Is Science Compatible with Mysticism?

[atanu]

I will pay you in two princesses and a duke.

Keep the duke for Ymir. Give me princesses.

 

[DreadFish]

Keep the duke for Ymir. Give me princesses.

They're the B list princesses, BTW; kinda ugly

 

[Open_Minded]

They asked 33 physicists, philosophers and mathematicians 16 specific questions.

To be specific ....

33 people turned in their completed questionnaires; of those, 27 stated their main academic aliation as physics, 5 as philosophy, and 3 as mathematics

There is no such discussion going on in the scientific community.

That's quite a broad statement. For instance, just a quick look at a Wikipedia article on Interpretations of quantum mechanics gave 17 different interpretations. That's a lot of time and effort, by a lot of scientists, to interpret quantum mechanics for "no such discussion". To say nothing of all the references provided, I assume much of the references are written by scientists to defend their interpretations.

Beyond that, the authors of the survey that I linked to earlier gave this reasoning for doing the survey:

In August 1997, Max Tegmark polled 48 participants of the conference Fundamental Problems in Quantum Theory," held at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, about their favorite interpretation of quantum mechanics. By Tegmark's own admission, the survey was highly informal and unscientic," as several people voted more than once, many abstained, etc." While the Copenhagen interpretation gathered the most votes, the many-worlds interpretation turned out
to come in second, prompting Tegmark to declare a rather striking shift in opinion compared to the old days when the Copenhagen interpretation reigned supreme."

Today, debates about the foundations of quantum mechanics show no sign of abating. Indeed, they have only become more lively in the years since Tegmark's poll. Thus, we felt the time had come to take a new snapshot. ....

The authors of that paper (and survey) are as follows:

• Maximilian Schlosshauer - Assistant Professor in the Department of Physics at the University of Portland, Oregon.
• Johannes Kofler - Postdoctoral Researcher Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics (MPQ), Garching/Munich, Germany
• Anton Zeilinger – from Quantum Optics, Quantum Nanophysics, Quantum Information

I should think they are all quite qualified (at least as qualified as you) to make an assessment of debates around interpretting quantum mechanics.

The difference between whether or not all scientists are discussing this or just a bunch of scientists may seem trivial to you, and therefore it may seem like I'm just nitpicking.

The Copenhagen interpretation (shut up and do the math) may be what happens in the majority of the scientific community, I will grant you that (hands down) . From your perspective it may be "just a bunch of scientists". From my perspective - it is THOSE bunch of scientists that I am watching. And do you know why? Because they're willing to peek behind the curtain...

It takes time and effort and attention to mathematically develop an interpretation. And one would not undertake the effort unless one felt it held value. Especially in an environment where money dictates what is studied.

So... Legion ... I hope you don't mind that I take your view on the subject as the view of one scientist and search for myself.

It is like viewing religious people as basically all the same (which is something some people do, particularly some atheists, and I find that problematic as well). And I don't want to reinforce this view by answering a question about a discussion in the scientific community that doesn't actually exist any more than the discussion I mentioned exists in the religious community.

Trust me Legion, I do not view Scientists as "all the same". Not by a long-shot. I am quite well aware that the physicists debating these things (peeking behind the curtains) are in a minority. Trouble with dismissing them is that at other times in history scientists who turned out to "have it right" were in the minority as well.

you asked me where I place myself on a spectrum within the scientific community, based on what 33 people said to 1 out of those 16 questions. That 42% and the other figures are all in response to this question: "Question 12: What is your favorite interpretation of quantum mechanics?"

My answer would be with 12% who said "other."

Thank you. I honestly mean that. All throughout this thread, I've seen others state their position and always wondered where you were at. This helps.

If you put yourself with the 12% who said, "other", than may I ask specifically what your position is on the interpretation of quantum mechanics?

 

[godnotgod]

Reality is what is doing the searching.

“You are a function of what the whole universe is doing in the same way that a wave is a function of what the whole ocean is doing.”
Alan Watts

"That which you are seeking is causing you to seek"
Cheri Huber

 

[Willamena]

“You are a function of what the whole universe is doing in the same way that a wave is a function of what the whole ocean is doing.”
Alan Watts

"That which you are seeking is causing you to seek"
Cheri Huber

I think it important to include thought as essential of the universe.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

To be specific ....

