Is Science Compatible with Mysticism?

[Windwalker]

In order for something productive to come out of this conversation it is important to acknowledge a few basic things:

1. The mystic world-view (view of reality) is Monistic.

I don't agree the mystic world view is monistic. And again, we are running into trouble here in defining mystic views as one thing: nonduality (which is not monism, by the way). Mystic views, I suppose could generally be seen as holistic. But even then, mystic views may also be wholly dualistic.

If you see my list I borrowed from Wilber above, the psychic, subtle, causal, and nondual are all mystical realizations. Post link. But each are a different type of 'experience'. Subtle level experience is very much dualistic. And in fact, monism itself is duality! Believe it or not. It is duality because it views reality as an object which is all one substance or thing! An object requires a subject, and that is duality. The causal is neither subject nor object, but then the nondual beyond that is both that casual emptiness and form. Reality, in the upper case use of the word, is "not one, not two". It is not monism, it is not duality, but embraces both. It just "Is", in all forms, monism and duality.

But regardless of this, anything shy of the causal and nondual, is a form of duality itself, where there is "me" is relation to "That". And it does qualify as mystical experience because it is the experience of That in one form or another, through symbols; nature, deity forms, mystical experience itself, etc. Experience requires time and space, and therefore any experience at all is dualistic.

1. Scientists themselves can not come to agreement about what "reality" is.

Nor should they as that question is outside science itself. It moves up into metaphysics at that point.

1. There are scientists who are also Monistic.

There are scientists who are also theists (dualists). Monism is pantheism. There are also scientists who are nondualists. But as was pointed out several times previously, these scientists are mystics, not because of physics, but in spite of it. QM, nor string theory, nor any other sort of investigation into physics, is not the meeting place between the manifest world and Unmanifest Spirit, the Ground of Being. That is a huge misconception of a lot of folks who want to find some sort of place where science validates or agrees with mystical insight. They are distinctly different domains of knowing and investigation. The best science will ever do in this regard, and as wonderful as it all is, is to see how the manifest, material world functions at its deepest and most subtle forms! That is still the manifest world, not Unmanifest Spirit.

Science examines objects. Spirit is "neti neti", not this, not that. Neither subject, nor object. Neither duality, nor monism. "All is One" does not mean matter is Spirit, or Spirit is matter (which is pantheism or monism). Matter is not "this" and Spirit is "that", nor is it of one "substance". Nonduality is "All".

 

[crossfire]

Experience requires time and space, and therefore any experience at all is dualistic.

Ooh, the formlessness jhanas are non-experiences? Kewl! {Drat! There IS that pesky beginning and the pesky ending of the jhana, so I guess that might still hold. What a conundrum!}

 

[Open_Minded]

Mystic views, I suppose could generally be seen as holistic.

OK ... that's fair. So... for the sake of this discussion let's remember that definition.

Nor should they as that question is outside science itself. It moves up into metaphysics at that point.

I don't disagree with you Windwalker. The reason I keep pointing out that there is debate within the science community itself is to bring in the "big picture" so-to-speak. The scientific views being represented by Legion are not necessarily representative of ALL scientists (anymore than your views or my views are representative of mystics). This is an important point to remember. We must all remain grounded in this discussion - all of us mystics and scientists alike.

There are scientists who are also theists (dualists). Monism is pantheism. There are also scientists who are nondualists. But as was pointed out several times previously, these scientists are mystics, not because of physics, but in spite of it. QM, nor string theory, nor any other sort of investigation into physics, is not the meeting place between the manifest world and Unmanifest Spirit, the Ground of Being. That is a huge misconception of a lot of folks who want to find some sort of place where science validates or agrees with mystical insight. They are distinctly different domains of knowing and investigation. The best science will ever do in this regard, and as wonderful as it all is, is to see how the manifest, material world functions at its deepest and most subtle forms! That is still the manifest world, not Unmanifest Spirit.

Science examines objects. Spirit is "neti neti", not this, not that. Neither subject, nor object. Neither duality, nor monism. "All is One" does not mean matter is Spirit, or Spirit is matter (which is pantheism or monism). Matter is not "this" and Spirit is "that", nor is it of one "substance". Nonduality is "All".

Again - we are in agreement. I bring these up to "ground" the conversation in reality.

It is important for all of us to remember these things - otherwise the conversation ends up becoming a debate over the trees while the forest remains un-noticed.

Which is one more reason why I am asking Legion to state his position in a clear and concise manner.

Does he think Mysticism is compatible with Science? Does he believe a mystic can be a successful scientist?

