Demystifying Quantum Physics

[godnotgod]

I dont really think buddhism and science contrast all that much.

That's only very superficial.

Science has the means to show what this "spiritual" aspect of life really is.

Only in the most reductionist, mechanical way, and only in terms of its own paradigm. The Buddhistic spiritual experience is spiritually transformative, and relies on no doctrine or paradigm for that experience, other than the path to reach that point. Because of the very methodology of science, which is divisive and reductionist, it cannot yield a truly spiritual view or experience of existence.

What spirituality does science show?

Buddhism doesnt claim to have the answers...

Actually, it does.

if science showed what spirit really is, buddhism would follow suit.

That's quite insane! Buddhism does not need science at all to know what spirit is. The whole point of Buddhism is the cessation of suffering and the spiritual experience of Enlightenment. If anything, Buddhism would show science the way. The problem is that the Buddhistic experience is beyond any methodology that science employs, but science would not be science without them, so science cannot follow.

"Modern medical science is only beginning to explore the subtle interconnections between body and mind, between the physical and spiritual aspects of life. Ultimately, Buddhism views both physical and spiritual aspects as vital manifestations of the life force that is inherent in the cosmos itself. As Nichiren wrote: "Life at each moment encompasses both body and spirit and both self and environment of all sentient beings in every condition of life, as well as non-sentient beings--plants, sky and earth, on down to the most minute particles of dust. Life at each moment permeates the universe and is revealed in all phenomena."

Science has a long, long way to go before it ever reaches this [Buddhistic] level of understanding.

 

[idav]

That's only very superficial.



Only in the most reductionist, mechanical way, and only in terms of its own paradigm. The Buddhistic spiritual experience is spiritually transformative, and relies on no doctrine or paradigm for that experience, other than the path to reach that point. Because of the very methodology of science, which is divisive and reductionist, it cannot yield a truly spiritual view or experience of existence.

What spirituality does science show?





Actually, it does.



That's quite insane! Buddhism does not need science at all to know what spirit is. The whole point of Buddhism is the cessation of suffering and the spiritual experience of Enlightenment. If anything, Buddhism would show science the way. The problem is that the Buddhistic experience is beyond any methodology that science employs, but science would not be science without them, so science cannot follow.



Science has a long, long way to go before it ever reaches this [Buddhistic] level of understanding.

Believe it or not, more often than not, science shows religion to be mistaken. The religions accept the truth or will end up failing. I am sure there is more to it, in reading the reaction of the dali lama when he observed the quantum weirdness first hand, he wasnt exactly accepting the results because of its spiritual implications or lack of. I have read the tao of physics which claims as you do, that science is confirming eastern thought. I just don't believe qm to be as mystical as the mystics would like it to be. I believe currently believe science is explaining spirit to he a manifestation of the same thing that everything else manifests from. Spirit is within, part of the "material" universe. In a monistic sense, everything, spirit or substance or whatever is just a change of the primordial essence.

Further modern buddhists are more inclined to believe that spirit is just a result of our mind even with deep meditation. Sure there is a close connection between mind in spirit, which buddha was largely silent on, but many see mind and spirit in a monistic view rather than some unprovable duality.

 

[godnotgod]

Believe it or not, more often than not, science shows religion to be mistaken. The religions accept the truth or will end up failing.

There's no question that this is the case; however, the spiritual experience is not religion. Religion is belief, doctrine, dogma; the spiritual experience is beyond these.

I just don't believe qm to be as mystical as the mystics would like it to be.

The bottom line is that, while science may be able to explain how the Quantum mechanism works, it won't be able to tell you what it actually IS.

I believe currently believe science is explaining spirit to he a manifestation of the same thing that everything else manifests from. Spirit is within, part of the "material" universe. In a monistic sense, everything, spirit or substance or whatever is just a change of the primordial essence.

I'm not clear on your explanation here: do you mean spirit is an outcome or feature of what we ordinarily refer to as the material world, or that it is 'essence', which is usually interpreted as being non-physical?

What do you mean a 'change of the primordial essence'?

