Demystifying Quantum Physics

[Monk Of Reason]

But to claim particles to be the absolute reality is to ignore that recent evidence.

People cling to this atomic theory "this is how it is" because people tell them uts true.
Before the waves described in QM there must be an energy feild to produce them.

Funny enough this argument happened in India a while back.
They debated the term "anu" (atomic), some philosophers thought the anu meant particles, while other suggested the term means more subtle than the subtle.

The funny thing is, particles are not perceptable to humans, but energy is directly perceptable to humans without any equipment via meditation. Which this mind can imagine why many eastern religions are being shown to be more right than not.

They still exist though. The concepts are rigid in the terms of the way things do work in the world. However we have particles that don't behave in the way that others do. If they didn't then we wouldn't have this stable macroworld that we all enjoy.

What you continue to misunderstand and distort is that transcendence is beyond perceptual awareness, which is a personal view; an interpretation of the world, as you say. Transcendence is union with Ultimate Reality, not insight via perceptual reality, and Ultimate Reality is universal. It is no particular view. Enlightened minds see the same Reality, which is only ONE Reality. It is, therefore, Absolute, and is all-inclusive of whatever 'discoveries' science comes up with, including Quantum phenomena.

Ultimate Reality is not different from one person to the next; only perceptual reality is, and that is what you are referencing.

I don't ignore anything. You have not provided evidence for transcendence or even provided a single bit of reasoning that would say its possible. The whole of your argument from the beginning hinges on you being correct about something you cannot provide evidence for and all we have to go off of is your own word.

You don't seem to get that! What if your wrong? What if there is no transcendence or the transcendence your talking about is nothing but a trick of the mind? Then the whole of your argument falls flat.

Yes, you do. The things that are in discrepancy must be within a field against which THEY can be seen. Without this field, you have nothing. This field is the Absolute. Figure and Ground.

When you say 'absolutes', you can only mean 'relative' absolutes. There is only one Absolute, and that is Everything. It contains all 'relative' 'things', which are not things at all, 'things' being only a mental construct.

Your talking about existence or something else possibly. Either way you've stopped making sense completely.

You see apples and oranges are different. However they can only be different because they are a dual reality. In reality (real reality that can only be seen once we escape from the matrix) is that oranges and apples are one and the same. And this has to exist because there are differences between oranges and apples.
- that is about as much sense as your making.

You certainly have a propensity to jump from one extreme to another, don't you?

Once again: there are some things for which factual evidence cannot be provided. You are asking for the traces of the image left behind that a mirror reflects. There are none. You have to go have the experience yourself; you have to stop demanding evidence and go topside to see the Sun for yourself. There is no other way.

Then I have won the debate. Good day to your sir.

 

[godnotgod]

I don't ignore anything. You have not provided evidence for transcendence or even provided a single bit of reasoning that would say its possible. The whole of your argument from the beginning hinges on you being correct about something you cannot provide evidence for and all we have to go off of is your own word.

You don't seem to get that! What if your wrong? What if there is no transcendence or the transcendence your talking about is nothing but a trick of the mind? Then the whole of your argument falls flat.

Your talking about existence or something else possibly. Either way you've stopped making sense completely.

You see apples and oranges are different. However they can only be different because they are a dual reality. In reality (real reality that can only be seen once we escape from the matrix) is that oranges and apples are one and the same. And this has to exist because there are differences between oranges and apples.
- that is about as much sense as your making.



Then I have won the debate. Good day to your sir.

Bottom Line: no matter what you are referencing, everything is seen against the ever-present background of the Absolute. All you're doing is arbitrarily isolating 2 appearances for comparison and saying that nothing else is needed for that comparison. You're completely wrong about this, and you know it. That is why you need to bow out and make a quick escape. :run: Maybe you'll run right out of that cave and upward toward the Sun.