That's quite a broad statement. For instance, just a quick look at a Wikipedia article on Interpretations of quantum mechanics gave 17 different interpretations.

Finally, within physics not only do we have vast disagreements about what quantum theory is or involves (and by extension any unified theory), we have theories like the various multiverse theories. Many or most of these probably can’t ever be verified empirically, and were constructed mathematically. All of quantum physics involves a sort of quasi-empiricism as any description of a quantum system irreducibly statistical. Every model of every quantum system is a mathematical description of a system which is never observed/measured.

And yet - much to the dismay of many - quantum mechanics works.

I point out fundamental disagreements with QM, and you say "and yet...quantum mechanics works". I say that 33 opinions don't represent the scientific community, especially because you didn't even look at the questions, and I am told I'm making a broad statement because those 33 people don't represent the tens of thousands of scientists that make up the scientific community.

That's a lot of time and effort, by a lot of scientists, to interpret quantum mechanics for "no such discussion".

I repeat: discussions in "the scientific community" are not equivalent with discussions within quantum physics.

To say nothing of all the references provided, I assume much of the references are written by scientists to defend their interpretations.

And you assume correctly. I read them (or at least read of them), and a great many more. And as for the authors:

The authors of that paper (and survey) are as follows:

• Maximilian Schlosshauer - Assistant Professor in the Department of Physics at the University of Portland, Oregon.

The various sources I've cited aren't saying that "what we see is reality" and trying to make quantum "fit that reality", but recognizing that the solution we've been using so far, to imagine that our "vanishing h" or decoherence can be used to derive classical physics from quantum reality not only has no theoretical basis (and never really did), but is no contradicted by experimental results from numerous studies:
"An example of the latter stance is the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, which postulates a fundamental dualism between a microscopic “quantum” domain and a macroscopic “classical” realm.
Today, our view has changed drastically. On the one hand, quantum effects have been observed in the laboratory far beyond the microscopic domain. Researchers have created mesoscopic and macroscopic "Schrödinger kittens” such as superpositions of microampere currents flowing in opposite directions and interference patterns for massive molecules composed of dozens of carbon atoms"

from Schlosshauer's Decoherence and the Quantum-to-Classical Transition (The Frontiers Collection; Springer, 2007)

You can feel free to ignore what I say, whether it is too literalist or not literalist enough, but it might be more beneficial to make sure you understand what I'm saying. I've tried to do that with you and others (not always successfully) here, and I'd appreciate the same.

I should think they are all quite qualified (at least as qualified as you) to make an assessment of debates around interpretting quantum mechanics.

I should think they would. I would also pay attention to what they say about their sample size, and more importantly, what I have said and objected to from the beginning, a discussion within the physics community IS NOT a discussion with the scientific community.

If you want to find common ground, then please stop twisting my words. I never said those who responded to the survey were not qualified. I never said that there isn't a debate that has raged on for almost a century about quantum interpretations. What I said was that the scientific community is largely unaware of this and it doesn't matter for them.

The Copenhagen interpretation (shut up and do the math) may be what happens in the majority of the scientific community, I will grant you that (hands down) .

It isn't. At all. It was only in physics that this idea was ever around. The rest of the "scientific community" wouldn't understand what you were talking about because they don't deal with "physical systems" that are really vector spaces and operations in a Hilbert space. They get to measure things that are observable without Hermitian operators.

From your perspective it may be "just a bunch of scientists". From my perspective - it is THOSE bunch of scientists that I am watching.

From my perspective, it is not "a bunch of scientists." It is part of an incredibly diverse number of researchers and professionals around the world.

And do you know why? Because they're willing to peek behind the curtain...

The curtain they set-up in the first place. It was in physics, after quantum mechanics, that the "shut up and calculate" mantra and the suggestion that the measurement problem wasn't a problem at all EVER mattered or even meant anything.

It takes time and effort and attention to mathematically develop an interpretation. And one would not undertake the effort unless one felt it held value. Especially in an environment where money dictates what is studied.

You can't mathematically develop an interpretation, and the intepretation issue is the result of mathematics. Quantum systems are transcribed into pure mathematics that are not directly relatable to any actual system. That is the interpretation/measurement problem.

