Demystifying Quantum Physics

[godnotgod]

Well, in our evolution, we are growing to be more mature. (I don't know what spiritual maturity is supposed to be). And most for that reason is technology which is allowing us to communicate from one part of the globe to another, almost instantaneously ( well, at the speed of light). Science and technology has been the driving force behind what is taking place.

I don't see how you can possibly say that, unless Science has its idealistic blinders on you so completely that you just cannot see the reality of the situation. In a nutshell, we live in the most technologically-advanced world ever, and simultaneously live in one which is at war with itself, is destroying the planet, is in deep economic trouble, is overpopulated where millions are either starving or on its brink, etc, etc, all due to ignorance and stupidity of our own spiritual natures, coupled with greed and the egoic desire for domination of one group over another. The pursuit of Science and Technolology are the driving forces behind much of the greed and stupidity, not S & T themselves. We use them in destructive ways due to to our own ignorance.

But there is always the danger that we will use this technology to destroy ourselves ( there was a real threat during the Cold War that lasted 40 years).

Are you kidding? We're doing it right now as we speak! Look up the current statistics on the voracious destruction of the rain forest, Earth's air conditioning system. As a scientist, that should interest you immensely. China, for one, is busily razing acres and acres of rain forest to plant and grow soybeans for its hungry millions, all with the aid of Science and Technology. Do you even have a clue as to what Monsanto Corp. is up to worldwide? It is a shining example of how Science and Technology are used for greed and destruction. This is truly an evil corporation, if ever there was one.

And therefore, we must always be vigilant.

Sure. Then you must have noticed the foxes in the henhouse lately?

But I believe you have constructed a strawman with spirituality. And this can be detrimental to science. Its method is already under attack in certain parts of the US - the fight for creationism to be taught in science class, the unrelentant fight against global warming, the restriction on stemcell research - all of those fights are in the name of antiquated religious beliefs, which has pitted science versus religion. When people like you and Chopra enter this arena, you are clouding the issue even more. It gives impetus to those who are intended to denigrate science.

I am sorry that you have misunderstood what I've said. I'm not knocking science and technology at all, and I do completely agree with your observations re: creationism and religion and how they distort the truth. But it seems clear to me that you've confused religion with spirituality. All I am saying to you is that spiritual maturity places science and technology in the proper context. Because they are out of context is precisely the reason we face the dangers from them you and I both mentioned.

Religions incorporate doctrines which groups of people latch onto as a means to some end, usually moral ends. Spirituality has no doctrine; it is its own end, a state of conscious awareness of what is, rather than how we see the world through conceptual overlays through factual knowledge. Science and Religion both create such conceptual overlays. Spiritual awareness allows us to be aware of them, to see things as they are, and to act accordingly. Without such awareness, our tendencies are to use Science and Religion in selfish and destructive ways, as the history of man is testament to. So you see, it's all about consciousness and how we view ourselves and the world. Science is a wonderful tool; we can use it selfishly or altruistically.

Chopra himself is a medical doctor. I doubt if he would in any way wish to denigrate science. All he is doing is putting QM into context so we can understand what it actually means. This goes for Amit Goswami as well. I think both would find creationism laughable, but dangerous, as I do.

 

[godnotgod]

Wicca was founded by a man. Gerald Gardner relied on Margaret Murray's now thoroughly discredited academic description of the European witch-trials to construct a practice he claimed to have been initiated in. However, as he never was, and Murray only provided a creation story for Wicca (not much in the way of tradition, practice, or belief), he borrowed from ceremonial magic and the occult (particularly from Crowley). Places like Japan and China have been some of the most patriarchal cultures the world has ever known, and as for India? Either you are a denialist or the word sati means nothing to you, not to mention the scores of problems females do and have faced. See e.g., "Violence Against Women: The Indian Perspective". And while you are at it, please explain the Marriage and Suicide patterns we get among young women who are basically given away by their families and kill themselves? Or just study some history before you make claims about the how feminine some of the most sexist places on the planet have been (and in some cases still are).

Correction: The West's orthodox religious doctrines are primarily patriarchal, as they are based largely on the Abrahamic religions; The East's mystical doctrines and teachings (not necessarily it's socio-political fabric) are primarily feminine-based. In general, the West tends to see the dualistic opposites as being in contradiction, while the East sees them in harmony (ie: Yin/Yang).