I wasn't actually debating anything in the sense of right or wrong, but since you insist, I hereby claim total victory, for what it's worth, over your feeble arguments that have now crumbled into dust.

godnotgod, I hereby award you this here Mystical Quantum No-Cigar that never existed from the very beginning. Congratulations! :cigar:

I leave you with one thought: you cannot have solid without space; you cannot have relative 'things' without the Absolute against which they can only be seen. Your arbitrary and forced arguments are neither scientific nor logical.

 

[godnotgod]

What I learned from a recent 'discussion':

Atheists are just as attached to their idea of reality as the theists are. Their 'god' is materialism, and is just as much a security blanket for them as God is for the theists. The more one probes into their belief systems for answers, the tighter they cling to them.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

What I learned from a recent 'discussion':

Atheists are just as attached to their idea of reality as the theists are. Their 'god' is materialism, and is just as much a security blanket for them as God is for the theists. The more one probes into their belief systems for answers, the tighter they cling to them.

That's just the nature of human reality

 

[godnotgod]

That's just the nature of human reality

It's the nature of our altered consciousness, which is not our true nature. Our true nature is beyond all such attachments.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Your talking about existence or something else possibly. Either way you've stopped making sense completely.

In a way similar to the confused use of particles vs. energy (i.e., using "energy" as it would never be used in physics literature and "particles" too vaguely to mean much), the portion of the post to which you responded with the above makes great sense in a different context. "Figure and ground", the image, etc., have their origins in Gestalt psychology and are central not only to modern cognitive science but also within linguistics (particularly work inspired by or related to the work of Ron Langacker, Charles Fillmore, George Lakoff, Len Talmy, etc.). It relates to the ways in which those in the brain/cognitive sciences have examined how perception works. Why is it that in 2D pictures certain objects "seem" farther away? Why do we distinguish between some collection of visual input and another? How do optical illusions work and what does this tell us about perception?

Of course, like quantum mechanics, taking terms from actual scientific studies and placing them in a web of nonsense interspersed liberally with esoteric terms, vague references to spiritual/religious concepts, etc., gets one nonsense.

However, just in case you or anybody else might equate that photo or the expression "figure and ground" with the rest of the post and similar posts, I thought it important to note that, despite the meaningless use, it is the context not that to which the phrase actually refers that renders it nonsense.

 

[godnotgod]

Of course, like quantum mechanics, taking terms from actual scientific studies and placing them in a web of nonsense interspersed liberally with esoteric terms, vague references to spiritual/religious concepts, etc., gets one nonsense.

However, just in case you or anybody else might equate that photo or the expression "figure and ground" with the rest of the post and similar posts, I thought it important to note that, despite the meaningless use, it is the context not that to which the phrase actually refers that renders it nonsense.

'Scientific studies' have taken the particles out of context. The mystic is simply putting them back where they belong: in the One Reality.

Things seem 'vague' and 'nonsensical' to you because you don't understand the natural world just as it is. You want to over-analyze it to death with your 'science', thinking you have attained some kind of 'understanding'. You haven't. Your just nibbling around the edges with your measurements and calculations. At least Michio Kaku has the good sense and humility to realize the futility of his own physics.

You make it sound as if mystics are hijacking QM, when, in fact, it is science that is doing the hijacking, in its slick attempt to 'own' QM. We know what you are saying, but you don't know what we're saying, and that is because science is a view that attempts to encapsulate reality within limited conceptual models, and because the intellect, which is what is utilized for scientific study, is not enough to gain the kind of understanding that is needed. What it yields is only part of the story, but it alone will always lead to paradox, and paradox is where science stands today, perhaps even more than ever.

The figure/ground image I posted does not accurately portray what I had intended, as it would have been more suitable had there been two figures in the image, as a means of illustrating that, when compared in relative fashion, the background, or ground, is still always necessary to them, contrary to what monk of reason had stated.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

'Scientific studies' have taken the particles out of context.

Particles exist only in scientific contexts (unless, of course, you are using particle to mean "a bit of something", in which case what you assert is even more irrelevant).

