Demystifying Quantum Physics

[YmirGF]

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

Larger brains do make for the possibility of greater delusions. Unless, of course, as a mystic, one claims to know more about Quantum Mechanics than scientists do. No, that's not delusional.

 

[Skeptisch]

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. [/COLOR]

Reasonable people won’t disagree with much of the above. But the woo woo master Deepak Chopra claims he can bend a spoon with his mind and hopefully even you have a problem with that one, do you?

"Dear Skeptisch, I was not skirting the issue at all. My wife Rita and I have had several spoon bending experiences as have thousands of others. We have a collection of bent spoons as well!. James Twyman is a good friend and does extraordinary work in the area of peace consciousness all over the world particularly in the Middle East. I have great respect for Richard Dawkins and his work I’m aware that he coined the word memes in1976. I and Richard Dawkins were speakers at a ted conference several years ago where we had disagreements on the origins of consciousness. Regretfully I ended up calling him a bigot and a fundamentalist albeit a scientific one, before a live audience. We have had no further communication since then. I think he is of the opinion that I’m a charlatan. He is not alone,
love Deepak"

He is not alone indeed!

 

[Mr Spinkles]

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?

For my statement to be valid, I only have to know what genuine spiritual nourishment isn't. I have my own views on what genuine spiritual nourishment is, of course. But it's not necessary for us to debate that. Reasonable people should be able to agree that at a minimum, whatever 'genuine spiritual nourishment' is, it shouldn't be outright misleading or false. Ergo, it can't be what Chopra is selling.

The only thing that makes such waves 'unreal' is the fact that they cannot be simultaneously measured. as regards velocity and position.

No, such waves truly are 'unreal'. Mathematically, a wave cannot have well-defined position and momentum whether anyone measures it or not.

*edit: I should add, I'm not objecting to your general point that paradigms shift. Yes, reason allows us to modify our conclusions to more accurately reflect all the latest information we have. Osho thinks this is a bad property for a method of understanding to have, I happen to think it's a good thing. But if I clarify something about the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, it seems to me, that clarification ought to be acknowledged. It seems to me, if we can reach agreement on minor points, like perhaps Osho's example of the HUP isn't a good example for the point he's trying to make, then that is a good exercise in helping us reach a broader understanding on more controversial points. It is a good exercise in helping us speak with clarity and reach agreement when at first we had disagreement. At the same time, if you cannot concede even a minor (and obvious) point like this, then that is a sign that you are not discussing in good faith, because you would never be willing to concede major (and less obvious) points of contention. So that is why, even though I can tolerate disagreement, I do demand an acknowledgment on the minor point about what the Heisenberg uncertainty principle actually says. Your knee-jerk reaction against what I'm saying is, i.m.o., not a good sign.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I do demand an acknowledgment on the minor point about what the Heisenberg uncertainty principle actually says.

I am continually baffled as to why everybody is so concerned that Heisenberg was uncertain. Even great physicists are uncertain about some things. I get that his colleagues (Einstein, Born, Dirac, Pauli, Schrödinger, Bohm, etc.) were worried about how uncertain he was, but I think we can move on.

So many physicists are wasting their time worrying about such petty things, like whether Schrödinger's cat died, Dirac's obsession with bras (it's just clothing, man! I mean seriously), Einstein's phobia about the moon disappearing, Wheeler taking to long to make choices (causing all sorts of delays), and so on.

Can't we just leave the past behind us, join iCult, and await the return of Steve Jobs as the ephemeral "mind" of Google?

 

[godnotgod]

For my statement to be valid, I only have to know what genuine spiritual nourishment isn't. I have my own views on what genuine spiritual nourishment is, of course. But it's not necessary for us to debate that. Reasonable people should be able to agree that at a minimum, whatever 'genuine spiritual nourishment' is, it shouldn't be outright misleading or false. Ergo, it can't be what Chopra is selling.

Not only do thousands disagree with you via their own direct experience and understanding of his teachings, but I do as well on the same grounds. A large portion of 'his' teachings reflect thousands of years of tradition. They are not exclusive to him. Either you know what 'genuine spiritual nourishment' is via direct experience or you do not. Conceptual ideas about it are merely descriptions. You see what he says as misleading through the lens of your own indoctrination, which is a conceptual view. Until you actually partake of such nourishment, you haven't a clue.