What is his world-view??? Is it "holistic" as you say??? And if so .... what's the debate about???? The path one takes to a holistic world-view??????

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Of course. That hypotheses and theories can be disproved is a feature of science, the only caveat being that a scientific theory is of an order above that of how it is used in the popular sense. For all practical purposes, for example, the Theory of Evolution is fact because it is a dynamic working model.

Okay, so now we have come full-circle. You admit that the claims you cited (Goswami's theory of mind) could be proven, or disproven, by science. Therefore, such claims (whether you choose to call them "mystical" or not) are within the "sphere of reason" and it is legitimate for me to critically evaluate them based on reason/science.

But earlier, you accused me of "twisting" and "deliberate deception" when I criticized such claims based on reason/science, because such claims are supposedly "outside the sphere of reason". Now you have admitted, actually, many of these claims are WITHIN the sphere of reason/science, and therefore, your previous objections to me were invalid.

For reference:

... Chopra and his supporters like the idea that their beliefs are somehow "beyond" science (that is, protected from skeptical scrutiny). ... But whenever they see an opportunity for science to support their beliefs, they seize it. How convenient. And, by the way, they distort the science in doing so (Chopra claims that the brain is "non-local" in a quantum physics sense, everything is a "field of possibility", etc.) It reminds me of religious people, they do the same thing .... faith trumps science, except when I can distort science to make it support my faith. It's heads I win, tails you lose.

You're twisting things again. Once again: the mystical experience is outside the sphere of rational thinking, such as science. Period. You distort this to say that it is made up as a convenience for deliberate deception.
...
As I previously pointed out, mysticism has been around a lot longer than science, and never required it for validation, nor does it now. There may be some who claim to be mystics and do just what you claim, but a genuine mystic would never do that. Amit Goswami (see below) and Chopra are only integrating QM into what is already known, via mystical insight, about the nature of Reality.

Thank you for demonstrating my point. Chopra talks at length explicitly about science.
Here is a video clip where Chopra says, and I quote:

"I think I'm going to have to say [about quantum physics] that science is now in a process of overthrowing ... the superstition of materialism ... that the essential nature of the physical world is not physical. Science also tells us ... that there are gaps between every two "ons" where you find a field of possibilities, a field of pure potentiality ... Science also tells us that there's a field of non-locality, where everything is correlated with everything else. ... Today, science tells us that the essential nature of reality is non-local correlation, everything is connected to everything else ... that there are quantum leaps of creativity; that there is something called the "observer effect", where intention orchestrates spacetime events which we then measure as movement, and motion, and energy, and matter. ... And all you have to do is understand the principles of science, that you have the resources within you to intuitively grasp this mystery."

So Chopra claims a bunch of nonsense about what science says. His words, not mine. Then you [godnotgod] come rushing in to complain that I can't criticize Chopra based on science. It is like Chopra has started a snowball fight, and when I try to throw one back you [godnotgod] cry "Quit it! Quit it! We're not playing anymore!"
...
[Y]ou post a video of Amit Goswami explaining how an experiment using EEG recordings of electrical activity in human subjects proves his theory. (In Faraday cages, no less, as a control!) But he doesn't require science for validation, no. It would be a mistake to suppose that.

It would, and that is the flaw in your logic, and your misunderstanding of your own science! Remember, Goswami is also a scientist, and as such, will go to great lengths to prove something, if only because there was a challenge initiated, and that is to the credit of science. But, from the point of view of the mystic, that does not mean that the mystical experience is in need of such validation. ...

So for the record, when I specifically talk about the scientific claims made by people like Chopra and Goswami, even when they are dressed up in mystic-talk, those specific claims are not outside science and I am not twisting/distorting anything. And you have now basically admitted as much.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Coins can only be flipped via consciousness.

That has nothing to do with what I said. Your source conflates to parts of quantum mechanics by making up a term: "possibility waves".

It's called both. They're the same thing.

Schrödinger's cat may be a paradox, but the measurement problem is not Schrödinger's cat.

The reason it is called that is because of the arbitrary parameters used to define it in the first place.

And what are those parameters?

 

[godnotgod]

That has nothing to do with what I said. Your source conflates to parts of quantum mechanics by making up a term: "possibility waves".

It has everything to do with it. Your coin flipping response was directly related to Goswami's statement:

"So then the question arises, what converts possibility into actuality?"
Amit Goswami

Quote:
Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi
Flip a coin. Then see if it lands on heads or tails. That's what.

Originally quoted by godnotgod:
Coins can only be flipped via consciousness. It is the pre-existing condition responsible for conceiving, seeing, and converting possibility into actuality, and considering the results of actuality. Not only is the coin filipped via consciousness, the determination of heads or tails is also made via consciousness. In reality, the entire process is all of one piece. That's what.

