Demystifying Quantum Physics

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Once again, Legion, you demonstate, cloaked in intellectual 'authority',

Right. This "authority" you speak of is at least testable. You can compare my statements with research, that research with other research, and the entirety of intellectual authority can be investigated.

You, however, side-step the issue needing to have any idea what you are talking about by god-like claims:

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.

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.

This is an argument from authority. You point to no evidence, and you are able with your god-like understanding of "reality" to say whatever you wish because you unique access to "the source itself" means that you can say scientists don't understand science, but you do. You don't have to demonstrate it, and you can laugh at demonstrations others give. But in the end, you have your translated texts and youtube videos to misunderstand both QM and how completely entrenched in cultural appropriation and Western colonialism your "source itself" is.

"The mystic", in my experience, doesn't make god-like claims. Just you.

 

[Straw Dog]

So are there any more suggestions as to what the underlying principle to the existence of the universe might possibly be?

Mystery?

 

[godnotgod]

Mystery?

Which is a position of honesty and humilty; another way of saying: "I don't know", and it is this "don't-know" mind which is the beginning of wisdom.

 

[Straw Dog]

Which is a position of honesty and humilty; another way of saying: "I don't know", and it is this "don't-know" mind which is the beginning of wisdom.

But then what is your beef with QM?

 

[godnotgod]

Right. This "authority" you speak of is at least testable. You can compare my statements with research, that research with other research, and the entirety of intellectual authority can be investigated.

You, however, side-step the issue needing to have any idea what you are talking about by god-like claims:

How would you know what is 'god-like'?

I never said science is wrong about its facts, though it has admittedly been wrong many times, as it IS a testable system. I am saying that it does not and cannot, due to the very nature of its own methodology, understand the significance of those very facts. For that, a different kind of view is required, one that is unconditioned.

Yet even when scientific 'authority' is queried, it cannot agree with itself. There are many inherent contradictory ideas and conclusions.

Pursuing a path other than 'Holy Science' is not to side-step the issue; that is only your prejudicial attitude to anyone employing a path other than the one your mind is currently conditioned and enslaved by, so thorough is your indoctrination. You are like the prisoners in Plato's Cave, who refuse to acknowledge any view other than the one dictated to them by the hypnotic cave wall shadows.

This is an argument from authority.

Wrong! It is an argument from the experience of an Authority that is not the product of any system of thought, and from the observation that mystics can corroborate the results of their experiences from different locales and times around the world, without having ever met one another. Mystics don't merely parrot the utterances of other mystics in order to appear authoritative. That is what you think all mystics are about, don't you? You think your science is more authoritative and accurate because it convinces you it is logical and rational, thereby providing thumb-sucking comfort to your brain. If you really felt a sense of genuine certainty, you would cease to cling to it as a child does his security blanket.

You point to no evidence,

You've not been paying attention again, Legion: what part about 'mysticism provides no verifiable evidence for its claims', and, 'the mystical experience is beyond the rational miind' don't you understand?

and you are able with your god-like understanding of "reality" to say whatever you wish because you unique access to "the source itself" means that you can say scientists don't understand science, but you do.

That's not what I said, but scientists don't understand their own science, and they will be the first to admit it. All they can tell you is that when ball A strikes ball B, C is the result. They haven't a clue as to why. The mystic, on the other hand, will tell you that no ball exists that strikes any other ball, and that such activity is all in the mind. If you think I am just foaming at the mouth, Legion, you have an open invitation to go see for yourself, but as you indicated with QiGong, you gave up due to frustration. QiGong can be a pathway to higher consciousness. Wikipedia states:

'From a philosophical perspective qigong is believed to help develop human potential, allow access to higher realms of awareness, and awaken one's "true nature".'

When you embark upon this path, bear in mind that this 'Master Game' is the most difficult of all life-games to play, and intellectual knowledge can become a real obstacle to attainment, as evinced by the Phd's reduced to uncontrollable sobbing on their Zen meditation mats. This is how powerful the mystical pathway can be. It short-circuits every attempt at intellectual 'understanding' and objectification of reality your brain can come up with, until, at last, the mind-construct completely collapses, leaving only seeing itself. So if and when your time comes to return to QiGong, (your inner Authority that is the true Source will let you know) you will experience first-hand that you will not use it to 'just say what you wish'. Your statement that I do so is saying that I am speaking from an egoic position. If that is the case, Legion, then please do challenge point for point the content of my position.

