Demystifying Quantum Physics

[godnotgod]

More accurately, godnotgod, you think you know. Let's just be honest.

It amazes me how wallowing in doubt and uncertainty seems to be the most secure place for many people, especially in the West. I believe it is the idea of 'two sides to every story' that we inherited from the Greeks, but the idea as I understand it was that, at some point, there was resolution when one debater convinced the other of the correctness of his view, so that there was agreement. But we seem to have developed this idea that the goal is not to achieve resolution, but to remain in controversy as the ideal. Doubt and uncertainty are good things, however. But in the end, they are what leads to certainty. You seem to present a scenario of the human mind where everyone is deluded and no one can be certain of anything. That simply is not so. It only seems so to the thinking mind. There is a point at which awakening and enlightenment can be realized, but the thinking mind cannot see this. As for Osho and Chopra, there are certain things they have stated of which I have no doubt. These things are settled in my mind. Then there are others which I am still working on.

Frankly, I wouldn't brag about that. I think I'd rather be tarred, feathered and dragged through the county square to the tunes of ABBA, than claim any commonality with those two - but that's just me.

Not so, friend. I doubt they truly understand what they are alleging to. It does sell well though as this pablum resonates with some folks, for some reason.

As for Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh Ver 2.0, I live about 400 miles from his settlement in the state of Oregon. I remember the whole sordid affair VERY clearly way back in the early 80's.

<Source>

Frankly, with a track record like his, I am uninterested in anything he may have said or written. I refuse to accept that a so-called enlightened being could possibly be so naive as to be taken in by his closest followers. Evidently they were extolling his real message, as they understood it.

Frankly, I don't have the time to waste on Chopra.

As I understand it, Osho's secreteary, Sheela, was the culprit in all of criminal activity. Osho even went to the police voluntarily when he realized what she was doing.

You paint a picture of him returning to Poona and then dying in some wretched state right after that. That is not true. He returned to his ashram, which expanded during the next five years, from 1985 to 1990, when he died.

You really haven't said anything significant about what you find distasteful about their teachings; only that you don't like them personally, which doesn't say much at all, or you don't like the fact that Chopra is a rich man as a result of his writings, lectures, etc., as if he didn't earn any of it in a legitimate manner. I say he's earned his way through hard work. Why is it that Americans who push the so-called 'American Dream', cut you down if you haven't made it, and cut you down when you do?

 

[godnotgod]

quoted by godnotgod:
Firstly, this Meera Nanda character you reference. What the @#*X#@ does SHE know about the mystical experience?

A lot more than you. But that's not saying much.

Oh? And what would those things be, Legion? I think this is just plain silliness! How the @$#&@# would YOU know anything at all about it, never having practiced it, having given up on QiGong, and only 'understanding' it through sterile armchair academia? You seem to think that the description of reality comes ahead of reality itself!

 

[godnotgod]

You do not hesitate to point out how inferior science is to what you consider to be mysticism, how inferior any form of knowledge is compared to you understanding of mysticism, what science is and what scientists think, all the while from the omniscience of truth gleened from the "source itself".

I have never stated that science is inferior. All I have said, is that if the goal of science is to gain an understanding of the universe and of reality, it will never achieve it, and that is because of its methodology, which is fine for gaining factual knowledge, making predictions, etc. Mystics have already settled the question as to the nature of Reality long ago. Science is still busy nibbling around the edges, but the more factual knowledge it comes up with, the further away it gets from settling the question. It keeps trying to figure out something where there is nothing to figure out. It's just a dog chasing it's own tail.

Were is not for the source, science would not exist.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Oh? And what would those things be, Legion? I think this is just plain silliness! How the @$#&@# would YOU know anything at all about it, never having practiced it, having given up on QiGong

What would I know about the mystical experience? Enough to recognize the difference between mystics and messiahs. The latter don't need to study or learn because whenever they are wrong they can simply use their divine knowedge to mask ignorance. The former not only take mysticism seriously but also recognize that it is not a replacement for any and all knowledge. It's not an excuse for ignorance. I may have given up training, but my instructor grew up practicing, and I never heard him speak with the arrogance you do. I've spent a lot of time around Wiccans and neopagans, some who call themselves mystics, but like my instructor they recognize that studying is necessary and that they do not have all the answers.