That Wicca was founded by a man has nothing to do with it's feminine, nature-based character. The reference to Yoga, Wicca, Zen, Taoism, etc., being feminine-based has to do with the feminine essence within both men and women. My many discussions with a local Wiccan woman tell me that it's teachings align very closely with those of Zen, Taoism, and other mystical teachings. The saltiness of the sea is the same everywhere.

 

[zaybu]

I don't see how you can possibly say that, unless Science has its idealistic blinders on you so completely that you just cannot see the reality of the situation. In a nutshell, we live in the most technologically-advanced world ever, and simultaneously live in one which is at war with itself, is destroying the planet, is in deep economic trouble, is overpopulated where millions are either starving or on its brink, etc, etc, all due to ignorance and stupidity of our own spiritual natures, coupled with greed and the egoic desire for domination of one group over another. The pursuit of Science and Technolology are the driving forces behind much of the greed and stupidity, not S & T themselves. We use them in destructive ways due to to our own ignorance.

You need to put that in historical perspective. Compared to 100 years ago, education was lacking for the vast majority of people as there were fewer universities, and their acces was restricted to the very rich. Poverty was rampant. The middle class hardly existed. There were more wars then than now. If we are more aware of those (war, poverty, ignorance) it is due to technology and communication( internet and phones). But not that we have more today than yester years.

Are you kidding? We're doing it right now as we speak! Look up the current statistics on the voracious destruction of the rain forest, Earth's air conditioning system. As a scientist, that should interest you immensely.

and why aren't we moving towards solution? In the US, one party has religion written all over its political agenda. And so we have political gridlock. That has nothing to do with science or technology, but backward religious fervor.

I am sorry that you have misunderstood what I've said. I'm not knocking science and technology at all, and I do completely agree with your observations re: creationism and religion and how they distort the truth. But it seems clear to me that you've confused religion with spirituality. All I am saying to you is that spiritual maturity places science and technology in the proper context. Because they are out of context is precisely the reason we face the dangers from them you and I both mentioned.

Religions incorporate doctrines which groups of people latch onto as a means to some end, usually moral ends. Spirituality has no doctrine; it is its own end, a state of conscious awareness of what is, rather than how we see the world through conceptual overlays through factual knowledge. Science and Religion both create such conceptual overlays. Spiritual awareness allows us to be aware of them, to see things as they are, and to act accordingly. Without such awareness, our tendencies are to use Science and Religion in selfish and destructive ways, as the history of man is testament to. So you see, it's all about consciousness and how we view ourselves and the world. Science is a wonderful tool; we can use it selfishly or altruistically.

Chopra himself is a medical doctor. I doubt if he would in any way wish to denigrate science. All he is doing is putting QM into context so we can understand what it actually means. This goes for Amit Goswami as well. I think both would find creationism laughable, but dangerous, as I do.

Religion is born out of spirituality, albeit with a more narrowed perspective. But nevertheless there is too much woo-woo in spirituality which is unappealing to me. And then there are too many opinions, some people claiming that you cannot truly achieve spiritual fulfillment if you're not a vegetarian, or you'll never find the path if you don't learn yoga, or any display of vanity--cosmetic surgery! hair mousse!—is a sign that inner peace is way out of your reach. Just about every month, there is a new trend. It has quickly devolved into a buffet-style approach, where everyone builds a different platter. It often turns inward, a kind of perpetual narcissism.

 

[godnotgod]

You need to put that in historical perspective. Compared to 100 years ago, education was lacking for the vast majority of people as there were fewer universities, and their acces was restricted to the very rich. Poverty was rampant. The middle class hardly existed. There were more wars then than now. If we are more aware of those (war, poverty, ignorance) it is due to technology and communication( internet and phones). But not that we have more today than yester years.

You're missing something crucial here: 100 years ago, we did not have the incrediblepotential for destruction we now have, but the destruction is not limited to warfare, but to the widespread use of S&T in the destruction of the environment. In other words, the potential for mass destruction today is far greater, as well as the actual environmental destruction currently going on. Do you realize that the Hopi and Navajo lands, air, and waters are now all poisoned, and Navajo laborers who worked in uranium mines in the 50's are sick and dying of radioactive poisoning? You must realize that warfare, starvation, overpopulation, environmental destruction, etc., are all inter-related.

and why aren't we moving towards solution? In the US, one party has religion written all over its political agenda. And so we have political gridlock. That has nothing to do with science or technology, but backward religious fervor.