Goswami is presenting a new view; new views commonly include new terms. You imply that his doing so has no validity.

Schrödinger's cat may be a paradox, but the measurement problem is not Schrödinger's cat.

You're playing with words and focusing on minutiae, instead of seeing the point. SC is an example of the measurement problem/paradox. It is a paradox because it is an unsolved problem.

And what are those parameters?

Life & death; time, space, & causation.

 

[godnotgod]

Okay, so now we have come full-circle. You admit that the claims you cited (Goswami's theory of mind) could be proven, or disproven, by science. Therefore, such claims (whether you choose to call them "mystical" or not) are within the "sphere of reason" and it is legitimate for me to critically evaluate them based on reason/science.

But earlier, you accused me of "twisting" and "deliberate deception" when I criticized such claims based on reason/science, because such claims are supposedly "outside the sphere of reason". Now you have admitted, actually, many of these claims are WITHIN the sphere of reason/science, and therefore, your previous objections to me were invalid.

For reference:



So for the record, when I specifically talk about the scientific claims made by people like Chopra and Goswami, even when they are dressed up in mystic-talk, those specific claims are not outside science and I am not twisting/distorting anything. And you have now basically admitted as much.

Now you're twisting things again.

I 'admit' nothing.

You can use reason to argue for or against any view, even if that view itself does not include reason. That does not mean your argument is sound. Theologians do it to try to prove God. Scientists do it when a new hypothesis is conceived. Mystics use it to create metaphor for the mystical view. In this case, a scientist is using it, via deduction, along with evidence, to point to something outside the sphere of reason.

But I was agreeing to the idea that Goswami's experiment can be proven/disproven since it is science-based. If you think, however, that you can use reason to disprove what his experiment points to, then please proceed.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

(
Gahhh... I express frustration because we can't seem to get beyond this misunderstanding of what the heck mystics mean when the speak of the illusory nature of reality.

I can understand your frustration. After all, throughout this thread I and others have tried to explain things like brains and quantum mechanics and are continually ignored, misunderstood, or misinterpreted. And I appreciate you taking the time to answer, frustrating as it may be. However, surely you can understand that something which is mystical can be difficult to put into words in a way that makes seemingly contradictory views really one and the same (or two sides of the same coin)?

The web of life most definitely is experienced inwardly. I doubt there is one mystic in the bunch in this discussion that would not wholeheartedly agree.

I have a question (or an issue which involves a question?) which will at least be easier for you to answer in a way I understand than most of my other questions.

Some things fell into place which should have earlier when you mentioned Ken Wilber. I was given his book Integral Psychology by a friend who knows what I do. She didn't know that I'd read come across a paper of his in a journal I've read a lot of papers/studies from: Journal of Consciousness Studies.

And she definitely didn't know that Wilber talks about cognitive science, Alywn Scott (my favorite mathematician whose work is mostly the mathematical side of certain sciences), Whitehead, Jackendoff, etc.

I enjoyed the book, although I disagreed with much.

The question I have is based on looking over both your explanations of things like the "web of life" and the references you use to explain (well, try to explain and I try to understand) various notions. They are all of them either from Eastern philosophies/beliefs or (in the case of Wilber) from the incorporation of Eastern philosophies/beliefs into Western ideas about consciousness and reality.

None of them are from the writings of the mystics I think differ significantly from Eastern conceptions of the cosmos, the self, etc.

So my question is: what is your experience (and by that I mean everything from personal practice to reading anthropological studies) with the various mystic traditions I have contrasted against those from or which make use of Eastern traditions?

I ask not just because I see a contrast between how you are explaining the traditions/beliefs I refer to and how they are explained by those who practice them.

It's also because you mentioned systems theory and Wilber, as well as other things (I noted that you were getting into cognitive science in a previous post) that are not, in many ways, from mystic practice/beliefs at all. They are from cognitive psychology, the philosophy of language, etc. For example:

The web of life most definitely is experienced inwardly. I doubt there is one mystic in the bunch in this discussion that would not wholeheartedly agree. Also, the web of life is also a way to speak of what systems theory gets at. It is a holistic view of reality. Which is why monism, a mental, scientific model of reality, is all too often conflated with nonduality in many peoples understanding

Systems theory is a "scientific model", and not only does Wilber criticize it, he specifically refers to "the modern systems sciences" (p. 18 in Sex, Ecology, Spirituality). This is what he means:

Alpay, D., & Vinnikov, V. (Eds.). (2007). System theory, the Schur algorithm and multidimensional analysis (Vol. 176). Birkhäuser Basel.