A couple of other spiritually-oriented forum members have briefly made comments on other threads to the effect that 'Chopra knows his stuff'. Those who have the experience can see that what he is saying rings true. Outsiders will be in denial. It all boils down to seeing what is so, compared to thinking about what is so.

 

[godnotgod]

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

You've alluded to them as being 'natural', as compared to what? Then again, you could ask the same of the term 'spiritual'. Here we get into an issue of dualism, so let me clarify a bit. What is generally referred to as 'spiritual' and 'physical' are not different. Same goes for 'natural' and 'supernatural'. This is one world, not two. But to return to the point at hand...

Bear in mind that what many call 'natural' is still a mystery to the rational mind. Being 'natural' does not make it explainable in such terms, and that the moment you label it as 'natural', you imply its opposite, which is not-natural, or 'miraculous'. Don't you think it a bit odd that you are even sitting at your keyboard at this very moment? You may consider that an ordinary, everyday function, but is it really?

Animal behavior is largely fixed. Humans are in a position to realize a potential beyond such fixed behavior, as well as that to overcome the 'prey or predator' cycle. But I am not saying humans are superior in the dominant sense. That, as you implied, is a major flaw, but is one conducted by the ego, which is the primary cause of his suffering. Until that is transcended, man cannot realize his full spiritual/physical/mental potential. To do so is what we call 'Enlightenment'.

 

[godnotgod]

Larger brains do make for the possibility of greater delusions. Unless, of course, as a mystic, one claims to know more about Quantum Mechanics than scientists do. No, that's not delusional.

Mystics are not making such claims. But they are putting QM within the proper context of the true nature of Reality. Scientists cannot do that with science simply because they are looking at Reality in dissection and so do not recognize it as such. They are trying to interpret Reality in terms of what it sees as its 'parts', which cannot be done. Reality is not a mechanism.

Since the brain is the tool scientists employ in their research, delusion is imminent. The mystical experience is beyond thought, which is the product of the brain. Delusion is the product of thought. Where there is no thought, there can be no delusion. There is only the seeing of Reality as it is.

 

[godnotgod]

No, such waves truly are 'unreal'. Mathematically, a wave cannot have well-defined position and momentum whether anyone measures it or not.

That statement reflects Osho's statement that Reason has ineluctable limits (in that mathematics is a tool of Reason), as well as the idea of it being a paradigm itself, in light of the changes which the HP has undergone. It is very possible that this paradigm can be completely proven false in the future. And that is what Osho is trying to say. The fact that you see this as a good thing is not the point, which is that the tools of science are limited after a point.

 

[Ouroboros]

I am continually baffled as to why everybody is so concerned that Heisenberg was uncertain. Even great physicists are uncertain about some things. I get that his colleagues (Einstein, Born, Dirac, Pauli, Schrödinger, Bohm, etc.) were worried about how uncertain he was, but I think we can move on.

I think it all came from Schrödinger killing Heisenberg's cat. I mean, his position wasn't that super after that.

So many physicists are wasting their time worrying about such petty things, like whether Schrödinger's cat died, Dirac's obsession with bras (it's just clothing, man! I mean seriously), Einstein's phobia about the moon disappearing, Wheeler taking to long to make choices (causing all sorts of delays), and so on.

LOL.

Can't we just leave the past behind us, join iCult, and await the return of Steve Jobs as the ephemeral "mind" of Google?

Awesome! Where do I sign up?

I wonder if they'll have an iPray app in there too. Just click and pray. Simpler than USB even.

 

[godnotgod]

godnotgod said:
You see, it is the spiritual experience which occurs first; and then comes the description.

Sometimes it does, it seems.

Reality is present before any description comes about. All descriptions pale in comparison. That is why you sometimes hear of Zennists burning the scriptures after realizing their Enlightenment.

Certainly, across time and space we hear of those who are struck by sudden divine inspiration or revelation (St. Paul, St. Francis of Assisi, Muhammad, Gilgamesh, Siddhartha, and many more). There are those alive today who have seen shamans in remote destinations reaching ecstatic states, and practitioners of magic who use rituals and spells, both to communicate with the divine.

They don't claim that doing this makes them able to understand Sanskrit or quantum mechanics and then offer up youtube videos as evidence.

I've never made such claims, and my offering up YouTube vids is merely done to expose those locked into the classic paradigm to new ideas ala Plato's Cave.

There is nothing in the spiritual world which says one must teach the world. Some do. Some don't. The Buddha himself was reluctant for a long while to do so, fearing his teachings would be misconstrued. Some remain on the mountain; others return to the sea of humanity to teach. Both are OK.

