What came before the Big Bang?

[idav]

Godnotgod has a point though I agree he can take it a bit further than I would. The double slit experiment alone is enough to disprove pure hard determinism unless your willing to accept the many worlds interpretation, which wouldn't bother me none.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

All I am saying is that the discovery of QM has overturned previous ideas derived from classical logic and science. This is because a new view of the material world had to be accepted. That alone should tell you that your science does not always apply to the nature of the material world, and should be a queue that perhaps another kind of knowledge is available which can provide a bigger picture as to the true nature of Reality. Even though QM has been 'discovered', science still does not really know what it is looking at.

Science advances our understanding of our universe and blows apart our misconceptions. Therefore we cannot trust science? Science and logic has not been thrown out for QM. We have come to new understandings of the world and that is a good thing. However this is not some argument against science or for mysticism. Science still remains the best answer.

re: 'crap about mysticism': quite simply, mysticism is simply the realization of the union of observer and observed. QM barely touches upon this. Mystics have known about this for over 4000 years.

Mystics didn't know anything about QM at any given time and most don't know anything about it now. Most people in general don't understand it. Which is understandable given how difficult and advanced it is.

There may be new information to change your mindset, but it will only be information about the phenomenal world as you already know it. Just as the prisoners in Plato's Cave could only know about the Sun by going topside to actually SEE and experience it directly, the true nature of Reality can only be apprehended via direct integration of observer and observed. No mumbo jumbo. No concept about what Reality is; only direct experience. IOW, for you to get an entirely new view about the nature of the material world, a transformation of consciousness would need to take place, not just an adjustment of your current paradigm. Changes in the way the shadows dance upon the cave walls provide variation in the belief that those shadows still represent Reality, but tell the observers nothing new. Science will continue to add to its storehouse of factual knowledge, but will never reach a true understanding as to the nature of the universe itself with such methods. The problem is in how the universe is seen from the get go. If all you want is more factual data, science is the way; but if you really want to go to the basis of all knowledge, science is a very limited tool. It fails to see the forest for the trees. The data can only be understood within the context of the whole.

Subjective experience is the least reliable way to find out the truth. I'll stick with the verifiable for what I call "truth" or "understanding". If you don't then that is your business.

Your demand for 'evidence' is plain silly, in light of what I have told you, which is that unconditioned consciousness is beyond the confines of Reason, Logic, and Analysis. It is beyond your thinking mind; it is seeing, not thinking. It is what is present prior to thought.

If its all subjective then there is no way to verify or actually "know" anything.

re: belief: so you think that what you claim is knowledge is a belief? That is quite revealing.

Belief: A notion held to be true.
Knowledge: A belief about something that matches the facts.
All knowledge is a belief. But not all beliefs are knowledge.

Are you even aware that one of the world's foremost experts in the field of QM, Anton Zeller, actually consults with the Dalai Lama and his monks for their input on his latest findings, in an attempt to get a different viewpoint? This I call a real scientist, who is humble enough to admit that he does not really understand what he is looking at; only that he is observing something beyond his capacity to know.

Anton Zeilinger as well as a few others invited the Dalai Lama once to their lab to talk shop. They were getting a philosophical viewpoint. The Dalai Lama wasn't being consulted for scientific research but rather was there for conversation. Your misrepresentation of the situation is appalling.

re: QM: What the evidence supports is only a small part of what QM actually is. It is not better than the situation of the 3 blind men and the elephant. When I say something about QM, it appears incorrect to you simply because you are looking it through the narrow lens of your limited scientific view, exactly why Einstein had such difficulty with what he saw as 'spooky actions at a distance'.

Yes, the prisoners in Plato's Cave would surely hang the escapee and his 'mystical crap' about something he calls 'The Sun', because there is no evidence he can produce to satisfy their inquiries and suspicions, and because they refuse to go take a look for themselves. I invite you to come take a look for yourself; only leave your baggage at the door. Not to worry. It will be there when you return, but I promise will look quite different to you. I can only tell you this: that the mystical experience is right under your very nose, but your conditioned mind prevents you from having that experience:

"Before my meditation, mountains were just mountains, and trees were just trees. During my study, mountains and trees were no longer mountains and trees. When my Enlightenment was finally realized, mountains were once again mountains, and trees once again trees."
Zen Source

You can claim all day long that your opinions on QM are just as valid as scientists understanding. But until you provide evidence for that there is no reason to believe you. And counter evidence is your complete lack of understanding of what scientists know about QM.