 

[idav]

I'm not clear on your explanation here: do you mean spirit is an outcome or feature of what we ordinarily refer to as the material world, or that it is 'essence', which is usually interpreted as being non-physical?

What do you mean a 'change of the primordial essence'?

I am saying that what we normally refer to as the physical is just another form of what was the original spiritual essence. So in reference to mind and spirit is different forms of that same essence.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

To what end Monk? To what end? Will the expert himself die content and will he make any other person's burden easier?

To what end is a good question. People like to think there is something more or that there is a profound wisdom to be had. I doubt its existence though I don't claim it doesn't exist. I simply do not see any compelling evidence for it.

Of course, QM had not yet been discovered when the Abrahamic religions came into being, but QM is not what I was pointing to; I was pointing to a generalized notion that the universe was governed by a set of inherent laws. However, the idea of a universe governed by inherent laws extends to all future discoveries, and yes, that does include QM. The scientists simply omitted God from their view, but kept the idea of laws, as explained here:

[youtube]1uUeEAUFkS4[/youtube]
Alan Watts The Ceramic Universe - YouTube

and here:

[youtube]3MdkkUwqtKo[/youtube]
Alan Watts - The Myth of The Automatic Universe |[1] 3/8| - YouTube

Nope. The bible does not claim the specific laws of the universe. They were discovered well after the fact. The idea of a "begining" may not even be correct. We think it may be correct at least by our explination of it but that still isn't evidence that the ancient tribe of Jews knew advanced science.

I said it is beyond the scope of science, just as the existence and/or nature of God is. Consciousness is invisible, tasteless, odorless, silent, and formless. You cannot measure it or detect its presence via any scientific instrumentation. Only you can verify its presence. Science has zero understanding as to how it works. If you think it does, then tell me what 'understanding' science has about consciousness. Remember, however, that scientists are employing consciousness in their investigations.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. We do have theories and explinations within science for conciousness. God and other such things we do not have scientific explinations for. However we don't have a scientific explination for Santa Claus either. This means nothing.

But we DO have a rudamentary understanding of how consciousness works. You are propping it up as if its some kind of mythical mystical smoking gun for the scope of science and its simply not. You don't seem informed on what the current science says about the subject. I know I'm not but I at least know of it. You are debating probably the only person on the forum that does have a decent idea of it in the scientific terms (legion). I would ask him for more. Or I can link you to information.

Most real scientists are not so cocky. They have developed a sense of humility when they come to realize how little they really do know. Discovery only leads to more discovery, more facts, more accumulated knowledge, but less and less understanding; epiphany is a conclusive culmination, one which has yet to occur amongst scientists concerning the nature of the universe. We have no more real understanding about the universe than we did before. Sure, we have more knowledge, but so what? We don't really know what that knowledge signifies.

Actually scientists say the exact opposite. The more we know the more we understand that we don't know anything is talking about how as we advance we discover more and more questions about the universe. Its not what you are implying which seems to be some philisophical truth to the universe. What they are talking about is the limited scope of our current understanding.

When a frog leaves their pond for the first time they make the discovery of what lay outside. And they then discover more how little the pond really was compaired to the surrounding forest. And then how small the forest was to the land, and the land to the earth, and the earth to the solar system, solar system to the galaxy, and the galaxy to the universe. So on and so forth. The more knowledge we gain the more insight we have to how much more there is to learn.

Its a comment on the vastness of the universe rather than anything else.

I am not advocating a theistic view.

Yours isn't any more based in facts or reasoning.

Only within the context of science. I don't devalue facts and knowledge at all. We need both, but neither can tell us about the nature of Reality. We need to understand the nature of Reality FIRST as a means of interpreting facts and knowledge. Otherwise, of what use are they if you don't know how to live? If anything, our modern gadgets, developed via science and technology, have proliferated to the point of controlling our lives. We've lost touch with the real stuff that yields happiness, and live shallow lives where the glitter and attraction of these gadgets is short-lived, like a child who tires easily of his many toys. We are hypnotized by the next crop of techno-gadgets coming to the marketplace, when we've barely learned to use the ones we bought last year...or is it now last month? Truth is, science and technology have us salivating at the mouth. We still think these two will somehow create happiness and make our lives easier. That is our delusion.