Well, most of them. In every approach to knowledge you find frauds, fakes and "fluffy bunnies". Academia, religion, new age spiritualities, etc. A "mystic" who claims to know about all things Eastern but is ignorant of the basics and understands quantum physics because they read some websites and watched some video clips...well let's just say that while I might not agree with a lot of what Dr. Yang teaches about qi, at least he's studied physics, has a PhD in Engineering from Purdue, thinks that Western science is an important source for knowledge (but one that is made better by understanding traditional Chinese science/medicine), and who believes that there is no substitute for study.

One can no more learn about physics or Yeshu without studying than one can learn the mystical experience without practice (and even then, it is not a quick and easy route, I'm told). So when I come across The One who claims to know all of religion and science and mocks academic knowledge, I don't have my own experience with mystic knowledge to compare, but I do have the experience with those who do. This doesn't give me inside knowledge of that experience, but it is enough for me to recognize you as...atypical. This is not the place to address all the different areas of study you've claimed to know about, but your knowledge of physics is enough. Even Chopak and Goswami spent years in schools studying science. You just use the "source itself" (which apparently is usually Wikipedia, but perhaps is the internet itself).

and only 'understanding' it through sterile armchair academia? You seem to think that the description of reality comes ahead of reality itself!

No. I just think studying and practicing is necessary for all paths. And that even mysticism has its share of would-be messiahs.

 

[George-ananda]

Frankly, I don't have the time to waste on Chopra.

At this point, I think all you REALLY want to hear is bad things and criticisms of him.

I personally believe the teachings of Hindu gurus that have embraced westerners (such as Pramahansa Yogananda, etc.). You may be rolling your eyes that I am just another non-intellectual, non-scientist who's swallowing the sweet fluff-balls passing as wisdom.

What is the error in their basic teachings? They all are basically on the same page which I feel for many reasons is the right page (that the Universe is best understood as One great consciousness). Again, I'm asking 'in general' (please I'm not concerned with the alleged dirt and criticisms you can find on individuals).

 

[jmn]

The nonsensical kind that some people delude themselves into thinking exists because they lack the knowledge and/or ability to discern fantasy from reality. That kind.

Yeah i would say Chopra is pathological with his views and ideas. Unfortunately, he is not alone.

 

[YmirGF]

At this point, I think all you REALLY want to hear is bad things and criticisms of him.

I personally believe the teachings of Hindu gurus that have embraced westerners (such as Pramahansa Yogananda, etc.). You may be rolling your eyes that I am just another non-intellectual, non-scientist who's swallowing the sweet fluff-balls passing as wisdom.

What is the error in their basic teachings? They all are basically on the same page which I feel for many reasons is the right page (that the Universe is best understood as One great consciousness). Again, I'm asking 'in general' (please I'm not concerned with the alleged dirt and criticisms you can find on individuals).

To be fair, I consider Pramahansa Yogananda and Meher Baba to be two giants among Hindu mystics. I don't consider Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh Ver. 2.0 or Deepak Chopra to be in the same league. It's like preferring the sound of crickets next to Mozart and Beethoven. That said, as Chopra so adequately demonstrates, even the most insignificant functionary can sound wise and all-knowing by merely parroting the words and ideas of others.

 

[Ouroboros]

"A good way of thinking about such apparent instantaneous “spooky action at a distance” (as Einstein put it) is to realize that the entangled state must have been prepared locally by having let the two subsystems interact at some point in the past. When these two subsystems are then separated from each other, the quantum state is simply “spread out” (i.e., delocalized) over a larger spatial region." p. 31

I haven't read all the dialogue in the thread, so this might be a question that's been raised already and answered. My apologies if that's the case.

My question is that if all subsystems were part of one point (super-hot state before big bang), is it possible that all (or many) particles (quarks?) are entangled throughout the universe right now? Basically, the question is, could it be that all, most, or at least some of the matter in the universe is acting "spookely" (just invented that word) right now?

Just curios about your thoughts.

 

[godnotgod]

To be fair, I consider Pramahansa Yogananda and Meher Baba to be two giants among Hindu mystics. I don't consider Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh Ver. 2.0 or Deepak Chopra to be in the same league. It's like preferring the sound of crickets next to Mozart and Beethoven. That said, as Chopra so adequately demonstrates, even the most insignificant functionary can sound wise and all-knowing by merely parroting the words and ideas of others.

