and I see it as your ulterior motive manner to hoard 'Special Knowledge' to yourself and other 'intellectual types' like yourself

Goswami is a bona fide theoretical physicist who, in spite of his QM credentials, still must not know much about it. Chopra, besides being a credentialed medical doctor

In fact, unless you are in the habit of reading scientific journals you probably have never even heard Aspect's name

The last I read, Goswami's first experiment has been duplicated and confirmed three more times by separate labs in different locations. I am surprised that you would use experiments done in parapsychology as a reference against Goswami, who just happens to be a bona-fide physicist.

Why does any of this matter? Why do you reference scientific research, theories and technical terminology at all? If it's not necessary, because you can understand reality without even reading actual scientific research (and instead rely on descriptions you've found somewhere or youtube videos), then why do so?

Your problem here is that, for all the techno-minutieae you broadcast about QM, you fail to understand QM and its characteristics as an integrated and seamless feature of Reality itself.

If you reference scientific research (directly or not) whether to explain how your understanding of reality is consistent with science or for any other reason, then you are relying on centuries of work from brilliant minds devoting their lives to technical minutia. And this research is only possible because people spent years studying in order to learn things required just to understand research already done, let alone produce their own.

don't have a basic understanding of Reality to begin with

Not just that, but I further read this (and you are not the only one) as the old underlying game of egotistical one upmanship operating under the color of authority.

I'm not the one claiming to understand reality. You are. I'm claiming to know something about certain scientific fields and research. You reference these.

This is the big difference between us. You use many of the same sources that I do, and when you don't you frequently rely indirectly on such sources. Yet I don't claim to be privy to whatever "special knowledge" you have through whatever practices and/or training you've used. I have freely admitted more than once the limitations to my "special knowledge". You do not do this. You use (again, directly or indirectly) the sources I use for my "special knowledge" without bothering to do what I have done to understand them. Even worse, you accuse me of being some kind of elitist hoarder of knowledge I've gained through sources you rely on, yet you when I say you don't understand these sources you claim I lack your understanding of reality. That article in the journal Physics Essays which you cite? You can buy it. You can spend money and get it. You don't.

And as for me and hoarding "specialized knowledge", I go out of my way to find links that are free when it would be far, far, easier just to use studies from journals that I have access to and others don't.

I rarely start threads, but of those I have, one is specifically about how to access material so that others can share my "specialized knowledge" who might otherwise not realize they could. Another is on my concern that schools aren't adequately providing education which would make it easier to understand the sources I rely on for my "specialized knowledge".

If I can't find a source that can be accessed for free, I will always (usually without being asked, but definitely if asked) provide a reference anyway which at least allows anyone interested to check out where I am getting my "specialized knowledge" from and obtain it.

And as for how I obtained my "specialized knowledge"? Most of it is from spending almost all of whatever money I have for luxury items on technical books, monographs, volumes, and textbooks. As I don't make a lot of money, this is possible for most. And it isn't even necessary if one doesn't mind getting books through interlibrary loans.

I have dedicated post after post to answering questions others have which I happen to know something about (and I am not talking about debates in which I explain something; I'm talking about answering requests for answers to specific questions about things I know something about).

If you go to my photo albums here, you'll find I have only two. One is "other" and is filled with graphs, figures, and pages I've scanned from some book to help my explain my position, or answer a question, or in some other way provide access to the sources for my "specialized knowledge" that I paid for, just so that others need not.

Bottom line is that it is not a matter of factual knowledge

Great. Stop then referencing scientific research then. It's irrelevant at best.

If my bottom line statements accurately reflect what is behind them

They don't.

That is all I, or most people need to know, or are interested in,

Most people who are interested in quantum physics or consciousness do not tell physicists and neuroscientists that they don't understand the brain or quantum physics. They learn what they are interested in and hope that the simplified version is adequate.

You, on the other hand, "learn" what you are interested in knowing, and then tell people who know far more than you do how they misunderstand their own field.

I'm not an expert on wood finishing. So I wouldn't tell that you're doing it wrong or missing the big picture. I have a basic understanding I learned from some experience in school and over the years. If I needed a professional job done, I'd hire a professional like you. And I wouldn't tell them that they were wrong because I saw a youtube clip where someone said something about never using shellac without first sanding with some specific extremely high grit sandpaper.

There is absolutely no need to go into further detail, unless you are a scientist

Or unless you want to tell a scientist that they're wrong.