 

[godnotgod]

Yet with the Source itself at your finger-tips, you can't explain the grammatical error in your quote let alone the ways you have mischaracterized both physics and physicists. Yet when you claim tas tvam asi means "you are that" (or thou art that, or any other connection between the word for "you" and for "that"), and you didn't even know that this is a grammatical error in the text that doesn't correspond to the traditional commentaries, what can we say about your understanding of QM your Source provides? Better yet, whatever it provides you, what basis do you have to claim it enables you to understand all sciences and all religions and characterize what "the mystic" is, when a cornerstone of your philosophy contains a grammatical problem you weren't even aware of and cannot explain?

The truth of 'thou art that' was present long before it was ever stated. You persist in attacking the pointing finger in lieu of looking at what it points to.

 

[godnotgod]

He began studying Chinese practices at 15, and went to Tamkang College at 18 to study physics. About 10 years, later, after continued study in Chinese traditions with various masters, he went to the US to study mechanical engineering and obtained a PhD. Only after 6 more years of continuing to study Western science and Chinese martial arts and traditional medicine, did he finally devote himself solely to teaching and studying Chinese practices, but has always and still does emphasize the importance of Western science for understanding. So if you think a man who studied Western science for 20 years is going to agree with you here, you are sadly mistaken.

Studying Western Science for 20 years has zilch to do with the breath being the pathway to Higher Consciousness, which QiGong can be.

 

[godnotgod]

Are
No. You still don't get it. English doesn't have grammatical gender the way Sanskrit does. tvam means "you" or "thou", but it has the grammatical gender masculine. The copula (the verb "are"), in this language, must connect/join a masculine noun or pronoun with some predicate like (adjective, pronoun, whatever) that is masculine.

Simply put, in order for tat tvam asi to mean "you are that" it would have to be sah tvam asi. No "tat" at all. Why the wrong word? If you can't explain something as simple as the reason we have the wrong word here, in a statement you made that is so fundamental, what good is the Source itself that you access when it comes to understanding QM?

The Source is Reality itself, which manifests itself as what you call QM. Even scientists use the Source, but they are looking at it without realizing what it actually is, since they view it via conceptual overlay. They see it in terms of the conceptual overlay, as exemplified in the statement:

"The universe is the Absolute as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"
Vivikenanda

 

[godnotgod]

As I thought. The Source Itself is the internet. Fine. You can pretend grammar doesn't exist (or whatever you need to do to justify the grammatical problem you can't explain), and you can continue to misunderstand quantum physics. And there will be, hopefully, people like Mr, Sprinkles to demystify physics for those who want accuracy.


But no more of this ******* ********:

Mr. Sprinkles has succeeded in demystifying nothing.

'Thou art that' is the point, not how it is translated. I'd be willing to bet you are the type who, if chained to a wall and forced to watch someone unfold a new roadmap, and then to re-fold it incorrectly, would drive you bananas.

You can hate on Western patriarchy if you want to (as long as it isn't in ways that actually reinforce sexist institutions or practices), but your romantic internet-based idealization of the East is no excuse to justify the continual spread of misunderstanding that has already accounted for too much violence against females in your fantasy "mystic East" where the philosophies you describe are, or have been made into, a cultural patriarchy that rivals any the that ever existed in the West.

Spreading myths about evolution or physics are things I take seriously, some more than others. But whatever harms result from the spread of such ignorance pale in comparison to romanticizing some of the most sexist male-dominated regions on the planet where religious/cultural traditions result in the devaluation of female lives in numerous ways. Leave that alone.

I don't 'hate' on Western patriarchy, which may actually surpass the Eastern social structure in mistreating women, as the Inquisition, which included torture and witch burnings, went on for some 400 years. I include Europe within the definition of what is Western patriarchy. But as I explained, what I have referred to as the East's inclusion of the feminine, has not to do with it's social structure, but with its spirituality, which is the feminine essence within both men and women.

Again, it is the West, via the Abrahamic religions, which has come up with the idea of the divine as being primarily male. Even when the feminine nature is expressed, it is a male in the personage of Jesus that is manifested. In the Indio-matriarchal culture of Mexico, the goddess survives, but only after patriarchal Christianity 'adopted' the Indio goddess of fertility, Tonantzin and transformed her into 'Our Lady of Guadalupe Hidalgo', and then only as a clever device to lure millions of indigenous Indios into converting to Christianity. Unfortunately, the male-dominated culture (which is probably an outgrowth of patriarchal Christianity) is still dominant in Mexico as 'machismo', and continues to do much damage to the Indio culture.