Dubitzky, W. (2011). Understanding the dynamics of biological systems: lessons learned from integrative systems biology. Springer.


Boogerd, F., Bruggeman, F. J., Hofmeyr, J. H. S., & Westerhoff, H. V. (Eds.). (2007).Systems biology: philosophical foundations. Elsevier Science.

Feng, J., Fu, W., & Sun, F. (2010). Frontiers in computational and systems biology. Springer.

Lin, Y. (1999). General systems theory: A mathematical approach (Vol. 12). Springer.

Auyang, S. Y. (1999). Foundations of complex-system theories: in economics, evolutionary biology, and statistical physics. Cambridge University Press.

Wheeler, W. (2006). The whole creature: Complexity, biosemiotics and the evolution of culture. Lawrence And Wishart Ltd.

H. Haken. (2006). Information and Self-organization: A Macroscopic Approach to Complex Systems. Springer.

Wilber calls it "subtle reductionism" and while he compares it to the web of life, it is most certainly not what the web of life I have referred to means for those whom I have heard it from. The conflation of "systems theory" and "the great 'web of life'" may be how Wilber understands "the 'new paradigm' approaches to spirituality", but it isn't accurate. And it is also not something he speaks too highly of (italics in original, emphases added):

"simply learning systems theory, or the new physics, or learning about Gaia, or thinking holistically, will not do anything to transform your interior consciousness, because none of those address the interior stages of growth and development. Open any book on systems theory, the new paradigm, the new physics, and so on, and you will learn about how all things are part of a great interconnected Web of Life, and that by accepting this belief, the world can be healed. But rarely will you find a discussion of the many interior stages of growth of consciousness that alone can lead to an actual embrace of global consciousness...[You will find] no hints about how these interior transformations occur, and what you can do to foster them in your case... All you find is: modern science and matriarchal religions all agree that we are parts of the great Web of Life...

In short, systems theory and the Web-of-Life theories do not generally transform consciousness because, hobbled with their subtle reductionism, they do not adequately address the interior stages of consciousness development- where they real growh occurs." from Integral Psychology, pp. 138-137.

First, while it is true that one can open many books, from "new age" to popular physics books (e.g., The Non-Local Universe) and find a lot about interconnectedness, it is not true at all that one can open "any book on systems theory" and find anything like this. Second, I've heard and read many people talk about Gaia, the Goddess, the web-of-life over many years, and I can't recall ever once hearing anybody say "systems theory" or anything like it. Third, there are those (clearly, as Wilber points them out) who do think that understanding the Web of Life, Gaia, etc., is far more central than Wilber believes. In fact, they would say he has it backwards.

So when you talk about the web of life and what it means, as well as other notions or quotes I have supplied, upon what are you basing your interpretations? That is, when you explain or interpret things I have written and quoted regarding Christian mysticism, Jewish mysticism, Wicca, Druids, shaman practices/beliefs, etc., you have related them to beliefs that are Eastern. Is this because you see these statements in this light based, or because you are familiar with these traditions?

 

[atanu]

[

So for the record, when I specifically talk about the scientific claims made by people like Chopra and Goswami, even when they are dressed up in mystic-talk, those specific claims are not outside science and I am not twisting/distorting anything. And you have now basically admitted as much.

Chopra and Goswami and other Buddhist scientists are saying nothing new that is not in Copenhagen interpretation. Further, their view is supported by empirical evidence that indeed weird EPR is true and that instantaneous communication between paired photons is experimentally seen. Now such instantaneous communication cannot be explained if we do not assume a singular message board underlying the two photons. (Singular message board is term coined by me. I clarify lest Legion and Spinkle pounce on me).

Those who ridicule Chopra etc., such as Dawkins et al., hold a view, emanating from a primeval sensual POV that universe is a composite of discrete things and that life and intelligence are products of non-intelligent things coming together to become intelligent. This is a non-sensical view, IMO. If such was the case then no proposition could have any truth value. Stephen Hawking has noted this.

We simply say that all these observed discrete things are not separate from 'MY' view. The paradox is that no one actually knows the 'MY' with thought and words, since the thoughts and words emanate of 'ME', which is to be known.

I think this thread has degenerated into confusion because the basic difference between the red and the blue views is being glossed over.

I agree that Chopra and Goswami might be stretching QM towards 'Consciousness' and 'non-locality' a little too thin and little too vigorously. But they are not as unscientific as Dennet et. al. who altogether discount Consciousness.

 

[Willamena]

I think this thread has degenerated into confusion because... the basic difference between the red and the blue...