People that believe that science causes "happiness" are deluded. That would be seratonin.

So man is just a machine and the universe a gyrating stupidity

What? 'allow function'?....what allows function?

In a sense we are machines. We are organic machines. And what do you mean by gyrating stupidity? That they are non-intelegent? That they don't have some intellegent something pushing it along with a magic force of some kind?
Function. As in what we do. The functional ability to breath for example. Very important.

That's not what I said.

There's nothing to 'figure out'.

What I said is that facts and knowledge only make sense within the context of an enlightened consciousness, because enlightened consciousness points to the nature of reality. Once you understand the nature of things, facts and knowledge about them are seen in the correct light. Without an enlightened awareness of one's real nature and the nature of the world, the intellect can only lead you on and on to nowhere.

What you mean is that only sentient beings can interpret the facts that we can gather? No one is arguing aginst that. What I am arguing is that sentience has to be some kind of mystical thing. And QM does not support this in any way.

 

[atanu]

To what end is a good question. People like to think there is something more or that there is a profound wisdom to be had. I doubt its existence though I don't claim it doesn't exist. I simply do not see any compelling evidence for it.

Why, you require evidence for the fact that whatever one does, one does for one's satisfaction? This is great simplicity.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The state of delusion has an opposite condition. It is this condition of consciousness that allows you to know whether you are deluded or not. It is always there, just underneath the surface, trying to speak to us, but is drowned out much of the time by our preoccupation with the world.

Why do you require thought as part of your experience? I think you mean consciousness, not thought. If anything, thought gets in the way of experience, diminishing it.

"thought", "conciousness" and "sentience" are intertwined. You cannot have one without the other.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Why, you require evidence for the fact that whatever one does, one does for one's satisfaction? This is great simplicity.

In the basest form yes.

 

[atanu]

In the basest form yes.

I would say it is the truth. Why you term it basest?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I would say it is the truth. Why you term it basest?

I am not sure if I understood you correctly the first time. Can you re-phrase it?

 

[godnotgod]

Nope. The bible does not claim the specific laws of the universe. They were discovered well after the fact. The idea of a "begining" may not even be correct. We think it may be correct at least by our explination of it but that still isn't evidence that the ancient tribe of Jews knew advanced science.

You're missing the point. In the transition from Religion to Science, the notion of a Lawmaker was dropped, and only the notion of inherent Laws were adopted by Science. God not only governed man's behavior, but the behavior of the Sun, moon and stars. No one is saying that the ancients knew advanced science; they only believed in the Lawmaker and his Laws.

How and why this split between Religion and Reason occurred is explained here, starting at about 3:40...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEftG26r1Tc

 

[godnotgod]

Actually scientists say the exact opposite. The more we know the more we understand that we don't know anything is talking about how as we advance we discover more and more questions about the universe. Its not what you are implying which seems to be some philisophical truth to the universe. What they are talking about is the limited scope of our current understanding.

I make the distinction between knowledge and understanding. The reason scientists realize how little they know is because they lack the initial understanding as to the nature of things which is necessary to interpret new knowledge that comes about. All new knowledge about the universe is interpreted by the mystic via the understanding he has already achieved, and that understanding is that he sees Reality as it actually is prior to any facts about it. If you know what the subjective experience and impact of the music is about to begin with, factual knowledge about the instruments and the notes will then make sense to you. If your mind is preoccupied with the mechanics of the music while it is being played, then the point of the music will have been missed. That is exactly the case with most people: they are tied up with all the details about life, and miss living in the present as a result; and that is precisely the case with the reductionist-materialist view of science: it gives us all the facts ABOUT the universe but tells us nothing about the nature of things. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but the point is that we need a larger view which includes the facts in order to make sense of them. It should be noted that Science cannot include the mystical view, but the mystical view encompasses Science.