We have the meat of the experiment, and that is what is important to most people.

Which is why most people are wrong about most things science related. I have spent an enormous amount of time on this forum alone explaining why neuroscience or behavioral studies were poorly done and don't show anything, all because someone read some simplified, sensationalist article with a catchy headline. Which isn't there fault.

But to insist that the simplified version combined with some basic knowledge means you know enough to tell someone who has a lot more than that why you are wrong is entirely different.

Let it be noted that you choose to focus on me rather than the information about the experiment and its implications

I didn't. I focused on the state of communication between specialists and laypersons ("you" can mean "people in general"). I started with "I see this a lot". I didn't mean "I see you do this a lot" or I'd have said that. This is not the first time that someone has read an article about an experiment here. I've gone over this before with other such articles in great detail. I can show you such posts if you wish.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Godnotgod,

Parapsychology is a neutral term for studying 'psychic' phenomena. The skeptics and believers who carry out such research call what they are doing 'parapsychology'. Goswami's experiments are parapsychology, even though he himself is a physicist.

Not that it matters, it's all just semantics, I just wanted to clarify that for you ....

 

[godnotgod]

Why do you reference scientific research, theories and technical terminology at all? If it's not necessary, because you can understand reality without even reading actual scientific research (and instead rely on descriptions you've found somewhere or youtube videos), then why do so?

I didn't. Goswami did in his video. That is where I left it. Then Mr. Sprinkles demanded the sources. Get it?

You seem to (coyly) imply that reality cannot be understood unless one reads scientific literature, but unless you first understand reality, how do you expect to understand what scientific literature is about? All you're really doing is nibbling around the edges. Remember, it's the big picture, according to Legion, that should be focused on, not the details. Understanding reality is, quite simply, seeing things as they really are. If you do not see things as they really are, you will see them as they are not. That is delusion. If you approach a description of reality, like science or religion, with a deluded mind, you are just complicating things, and reinforcing your delusion by conditioning your mind to think you really do see things correctly, and that your method of approaching reality is the correct one. This is especially true when done under the color of formal authority, such as religion or science.

You also (falsely) imply that I am gaining an understanding of reality through YouTube videos, the implication being similar to getting educated by reading dime store novels or comic books. You should know better than that, considering the pages and pages of discussion and input you have had from other mystics on these forums.

 

[godnotgod]

Godnotgod,

Parapsychology is a neutral term for studying 'psychic' phenomena. The skeptics and believers who carry out such research call what they are doing 'parapsychology'. Goswami's experiments are parapsychology, even though he himself is a physicist.

Not that it matters, it's all just semantics, I just wanted to clarify that for you ....

Is that why the original experiment was first published in 'Physics Essays'?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Is that why the original experiment was first published in 'Physics Essays'?

Yes. The journal has a reputation for publishing just about anything (unless it's science, in which case it the author or authors will usually publish elsewhere). In 2001 they published a paper on nonlocality. The paper argued that nonlocality was wrong and based on a misunderstanding of EPR, Bell, logic, probability, and basic physics. Another paper in that same year actually included in its title "the proven demise of QM" and, as promised, we find that quantum mechanics is "proved" wrong. Somehow, this news did not reach the physics community. Fast-forward to recent years, and we find studies on the necessary "revived theory of ether" (a century-old theory which contradicts Einstein's relativity theories and pretty much everything we know about light). A year later we find yet another paper on the relativity of the speed of light (and therefore once again taking us back before Einstein). We even find a paper "An Introduction to relativity" in this physics journal (the whole point of technical literature is so that you don't have to explain the basics; if you publish a paper in a physics journal that explains basic physics, what's the point of the journal?), not to mention multiple papers showing that, for example, Bell's inequality cannot be applied to EPR (or EPRB), and thus as in 2001 nonlocality doesn't exist, papers on the demise of quantum physics side-by-side with papers making outlandish claims about quantum physics.

Even idiomatic English is a frequent problem: "Quantum mechanics is the fundamental theory of natural phenomena. However, despite its incredible successes on the predictive point of view, this theory is plagued by several problems of interpretation as regards what it says about the world. There are aspects of this theory which make it seem exotic and mysterious, far away from common sense. Among them, the most surprising aspect is certainly represented by quantum nonlocality and entanglement, by the nonseparability of subatomic particles. "

That last underlined part isn't a complete sentence. Usually, this happens sometimes because in most sciences everything gets published in English. But that's why journals employ people to minimize this issue. But as Physics Essays isn't a journal anybody pays much attention to, why bother?