The mystic is simply putting them back where they belong

'The mystic" (namely you, as having read, studied with, studied under, and engaged with many mystics you are the only one I've ever encountered who claims omniscience through the use of google and youtube) has done nothing of the sort. To put "particle" in context is to put it in scientific context. When you can show me how texts written by mystics have written about something equivalent to the modern scientific term "particle" then we can wonder about mystical contexts. However, as you can't read any Greek, Latin, Sanskrit, Chinese, Japanese, or any other language generally associated with mystic traditions, you couldn't do this even if it were possible- a downside of google-mysticism.

in the One Reality.

You mean you use one internet search engine? I already knew that.

Things seem 'vague' and 'nonsensical' to you because you don't understand the natural world just as it is.

You use terms from my field incorrectly not because you have some "deeper" understanding as to what these terms mean (you define them incorrectly yet parrot exactly specific phrases you are incapable of evaluating). Your "natural world" as described in your posts consists of half-baked idiocy from YouTube clips and google-generated websites so that you can speak about scientific topics you are completely ignorant of as well as historical issues you are unfamiliar with based upon texts written in languages you are incapable of reading.

You want to over-analyze it to death with your 'science', thinking you have attained some kind of 'understanding'.

Maybe, maybe not. All I know is that I'd rather understand things by actually having a clue what I am talking about rather than claiming to be an omniscient "mystic" with access to "the source" which turns out to be the google. Your understanding is based upon webpages you find. You could not understand simplistic problems in quantum mechanics because you lack the necessary mathematical abilities just like you can't read the texts to which you refer because you don't know the languages.

Your just nibbling around the edges with your measurements and calculations.

You mock the sciences that you use to inform basically the entirety of your access to sources you use to misunderstand everything from Mithras to quantum physics. "Measurements and calculations" got you the internet you use to flaunt ignorance.

You make it sound as if mystics are hijacking QM

Not really. I don't consider you a mystic, as having known many I've yet to come across one so thoroughly unacquainted with any mystic traditions yet so fundamentalist regarding an invented "mysticism" that you use it to define both the subjective mysticism you built from webpages and science you failed to understand from your internet searches.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

It's the nature of our altered consciousness, which is not our true nature. Our true nature is beyond all such attachments.

Perfect example of my comment.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Particles exist only in scientific contexts (unless, of course, you are using particle to mean "a bit of something"...)

I seek your expertise on this. Please tell me if this description is correct or not...

Particles (in a scientific context) are excitations of quantum fields exhibiting particle-like behavior under certain conditions and wave-like behavior in others. In other words, these fields or “particles” of mass act, react, or behave differently under different experimental conditions.


Thanks.

---

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Particles (in a scientific context) are excitations of quantum fields exhibiting particle-like behavior under certain conditions and wave-like behavior in others. In other words, these fields or “particles” of mass act, react, or behave differently under different experimental conditions.

There are a couple of different scientific contexts in which we speak of "particles" in rather fundamentally different ways. Your definition, for example, cannot be used to describe (elementary) particles in the standard model (SM) because particles they are point-like and have neither (internal) structure nor excited states. However, composite particles (or excitations of condensed matter) in quantum field are pretty much as your definition describes. Then there are more exotic models or alternate models, such as Bohmian mechanics (in which one could say there are only particles, but these particles move like waves). Finally, most in the sciences don't work at the level where quantum mechanics (let alone QCD, gauge theories, etc.) are required, so particles are treated according to classical kinetics.

For the most part, "particles" don't exist for anybody but are useful because either
1) One is using classical physics and doesn't need to deal with quantization or similar components of modern physics
2) One is talking about things that aren't particles but are convenient to refer to as such because physicists spent a few centuries with this term and it was easier to carry over into a physics in which everything is more or less a "wave" but can become increasingly detected as localized at some point the way a classical particle would.

I hope that that answers your question (and is at least mostly comprehensible, as I have a habit of over-complicating my explanations).