I am in no way implying any such 'philosophical truth' about the universe, 'philosophy' requiring conceptual thought in order to function. The mystical experience is to see directly into the nature of things, without conceptual thought ABOUT it, and therefore, not philosophy at all. It only appears as such to the non-mystic because he is outside that direct experience, and is looking at the question intellectually.

 

[godnotgod]

"thought", "conciousness" and "sentience" are intertwined. You cannot have one without the other.

Consciousness is outside Time and Space; thought is confined to them.

 

[godnotgod]

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. We do have theories and explinations within science for conciousness....[/COLOR]

But we DO have a rudamentary understanding of how consciousness works. You are propping it up as if its some kind of mythical mystical smoking gun for the scope of science and its simply not. You don't seem informed on what the current science says about the subject.

Materialistic Science and Consciousness:

Compared to what mystics have achieved as regards consciousness, science is still groping in the dark; Alan Wallace is both physicist and Buddhist:

[youtube]0Yx75ppXO60[/youtube]
B. Alan Wallace Ph.D on mind & science - Part1of2 - YouTube

[youtube]IWm2sGpmo5Q[/youtube]
B. Alan Wallace Ph.D on mind & science - Part2of2 - YouTube

 

[Monk Of Reason]

You're missing the point. In the transition from Religion to Science, the notion of a Lawmaker was dropped, and only the notion of inherent Laws were adopted by Science. God not only governed man's behavior, but the behavior of the Sun, moon and stars. No one is saying that the ancients knew advanced science; they only believed in the Lawmaker and his Laws.

Actually no. People used to believe god or gods were the answer to everything.
"Why do things fall down?" God.
"why does the sun come up?" God.
"where does the sun go when it goes down." "**** if I know its god!"

Science then later comes out and makes observations and measurements to more accurately define our world. We look objectively at the information we have gathered and then the smartest of us think of the explanations and then debate it for generations till we come to a conclusion that is usually demonstrable. Then we call it fact.

However laws are measured behavior in our universe that governs us. For example Newton was the first to really begin applying laws to our universe. This had nothing to do with religion or anything like that.

I make the distinction between knowledge and understanding.

No. You have made repeated unsubstantiated claims about things you don't seem to understand about science and the nature of sentience.

The reason scientists realize how little they know is because they lack the initial understanding as to the nature of things which is necessary to interpret new knowledge that comes about. All new knowledge about the universe is interpreted by the mystic via the understanding he has already achieved, and that understanding is that he sees Reality as it actually is prior to any facts about it. If you know what the subjective experience and impact of the music is about to begin with, factual knowledge about the instruments and the notes will then make sense to you. If your mind is preoccupied with the mechanics of the music while it is being played, then the point of the music will have been missed. That is exactly the case with most people: they are tied up with all the details about life, and miss living in the present as a result; and that is precisely the case with the reductionist-materialist view of science: it gives us all the facts ABOUT the universe but tells us nothing about the nature of things. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but the point is that we need a larger view which includes the facts in order to make sense of them. It should be noted that Science cannot include the mystical view, but the mystical view encompasses Science.

I am in no way implying any such 'philosophical truth' about the universe, 'philosophy' requiring conceptual thought in order to function. The mystical experience is to see directly into the nature of things, without conceptual thought ABOUT it, and therefore, not philosophy at all. It only appears as such to the non-mystic because he is outside that direct experience, and is looking at the question intellectually.

Please start using the term sentience. It will make things easier. Then you will understand why I don't buy anything your saying.

Consciousness is outside Time and Space; thought is confined to them.

Substantiate.

Materialistic Science and Consciousness:

Compared to what mystics have achieved as regards consciousness, science is still groping in the dark; Alan Wallace is both physicist and Buddhist:

[youtube]0Yx75ppXO60[/youtube]
B. Alan Wallace Ph.D on mind & science - Part1of2 - YouTube

[youtube]IWm2sGpmo5Q[/youtube]
B. Alan Wallace Ph.D on mind & science - Part2of2 - YouTube

Not interested in pseudo science youtube videos.