 

[godnotgod]

Yes. The journal has a reputation for publishing just about anything (unless it's science, in which case it the author or authors will usually publish elsewhere). In 2001 they published a paper on nonlocality. The paper argued that nonlocality was wrong and based on a misunderstanding of EPR, Bell, logic, probability, and basic physics. Another paper in that same year actually included in its title "the proven demise of QM" and, as promised, we find that quantum mechanics is "proved" wrong. Somehow, this news did not reach the physics community. Fast-forward to recent years, and we find studies on the necessary "revived theory of ether" (a century-old theory which contradicts Einstein's relativity theories and pretty much everything we know about light). A year later we find yet another paper on the relativity of the speed of light (and therefore once again taking us back before Einstein). We even find a paper "An Introduction to relativity" in this physics journal (the whole point of technical literature is so that you don't have to explain the basics; if you publish a paper in a physics journal that explains basic physics, what's the point of the journal?), not to mention multiple papers showing that, for example, Bell's inequality cannot be applied to EPR (or EPRB), and thus as in 2001 nonlocality doesn't exist, papers on the demise of quantum physics side-by-side with papers making outlandish claims about quantum physics.

Even idiomatic English is a frequent problem: "Quantum mechanics is the fundamental theory of natural phenomena. However, despite its incredible successes on the predictive point of view, this theory is plagued by several problems of interpretation as regards what it says about the world. There are aspects of this theory which make it seem exotic and mysterious, far away from common sense. Among them, the most surprising aspect is certainly represented by quantum nonlocality and entanglement, by the nonseparability of subatomic particles. "

That last underlined part isn't a complete sentence. Usually, this happens sometimes because in most sciences everything gets published in English. But that's why journals employ people to minimize this issue. But as Physics Essays isn't a journal anybody pays much attention to, why bother?

These kinds of things are found everywhere in the 'professional' world, but that is not the point. The point is that the experiment in question was published in a physics journal to begin with, and not in a parapsychology publication, by which Sprinkles was implicating (once again) that the experiment bordered on the fringe. He'll coyly deny this, but that is what he's been doing all along, just as you are doing.

Once you are 'in' as a 'professional' or 'expert', you can do and say many things under the color of authority you could not get away with otherwise, and so, from a professional point of view, Sprinkles is not wrong to want to see more detailed documentation, but from the public's point of view, the synopsis Goswami stated in his video is perfectly fine.

 

[Straw Dog]

Alright. I'd like to get in on this action.

First, can someone bring me up to speed on whether or not we have a common working definition of "mysticism" for the purposes of figuring out how to "demystify" physics?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Why does any of this matter? Why do you reference scientific research, theories and technical terminology at all? If it's not necessary, because you can understand reality without even reading actual scientific research (and instead rely on descriptions you've found somewhere or youtube videos), then why do so?

I didn't. Goswami did in his video. That is where I left it. Then Mr. Sprinkles demanded the sources. Get it?

This was your first post in this thread:

Mysticism is merely the gateway to Higher Consciousness, or Cosmic Consciousness. It is more accurate to talk about the connection between Consciousness and Quantum Mechanics. Ordinary consciousness, which includes science, is not aware of this connection for various reasons.

Here is Chopra himself providing an overview of QM's connection to consciousness:

[youtube]EGL1T9qZpPE[/youtube]
Deepak Chopra on Skeptics Questioning his Definition of Quantum Physics - YouTube

It is against forum rules to quote (without your permission) your posts from the thread which this thread was set-up to address. So without permission, the best I can do here is show that you made a reference to quantum mechanics that no one asked for.

You seem to (coyly) imply that reality cannot be understood unless one reads scientific literature,

I don't.

I'm not the one claiming to understand reality. You are. I'm claiming to know something about certain scientific fields and research. You reference these.

How does saying "I'm not the one claiming to understand reality", and stating that I am claiming "to know something about certain scientific fields and research" a claim that one has to read scientific research to understand reality? I specifically and clearly state I am not claiming to understand reality. I don't know a better way to make this clear than the saying exactly that.

All you're really doing is nibbling around the edges. Remember, it's the big picture, according to Legion, that should be focused on, not the details.