Me and Johnny Horton agree.

 

[atanu]

Me and Johnny Horton agree.

I suppose Johnny Horton the singer? (came to know from Wiki). Tell me about Mr. Horton please.

 

[Willamena]

I suppose Johnny Horton the singer? (came to know from Wiki). Tell me about Mr. Horton please.

He is just the first association I make with "the red and the blue," a War of Independence reference, because my father listened to his music. The red coats fought for the British, and the blue coats for the colonies. It's reminiscent of the opposing views on this thread.

My favourite Johnny Horton song is Whispering Pines.

 

[Windwalker]

The question I have is based on looking over both your explanations of things like the "web of life" and the references you use to explain (well, try to explain and I try to understand) various notions. They are all of them either from Eastern philosophies/beliefs or (in the case of Wilber) from the incorporation of Eastern philosophies/beliefs into Western ideas about consciousness and reality.

None of them are from the writings of the mystics I think differ significantly from Eastern conceptions of the cosmos, the self, etc.

So my question is: what is your experience (and by that I mean everything from personal practice to reading anthropological studies) with the various mystic traditions I have contrasted against those from or which make use of Eastern traditions?

I ask not just because I see a contrast between how you are explaining the traditions/beliefs I refer to and how they are explained by those who practice them.

It's also because you mentioned systems theory and Wilber, as well as other things (I noted that you were getting into cognitive science in a previous post) that are not, in many ways, from mystic practice/beliefs at all. They are from cognitive psychology, the philosophy of language, etc. For example:

I am a bit of an amalgam of many perspectives, and a long arduous journey of searching to find some way to talk about my experiences. I'm an odd duck, to be sure. I began at the top, so to speak, and then had to learn how to climb up from the ground up through searching for structures on which to hang experience, to learn how to integrate them. Mine is far more a search from the interior to find something to be able to understand what that is, than one of searching the world to find something inside.

I know that sounds quite vague but you ask my background and exposure, and you open a can of worms of 30 years of searching to get back to where I began, and could find no home for it at the time. My path began with two, life changing experiences. To "categorize" it using the model that Wilber offers (drawing from the works of others), my first experience was a high-subtle level experience where I experienced a complete cessation of time, infinite mind, infinite awareness, a knowledge of my entire life before my eyes, infinite compassion, infinite grace, infinite love, all within a sliver of infinity within an infinity beyond it, and that sliver of infinity was infinity in itself. White light. Pure power, control, grace, pressing upon me, knowing my name. Difficult to describe.

The second experience was days later while walking outdoors, where the universe "ripped open" and everything, every molecule of air, every blade of grass, every movement of air, every face, every object radiated a living, vital life, love, pure, essence, being. And from within me, from the most unimaginable depth beyond comprehension within me flowed this very energy up and out into the world in a infinite flow of life itself. No words can adequately describe this. This is the nondual reality. When I hear anyone in this conversation speak of "Reality", with a capital R, this is what that looks like. This is what is seen and experienced. It is that pure emptiness manifest in all form. Infinite well of expression in all that is.

That started my path for the next 30 years until now. This happened outside any religious contexts. I had no religious upbringing, not indoctrination, was not part of any practices, was not on some spiritual path. I was just some kid of 18 years of age in a deep existential crisis of life, truly adrift within himself. It utterly rip my life open and exposed the core that was masked in the darkness of my imaginings of the world.

It was following this I ended up in Christianity looking for some framework to hang these on in order to examine them and try to understand them and build upon them. Long, long story there. In practicing meditation now 30 years later, it takes me square back into these sorts of exposures, most every time, in different ways. I have no formal tradition I follow, and you could say that its across the board and touches on what you've mentioned, as well as Eastern. It's really not following any teachings, but rather following what arises from within. And that is deeply significant, to say the least.

I don't know how to begin to answer what you are asking as it would require a book length life story to begin to expose. Cognitive theory? Oh yes, CBT came into my life, and that understanding definitely relates to mystical practice, as a sort of baby-steps example of what meditation takes you into.

You'll also hear me refer to semiotics, which resonates with me. Many other postmodernist views, as well. When I encountered Wilber, his models really connected all these dots I'd been laying out over the years. I don't see him as infallible of course, but I find it useful to the point I see it differently.

I'm not sure how much that ramble addressed anything for you.