For example QM is not a "thing". There isn't more to "QM" that science is totally clueless of. QM is a scientific theory. What you (hopefully) mean to say is that the subatomic world has characteristics that you somehow have objective knowledge of.

 

[godnotgod]

Anton Zeilinger as well as a few others invited the Dalai Lama once to their lab to talk shop. They were getting a philosophical viewpoint. The Dalai Lama wasn't being consulted for scientific research but rather was there for conversation. Your misrepresentation of the situation is appalling.

Heh...heh....heh.....yes, of course. We all know they were visiting for tea and crumpets. Uh...the topic of the provided video, 'The Universe in a Single Atom', and discussion of the Double Slit Experiment, are hardly the subjects of small talk. This was a five-day visit, not of the Dalai Lama to Zellinger's lab, but of Zellinger and his group to the Dalai Lama's residence. On top of that, these conferences are held every several years. This is not a one time casual visit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fO-K13cfJwo

So who is doing the misrepresentation here?

My apology for the misspelling of Zellinger's name in my previous post. Thanks for the correction.

 

[godnotgod]

Science advances our understanding of our universe and blows apart our misconceptions. Therefore we cannot trust science? Science and logic has not been thrown out for QM. We have come to new understandings of the world and that is a good thing. However this is not some argument against science or for mysticism. Science still remains the best answer.

Does it? The mystical view provides one answer that does not change. It says that the nature of the material world is that it is an illusion. Period. Science keeps changing its mind, and only very recently is beginning to scratch the surface of this realization, along with the added component of consciousness itself, which mystics have already realized centuries ago. You say we have come to 'new understandings', but what do we understand? Awareness of new factual knowledge is not understanding. We simply do not know, from a scientific viewpoint, what we are looking at when we observe the peculiarities of Quantum Mechanics. The fact is that the spiritual experience provides the understanding first, against which factual knowledge can then be interpreted. You want to have the factual knowledge tell us about the nature of Reality. It can't. It can only lead to more and more factual knowledge.

Mystics didn't know anything about QM at any given time and most don't know anything about it now. Most people in general don't understand it. Which is understandable given how difficult and advanced it is.

I thought you just got through telling me how we have reached 'new understandings' of the world. It is not understandable to most people, not because of how difficult and advanced it is, but because most of us have been indoctrinated with the old paradigms.

If I tell you that the world essentially is illusory, while you are telling me it has a solid material reality, and then you magically 'discover' QM, my realization does not necessarily include the details of the world as illusion. That is what science does. But my realization of the illusory nature of the 'material' world still stands. It is YOU who has changed his view, based only on the observation of the behavior of phenomena, the nature of which you still don't actually understand. The point here is that my realization has, in a single stroke, cut to the very heart of the matter, while you continue to nibble around its edges.

Subjective experience is the least reliable way to find out the truth. I'll stick with the verifiable for what I call "truth" or "understanding". If you don't then that is your business.

If its all subjective then there is no way to verify or actually "know" anything.

You see, the problem with your view is that it is still in the realm of duality. You are still thinking 'subjective/objective', when what I have been trying to tell you, is that the illusion of the two merge into a single Reality, wherein neither exists. This is the transformation of consciousness that must occur if one is to see the world as it actually is. Perhaps you choose to ignore Neil Bohr's statement:

"No phenomenon is a phenomenon unless it is an observed phenomenon"

From a mystic's point of view, consciousness and the 'material' world are one and the same. The Big Bang was (and still is) an event in consciousness.

Belief: A notion held to be true.
Knowledge: A belief about something that matches the facts.
All knowledge is a belief. But not all beliefs are knowledge.

...and then there is Reality itself, which is the source of both mystic and scientist.

You can claim all day long that your opinions on QM are just as valid as scientists understanding. But until you provide evidence for that there is no reason to believe you. And counter evidence is your complete lack of understanding of what scientists know about QM.

Perhaps you might like to leave your dancing cave wall shadows in Plato's Cave for a moment and come topside to have a look at the Sun.

As far as I know, scientists continue to tell us they still don't understand QM. QM is merely a description of the dancing cave wall shadows. The Sun represents Reality, by which you can then reach a true understanding of what the nature of the shadows are.

For example QM is not a "thing". There isn't more to "QM" that science is totally clueless of. QM is a scientific theory. What you (hopefully) mean to say is that the subatomic world has characteristics that you somehow have objective knowledge of.

Yes, I've heard the argument before, which is that QM is exclusive to science, but what QM is about comes from Reality itself. It is a feature of Reality, not of science. As for it being a theory, my understanding is that it has proven itself with everything that has been thrown at it to to tune of 100%.