 

[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.

[youtube]G4KWX9YQhlU[/youtube]
Poverty, Wealth and the Law of Attraction - YouTube

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I think it all came from Schrödinger killing Heisenberg's cat. I mean, his position wasn't that super after that.

Ridiculous. Were that true, how did we get string theory? No cats, no strings. It's that simple.

Awesome! Where do I sign up?

They sign you up, don't worry.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Not only do thousands disagree with you via their own direct experience and understanding of his teachings, but I do as well on the same grounds. A large portion of 'his' teachings reflect thousands of years of tradition. They are not exclusive to him. Either you know what 'genuine spiritual nourishment' is via direct experience or you do not. Conceptual ideas about it are merely descriptions. You see what he says as misleading through the lens of your own indoctrination, which is a conceptual view. Until you actually partake of such nourishment, you haven't a clue.

A couple of other spiritually-oriented forum members have briefly made comments on other threads to the effect that 'Chopra knows his stuff'. Those who have the experience can see that what he is saying rings true. Outsiders will be in denial. It all boils down to seeing what is so, compared to thinking about what is so.

When it comes to quantum mechanics, I am not an 'outsider'. I am criticizing Chopra's statements about quantum mechanics, which are false, and therefore cannot be part of any genuine 'spiritual nourishment'.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

That statement reflects Osho's statement that Reason has ineluctable limits (in that mathematics is a tool of Reason), as well as the idea of it being a paradigm itself, in light of the changes which the HP has undergone. It is very possible that this paradigm can be completely proven false in the future. And that is what Osho is trying to say. The fact that you see this as a good thing is not the point, which is that the tools of science are limited after a point.

Oh okay, so you're saying that what the HUP actually says is not significant. Osho could have picked any principle discovered by science which was not known prior to its discovery, such as Kepler's laws of planetary motion, or the germ theory of disease. Is that right?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The truth of 'thou art that' was present long before it was ever stated. You persist in attacking the pointing finger in lieu of looking at what it points to.

It's pointing to someone who ripped off websites and claims to be an all-knowing mystic who can define what "the mystic" is, why all religions are wrong, why Science is wrong, because of this "Source" turned out to be the internet:

You go with what you think, and I will go with what is all over the internet

Studying Western Science for 20 years has zilch to do with the breath being the pathway to Higher Consciousness, which QiGong can be.

Here is an excerpt from "A Modern Definition of Qi" by Dr. Yang (emphasie added):

"It was not until the last few decades, when the Chinese people were more acquainted with electromagnetic science, that they began to recognize that this energy circulating in the body, which they called Qi, might be the same thing as what today's science calls 'bioelectricity.'

We must look at what modern Western science has discovered about bioelectromagnetic energy. Many bioelectricity related reports have been published, and frequently the results are closely related to what is experienced in Chinese Qigong training and medical science. For example, during the electrophysiological research of the 1960's, several investigators discovered that bones are piezoelectric; that is, when they are stressed, mechanical energy is converted to electrical energy in the form of electric current. This might explain one of the practices of Marrow Washing Qigong in which the stress on the bones and muscles is increased in certain ways to increase the Qi circulation"

He talks about acupuncture and acupressure in terms of both traditional Chinese medicine and neurotransmitters.

He's one of the foremost authorities of Chinese martial arts in the world, has two science degrees (one a doctorate), and has spent years training others and studying (even translating) ancient Chinese texts.

You go onto the internet and quote something you can't read and defend you interpretation with something along the lines of "but the internet said so!"

 

[godnotgod]

It's pointing to someone who ripped off websites and claims to be an all-knowing mystic who can define what "the mystic" is, why all religions are wrong, why Science is wrong, because of this "Source" turned out to be the internet:

You're probably the only person I know who continues to parrot himself, each time, adding more and more accretions, while convincing himself as he goes along that he makes perfect logical sense.

At this point, as regards 'tat atvam asi', I put my trust in the innumerable references to it in that form all over the internet far, far more than I do you, no matter what you say. You'll just need to live with that fact.

Here is an excerpt from "A Modern Definition of Qi" by Dr. Yang (emphasie added):

"It was not until the last few decades, when the Chinese people were more acquainted with electromagnetic science, that they began to recognize that this energy circulating in the body, which they called Qi, might be the same thing as what today's science calls 'bioelectricity.'