I looked at the whole picture instead of focusing on the details. I not only looked at the essay holistically, but the context in which it was written. When you focus on little details, like what this or that word means in a single quote from one paper, you miss the big picture. Try looking at the quotes not in terms of little details like the nuances of this or that word, or this or that phrase, but try to see the big picture: the whole paper and its context.

Is this what you are referring to? If so, then you'll note I followed up with:

Because despite your insistence on seeing the "big picture", apparently that's only when the details get in the way. When the big picture does, all the sudden you ignore it.

The point was that not that one has to focus on the big picture, or that one has to focus on the details, but that ignoring either can be a problem and you do both when it suits you.

You also (falsely) imply that I am gaining an understanding of reality through YouTube videos, the implication being similar to getting educated by reading dime store novels or comic books. You should know better than that, considering the pages and pages of discussion and input you have had from other mystics on these forums.

You infer a great deal that I never imply. Once again, I've never claimed to understand reality. I've never claimed that you don't understand reality. I've even said that science doesn't have all the answers. The only thing I've claimed is that you are incorrect about is your understanding of scientific research (and by extension your ability to interpret, evaluate, or correctly explain the scientific field, topic, and research in question), and that you base your understanding of certain theories on youtube videos and similar sources. That is, you do not read technical literature in any academic field. This is not a claim about whether or not you understand reality. I am merely addressing whether you understand the basics of e.g., EEG studies, physics, and other scientific fields you have referenced in this and in other threads (which, again, I would be happy to show with your permission), in order to make the claims about scientific research that you do. As for my discussions with other mystics, I have not found that they frequently reference academic fields, from science to biblical studies, only to
1) Ignore any challenge to the references, the validity of the sources, or the use of actual academic sources
2) Refuse to acknoweldge that their understanding of the relevant fields is insufficient to evaluate the claims made in their sources.

Typically, I've found that people who identify themselves as mystics don't bother with scientific research, deny that it has any validity, and/or reference it only in the way that most people do (i.e., as non-specialists or experts, and thus do not have the necessary expertise to really evaluate their references). Apart from creationists, those who wish to show that passages in the quran anticipate modern scientific theories, and the occasional reference to something like fine-tuning, I don't find many people who hold spiritual, mystical, and/or religious beliefs citing or referencing scientific theories at all (or, if they do, they do not relate it to their beliefs as you do).

In fact, I believe that you are one of only two people I've come across who bring up some topic or field or research in some scientific field and then castigate and challenge those who criticize it as pseudoscience, who point out that it is being misunderstood, or in any other way assert the source is problematic, despite lacking the background in, sources on, or even the ability to understand most sources on, the field or topic.

 

[MD]

I've always wondered if QM could ever explain qualia.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Is that why the original experiment was first published in 'Physics Essays'?

Believe it or not, the study of psychic phenomena is called "parapsychology" no matter what the journal calls itself. The same thing is true in cross-disciplinary science generally (some of the work I do might be published in a biology or biochemistry or chemistry or physics journal, for example).

 

[Mr Spinkles]

First, can someone bring me up to speed on whether or not we have a common working definition of "mysticism" for the purposes of figuring out how to "demystify" physics?

Good question. My focus has been to clarify QM and clear up any confusion people might get from listening to self-styled "quantum mystics" like Deepak Chopra. For this purpose, it is not necessary for me to figure out what they mean by "mysticism", I only need to know what scientists mean by quantum mechanics. And furthermore it is not my practice to try to define others' beliefs unnecessarily, I try to let them speak for themselves. So, having freed myself of any interest or responsibility in defining what mystics mean by "mysticism" for the purposes of this thread, I choose not to attempt to answer this question, and I pass it on to others. All I know for sure is what people such as Deepak Chopra say about quantum mechanics, and i.m.o. (and the opinion of the vast majority of physicists) it is highly misleading.

 

[godnotgod]

Alright. I'd like to get in on this action.

First, can someone bring me up to speed on whether or not we have a common working definition of "mysticism" for the purposes of figuring out how to "demystify" physics?

Realization of divine union within.

 

[godnotgod]

Good question. My focus has been to clarify QM and clear up any confusion people might get from listening to self-styled "quantum mystics" like Deepak Chopra.

'self-styled', as opposed to 'other-styled', who see the self-directed as renegades from the pack.:biglaugh:

All I know for sure is what people such as Deepak Chopra say about quantum mechanics, and i.m.o. (and the opinion of the vast majority of physicists) it is highly misleading.