 

[Runewolf1973]

There are a couple of different scientific contexts in which we speak of "particles" in rather fundamentally different ways. Your definition, for example, cannot be used to describe (elementary) particles in the standard model (SM) because particles they are point-like and have neither (internal) structure nor excited states. However, composite particles (or excitations of condensed matter) in quantum field are pretty much as your definition describes. Then there are more exotic models or alternate models, such as Bohmian mechanics (in which one could say there are only particles, but these particles move like waves). Finally, most in the sciences don't work at the level where quantum mechanics (let alone QCD, gauge theories, etc.) are required, so particles are treated according to classical kinetics.

For the most part, "particles" don't exist for anybody but are useful because either
1) One is using classical physics and doesn't need to deal with quantization or similar components of modern physics
2) One is talking about things that aren't particles but are convenient to refer to as such because physicists spent a few centuries with this term and it was easier to carry over into a physics in which everything is more or less a "wave" but can become increasingly detected as localized at some point the way a classical particle would.

I hope that that answers your question (and is at least mostly comprehensible, as I have a habit of over-complicating my explanations).

Thank you! Works for me.

 

[godnotgod]

Particles exist only in scientific contexts

You confirm my claim that science is hijacking what it finds in nature for its own purposes.

The phenomena you call 'particle', in fact, all phenomena that science studies, belongs to the natural world, even when such phenomena are manipulated in the laboratory.

 

[godnotgod]

'The mystic" (namely you, as having read, studied with, studied under, and engaged with many mystics you are the only one I've ever encountered who claims omniscience through the use of google and youtube) has done nothing of the sort. To put "particle" in context is to put it in scientific context. When you can show me how texts written by mystics have written about something equivalent to the modern scientific term "particle" then we can wonder about mystical contexts. However, as you can't read any Greek, Latin, Sanskrit, Chinese, Japanese, or any other language generally associated with mystic traditions, you couldn't do this even if it were possible- a downside of google-mysticism.

You're confusing the phenomena you call 'particle' with it's description, the phenomena having pre-existed science's 'discovery'. Science has taken it out of the context of it's pre-existence and encapsulated it with its own jargon and modeling. None of your scientific jargon and mumbo-jumbo tells us anything. It always ends in sterility, because you have isolated what you are looking at, removing it from its natural context, killing it in the process, and thinking you are being ever so clever. Then you want to make your 'special' knowledge inaccessible to the common man by surrounding this sterile nonsense with esoteric languages and academia to further confuse the issue, and to lend an air of authority to it.

In isolating the phenomena of the particle from its context (just as the zoologists in decades past isolated animals from their environment, coming to incorrect conclusions about their behavior) you are missing the most important aspect of your study: a dynamic, dancing, alive and conscious universe.

Fritjof Capra, philosopher of science, is one individual who puts the phenomena of the particle back into context:

The purpose of this book (the Tao of Physics) is to explore the relationship between the concepts of modern physics and the basic ideas in the philosophical and religious traditions of the Far East. We shall see how the two foundations of twentieth-century physics - quantum theory and relativity - both force us to see the world very much in the way a Hindu, Buddhist or Taoist sees it .. (Fritjof Capra, Tao of Physics, 1975)...

...Shiva the Cosmic Dancer, is perhaps the most perfect personification of the dynamic universe. Through his dance, Shiva sustains the manifold phenomena in the world, unifying all things by immersing them in his rhythm and making them participate in the dance- a magnificent image of the dynamic unity of the Universe. (Fritjof Capra, The Tao of Physics, p211)...