So... Legion ... I hope you don't mind that I take your view on the subject as the view of one scientist and search for myself.

I hope you don't. I hope instead you actually spend some time learning first before speaking about what these physicists, whose works you've never read, and whose field you don't study, are actually saying.

Trust me Legion, I do not view Scientists as "all the same".

Not all scientists. Just science in general. Otherwise, why ask me about a discussion in the scientific community that the scientific community is almost completely unaware of?

 

[godnotgod]

I think it important to include thought as essential of the universe.

Do you mean thought, or consciousness?

 

[Willamena]

Do you mean thought, or consciousness?

I understand that these terms get very qualified when one is talking to mystics, so here are my terms:
- thought is the present moment
- consciousness is the current awareness, where thought is focused

They can be synonymous.

 

[Open_Minded]

what I have said and objected to from the beginning, a discussion within the physics community IS NOT a discussion with the scientific community. ..... I never said those who responded to the survey were not qualified. I never said that there isn't a debate that has raged on for almost a century about quantum interpretations. What I said was that the scientific community is largely unaware of this and it doesn't matter for them.

OK - your point is made - this "is not a discussion with the scientific community ... What I said was that the scientific community is largely unaware of this and it doesn't matter for them"

And... we agree that "a debate that has raged on for almost a century about quantum interpretations" (that was my point).

The curtain they set-up in the first place. It was in physics, after quantum mechanics, that the "shut up and calculate" mantra and the suggestion that the measurement problem wasn't a problem at all EVER mattered or even meant anything.

We agree here as well....

Trust me Legion, I do not view Scientists as "all the same".

Not all scientists. Just science in general. Otherwise, why ask me about a discussion in the scientific community that the scientific community is almost completely unaware of?

Because - as I'VE stated/asked/observed at different points throughout this thread I am trying to get a handle on YOUR position. Go back ... read the thread, see how many times I've referenced a need to know your position. I figured (silly me) that if I asked you your position from the angle of interpretations of quantum physics (having the scientific analytical mind that you have) we could finally make some head-way on where you're at with the "nature of reality" for lack of a better phrase. Which brings me back to a question I asked in my last post.

Thank you. I honestly mean that. All throughout this thread, I've seen others state their position and always wondered where you were at. This helps.

If you put yourself with the 12% who said, "other", than may I ask specifically what your position is on the interpretation of quantum mechanics?

 

[godnotgod]

I understand that these terms get very qualified when one is talking to mystics, so here are my terms:
- thought is the present moment
- consciousness is the current awareness, where thought is focused

They can be synonymous.

When consciousness is not being focused, what is it then?

(Isn't all awareness current?)

Focused consciousness is called 'spotlight attention'; it involves a specific object or area of attention; unfocused consciousness is called 'floodlight attention', and takes in the entire field of view, what some might call 'the big picture', with no particular object in mind.

 

[methylatedghosts]

That is certainly how I feel sometimes. What most posters cannot comprehend that I personally use RF to "flesh out" much of my thinking. Sitting in my chair, brimming with mirth, the ideas are all latent and RF helps me to bring them to the surface. Sometimes I'm as amazed by what I have written as much as dear Atanu, albeit for far different reasons, LOL.

These threads tend to move slightly faster than I like. By the time I've sorted my thoughts on one post, the discussion seems to move on, and I hate to bring it all back to the start lol. Part of it is probably because most discussion happens while I'm asleep. So I'll just sit back, watch it unfold, and draw connections between posts. It's fascinating to see, as though different threads of the thoughts presented all join together to make a giant web that attempts to describe this world we live in. it's also quite amusing too watch two people argue like they disagree while they are just using different words to say the same thing!

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Open_Minded,

Disclaimer: quantum physics is not my specialty. But for what it's worth, I personally favor the Copenhagen interpretation, which is considered "standard". I am non-committal about this though. What I feel more strongly about is that no interpretation of quantum mechanics requires "conscious" observers. This is a mistake usually made by those outside physics. When physicists talk about "observers" doing a measurement they use that word for convenience; really, any "classical" object physically interacting with a quantum object can be considered an "observer" doing a "measurement".

So I really feel quite strongly (and most physicists would agree) that quantum mechanics does not need "consciousness" any more than it needs homo sapiens, or Earth, etc. Those things cost extra, so to speak.