We must look at what modern Western science has discovered about bioelectromagnetic energy. Many bioelectricity related reports have been published, and frequently the results are closely related to what is experienced in Chinese Qigong training and medical science. For example, during the electrophysiological research of the 1960's, several investigators discovered that bones are piezoelectric; that is, when they are stressed, mechanical energy is converted to electrical energy in the form of electric current. This might explain one of the practices of Marrow Washing Qigong in which the stress on the bones and muscles is increased in certain ways to increase the Qi circulation"

He talks about acupuncture and acupressure in terms of both traditional Chinese medicine and neurotransmitters.

He's one of the foremost authorities of Chinese martial arts in the world, has two science degrees (one a doctorate), and has spent years training others and studying (even translating) ancient Chinese texts.

You go onto the internet and quote something you can't read and defend you interpretation with something along the lines of "but the internet said so!"

...as compared to 'but Legion said so'. The internet is bigger than Legion. Sorry.

As for all the above you posted about Dr. Yang, it makes not one bit of difference: QiGong is still a pathway to Higher Consciousness via the breath. I don't care how many degrees he has, how many blackbelts he owns, or how many years he has studied and translated texts. The breath is still a pathway to Higher Consciousness. Period. And it's probably the very reason he has achieved what he has.

The word “Qi” (chi) means life force (energy). “Gong” means ability, or skill. Combined the words translate to mean practicing life force (energy), or, rebalancing it. And because "Qi" also means breath, or breathing, it's often translated as Qigong Breathing.

"In the west we put a lot of emphasis on the brain, the logical mind and its ability to analyse and reach a conclusion. But intellectual reasoning is far from wisdom and higher consciousness.

Qigong has the ability to help us transcend the senses and reach a higher state of consciousness or, in other words, develop higher levels of energy where mind (or the energy of thought) can control matter (i.e. change their structure, move them around etc.). There are Qigong masters, people who have practiced Qigong all their lives, who are renowned for their wisdom and freedom from material desires. Their lives, the way they live and act, are a silent witness to the freeing power of Qigong."

Qigong breathing - Qigong chinese health: qi gong #1 site


But if this man is as important and accomplished as you say he is, I would cut off my right arm just for the opportunity to study with him if I stood even the slightest chance of mastering QiGong. You are a fool for staying away. I can tell you one thing, though: you will never master anything until you first conquer yourself. I suggest you first lose the parrot.
*****



The Taste of Banzo's Sword

Matajuro Yagyu was the son of a famous swordsman. His father, believing that his son's work was too mediocre to anticipate mastership, disowned him.

So Matajuro went to Mount Futara and there found the famous swordsman Banzo. But Banzo confirmed the father's judgment. "You wish to learn swordsmanship under my guidance?" asked Banzo. "You cannot fulfill the requirements."

"But if I work hard, how many years will it take me to become a master?" persisted the youth.

"The rest of your life," replied Banzo.

"I cannot wait that long," explained Matajuro. "I am willing to pass through any hardship if only you will teach me. If I become your devoted servant, how long might it be?"

"Oh, maybe ten years," Banzo relented.

"My father is getting old, and soon I must take care of him," continued Matajuro. "If I work far more intensively, how long would it take me?"

"Oh, maybe thirty years," said Banzo.

"Why is that?" asked Matajuro. "First you say ten and now thirty years. I will undergo any hardship to master this art in the shortest time!"

"Well," said Banzo, "in that case you will have to remain with me for seventy years. A man in such a hurry as you are to get results seldom learns quickly."

"Very well," declared the youth, understanding at last that he was being rebuked for impatience, "I agree."

Matajuro was told never to speak of fencing and never to touch a sword. He cooked for his master, washed the dishes, made his bed, cleaned the yard, cared for the garden, all without a word of swordsmanship.

Three years passed. Still Matajuro labored on. Thinking of his future, he was sad. He had not even begun to learn the art to which he had devoted his life.

But one day Banzo crept up behind him and gave him a terrific blow with a wooden sword.

The following day, when Matajuro was cooking rice, Banzo again sprang upon him unexpectedly.

After that, day and night, Matajuro had to defend himself from unexpected thrusts. Not a moment passed in any day that he did not have to think of the taste of Banzo's sword.

He learned so rapidly he brought smiles to the face of his master. Matajuro became the greatest swordsman in the land.

found on the internet, here: Zen Koans - AshidaKim.com