If you really knew what you were saying, you would realize that Yogananda and Baba could not have become what they are without listening to the soft chirping of crickets; to the softspoken voice within. Mozart and Beethoven could not have become what they are without first paying attention to subtle sounds and nuances. In Taoism, it is the soft that overcomes the hard; in Zen, the Miraculous is found within the Ordinary. Someone may seem insignificant on the surface, but that can be deceiving, especially if your attention is easily captured by someone seemingly more imposing.

You want to set up comparisons, but that is meaningless in the spiritual world. The Buddha told us that Ordinary Mind is none other than Buddha Mind. An enlightened individual would not see himself as greater than an 'unenlightened' person, simply because his own realization tells him that everyone is already enlightened.

"When an ordinary man gains wisdom, he becomes a sage; when a sage gains understanding, he becomes an ordinary man"

re: Chopra: you have still failed to tell exactly what it is you find objectionable about his content, not his presentation. Is it possible for you to see past his personage, and get to the meat of the matter?

Both Chopra and Osho meditated for years, and also taught/teach meditation. Meditation is practice itself. Many of the things they utter in discussion cannot be known without this practice, which creates a deeper insight than that of the ordinary, conditioned view. That is why, throughout history, when mystics speak, what they say can sound shocking or untrue. Much of this insight reveals things that are exactly contrary to the norm. Statements that seem shocking especially appear in Zen:

"If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him"

 

[godnotgod]

I haven't read all the dialogue in the thread, so this might be a question that's been raised already and answered. My apologies if that's the case.

My question is that if all subsystems were part of one point (super-hot state before big bang), is it possible that all (or many) particles (quarks?) are entangled throughout the universe right now? Basically, the question is, could it be that all, most, or at least some of the matter in the universe is acting "spookely" (just invented that word) right now?

Just curios about your thoughts.

Sorry to interject here, but it is interesting you ask that question, because that is exactly what some mystics are proposing.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Gentlemen,

If we could please bring the discussion back towards the topic of quantum mechanics, it would help keep this discussion focused and constructive.

Thanks.

 

[godnotgod]

Yeah i would say Chopra is pathological with his views and ideas. Unfortunately, he is not alone.

I agree. He could go postal at any moment. Haven't you noticed the corners of his mouth?

 

[godnotgod]

Gentlemen,

If we could please bring the discussion back towards the topic of quantum mechanics, it would help keep this discussion focused and constructive.

Thanks.

We have never left it.

Are you sure QM needs 'demystifying'? To a scientist, it may seem mysterious, but then a scientist is using a conditioned mind to approach it. From the discussion amongst the scientifically oriented here, I don't see any progress in such 'demystification'; all I see so far has been controversy and conflict. Now, when I listen to Chopra or Goswami, everything is smooth and beautiful, AND their statements are in general agreement with each other without their having to consult with each other. That is an indication that their source is the same source, and that they each are seeing it clearly, ie; without a personal view in the way to distort what they see.

"The saltiness of the sea is the same everywhere"

 

[Ouroboros]

Sorry to interject here, but it is interesting you ask that question, because that is exactly what some mystics are proposing.

Don't feel sorry for interjecting. You make some interesting contributions.

Considering that some scientists suggest that our world is a huge hologram (don't ask me to argue for it or explain it, it's above my pay grade), it could be related to this idea. Everything is connected. Everything is one. (Didn't you and I discuss that some time ago?)

 

[Ouroboros]

Gentlemen,

If we could please bring the discussion back towards the topic of quantum mechanics, it would help keep this discussion focused and constructive.

Thanks.

Sorry. I though the spooky action or entanglement and what that could lead to was interesting. Perhaps it should be in a different thread.

 

[godnotgod]

What would I know about the mystical experience? Enough to recognize the difference between mystics and messiahs. The latter don't need to study or learn because whenever they are wrong they can simply use their divine knowedge to mask ignorance.

Well, Legion, if one were in possession of 'divine knowledge', there would be no ignorance to mask, nor any desire to do so, would there?

The former not only take mysticism seriously but also recognize that it is not a replacement for any and all knowledge. It's not an excuse for ignorance.

But what good is your learning and knowledge without understanding? You can have all the knowledge in the world, and still remain ignorant. Ignorance is darkness. Where there is light, there is no darkness. Only the enlightened mind can see learning and knowledge in the correct context. Otherwise, the cart remains ahead of the horse. I am not saying that knowledge is useless, but it cannot get you understanding. Too much of it can lead you away from understanding. Mystical insight cuts to the heart of the matter.