Wilber calls it "subtle reductionism" and while he compares it to the web of life, it is most certainly not what the web of life I have referred to means for those whom I have heard it from. The conflation of "systems theory" and "the great 'web of life'" may be how Wilber understands "the 'new paradigm' approaches to spirituality", but it isn't accurate. And it is also not something he speaks too highly of (italics in original, emphases added):

"simply learning systems theory, or the new physics, or learning about Gaia, or thinking holistically, will not do anything to transform your interior consciousness, because none of those address the interior stages of growth and development. Open any book on systems theory, the new paradigm, the new physics, and so on, and you will learn about how all things are part of a great interconnected Web of Life, and that by accepting this belief, the world can be healed. But rarely will you find a discussion of the many interior stages of growth of consciousness that alone can lead to an actual embrace of global consciousness...[You will find] no hints about how these interior transformations occur, and what you can do to foster them in your case... All you find is: modern science and matriarchal religions all agree that we are parts of the great Web of Life...

In short, systems theory and the Web-of-Life theories do not generally transform consciousness because, hobbled with their subtle reductionism, they do not adequately address the interior stages of consciousness development- where they real growh occurs." from Integral Psychology, pp. 138-137.

First, while it is true that one can open many books, from "new age" to popular physics books (e.g., The Non-Local Universe) and find a lot about interconnectedness, it is not true at all that one can open "any book on systems theory" and find anything like this. Second, I've heard and read many people talk about Gaia, the Goddess, the web-of-life over many years, and I can't recall ever once hearing anybody say "systems theory" or anything like it. Third, there are those (clearly, as Wilber points them out) who do think that understanding the Web of Life, Gaia, etc., is far more central than Wilber believes. In fact, they would say he has it backwards.

So when you talk about the web of life and what it means, as well as other notions or quotes I have supplied, upon what are you basing your interpretations? That is, when you explain or interpret things I have written and quoted regarding Christian mysticism, Jewish mysticism, Wicca, Druids, shaman practices/beliefs, etc., you have related them to beliefs that are Eastern. Is this because you see these statements in this light based, or because you are familiar with these traditions?

To really talk about what he means by subtle reductionism in this context would take some explanation. I see what he means, and I agree with it. In the simplest nutshell, as he pointed out, it removes the whole interior. The entire search is looking outside ourselves, looking externally, looking to see an object and identify that as "reality". Systems sciences are indeed holistic, but they are still the exteriors only. The interiors are not known through an external examination. In fact, in the pursuit of such exterior understandings, the interior is ignored completely. Life, who we are, cannot be reduced to exteriors. That's the complaint. That's the problem. That's the downfall of a truly liberated understanding.


So how do you respond to my placing the various traditions in the model of the "depths of the divine" levels I mentioned? I believe I addressed your question there.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Chopra and Goswami and other Buddhist scientists are saying nothing new that is not in Copenhagen interpretation. Further, their view is supported by empirical evidence that indeed weird EPR is true and that instantaneous communication between paired photons is experimentally seen.

Although the Copenhagen interpretation is a bit unclear in certain areas, the main thrust of it was that quantum physics only described probabilities. Stapp puts it pretty succinctly, so I'll quote him: "Quantum theory is a procedure by which scientists predict probabilities that measurements of specified kinds will yield results of specified kinds in situations of specified kinds."

On this view, that quantum mechanics is irreducibly statistical, there cannot be any communication because the quantum system is a probability function. It's like saying certain variables in a math equation communicate. Finally, no view that instantaneous communication is supported by correlations between space-like seperated photons is accurate. It isn't necessarily wrong, but it assumes certain things that have not been shown. Otherwise, we'd be able to uses those experiments to send signals. After all, Aspect's work is pretty old, and in the 90s Gisin did a similar experiment at a distance of many kilometers. We can do these experiments in which we see correlated photons that are violations of Bell inequalities, and have for the last three decades, yet no one has been able to use these to send signals or to communicate. We have no quantum telegram-type machine.

Those who ridicule Chopra etc., such as Dawkins et al., hold a parochial view, emanating from a primeval sensual POV that universe is a composite of discrete things and that life and intelligence are products of non-intelligent things coming together to become intelligent. This is a foolosh view. If such was the case then no proposition could have any truth value. Stephen Hawking has noted this.

I have no idea what Dawkins says apart from quotes, clips, and other tidbits, but I've never been impressed. But I'm not following the last part. Stephen Hawking said any view that holds that life and intelligence are the products of non-intelligent things coming together is foolish? When?

I think this thread has degenerated into confusion because the basic difference between the red and the blue views is being glossed over.

Pair mysticism and quantum physics in a discussion among diverse people and there's going to be confusion. Both are difficult to understand in different ways, and how they might overlap is even harder to understand.