Isn't that like saying that fast food is better than gourmet food?

 

[godnotgod]

I've always wondered if QM could ever explain qualia.

From Quanta to Qualia: What Nature is Really Telling Us

https://www.deepakchopra.com/blog/view/903/from_quanta_to_qualia:_what_nature_is_really_telling_us

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Isn't that like saying that fast food is better than gourmet food?

It's more like saying that thousands of bona fide physicists (as you put it) are better at physics than one failed neuroendocrinologist.

 

[godnotgod]

As for my discussions with other mystics, I have not found that they frequently reference academic fields, from science to biblical studies, only to
1) Ignore any challenge to the references, the validity of the sources, or the use of actual academic sources
2) Refuse to acknoweldge that their understanding of the relevant fields is insufficient to evaluate the claims made in their sources.

Typically, I've found that people who identify themselves as mystics don't bother with scientific research, deny that it has any validity, and/or reference it only in the way that most people do (i.e., as non-specialists or experts, and thus do not have the necessary expertise to really evaluate their references). Apart from creationists, those who wish to show that passages in the quran anticipate modern scientific theories, and the occasional reference to something like fine-tuning, I don't find many people who hold spiritual, mystical, and/or religious beliefs citing or referencing scientific theories at all (or, if they do, they do not relate it to their beliefs as you do)

.

I don't. I am merely reflecting the fact that QM is a seamless feature of reality. You seem to think QM is something apart in some specialized scientific field, accessible only to and understood only by scientists. What I was pointing to was that, unlike your implication that I rely on YouTube videos for my knowledge, I, like other mystics, rely on the source itself. The trouble is that scientists do not actually understand what QM is. Mystics may or may not bother with scientific research, but science was not in place prior to reality. The mystic goes directly to the source. Beyond that, a mystic can decide to gain factual knowledge of QM via scientific study, but that is secondary to his first point of departure, which is reality. How are you going to evaluate reality with science, when reality is what both science and mysticism are about? No. It is science which needs to be evaluated in terms of reality. Science has it backwards. Does it not occur odd to you that mysticism can encompass science, while science cannot encompass mysticism? BTW, I should point out that religious believers have a difficult time incorporating science, while mystics do not, with the caveat that they must explain what science says in terms of the vision they have as mystics. The mystical experience is beyond belief-based systems. It is experiential, not conceptual, as science and religion both are. The primary issue mystics have with science is that scientists think somehow that the accumulation of factual knowledge and its analysis will lead them to the understanding of reality, when they are really trying to 'understand' the universe in mechanistic terms. Again, it is an attempt to understand the Mozart Piano Sonatas by dismantling the piano in order to find the music hidden within. The universe is not a machine that can be dismantled and reassembled and then to say: 'Aha! Now I understand the true nature of reality! One will only arrive at the true realization that:


"The tao that can be tao'd is not the true Tao"
Tao te Ching

The very moment you can encapsulate, contain, describe, and predict it within form or concept, it is no longer reality. This is the way of the intellect, not to say that the intellect is invalid, but only to say that it must be seen in harmony with the intuitive mind, which is the pathway to reality. This is the very thing Einstein realized.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I don't. I am merely reflecting the fact that QM is a seamless feature of reality.

This (emphasis added):

Mysticism is merely the gateway to Higher Consciousness, or Cosmic Consciousness. It is more accurate to talk about the connection between Consciousness and Quantum Mechanics. Ordinary consciousness, which includes science, is not aware of this connection for various reasons.

and especially this:

Guess I'll need to help you along:

"This research was pioneered by Dr. Jacobo Grinberg-Zylberbaum at the National Autonomous University of Mexico and was originally reported in the journal Physics Essays (Volume 7, pages 422-428, 1994).

are by no means "merely reflecting the fact that QM is a seamless feature of reality."

The above reference concerns a type of neuroimaging (an older type, before we really had neuroimaging the way we do now). It concerns the ways in which certain technologies can tell us particular things about neural processes. There have been thousands of EEG studies, and virtually none have even referenced QM. The design of the experiment you cite, the technology, the sigals, how the signals are processed, and most of the study is quite outside of the realm of quantum physics (which is why one doesn't come across many EEG studies that have the word "quantum" or even the word "physics" in them).