I may have given up training, but my instructor grew up practicing, and I never heard him speak with the arrogance you do. I've spent a lot of time around Wiccans and neopagans, some who call themselves mystics, but like my instructor they recognize that studying is necessary and that they do not have all the answers.

Did I ever make that claim?

Well, most of them. In every approach to knowledge you find frauds, fakes and "fluffy bunnies". Academia, religion, new age spiritualities, etc. A "mystic" who claims to know about all things Eastern but is ignorant of the basics and understands quantum physics because they read some websites and watched some video clips...well let's just say that while I might not agree with a lot of what Dr. Yang teaches about qi, at least he's studied physics, has a PhD in Engineering from Purdue, thinks that Western science is an important source for knowledge (but one that is made better by understanding traditional Chinese science/medicine), and who believes that there is no substitute for study.

But study is useless without first having corrected one's vision, which can only come via spiritual practice. I'd be willing to bet that your instructor's first priority is practice. Study with incorrect vision leads to incorrect ideas.

One can no more learn about physics or Yeshu without studying than one can learn the mystical experience without practice (and even then, it is not a quick and easy route, I'm told). So when I come across The One who claims to know all of religion and science...

I have never made the claims of being 'The One', nor of knowing all of religion and science.

You can learn all you can about physics and Yeshu, but will still know nothing. As Watts tells us: "The dead man speaks and gives us all the facts but tells us nothing"

...and mocks academic knowledge...

Such knowledge is dead without understanding.

Even Chopak and Goswami spent years in schools studying science.

In both cases, they were brought up in spiritually oriented households which practiced meditation. In Goswami's case, he could find no fulfillment in physics alone. He had to put it into the context of spirituality. Once he did that, everything fell into place. I suspect that in Chopra's case, as he practiced spirituality all his life, it spurred him on to become a doctor out of compassion for the suffering of others, generated by his spiritual insights into the human condition. That is pretty universal in the spiritual world, and exactly why the Buddha was who he was.

 

[George-ananda]

To be fair, I consider Pramahansa Yogananda and Meher Baba to be two giants among Hindu mystics. I don't consider Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh Ver. 2.0 or Deepak Chopra to be in the same league. It's like preferring the sound of crickets next to Mozart and Beethoven. That said, as Chopra so adequately demonstrates, even the most insignificant functionary can sound wise and all-knowing by merely parroting the words and ideas of others.

My point was all these names mentioned above and many more are all on the same basic Vedic/Hindu paradigm which is fundamentally different than the western atheist-physicalist paradigm.

Where one stands on these two competing paradigms seem to get to the real heart/crux of so many of the debates here on RF. And opinions about the notable names in the field usually follow the poster's paradigm allegiance.

To me, in the big picture, it isn't very important to me who likes/dislikes the different personalities supporting their respective paradigms. Meher Baba, Pramahansa Yogananda, Chopra, Goswami are all basically saying the same things. People can choose the one that resonates best with them.

 

[YmirGF]

To me, in the big picture, it isn't very important to me who likes/dislikes the different personalities supporting their respective paradigms. Meher Baba, Pramahansa Yogananda, Chopra, Goswami are all basically saying the same things. People can choose the one that resonates best with them.

Parrots can be trained to speak, authenticity is another animal altogether.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I haven't read all the dialogue in the thread, so this might be a question that's been raised already and answered. My apologies if that's the case.

My question is that if all subsystems were part of one point (super-hot state before big bang), is it possible that all (or many) particles (quarks?) are entangled throughout the universe right now? Basically, the question is, could it be that all, most, or at least some of the matter in the universe is acting "spookely" (just invented that word) right now?

Just curios about your thoughts.

Is it possible that all the interactions between "quanta" subsume or consist of all of that which is? Yes. And are there physicists like Brian Cox who write about the philosophical implications of this, or at least delve into metaphor rather than formalism? Yes. Nor is Cox alone. The Nonlocal Universe and many other texts intended for the general reader either put forth highly controversial interpretations, or define certain things using common parlance to make the claims sound more extravagant than they are. In the end, whatever connections exist (or do not) between all matter are not usually the same as the kind of connections usually described in more esoteric sources.

 

[godnotgod]

Parrots can be trained to speak, authenticity is another animal altogether.

Who are you calling a parrot, and why, YmirGF? If you are referring to Chopra and Goswami, they don't need anyone putting words in their mouths. They speak very well for themselves.