I agree that Chopra and Goswami might be stretching QM towards 'Consciousness' and 'non-locality' a little too thin and little too vigorously. But they are not as unscientific as Dennet or Dawkins who altogether discount Consciousness.

Daniel Dennett I have read, and I have yet to find any argument of his convincing. I don't know what Dawkins has to say here, but I couldn't care less. As a general rule, the more a scientist (or any academic) produces media (books, taped debates, blogs, etc.), the less interested I am in hearing what they have to say. This is especially true of those like Dawkins, who produce far more public media thant research. There's nothing wrong with writing books for the non-specialist, or having a blog, but when a scientist/academic spends more time trying to get messages out to the public, and less time contributing to their field, it's usually a good sign that their mostly interested in getting their message out.

 

[atanu]

Although the Copenhagen interpretation ....
On this view, that quantum mechanics is irreducibly statistical, there cannot be any communication because the quantum system is a probability function. It's like saying certain variables in a math equation communicate. Finally, no view that instantaneous communication is supported by correlations between space-like seperated photons is accurate. It isn't necessarily wrong, but it assumes certain things that have not been shown. Otherwise, we'd be able to uses those experiments to send signals. After all, Aspect's work is pretty old, and in the 90s Gisin did a similar experiment at a distance of many kilometers. We can do these experiments in which we see correlated photons that are violations of Bell inequalities, and have for the last three decades, yet no one has been able to use these to send signals or to communicate. We have no quantum telegram-type machine.

I have edited the referred post. A part of it is reproduced below:

Chopra and Goswami and other Buddhist scientists are saying nothing new that is not in Copenhagen interpretation.

Further, their view is supported by empirical evidence that indeed weird EPR is true and that instantaneous communication between paired photons is experimentally seen. Now such instantaneous communication cannot be explained if we do not assume a singular message board underlying the two photons. (Singular message board is term coined by me. I clarify lest Legion and Spinkle pounce on me.

The text in blue was added in edit.

 

[atanu]

I have no idea what Dawkins says apart from quotes, clips, and other tidbits, but I've never been impressed. But I'm not following the last part. Stephen Hawking said any view that holds that life and intelligence are the products of non-intelligent things coming together is foolish? When?

No not that.

Stephen said that if the nature was fully known through equations then our intelligence would have to be considered a product of such equations.

“Yet if there really were a complete unified theory, it would also presumably determine our actions—so the theory itself would determine the outcome of our search for it! And why should it determine that we come to the right conclusions from the evidence? Might it not equally well determine that we draw the wrong conclusion? Or no conclusion at all?
Stephen Hawking”
― Stephen Hawking, A Briefer History of Time

More:

“Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?”
― Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time

And on much touted determinism:

“I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.”
― Stephen Hawking

 

[atanu]

Although the Copenhagen interpretation is a bit unclear in certain areas, the main thrust of it was that quantum physics only described probabilities. .

That and more, IMO.

QM points to Holism rather than to reductionism. The wave function contains a whole that is greater than the sum of the parts. The particle or wave aspect of a quantum entity requires a dialogue with the environment, which surely includes the observer. Further, the collapse of the wave function still presents a problem and was a source of difference between Bohr and Schrodinger, for eaxample. The latter preferred to think of consciousness as being the reason for collapse, while Bohr proposed randomness.

But if one inspects carefully, one would see that Bohr actually did not propound absolute randomness.

Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)




Bohr's more mature view, i.e., his view after the EPR paper, on complementarity and the interpretation of quantum mechanics may be summarized in the following points:

1. The interpretation of a physical theory has to rely on an experimental practice.
2. The experimental practice presupposes a certain pre-scientific practice of description, which establishes the norm for experimental measurement apparatus, and consequently what counts as scientific experience.
3. Our pre-scientific practice of understanding our environment is an adaptation to the sense experience of separation, orientation, identification and reidentification over time of physical objects.
4. This pre-scientific experience is grasped in terms of common categories like thing's position and change of position, duration and change of duration, and the relation of cause and effect, terms and principles that are now parts of our common language.
5. These common categories yield the preconditions for objective knowledge, and any description of nature has to use these concepts to be objective.
6. The concepts of classical physics are merely exact specifications of the above categories.
7. ................

Now what is language? What is the source of language that has already decided as to how the wave function collapse will be described? Language signifies a pre-supposition of duality. But wherefrom is the language? Does it not sprout on awareness?

So, I would say that QM is stuck at the edge of Wave function collapse and why we see what we see. And that is back to the square one.

In the mheanwhile, 'Yoga Nidra' is able to reduce my BP.

 

[atanu]

Further:

Copenhagen interpretation still retains some conventional sense. Many world theory none.