From a Buddhist perspective, for example, we have this:

So how does quantum reality fit with Buddhist Philosophy?

The two aspects of Buddhist philosophy that are relevant to observations at the quantum level are The Four Seals of Dharma and the Three Modes of Existential Dependence. These teachings were established centuries ago, long before modern physics evolved, and were derived from careful philosophical and meditational analysis of the world. However their description of quantum reality is remarkably accurate, as they predicted that:

(1) Particles are not inherently existent. No particle is 'a thing in itself' with a self-contained identity. An inherently-existent particle would be indestructible, unitary and indivisible.

(2) Particles are not causeless.

(3) Particles are not partless, they do not exist as indivisible points.

(4) Particles are not 'permanent' in the sense of having a unchanging, static identity.

(5) Particles exist by interaction with the mind of an observer.


...and what we actually see is...

(1) Particles cannot function as stand-alone entities. They can only interact with the rest of the universe by exchanging something of themselves - for example gluons or photons. Their properties can only be known by their interactions with other particles, and thus cannot be completely accurately established.


(2) Particles are brought into existence by energetic events. The mother of all energetic events was the Big Bang, which brought most of the existing particles into existence. But natural energetic events such as cosmic rays and beta decay continue to produce particles, and energetic man-made events in particle accelerators produce secondary particles by hadronization and creation of particle-antiparticle pairs.


(3) The tiniest particles (quarks and leptons) do not have parts because they are physically indivisible, but according to the Madhyamika school they have directional parts and so are mentally divisible. If even these smallest forms have parts, it follows that all gross forms that are composed of them also have parts. - Ocean of Nectar p 164


Rational Buddhism: Buddhism, Quantum Physics and Mind

'Modern science has overturned its own foundations and now presents a picture of reality which is in accord with that proposed by Buddhist sages of two thousand years ago. The Madhyamika philosophers developed a rigorous and razor sharp method of philosophical analysis which, together with meditation investigation, penetrated into the ultimate nature of reality.'

Quantum Buddhism

It seems to me that, for you, QM is a remote, esoteric theory accessible only by a few, whereas for the mystic, the Quantum world is the world they live in and experience in every moment.The 'material' world is not material; it is a single, continuous, unfolding event that is occurring in this eternity we call the present. Our indoctrination has told us over the years that past events lead up to and create the present; but Reality is that the present is actually what creates the past. The ship creates the wake, and not the other way around.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Heh...heh....heh.....yes, of course. We all know they were visiting for tea and crumpets. Uh...the topic of the provided video, 'The Universe in a Single Atom', and discussion of the Double Slit Experiment, are hardly the subjects of small talk. This was a five-day visit, not of the Dalai Lama to Zellinger's lab, but of Zellinger and his group to the Dalai Lama's residence. On top of that, these conferences are held every several years. This is not a one time casual visit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fO-K13cfJwo

So who is doing the misrepresentation here?

My apology for the misspelling of Zellinger's name in my previous post. Thanks for the correction.

Your still doing it.
This is his SECOND visit. So far I have only been able to find the two. Are there more? If so I would like to know.

And again no one has walked away from the Dalai lama with changed scientific viewpoints. I don't get exactly what it is that you are attempting to do with this. Can you spit it out or say it clearly?

And actually the first visit was from the Dalai Lama to the scientists lab. He was invited of course. This second one was televised and recorded.

Does it? The mystical view provides one answer that does not change. It says that the nature of the material world is that it is an illusion. Period. Science keeps changing its mind, and only very recently is beginning to scratch the surface of this realization, along with the added component of consciousness itself, which mystics have already realized centuries ago. You say we have come to 'new understandings', but what do we understand? Awareness of new factual knowledge is not understanding. We simply do not know, from a scientific viewpoint, what we are looking at when we observe the peculiarities of Quantum Mechanics. The fact is that the spiritual experience provides the understanding first, against which factual knowledge can then be interpreted. You want to have the factual knowledge tell us about the nature of Reality. It can't. It can only lead to more and more factual knowledge.

Except the philosophical viewpoint that is most accurate or at least the best conceptualized was actually the ancient greek philosophers. Even they were not correct in the end but some got somewhat close. But no one was able to identify what QM actually would be or what kind of laws would be there. The only thing that they have claimed is that this world is some kind of illusion with the spiritual realm being the "real" realm. Though Plato never actually states what the "real" world is or what kind of source would source it. For that I genuinely respect his insight and intelligence.