But I also feel that consciousness doesn't need quantum mechanics in principle, either. Suppose physics had stopped in 1900 and it turned out we lived in a classical world. Consciousness would still be a difficult problem. We could still have exactly the same debate: there would be people on one side arguing it arises from the complex operation of information-processing machinery (such as brains, computers), and there would be those on the other side arguing that there's a "ghost in the machine" directing the machinery, so to speak. This debate has nothing to do, in principle, with whether we are talking about quantum machines or classical machines. For example, the precise behavior of a block of metal is, at the end of the day, "quantum" but we are not tempted to call it conscious; likewise the behavior of an advanced robot or a brain could for all practical purposes be "classical" but we might still be tempted to call it conscious.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Because - as I'VE stated/asked/observed at different points throughout this thread I am trying to get a handle on YOUR position. Go back ... read the thread, see how many times I've referenced a need to know your position.

I did.

Would you prefer that scientists not do experiments to see whether quantum mechanics is "at play" in living systems?

You want to get all bogged down in details, and you're missing the larger point. Discovering the depths at which quantum mechanics affects our every day lives is in its very beginning stages. Scientists are doing the hard experimental work of figuring out whether quantum effects can be found in living systems.

Here I am not a scientist, but one who is missing the important work they do.

The research you just cited is part of an increasing realization that "Niels Bohr brainwashed a whole generation of physicists into believing that the problem (of the interpretation of quantum mechanics) had been solved fifty years ago. (Murray Gell-Mann in The Nature of the Physical Universe: the 1976 Nobel Conference ).

I have never operated under the illusion that the interpretation of quantum mechanics has been solved. In fact I quite celebrate the debate going on within the Scientific community right now.

This was your first link to the "debate". Insofar as your following posts were concerned with my position, it did not seem like wished to get a handle on my position as it did to explain to me why my position was at least somewhat in error:

you will not find the answers you seek arguing over minutia in this thread. You will find the answers you seek within your self. I do not have the answers, no one else in this thread has the answers, they are within you. And the way you will find them is to take all the searching you have done thus far, whether through science or any other discipline, and let them be. Don't cling to them. Take the path of silence, what you have learned in other areas of your life has built you up to this point in your life.

However, you did later ask about my perspective:

I figured (silly me) that if I asked you your position from the angle of interpretations of quantum physics (having the scientific analytical mind that you have) we could finally make some head-way on where you're at with the "nature of reality" for lack of a better phrase. Which brings me back to a question I asked in my last post.

But you did not ask me about my interpretations of quantum physics:

Legion - may I ask a simple question? From your scientific point of view do you think we inhabit an interconnected universe/reality?

So I tried to explain the difference between being my point of view and my scientific point of view. You didn't respond to any of that, so I don't know how you interpreted it. Perhaps you were anxious to get to a common ground, and I understand such motivation. It's just that by doing so I think you missed some important points that would have helped you get a handle on my position.

My position is agnosticism.

 

[Open_Minded]

My position is agnosticism.

In an honest attempt to get to the core here, I'm going to focus on your position.

Agnosticism is a beginning, and it gives me a general (preconceived) idea of your world-view. So.... Where are you at with the "nature of reality" discussion?

When you said that you would have answered that survey as "other", in layman's terms what is "other" to you?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

In an honest attempt to get to the core here, I'm going to focus on your position.

Agnosticism is a beginning, and it gives me a general (preconceived) idea of your world-view. So.... Where are you at with the "nature of reality" discussion?

When you said that you would have answered that survey as "other", in layman's terms what is "other" to you?

In lay terms I'd say "I don't know." There are theories I think are very likely wrong and those I think more likely. That "objective reality" is created through consciousness is one I think is least likely. I think that certain interpretations of the Copenhagen interpretation are likely wrong.
[To avoid technicality, Stapp (in his book on quantum consciousness) notes in his explanation of this interpretation that various physicists have argued against it for reasons that clearly indicate they understand it differently.]

I don't find multiverse theories very plausible (for the same and/or similar reasons I don't find many-minds theories very plausible).

If you put a gun to my head, I would say the information approach is useful as framework until we can better understand how, when, and why quantum "weirdness" decoheres.

