• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Demystifying Quantum Physics

godnotgod

godnotgod

Thou art That
Penumbra said:
QM is a scientifically constructed framework to explain aspects of the universe.
Click to expand...

IOW, it's already reality itself. We have been living in a Quantum universe all along, but just were unaware of it via the rational mind.

Some people like Mlodinow study it directly while others like Chopra do not study it in a rigorous context, and instead twist words together to sell books about concepts they have superficial understandings of.
Click to expand...

Actually, Mlodinow studies QM as object indirectly, through mathematics and experimentation. Chopra sees/experiences it directly, through the meditative process. Meditation is extremely rigorous and demanding of highly focused conscious attention.

You're making the part up about twisting things to sell books.
 
Last edited:
idav

idav

Being
Premium Member
godnotgod said:
"This notion that consciousness is in some way intrinsic to the universe is comparable to purely subjective views on consciousness going back thousands of years in India. In Vedanta, consciousness is everything, and manifests, or creates reality. In this view... consciousness is both subject and object, both quantum and classical. Consciousness is all there is... Penrose OR (and Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR) maintains the classical world exists on its own. Consciousness is a process on the edge between the quantum and classical worlds, the process consisting of discrete, quantized ripples in the finescale structure of the universe, transitions between subject and object."
Deepak Chopra

https://www.deepakchopra.com/blog/v..._quantum_world_and_fine_scale_of_the_universe
Click to expand...
Consciousness is a result of existing not the other way around. Of course the micro effects the macro but not very easily.
 
PolyHedral

PolyHedral

Superabacus Mystic
godnotgod said:
Chopra sees/experiences it directly, through the meditative process. Meditation is extremely rigorous and demanding of highly focused conscious attention.
Click to expand...
I was unaware that Chopra had the knowledge required to deal with infinite-dimensional spaces of functions over the complex numbers.
 
Kilgore Trout

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
PolyHedral said:
I was unaware that Chopra had the knowledge required to deal with infinite-dimensional spaces of functions over the complex numbers.
Click to expand...

Pfft, that's nothing. He can simultaneously pull steaming piles of horsecrap out of both his mouth and his butt - while standing on his head and intellectually butchering every field of science in the same paragraph.

He's got mad skillz.
 
godnotgod

godnotgod

Thou art That
Deepak Chopra states that the problem with science is that it separates the observer from the observed, the observer being inseparable from the universe itself. From the point of view of science, this is necessary in order to eliminate personal bias, but from the point of view of Higher Consciousness, that is only true when the personal consciousness involved is that of Identification. Where the consciousness is universal and impersonal, it is devoid of any bias, and that is the kind of consciousness Higher Consciousness is referring to. It is the consciousness of the universe itself, and so:

"You are the universe looking at itself through your eyes"
 
godnotgod

godnotgod

Thou art That
PolyHedral said:
I was unaware that Chopra had the knowledge required to deal with infinite-dimensional spaces of functions over the complex numbers.
Click to expand...

He probably does'nt.

Meditation leads to the experience of seeing, without thought, without conceptualization or calculation, into the nature of Reality, which includes what QM indicates, but not necessarily the specialized knowledge about QM.

Specialized knowledge arrived at via thought is unnecessary in order to determine the nature of Reality. In fact, specialized knowledge cannot tell us that.
 
godnotgod

godnotgod

Thou art That
Kilgore Trout said:
Yeah, he says all kinds of loony crap.
Click to expand...


Much of science began with loony crap. Chopra's loony crap predates science by some 4000 years. What he's saying is nothing new.

People are just beginning to scratch the surface of the loony crap of QM. Even QM scientists don't understand it, but they can't themselves call it loony crap as they would be in denial of their own findings. Classical scientists do see it as loony crap. Even Einstein did.

I suppose Chopra must, in the eyes of his detractors, earn his way from charlatan to maverick and then on to pioneer.
 
godnotgod

godnotgod

Thou art That
Kilgore Trout said:
He could start with displaying even a rudimentary understanding of anything even remotely connected to reality.
Click to expand...

There is ordinary everyday 'knock on wood' reality, which comes and goes and is forever changing; then there is the Reality behind the facade of ordinary reality, which has no coming or going, no birth or death, and is unchanging. Which do you mean?
 
Mr Spinkles

Mr Spinkles

Mr
godnotgod said:
"This notion that consciousness is in some way intrinsic to the universe is comparable to purely subjective views on consciousness going back thousands of years in India. In Vedanta, consciousness is everything, and manifests, or creates reality. In this view... consciousness is both subject and object, both quantum and classical. Consciousness is all there is... Penrose OR (and Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR) maintains the classical world exists on its own. Consciousness is a process on the edge between the quantum and classical worlds, the process consisting of discrete, quantized ripples in the finescale structure of the universe, transitions between subject and object."
Deepak Chopra
Click to expand...
For what it's worth, I have no idea what this means. Chopra seems to have a chronic problem of talking about physics in such a way that many physicists (e.g. his suppose friend, Mlodinow--I think Mlodinow is just being polite, personally) aren't sure that he isn't just talking nonsense. It's very vague, and I suspect Chopra himself doesn't really know what he means--"the Emperor has no clothes" so to speak. This is understandable. It's very common in a difficult field such as physics to have this feeling that you are making sense. But when you test this feeling by trying to communicate your ideas to your colleagues, it turns out you aren't making any sense. Communicating ideas in a clear, specific way is a good way to filter out nonsense. The uninitiated may not realize how important such self-doubt is in physics.