The Eastern mystics see the universe as an inseparable web, whose interconnections are dynamic and not static. The cosmic web is alive; it moves and grows and changes continually. Modern physics, too, has come to conceive of the universe as such a web of relations and, like Eastern mysticism, has recognised that this web is intrinsically dynamic. The dynamic aspect of matter arises in quantum theory as a consequence of the wave-nature of subatomic particles, and is even more essential in relativity theory, where the unification of space and time implies that the being of matter cannot be separated from its activity. The properties of subatomic particles can therefore only be understood in a dynamic context; in terms of movement, interaction and transformation. (Fritjof Capra, The Tao of Physics)

According to quantum theory, matter is thus never quiescent, but always in a state of motion. (Fritjof Capra, The Tao of Physics, p215)

Modern physics then, pictures matter not at all as passive and inert, but being in a continuous dancing and vibrating motion whose rhythmic patterns are determined by the molecular, atomic and nuclear structures. This is also the way in which the Eastern mystics see the material world. They all emphasise that the universe has to be grasped dynamically, as it moves, vibrates and dances; that nature is not a static but dynamic equilibrium. (Fritjof Capra, The Tao of Physics, P216)...

Every time the physicists asked nature a question in an atomic experiment, nature answered with a paradox, and the more they tried to clarify the situation, the sharper the paradoxes became. It took them a long time to accept the fact that these paradoxes belong to the intrinsic structure of atomic physics, and to realise that they arise whenever one attempts to describe atomic events in the traditional terms of physics. (Fritjof Capra, The Tao of Physics, p76)...

The apparent contradiction between the particle and the wave picture was solved in a completely unexpected way which called in question the very foundation of the mechanistic world view - the concept of the reality of matter.
At the sub-atomic level, matter does not exist with certainty at definite places, but rather shows ‘tendencies to exist’ and atomic events do not occur with certainty at definite times and in definite ways, but rather show ‘tendencies to occur’. In the formalism of quantum theory, these tendencies are expressed as probabilities and are associated with mathematical quantities which take the form of waves. This is why particles can be waves at the same time. They are not ‘real’ three-dimensional waves like sound or water waves.

They are ‘probability waves’, abstract mathematical quantities with all the characteristic properties of waves which are related to the probabilities of finding the particles at particular points in space and at particular times. (Fritjof Capra, The Tao of Physics, p78)

Fritjof Capra: Metaphysics Philosophy of Fritjof Capra Tao of Physics, Quotes

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You're confusing the phenomena you call 'particle' with it's description

Per Wittgenstein, Husserl, or Saussure?

 

[godnotgod]

Per Wittgenstein, Husserl, or Saussure?

per LOM.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

per LOM.

And so you agree with me in the end. Good to know.

 

[godnotgod]

In ordinary life, we are not aware of the unity of all things, but divide the world into separate objects and events. This division is useful and necessary to cope with our everyday environment, but it is not a fundamental feature of reality. It is an abstraction devised by our discriminating and categorising intellect. To believe that our abstract concepts of separate ‘things’ and ‘events’ are realities of nature is an illusion. (Capra, The Tao of Physics, 1975)

Fritjof Capra: Metaphysics Philosophy of Fritjof Capra Tao of Physics, Quotes

 

[godnotgod]

And so you agree with me in the end. Good to know.

I neither agree nor disagree. It's just a matter of seeing the world through an altered state of conscious awareness called 'the scientific view' and believing it to be an accurate and complete representation of reality.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I neither agree nor disagree.

I asked a specific question about the relation between your descriptions and anything established by more than your skimming of websites.

It's just a matter of seeing the world through an altered state of conscious awareness

In various posts you have defined a vast range of worldviews, yet have so utterly failed to even approach mystic understandings as they have existed through history that your descriptions of mysticism are akin to someone playing an early 2D war game and claiming that this enables them to understand war.

You have no familiarity with research or philosophy on the mind/consciousness.

You are incapable of describing states of anything in any meaningful way.

Your ignorance of how perception influences cognition and belief systems is virtually complete.

Basically, you parrot words from sciences you can't understand in relation to religious and spiritual movements that you can only access through translations provided by the academics you insult.\

believing it to be an accurate and complete representation of reality.

Compared to your Google-mystic knowledge of "reality" you gleaned without the capacity to read mystic texts in their original languages, without the instruction of any master, with the ridiculously misinformed and inaccurate views you have regarding topics like QM, and your Western fast-food "Mc-Mystic" ideology akin to fluffy bunny Wicca?