I have also become increasingly convinced that the issue isn't simply a matter of interpretations, but that physics is incomplete (and I do not mean just because we have no ToE or an agreed upon unified theory). In particular, I think that there may be more to emergence than simply the idea that systems obey all laws of physics but are not always logical consequences of these.

It is living systems that I think pose the greatest change to this view of physics and emergence. I believe that as complicated as various physical systems can get (climate, granular physics, etc.), living systems are qualitatively different. So different that a better understanding of how they work may very well require more than just the right interpretation of QM or a unification of QM and relativity that everyone can agree on.

I don't rule out that QM plays a non-trivial role in consciousness, but I don't think there is sufficient reason to believe that it does.

 

[Windwalker]

Two more pages, 100! How cool is this! Carry on.

 

[Willamena]

When consciousness is not being focused, what is it then?

Does it need a name?

(Isn't all awareness current?)

It could well be.

Focused consciousness is called 'spotlight attention'; it involves a specific object or area of attention; unfocused consciousness is called 'floodlight attention', and takes in the entire field of view, what some might call 'the big picture', with no particular object in mind.

 

[Windwalker]

When consciousness is not being focused, what is it then?

Just Being.

 

[Open_Minded]

Open_Minded,

Disclaimer: quantum physics is not my specialty. But for what it's worth, I personally favor the Copenhagen interpretation, which is considered "standard". I am non-committal about this though. What I feel more strongly about is that no interpretation of quantum mechanics requires "conscious" observers. This is a mistake usually made by those outside physics. When physicists talk about "observers" doing a measurement they use that word for convenience; really, any "classical" object physically interacting with a quantum object can be considered an "observer" doing a "measurement".

Thank you Mr. Spinkles for outlining your position.

Before I give my opinion (and I hesitate to do so because I really have no desire for debate in which nothing can be ascertained in a concrete way) I'd like to outline my personal approach to these matters.

• To me mysticism and science are entirely compatible. In my own thinking they are two different paths to "knowing" for lack of a better word. The paths can intersect only on a subjective level. As an example, someone who is a scientist and also a mystic, may find that his/her mystic insights inform what he/she "looks for" in empirical research.
• 2ndly - I don't personally feel the need to use science as "proof" of my mystical insights. It can't be done - so why go there?
• However - I do find parallels between science and mysticism and that interests me, the same way that parallels between mysticism and love interests me.
• I recognize the need (within science) for facts, and verifiable observations. I recognize that science is dependent upon testing, peer review, and transparency as to the way experiments are carried out - so that those experiments can be duplicated by others.

Having said all of the above - I will make the following observation of your statement.

When physicists talk about "observers" doing a measurement they use that word for convenience; really, any "classical" object physically interacting with a quantum object can be considered an "observer" doing a "measurement"

What you say can be looked at in a different way. For instance "interaction" can be seen as a conscious event in and of itself. If an atom A (on one side of the universe) is "aware" of the spin of atom B on the other side of the universe. It can be reasonably posited that some form of consciousness is at play - even if it is not a form of consciousness that you or I can comprehend. I don't know of any way to prove it - so (as I stated earlier) I see no need to debate it. I simply share that observation the way you have shared your own position.

But I also feel that consciousness doesn't need quantum mechanics in principle, either. ....

Well - again - I don't feel the need for a prolonged debate. Unlike universal consciousness, non-local consciousness in humans can be tested. If humans experience non-local consciousness than our thoughts would be able to affect other humans (or that would be at least one aspect of non-local consciousness).

I saw earlier in this thread you and godnotgod discussing faraday cages, and Amit Goswami. I didn't read up on all the details ... but if he's a scientist, if he's publishing his work with standards so that others can replicate it, then what's the problem? You may disagree with his conclusions, you may not like the journals he publishes in, but the bottom line is does he put his work out there so that it can be replicated. And if he does (I honestly don't know) than what replication is going on (I'm honestly interested)?

Goswami is not the only one researching these things. Other scientists are as well. One example is in this PBS article

On a bright spring day, Schlitz is leading Teena and J.D. Miller down a path to the laboratory at the Institute of Noetic Sciences, north of San Francisco. Schlitz is the president of the institute, which conducts research on consciousness and spirituality. The Millers have been married a decade and their affection is palpable — making them perfect for the so-called Love Study.