You don't have to demonstrate it,

There is no requirement for such demonstration as there is nothing to demonstrate nor prove nor figure out. But you can prove it to yourself beyond any doubt via your own experience. The Buddha made this clear by stating that all things have intrinsic buddha-nature.

and you can laugh at demonstrations others give.

Maybe because how they are attempting to demonstrate it is laughable, if slamming one's head repeatedly into wall can somehow be seen as laughable?:banghead3:biglaugh:

But in the end, you have your translated texts and youtube videos to misunderstand both QM and how completely entrenched in cultural appropriation and Western colonialism your "source itself" is.

Uh...excuse me...Amit Goswami and Deepak Chopra both come from Eastern cultures.

You are still thinking 'East and West'. There is no such thing in reality. There is only one world, and QM is to be found everywhere within that world.

"The mystic", in my experience, doesn't make god-like claims. Just you.

If 'seeing things as they are' is a god-like claim, then 'yes'. But then, that is what the mystic claims. In fact, Legion, the realized mystic claims divine union with the Source itself. Or did you not understand that about the mystic? This should give you a precious clue, Legion, that the Ordinary and the Miraculous are one and the same. Do more QiGong, and you may just see that, via of Higher Consciousness, to which the breath is the pathway.

Yes, it is true: 'Tas tvam asi'

Simplicity, Legion.....simplicity.

 

[YmirGF]

But then what is your beef with QM?

My guess is because "the mystic" is skinny-dipping in "the source", he/she/it knows Reality: As it is; whereas that QM stuff is just a theory and too darned complicated and is not representative of the Reality encountered by our illustrious spiritual skinny-dipper(s). :drool: Who knew?

 

[godnotgod]

But then what is your beef with QM?

I have no beef with QM.

This thread makes the claim that it will 'demystify' QM. So far, no cigar.

 

[Straw Dog]

My guess is because "the mystic" is skinny-dipping in "the source", he/she/it knows Reality: As it is; whereas that QM stuff is just a theory and too darned complicated and is not representative of the Reality encountered by our illustrious spiritual skinny-dipper(s). :drool: Who knew?

Skinny-dipping is still fun and simple even if we recognize the complexity involved.

 

[Straw Dog]

I have no beef with QM.

This thread makes the claim that it will 'demystify' QM. So far, no cigar.

What do you mean by "mystify"?

 

[godnotgod]

My guess is because "the mystic" is skinny-dipping in "the source", he/she/it knows Reality: As it is; whereas that QM stuff is just a theory and too darned complicated and is not representative of the Reality encountered by our illustrious spiritual skinny-dipper(s). :drool: Who knew?

The resident 'skinny-dipper' informs me, contrary to your superficially-derived 'skinny-dipped' claim, that he absolutely does NOT see QM as 'just a theory', but that it is a very real manifestation of the universe. It is science itself which finds this discovery incredulous, as it has overturned its own classical system of analysis.

So you have not yet been able to 'see things as they are'? That leaves only one other possibility for you, which serve to explain your comments above.

Are you and Legion having a contest between you to see who can pay less attention and distort what I say?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I have no beef with QM.

This thread makes the claim that it will 'demystify' QM. So far, no cigar.

Speak for yourself. Several people gave me frubals because my OP and posts in this thread helped clarify some things for them about QM. That is the modest goal of this thread. Pass the cigars. :cigar:

 

[Straw Dog]

From a physicalist-mystic perspective, it does make some sense that there is singularity-presence, but there is also nature-in-diversity. I don't see the point in grasping at either. Not one, not many.

 

[godnotgod]

What do you mean by "mystify"?

You should not be asking that of me, but should refer instead to the OT, in which you will see a definite objection to the position of one Deepak Chopra, as Sprinkle's own pet peeve.