 

[godnotgod]

However laws are measured behavior in our universe that governs us. For example Newton was the first to really begin applying laws to our universe. This had nothing to do with religion or anything like that.

But the regularity and patterns of nature were in place all along, suggesting inherent law. The question was whether a lawmaker was necessary or not. Newton just revealed how the laws worked. A continuum of thought about the inherent laws existed.

No.

What? You deny there is a difference between knowledge and understanding?

You have made repeated unsubstantiated claims about things you don't seem to understand about science and the nature of sentience.

Like what?

Please start using the term sentience. It will make things easier. Then you will understand why I don't buy anything your saying.

I don't see that it makes any difference. You don't buy anything I say because you've already made up your mind, and are hell-bent on 'Your papers, please.', and can't see the forest for the trees.

Substantiate.

No. Learn to use your head to figure it out.

Not interested in pseudo science youtube videos.

You see? You've already made up your mind and refuse to see. pseudo-science? Alan Wallace is a bona-fide physicist, who is trying to teach you something, but you are too attached to the old paradigm.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

But the regularity and patterns of nature were in place all along, suggesting inherent law. The question was whether a lawmaker was necessary or not. Newton just revealed how the laws worked. A continuum of thought about the inherent laws existed.

That is the question in question so to speak. However there is no evidence pointing to a designer.

What? You deny there is a difference between knowledge and understanding?

No. For example I can "know" that the death of your child hurts. However I won't understand it till it happens to me (hopefully it won't). However I have no reason to believe that what you are describing actually exists.

Like what?

Literally almost everything you've been talking about regarding sentience and QM.

I don't see that it makes any difference. You don't buy anything I say because you've already made up your mind, and are hell-bent on 'Your papers, please.', and can't see the forest for the trees.

I don't require a paper. I require an argument. You have not made one. You have stated lots of stuff with nothing behind it. I am hell-bent on requiring evidence because that is how rational decisions and conclusions are made. If you wish to believe whatever you want then thats fine. But don't you dare make an ****** of yourself trying to pass it off as fact. Especially when you mix in real science with it. I have no problems with your beliefs. I have a problem with you presenting them as fact when they are by even your own definition "not facts".

No. Learn to use your head to figure it out.

GTFO of the debate section then. I sound angry but I'm not. I'm just very tired of putting in mental effort to debate when you don't want to debate but preach. So are you going to debate or preach? If its preach then I'm simply done. If you are up for debate then you must substantiate your claims.

You see? You've already made up your mind and refuse to see. pseudo-science? Alan Wallace is a bona-fide physicist, who is trying to teach you something, but you are too attached to the old paradigm.

I don't give a damn. There are bona-fide biologist who are cropped out of creationist schools that support ID instead of evolution. That doesn't make them correct. If he is a physicist worth his salt then he will keep his spiritual beliefs and his science separate. If he doesn't then that degrades any credibility he has on the issue.

 

[godnotgod]

The more knowledge we gain the more insight we have to how much more there is to learn.

That's just plain silly and naive. The real kind of knowledge comes via letting go of everything we think we know until you arrive at nothing, when one comes to the overwhelming realization that the very point of departure we so highly regarded, which is driven by Reason, Logic, and Analysis, though it seems correct, is actually in error.

Yours isn't any more based in facts or reasoning.

And yours is still flopping back and forth in the dualistic world. Mine is neither theistic nor rational, the nature of the universe and of reality being beyond both concepts.

People that believe that science causes "happiness" are deluded. That would be seratonin.

And people who believe that [real] happiness is caused by anything at all are deluded.

In a sense we are machines. We are organic machines.

'in a sense' is just a very narrow, reductionist, ignorant view, like the 3 blind men who think the various parts of the elephant are the elephant. I fail to understand why you persist in cheating yourself of who and what you really are by playing these reductionist mind-games in which you can completely explain reality clean away until there is virtually nothing left. This is one of the problems with Reason: it is, by its very nature, divisive in that its method is dissection and clinical analysis. It is fooling itself but by the same token, adulating itself as the Gold Standard by which reality can be clearly understood and known. It's not.