You seem to think QM is something apart in some specialized scientific field

No. I think that the phrase "scientific field" refers to a specialized area within the sciences. So saying "specialized scientific field" is redundant.

accessible only to and understood only by scientists.

Not at all. It is entirely possible for anybody to learn what is necessary to understand quantum mechanics at a highly technical level. It's been done, actually. It simply requires a good deal of study, and most people who are interested are willing to sacrifice accuracy for simplicity. They want to know the "gist" of QM. Others are interested because they believe physics has demonstrated certain things, whether it's ESP or quantum consciousness or whatever.

But people who are interested in a non-technical understanding of quantum physics want to know what most physicists understand it to be. They do not want to know what the extreme views are, because they do not have the necessary familiarity with the technical aspects to assess the validity of claims like those made by Chopra and Goswami.

What I was pointing to was that, unlike your implication that I rely on YouTube videos for my knowledge, I, like other mystics, rely on the source itself.

There have been mystics for thousands of years. This is not true of quantum mechanics.

The trouble is that scientists do not actually understand what QM is.

If you wish to assert that you access to the "source itself" enables you to understand reality, fine. If you think that QM must entail certain things because it is about reality and you know what reality is, ok. But that is not saying anything about quantum mechanics or your knowledge of it. It is saying something about any and all physics, sciences, etc., in which case there is no need for you to ever reference any physics or scientific theories.

After all, you are not simply saying that scientists do not understand QM, you are saying that they do not understand physics of any kind, or the physical and life sciences (not to mention the cognitive sciences). None of these sciences use "the source itself", and were it not for scientists you'd never have heard the words "quantum mechanics".

Mystics may or may not bother with scientific research, but science was not in place prior to reality. The mystic goes directly to the source.

Again, fine. This means there is no need to bother with scientific literature (which is produced by scientists who do not, according to you, understand their own fields).

Yet you do reference scientific literature. And you make statments about what scientists have demonstrated. And those statements are usually wrong. If the statements about the nature of consciousness, reality, etc., are correct regardless of science, again that's wonderful. It makes your references to scientific research and theories absolutely unnecessary. If you belive your statements are not just correct, but accurately reflect what scientific research has shown, then you are wrong. It may be that you are wrong because the scientists are wrong (as they aren't using the "source itself"), but even if this is the case, you are still not accurately describing either research in physics or in consciousness.

Beyond that, a mystic can decide to gain factual knowledge of QM via scientific study

What scientific study have you undertaken?

It is science which needs to be evaluated in terms of reality.

The sciences, however, do this via empirical methods, through observations, theories, mathematical models, statistical and probablility theories, technology specifically developed to make observations/measurements that are impossible for human sensory systems to make, through computational technology (hardware and software) that allow mathematical methods which are impossible for humans to carry out.

Either you believe there is merit to this enterprise, in which case it matters whether your descriptions of research and theories are accurate, or you don't.

Does it not occur odd to you that mysticism can encompass science, while science cannot encompass mysticism?

Not at all. Because Muslims, Christians, and members of various other religions views make the same claims. We have creationists who understand evolution better than scientists. I have a number of pamphlets on passages in the quran which, according to the authors of the pamphlets, demonstrate that Islam has understood for centuries what modern science is just now beginnning to grasp.

There is at least one thing that every pamphlet, website, person, blog, etc., saying such things have in common: they don't bother with whether or not the ways in which their beliefs "encompass science" has anything to do with the sciences.

It is very easy to encompass all of science when you can define what science is and tell scientists that they don't understand their fields. "It's turtles all the way down."

BTW, I should point out that religious believers have a difficult time incorporating science

I responded to a post not more than a few hours ago about a religious belief that incorporated science. Have you missed the numerous threads on proofs of some particular religion's God? They are not hard to find.

The mystical experience is beyond belief-based systems. It is experiential, not conceptual, as science and religion both are.

I think you will find that your description of religion as not being "experiential" is offensive to literally billions of people who experience their religion and renew their faith through rituals, prayers, contemplation/meditation, etc. Additionally, the only reason the word mysticism (the word itself) exists is because of Christian mystical theology.

The primary issue mystics have with science is that scientists think somehow that the accumulation of factual knowledge and its analysis will lead them to the understanding of reality, when they are really trying to 'understand' the universe in mechanistic terms.

I am the one with the egotistical issues, but you have no problem speaking for all mystics, characterizing all religions, describing all of science and scientists, and all in terms of how they are wrong?