A few paraphrased quotes I've heard repeated among physicists (I forget who the authors are):

"Ideas are the cheapest things in science."
"Don't believe everything you think."
"For every problem in science, someone, somewhere, will come up with a theory which explains it. And that theory will be wrong." (I love this one.)
"The worst thing a theory can be is vague, because then it's not even wrong. And a wrong theory tells us more than a vague one." (That is one reason why "wrong" theories like classical mechanics are still so useful.)

Contrast Chopra with the physicist he cited, Amit Goswami. In one video GNG posted, Goswami was very specific. He said that researchers in Mexico did an experiment. Without bothering with details, suffice it to say that after the experiment, measurements were compared to look for any (telepathic) influence of one human subject on another.

Now that's a theory I can sink my teeth into, so to speak. Either the measurements are correlated to each other beyond what is expected by random chance, or they are not. Call Goswami's theory what you will, but at least it isn't vague nonsense. (Personally I suspect it is wrong.) I have yet to see Chopra say anything about physics which rises to this level.

Here's Feynman on the scientific method, he starts talking about the problem of a "vague theory" at 5:00:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw
 
idav

idav

Being
Premium Member
godnotgod said:
OK. So tell me how the non-physical can emerge from the physical. This is the current hard question.
Click to expand...
Like a shadow exists because of an object that physically exists. That shadow isn't a thing it is a type of representation of something that actually exists. Non-physical is illusory. All forces and energies, matter etc have the same source and the source would be the originator, the thing that existed without having to name itself first. You can't think yourself into existence without first existing.
 
godnotgod

godnotgod

Thou art That
Mr Spinkles said:
For what it's worth, I have no idea what this means. Chopra seems to have a chronic problem of talking about physics in such a way that many physicists (e.g. his suppose friend, Mlodinow--I think Mlodinow is just being polite, personally) aren't sure that he isn't just talking nonsense. It's very vague, and I suspect Chopra himself doesn't really know what he means--"the Emperor has no clothes" so to speak. This is understandable. It's very common in a difficult field such as physics to have this feeling that you are making sense. But when you test this feeling by trying to communicate your ideas to your colleagues, it turns out you aren't making any sense. Communicating ideas in a clear, specific way is a good way to filter out nonsense. The uninitiated may not realize how important such self-doubt is in physics.

A few paraphrased quotes I've heard repeated among physicists (I forget who the authors are):

"Ideas are the cheapest things in science."
"Don't believe everything you think."
"For every problem in science, someone, somewhere, will come up with a theory which explains it. And that theory will be wrong." (I love this one.)
"The worst thing a theory can be is vague, because then it's not even wrong. And a wrong theory tells us more than a vague one." (That is one reason why "wrong" theories like classical mechanics are still so useful.)

Contrast Chopra with the physicist he cited, Amit Goswami. In one video GNG posted, Goswami was very specific. He said that researchers in Mexico did an experiment. Without bothering with details, suffice it to say that after the experiment, measurements were compared to look for any (telepathic) influence of one human subject on another.

Now that's a theory I can sink my teeth into, so to speak. Either the measurements are correlated to each other beyond what is expected by random chance, or they are not. Call Goswami's theory what you will, but at least it isn't vague nonsense. (Personally I suspect it is wrong.) I have yet to see Chopra say anything about physics which rises to this level.

Here's Feynman on the scientific method, he starts talking about the problem of a "vague theory" at 5:00:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw
Click to expand...

While Chopra is a medical doctor, he is not a scientist. His view is not from science, but from that of the mystic. He is interpreting what science says through the mystical view, which is direct experience with Reality. What that means is that, it is not Chopra's personal view, as that is transcended in the mystical view, which is a universal view. So what Chopra is telling us comes from the universe itself.

I tend to trust more what the universe tells us about itself rather than what a conceptual scientific model does. However, the scientific model can supply details which the mystical view cannot. That is why mystics have a healthy respect for science. In the mystic's mind, both the intuitive and the intellectual are necessary. The scientist deliberately ignores the intuitive, that is, except for some, like Einstein, Planck, and Goswami.
 
godnotgod

godnotgod

Thou art That
1. hippydippy

An adjective describing pseudo-hippie yuppie b*llsh*t practices. Usually refers to ingenuine hippie resembling or environmental efforts, such as using your 401k a year to buy a hybrid car and wear crocs. There are generally a lot of hippydippy organizations standing outside at concert lines or festivals that like to spam your e-mail address with useless petitions to sign and such. Mostly, the types to engage in hippydippy activities are rich people and teenagers who drive 35 miles to get to their local Earth Day festival where they will buy a hacky sack and tie dyed t-shirt, but eat a $5 piece of pizza instead of ordering from the vegan menu.
"Get your hippydippy crystals away from me, my chakras are just fine thanks."
"My friend is on this new hippydippy cleansing diet, you only eat hummus and granola.":facepalm:

Urban Dictionary: hippydippy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top