And what do you mean by gyrating stupidity? That they are non-intelegent? That they don't have some intellegent something pushing it along with a magic force of some kind?

Excuse me? Do I take this to mean you think there is an 'intelligent pusher' behind what you see?

Function. As in what we do. The functional ability to breath for example. Very important.

No! Really? Who would have known!? My question was not about function perse, but about your implication that there was 'something' that allowed it.

When you are asleep, we do not consciously do the breathing.

What you mean is that only sentient beings can interpret the facts that we can gather? No one is arguing aginst that. What I am arguing is that sentience has to be some kind of mystical thing. And QM does not support this in any way.

You seem to have some strange, weird notion of what 'mystical' means. All it means is that there is a realized union between subject and object that occurs internally; that the notion of an "I" that has a separate existence apart from the universe is a complete illusion.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

That's just plain silly and naive. The real kind of knowledge comes via letting go of everything we think we know until you arrive at nothing, when one comes to the overwhelming realization that the very point of departure we so highly regarded, which is driven by Reason, Logic, and Analysis, though it seems correct, is actually in error.

Excuse me?

And yours is still flopping back and forth in the dualistic world. Mine is neither theistic nor rational, the nature of the universe and of reality being beyond both concepts.

If you want to call based on facts and evidence then I suppose we have different ideals.
You haven't supported your arguments. You've done nothing but make claims.

And people who believe that [real] happiness is caused by anything at all are deluded.

Again with the claims without support.

'in a sense' is just a very narrow, reductionist, ignorant view, like the 3 blind men who think the various parts of the elephant are the elephant. I fail to understand why you persist in cheating yourself of who and what you really are by playing these reductionist mind-games in which you can completely explain reality clean away until there is virtually nothing left. This is one of the problems with Reason: it is, by its very nature, divisive in that its method is dissection and clinical analysis. It is fooling itself but by the same token, adulating itself as the Gold Standard by which reality can be clearly understood and known. It's not.

Its called a filter for determining what is fact or true. Bring me more than a claim and we'll talk.

Excuse me? Do I take this to mean you think there is an 'intelligent pusher' behind what you see?

Nope.

No! Really? Who would have known!? My question was not about function perse, but about your implication that there was 'something' that allowed it.

When you are asleep, we do not consciously do the breathing.

Science explains why we do that. We know exactly why we breath while asleep. Its because our "consciousness" is based on a neural network. You should find a better analogy.

You seem to have some strange, weird notion of what 'mystical' means. All it means is that there is a realized union between subject and object that occurs internally; that the notion of an "I" that has a separate existence apart from the universe is a complete illusion.

I know exactly what you mean when you say mystical. I still don't see anything other than claims upon claims in your post.

 

[godnotgod]

I don't give a damn. There are bona-fide biologist who are cropped out of creationist schools that support ID instead of evolution. That doesn't make them correct. If he is a physicist worth his salt then he will keep his spiritual beliefs and his science separate. If he doesn't then that degrades any credibility he has on the issue.

You're not listening. What did he say? He said that the nature of things is that they are empty. If they are empty, they cannot contain beliefs or doctrines either. He is not espousing beliefs and then overlaying them onto science; he is talking about how we see the world, and his vision is singular, neither spiritual nor materialist. He is using his vision to demonstrate how science sees the world, and why the scientific view by itself is an erroneous one. This does not require facts, but illumination, and that is what he does. Creationists use facts erroneously to support their erroneously pre-determined premises, but so do scientists, in the name of Reason and Logic. This is exactly what Wallace is trying to reveal: that there is a basic flaw in our approach, especially when we use facts to support a narrow view of Reality. I am not saying facts are untrue: I am saying that facts, in and of themselves, are not Reality. There is more to an enlightened view than mere facts.

Wallace's credibility can be found in the veracity of his statements, which can be understood if you really listen, but again, there is more to our makeup than the discriminating mind.