If really interested, one may read the story of Lila from Yoga Vasistha to see how Lila inhabited many worlds simultaneously. But that required special powers of knowing that one was ungraspably subtle and not the gross graspable body of the mind-sense realm. In the universes that Lila visited/inhabited, the time scales were very different. The many universes are many layers of the consciousness. The link is given below. The story continues from February 21st through March. (A page is supposed to be read each day).

Yoga Vasistha | Daily Readings | Swami Venkatesananda


It should be noted that in the beginning of the book Vasistha states that the stories have a "definite purpose and a limited intention. They are not to be taken literally, nor is their significance to be stretched beyond the intention.


For western readers, a video may be more appropriate. The story continues from Chapter 15 of Section 3 to Chapter 42. Chapter 18 is linked below:

[youtube]YGKbjkx_7Bw[/youtube]
0082 Section 3, Chapters 18-21 Yoga Vasistha - YouTube


The links to further chapters are in:

http://www.youtube.com/results?sear...16.1977.3-1j8-1.2.0...0.0...1ac.1.PCsIXki0IFM

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

QM points to Holism rather than to reductionism.

I'm not sure what it points to, but it certainly doesn't point to reductionism. The following clip is quite long, but the relevant part starts almost at the beginning and becomes really relevant at almost 2 minutes in, with "modern theories really do spell the end of reductionism".

[youtube]NZ-ElsvYKyo[/youtube]

The lecturer is not a mystic, he is not teaching theology or comparative religion, but a physics course. His name is Leonard Susskind.

The wave function contains a whole that is greater than the sum of the parts.

What the wave function contains is symbols. You know that I've argued to death (in a "free will" thread, I believe) against the idea that the measurement problem isn't much of a problem and we can safely disregard quantum mechanics when it comes to things like the brain. But I do not know what the solution is either or what the wave function is other than simply a mathematical function like f(x)=mx+b.

It his true that when one talks about wavefunctions, state vectors, dynamical state, quantum state, and all the terms used to talk about the state of a quantum system psi are the same in that they are complete descriptions. But not necessarily holistic.

Even if (as is so often described as true and even axiomatic), all the information about a quantum system is contained in its state, what that really means is more like "all the information about the state of a book written in English is contained in the alphabet".

In even simpler terms, if the quantum state/state vector/etc. is holistic, then that would mean it is describing something as a whole. But it isn't. I know how many cards are in a deck of cards, so I can the possibility that I will get a card by simply plugging in the number of cards: 1/52. Whatever card I pick, my description holds. But I'm not describing the deck, only
1) The probability that I will get some card and'
2) once I pick one, what card it is.

That's the "holistic" part of quantum mechanics. It is 'holistic" only if it doesn't describe anything other than the probability that you'll get a particular result (and even then it is questionable if it is really a complete description).


The particle or wave aspect of a quantum entity requires a dialogue with the environment, which surely includes the observer. Further, the collapse of the wave function still presents a problem and was a source of difference between Bohr and Schrodinger, for eaxample. The latter preferred to think of consciousness as being the reason for collapse, while Bohr proposed randomness.

But if one inspects carefully, one would see that Bohr actually did not propound absolute randomness.

He absolutely didn't. If quantum mechanics were completely random, we couldn't have probability functions. What Bohr seems to have believed is that all we have to describe quantum systems is mathematics up until we "measure".

Now what is language? What is the source of language that has already decided as to how the wave function collapse will be described?

Statistical theory. Also, there have been alternatives to theories of collapse since quantum mechanics existed.

So, I would say that QM is stuck at the edge of Wave function collapse and why we see what we see. And that is back to the square one.

It isn't, mainly because the emphasis is no longer the isolated system approach of early quantum mechanics, but now focused on decoherence and information theory. Instead of "collapsing" the wavefunction, we want to find out under what conditions it coheres instead. Thus quantum physics moves forward.

 

[atanu]

It isn't, mainly because the emphasis is no longer the isolated system approach of early quantum mechanics, but now focused on decoherence and information theory. Instead of "collapsing" the wavefunction, we want to find out under what conditions it coheres instead. Thus quantum physics moves forward.

I agree. However, I will add that while Godel with his 'Incompleteness theorem' reigns supreme for eternity, I, in the meanwhile will enjoy Yoga and Yoga Vasistha. I will also read science for entertainment from time to time, as long as this body is there.

BTW, do you intend to read Yoga Vasitha that I linked?

(Why we love? Why we study? Why we seek power and money? Why we do anything at all?

We seek happiness for self. No one seeks agony. So, it is better to right away seek happiness directly).