...and it is largely the dominant religion that controls the ignorant way S&T are used.

Religion is born out of spirituality, albeit with a more narrowed perspective.

That is only how it appears. Religion is born out of ignorance of man's own spiritual nature. Spirituality has zilch to do with religion.

But nevertheless there is too much woo-woo in spirituality which is unappealing to me. And then there are too many opinions, some people claiming that you cannot truly achieve spiritual fulfillment if you're not a vegetarian, or you'll never find the path if you don't learn yoga, or any display of vanity--cosmetic surgery! hair mousse!—is a sign that inner peace is way out of your reach. Just about every month, there is a new trend. It has quickly devolved into a buffet-style approach, where everyone builds a different platter. It often turns inward, a kind of perpetual narcissism.

Right, these are just the trappings. Everyone has a spiritual nature. You must learn to look beyond the trappings, which are only in your mind. There are no real obstacles between you and your spiritual nature. Your spiritual nature is who you really are. It is your authentic self.

The problem is in seeing beyond the incessant noise and activity of the ego. That's where the work comes in.

 

[Skeptisch]

I suppose he could also just be a straight-up moron.

Chopra might be a straight up moron but he is also laughing all the way to the bank.

Some of us are still waiting for his spoon bending exhibition…
DEEPAK CHOPRA'S LAST MESSAGE- DID HE BITE THE DUST? | Sulekha Creative

 

[godnotgod]

Charlatans such as Chopra and Goswami should most likely be sent to the stockades with a note under their heads, saying something like:

"FOR UNLAWFUL QUANTUM WOO WOO"

How dare they rip off Holy Science and twist it to fit their abominable New Agey kind of dribble?

Here's one more charlatan for the record. Do not watch this video 'lest your ears be assaulted with more Quantum miasmic woo woo.

Enjoy, if you dare:

[youtube]O-kLKpQjllU[/youtube]
Michael Talbot. The Holographic Universe - YouTube

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Yes, he attracts them with the spiritual nourishment they hunger for, and which modern society, religion, science, technology, etc. do not and cannot provide.

He attracts them with easy answers and wishful thinking about immortality and "unexpected money". I wish the book-buying public sought out genuine spiritual nourishment instead.

IPU's are a fantasy, a mental concoction. They cannot be detected, but waves and particles are indeed detected, though they cannot be measured.

Analogy fails miserably.

Next!

Horses, like waves, can be detected. But invisible pink horses with one horn are analogous to waves with well-defined position and momentum: a fantasy, a mental concoction. Since neither exist in nature, neither can be measured by humans.

Analogy succeeds admirably.

 

[Sculelos]

Quantum Physics Demystified.

Everything is made out of blocks of 4.

Everything we can see has at least 12 blocks and 2 sides.

24 blocks in total make the most basic structure.

80% of these blocks will always be electrons.

20% of these blocks will be neutrons at various points throughout the electrons this will determine if an object is solid, how much energy it will have and what it will do.

Take a look at a square:

l+--+ll-+-+l
l-+-+ll+-+-l

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Quantum Physics Demystified.

Everything is made out of blocks of 4.

Everything we can see has at least 12 blocks and 2 sides.

24 blocks in total make the most basic structure.

80% of these blocks will always be electrons.

20% of these blocks will be neutrons at various points throughout the electrons this will determine if an object is solid, how much energy it will have and what it will do.

Take a look at a square:

l+--+ll-+--+l
l-++-ll+-++-l

Still better than Deepak Chopra.

 

[Sculelos]

Still better than Deepak Chopra.

I haven't looked at any of Deepak Chopra's stuff, do you have any links to it?

 

[Skeptisch]

I haven't looked at any of Deepak Chopra's stuff, do you have any links to it?

The internet is full of his woo woo.
Deepak Chopra - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

 

[godnotgod]

He attracts them with easy answers and wishful thinking about immortality and "unexpected money". I wish the book-buying public sought out genuine spiritual nourishment instead.

What is 'genuine spiritual nourishment'?