I can only assume Sprinkles is attempting some scientific clarification of QM, in contrast to the mystic's view, which he sees as a deliberate distortion of the issue, on top of the fact that he and Legion both see people like Chopra and Goswami as charlatan-like affronts to what they think is their bona-fide scientific authority.

I am deliberately challenging such claims to exclusive knowledge about QM, under the color of scientific 'authority'. As far as I am concerned, they are just nibbling around the edges.

 

[godnotgod]

Speak for yourself. Several people gave me frubals because my OP and posts in this thread helped clarify some things for them about QM. That is the modest goal of this thread. Pass the cigars. :cigar:

While you may indeed have clarified some facts about QM via scientific knowledge, you have in no way demystified anything. Not sure if you can fathom that all-important difference, but in referring to Chopra specifically, what is it he says that you see as 'mystifying' in the first place? Perhaps your own ignorance about the true nature of Reality appears 'mystifying' and 'paradoxical' to you, while science appears to provide nice, neat, concrete, predictable 'answers' for a nice, neat, concrete, and thoroughly predictable and conditioned conceptual mind?

Oooops! Sprinkles jumped the gun in passing those fake cigars, folks. Sorry. No cigar[ yet.. :slap:

Next!

 

[Straw Dog]

I imagine that there are hundreds of thousands of folks trying to figure out QM. I don't understand why we would be fixating on just a few individual theories and/or speculations.

I've read some of Deepak Chopra's fiction. Not bad. You're telling me that he's also an expert on QM? We can't all be experts on everything.

 

[godnotgod]

Skinny-dipping is still fun and simple even if we recognize the complexity involved.

Good point. My objection is that those who don the facade of authority use complexity as a weapon against the skinny-dippers as a means of intellectual one-upsmanship. They think we aren't hip to their trix. :tribal:

 

[godnotgod]

I imagine that there are hundreds of thousands of folks trying to figure out QM. I don't understand why we would be fixating on just a few individual theories and/or speculations.

I've read some of Deepak Chopra's fiction. Not bad. You're telling me that he's also an expert on QM? We can't all be experts on everything.

If you understand the phenomenon of QM as just a feature of how the universe is manifesting, and you have an understanding of the nature of the universe itself, then you understand QM in context. That does not mean you understand all the scientific knowledge about QM. But the factual knowledge about QM can then ONLY be understood properly within the context of the greater understanding of the true nature of Reality itself.

The scientific approach can lead to a point in which it is realized that this path can no longer serve the specified goal, as physicist Michio Kaku admits when he exhausts his mathematics as applied to Black Holes in saying: 'Nature is smarter than we are'. The fool in his folly can indeed become wise.

 

[zaybu]

The scientific approach can lead to a point in which it is realized that this path can no longer serve the specified goal, as physicist Michio Kaku admits when he exhausts his mathematics as applied to Black Holes in saying: 'Nature is smarter than we are'. The fool in his folly can indeed become wise.

Michio Kaku would be the last physicist I would listen to. His take on QM goes way beyond what QM actually claims, and so does Sprinkles by the way. There is no spooky action at a distance (Sprinkles), and physics is not about to collapse (Kaku). Unfortunately those misconceptions have taken a life of their own through the internet. I'm afraid the disease is unstoppable.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

While you may indeed have clarified some facts about QM via scientific knowledge, you have in no way demystified anything. Not sure if you can fathom that all-important difference, but in referring to Chopra specifically, what is it he says that you see as 'mystifying' in the first place?

For example, as I said in the OP: "Deepak Chopra would like to say that quantum physics is about "fields of possibility", and therefore maybe anything is possible, and therefore you should buy his books so you can realize any possibility you want. The truth is that some things are far, far less possible than others. Just ask a baseball."

 

[YmirGF]

For example, as I said in the OP: "Deepak Chopra would like to say that quantum physics is about "fields of possibility", and therefore maybe anything is possible, and therefore you should buy his books so you can realize any possibility you want. The truth is that some things are far, far less possible than others. Just ask a baseball."

Just because something is possible does not mean that it is especially probable.