Schlitz takes Teena into an isolated room, where no sound can come in or go out. Teena settles into a deep armchair as Schlitz attaches electrodes to her right hand.

"This is measuring blood flow in your thumb, and this is your skin conductance activity," the researcher explains. "So basically both of these are measures of your unconscious nervous system."

Schlitz locks Teena into the electromagnetically shielded chamber, then ushers J.D. into another isolated room with a closed-circuit television. She explains that the screen will go on and off. And at random intervals, Teena's image will appear on the screen for 10 seconds.

"And so during the times when you see her," she instructs, "it's your opportunity to think about sending loving, compassionate intention."

As the session begins, Dean Radin, a senior scientist here, watches as a computer shows changes in J.D.'s blood pressure and perspiration. When J.D. sees the image of his wife, the steady lines suddenly jump and become ragged. The question is: Will Teena's nervous system follow suit?

"Notice how here ... see, there's a change in the blood volume," says Radin, pointing to a screen charting Teena's measurements. "A sudden change like that is sometimes associated with an orienting response. If you suddenly hear somebody whispering in your ear, and there's nobody around, you have this sense of what? What was that? That's more or less what we're seeing in the physiology."
An hour later, Radin displays Teena's graph, which shows a flat line during the times her husband was not staring at her image, but when her husband began to stare at her, she stopped relaxing and became "aroused" within about two seconds.

After running 36 couples through this test, the researchers found that when one person focused his thoughts on his partner, the partner's blood flow and perspiration dramatically changed within two seconds. The odds of this happening by chance were 1 in 11,000. Three dozen double blind, randomized studies by such institutions as the University of Washington and the University of Edinburgh have reported similar results.

Again - it is not my intent to debate the details - I'll leave that for the scientific process. My points are as follows:

• The University of Washington and the University of Edinburgh are not just some "fly by night" institutions. They're not going to consent to studies that they feel would be dangerous to their reputations.

• They were willing to have their work replicated in three dozen double-blind, randomized studies.

So... if the scientists conducting these studies are willing to "put their work out there" for analysis, and further testing ... then that's part of the scientific process is it not???

I remember reading earlier in this thread complaints that these scientists only publish in journals they control. OK????

What's new about that??? Alternative media is on the rise all over. Big money controls mainstream media (and what it covers). Is it any different in the world of science media????

The question is, can another scientist get the standards and replicate the studies and prove them wrong? My guess is if scientists wanted to disprove non-local human consciousness experiments there would be a way to set up competitive studies. And the studies could compete with each other until the facts surfaced. That's the way science should work - or so I've been led to believe.

I really have no desire to debate something that can't be proven in the confines of this thread. I simply share what I did above as a point of view. I'm willing to let science figure it out. My guess is it won't be proven conclusively in my lifetime, but I do like the fact that people smarter than I am are looking at the possibilities.

 

[Open_Minded]

In lay terms I'd say "I don't know."

So you've joined Ymir in the boat of smug uncertainity? I can appreciate that.

I don't find multiverse theories very plausible (for the same and/or similar reasons I don't find many-minds theories very plausible).

Neither do I, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if there was a multiverse. I just don't know that it can be proven, and so all time, money and effort put into it seems hardly worth the effort.

I don't rule out that QM plays a non-trivial role in consciousness, but I don't think there is sufficient reason to believe that it does.

I don't know that universal consciousness can be tested.... anymore than multiverse can be tested. On a personal/subjective level I do believe there is universal consciousness. I think we humans are one expression of that consciousness. But none of it can be proven - so I feel no need to debate the subject.

As I mentioned to Mr. Spinkles - nonlocal human consciousness can be tested. I wish science would take the testing of it more seriously. But there's no money to be made in non-local consciousness so I don't see mainstream science investing any serious resources (of money or time) in the research. And that really is too bad ... because in the laboratory of life many humans experience something that could be termed "non-local" consciousness.

From my perspective, science ignoring these aspects of the human experience is short-sighted (at best). And I honestly don't understand what the resistance is in mainstream science to honestly looking at NDEs, premonitions, etc ... It is not as if these kinds of experiences are limited by culture or history.

Legion and Mr. Spinkles - I won't be near a computer for a few days - so please be patient if I don't respond to your answers in a timely matter.