You're a scientist. The way to tell if his teachings, found not just in books, but in seminars, retreats, lectures, treatments, etc, have any validity is to determine their efficacy, and if the duration of his popularity is any indication of that, then I would have to say he is genuine. Even those who are duped soon detect a snake oil salesman, but only those who sit on the outside, like yourself, cry foul, without knowing what they are talking about. Chopra has been around for decades and is more popular than ever. I would say, even without hard statistics in front of me, that a good percentage of his followers are indeed finding real spiritual nourishment in Chopra's teachings. The established scientific and medical communities don't like him because he proposes new ideas outside the box, many of which, in the case of medicine and medical treatment, are free or low cost, compared to the extremely high cost of the pharmaceuticals and standard medical treatments. It is the pharmaceutical industry and established medicine you should be targeting as 'snake oil salesman', even worse, in light of the large numbers of lawsuits resulting from previously approved drugs later found to be harmful or fatal.

It would be of great interest if one could do a study to determine the number of people who have benefited positively in the economic sense from his teachings; if, when his suggestions are followed, whether wealth or happiness have come about to any significant degree. Again, judging by his huge following, I would say an overwhelming 'yes'.

Horses, like waves, can be detected. But invisible pink horses with one horn are analogous to waves with well-defined position and momentum: a fantasy, a mental concoction. Since neither exist in nature, neither can be measured by humans.

Analogy succeeds admirably.

But waves can be measured, just not simultaneously as to both position and velocity. Waves (and particles) can be detected, as you say, but IPU's cannot.

Analogy cannot even get off the ground. Fails at the starting gate, where non-existent IPU's prepare to race.

Electrons, for example, are real and measurable, but not so until observed, according to Heisenberg.

We have never detected nor observed an IPU.

But this is all besides Osho's original point, which is that there are ineluctable limits to Reason. The issue here is not whether a particle or wave is real or not, but whether there are ineluctable limits to the application of reason, in the form of measurement. Here this idea of shifting paradigm is stated in another way:


"In both social and natural sciences, the body of positive knowledge grows by the failure of a tentative hypothesis to predict phenomena the hypothesis professes to explain; by the patching up of that hypothesis until someone suggests a new hypothesis that more elegantly or simply embodies the troublesome phenomena, and so on ad infinitum. In both, experiment is sometimes possible, sometimes not (witness meteorology). In both, no experiment is ever completely controlled, and experience often offers evidence that is the equivalent of controlled experiment. In both, there is no way to have a self-contained closed system or to avoid interaction between the observer and the observed. The Gödel theorem in mathematics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle in physics, the self-fulfilling or self-defeating prophecy in the social sciences all exemplify these limitations."

Milton Friedman

 

[godnotgod]

The internet is full of his woo woo.
Deepak Chopra - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

Einstein considered QM entanglement as 'woo woo' when he called it 'spooky action at a distance'. Now we take it more seriously.

All mavericks in history were initially dismissed as 'fringe'. Chopra is just willing to risk being labeled as such because he knows something most do not, since most continue to cling for thumb-sucking security to the old paradigms, and attack his pointing finger instead of looking at the moon being pointed to.

 

[Skeptisch]

...since most continue to cling for thumb-sucking security to the old paradigms, and attack his pointing finger instead of looking at the moon being pointed to.

“Ayurvedic medicine, in the United States, is an ‘alternative’ medical practice that claims it is based on the traditional medicine of India. Ayurveda is derived from two Sanskrit terms: ayu meaning life andveda meaning knowledge or science. Since the practice is said to be some 5,000 years old in India, what it considers to be knowledge or science may not coincide with the most updated information available to Western medicine.”

One wonders who is clinging for thumb-sucking security to the old paradigms?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

What is 'genuine spiritual nourishment'?

For starters, it's not false promises of "unexpected money" through quantum something-or-other.

You're a scientist. The way to tell if his teachings, found not just in books, but in seminars, retreats, lectures, treatments, etc, have any validity is to determine their efficacy, and if the duration of his popularity is any indication of that, then I would have to say he is genuine.

His nonsense may be genuine and popular, but it is nonsense nonetheless. IF you accept quantum mechanics, THEN it is highly misleading to say the things Chopra says about quantum mechanics.

Electrons, for example, are real and measurable, but not so until observed, according to Heisenberg.

We have never detected nor observed an IPU.

The analogy is perfectly straightforward. Horses and waves exist in nature. Hence, horses and waves are observable. But horses with the attribute of having one horn--unicorns--and waves with the attribute of having well-defined position and momentum, are not real. Hence, neither is observable. This is a success, not a failure, of reason in describing nature.

 

[zaybu]

Everyone has a spiritual nature. You must learn to look beyond the trappings, which are only in your mind. There are no real obstacles between you and your spiritual nature. Your spiritual nature is who you really are. It is your authentic self.

The problem is in seeing beyond the incessant noise and activity of the ego. That's where the work comes in.

All humans have compassion for others, a sense of justice when something isn't right, or be in wonders when looking at the mysteries of this universe. Theists tell me these are what they call "religious" experiences, you would probably call these "spiritual", and I just call them "natural". I believe you are creating this category for what are basically natural feelings in order to "elevate" humans above animals. It's probably due that humans are also vain and narcissistic.

 

[godnotgod]

I believe you are creating this category for what are basically natural feelings in order to "elevate" humans above animals.

Well, let's take a look.

If we can think of humans and animals as existing in different realms, what are the defining characteristics of these realms? I would say one of the chief characteristics of the animal realm is quite obvious: one is either predator or prey in almost all cases. Fight or flight. Are humans different in this respect, at least in part?

 

[godnotgod]

For starters, it's not false promises of "unexpected money" through quantum something-or-other.

You are the one who said:

"I wish the book-buying public sought out genuine spiritual nourishment instead."

....as if to say you know what it is. So then, what is it?

His nonsense may be genuine and popular, but it is nonsense nonetheless. IF you accept quantum mechanics, THEN it is highly misleading to say the things Chopra says about quantum mechanics.

It's nonsense to you, but very meaningful to others who see something of useful value in his teachings. You simply don't know whether practicing them attracts wealth or not, so your assessment of him being a charlatan and snake oil salesman are unfounded. It's just your unfounded opinion and prejudice. Attracting wealth (and many other things) is an idea that's been around for centuries. As for QM, we would need to take a closer look as to how he is applying the idea, and I suspect he is using it largely as metaphor.

The analogy is perfectly straightforward. Horses and waves exist in nature. Hence, horses and waves are observable. But horses with the attribute of having one horn--unicorns--and waves with the attribute of having well-defined position and momentum, are not real. Hence, neither is observable. This is a success, not a failure, of reason in describing nature.

The only thing that makes such waves 'unreal' is the fact that they cannot be simultaneously measured. as regards velocity and position. The problem is with the measurement, not the position and momentum. We know the particles/waves are there, but the IPU's were never there to begin with.

Again, the issue is about shifting paradigm. The point Osho was making was that, in the world of Reason, what is established as true today may be seen as untrue tomorrow in the light of new discoveries and ideas. Not so with spiritual enlightenment and nature. These truths, once known, remain the same.

 

[godnotgod]

“Ayurvedic medicine, in the United States, is an ‘alternative’ medical practice that claims it is based on the traditional medicine of India. Ayurveda is derived from two Sanskrit terms: ayu meaning life andveda meaning knowledge or science. Since the practice is said to be some 5,000 years old in India, what it considers to be knowledge or science may not coincide with the most updated information available to Western medicine.”

One wonders who is clinging for thumb-sucking security to the old paradigms?

Except for the fact that it works for many people, and is currently gaining in popularity. It may indeed be an old paradigm, but being 5,000 years old has something to say for its efficacy. That seems to indicate that it's staying power has nothing to do with 'thumb-sucking security'. Acupuncture has gained considerable respect in the last decade as well. What is needed is a balanced view of medicine, one that incorporates tried and true mehtods and materials from traditional healing traditions and modern ones. We cannot afford to perpetuate the continued use of current harmful and/or fatal modern drugs, while blindly destroying scores of herbs and roots in the rain forest with unknown medicinal values. We are just beginning to understand the potential of otherwise deadly neurotoxins from certain amphibians and reptiles in the healing process. The point is that we may be able to utilize more of the body's natural healing powers coupled with natural herbs and drugs that have little or no side effects. But this kind of approach requires a paradigm shift in thinking about our basic assumptions.

Popping a pill is no substitute for living right.

 

[zaybu]

Well, let's take a look.

If we can think of humans and animals as existing in different realms, what are the defining characteristics of these realms? I would say one of the chief characteristics of the animal realm is quite obvious: one is either predator or prey in almost all cases. Fight or flight. Are humans different in this respect, at least in part?

Of course there are differences. But you want to ascribe these to some spiritual nature. I see no need to do this.