Now QM is nothing about "illusions". It is the study of the very small and how they behave. Nothing "non-physical" or "spiritual" about it. You have misrepresented it as something it is not. Plain and simple.

I thought you just got through telling me how we have reached 'new understandings' of the world. It is not understandable to most people, not because of how difficult and advanced it is, but because most of us have been indoctrinated with the old paradigms.

Of the two, science has changed its mind with new evidence. The "mystic" side has not. Which of the two are "stuck"?

If I tell you that the world essentially is illusory, while you are telling me it has a solid material reality, and then you magically 'discover' QM, my realization does not necessarily include the details of the world as illusion. That is what science does. But my realization of the illusory nature of the 'material' world still stands. It is YOU who has changed his view, based only on the observation of the behavior of phenomena, the nature of which you still don't actually understand. The point here is that my realization has, in a single stroke, cut to the very heart of the matter, while you continue to nibble around its edges.

yes. It is based entirely on the observed data. Not on presuppositions and guesses.

You see, the problem with your view is that it is still in the realm of duality. You are still thinking 'subjective/objective', when what I have been trying to tell you, is that the illusion of the two merge into a single Reality, wherein neither exists. This is the transformation of consciousness that must occur if one is to see the world as it actually is. Perhaps you choose to ignore Neil Bohr's statement:

Part of the mystics and their brilliance (at least that of ancient greek philosophers) is that there is that two conflicting things cannot exist at once. We cannot have square circles. Aristotle proved this. However now you are claiming he was wrong and I would like to know evidence why.

"No phenomenon is a phenomenon unless it is an observed phenomenon"

From a mystic's point of view, consciousness and the 'material' world are one and the same. The Big Bang was (and still is) an event in consciousness.

...and then there is Reality itself, which is the source of both mystic and scientist.

Perhaps you might like to leave your dancing cave wall shadows in Plato's Cave for a moment and come topside to have a look at the Sun.

When you start saying things of substance come find me.

As far as I know, scientists continue to tell us they still don't understand QM. QM is merely a description of the dancing cave wall shadows. The Sun represents Reality, by which you can then reach a true understanding of what the nature of the shadows are.

Science does not say that QM is anything like dancing on the cave wall. Other than you I have never heard anyone make that comparison. And in what way are they similar? Give me some examples of how its comparable?

Yes, I've heard the argument before, which is that QM is exclusive to science, but what QM is about comes from Reality itself. It is a feature of Reality, not of science. As for it being a theory, my understanding is that it has proven itself with everything that has been thrown at it to to tune of 100%.
snipped for space
[/I]It seems to me that, for you, QM is a remote, esoteric theory accessible only by a few, whereas for the mystic, the Quantum world is the world they live in and experience in every moment.The 'material' world is not material; it is a single, continuous, unfolding event that is occurring in this eternity we call the present. Our indoctrination has told us over the years that past events lead up to and create the present; but Reality is that the present is actually what creates the past. The ship creates the wake, and not the other way around.

QM is a theory of science. What you mean to say is that we don't understand the quantum world. Which would be accurate.

But there is zero evidence that mystics know anything about the quantum world. Nothing in their philosophy actually matches. It is a huge leap and a stretch to misrepresent the findings of QM and then try to make a reach to connect the dots with mystic philosophy.

The biggest problem with the debate I've had with you is that you talk about things as if you don't know what your talking about. Its one of the largest hurdles I have with you personally on this topic. On other topics its not so bad but on this one it seems to be. You make points and talk about QM as this vague thing without actually bringing up any specifics and it doesn't wound anything like QM. Then you talk about mysticism but you mix all kinds of different "mystic" teachings together in a hodgepodge of things that doesn't sound like mysticism either.

 

[idav]

However their description of quantum reality is remarkably accurate, as they predicted that:

(1) Particles are not inherently existent. No particle is 'a thing in itself' with a self-contained identity. An inherently-existent particle would be indestructible, unitary and indivisible.

(2) Particles are not causeless.

(3) Particles are not partless, they do not exist as indivisible points.

(4) Particles are not 'permanent' in the sense of having a unchanging, static identity.

(5) Particles exist by interaction with the mind of an observer.[/FONT]


...and what we actually see is...

(1) Particles cannot function as stand-alone entities. They can only interact with the rest of the universe by exchanging something of themselves - for example gluons or photons. Their properties can only be known by their interactions with other particles, and thus cannot be completely accurately established.


(2) Particles are brought into existence by energetic events. The mother of all energetic events was the Big Bang, which brought most of the existing particles into existence. But natural energetic events such as cosmic rays and beta decay continue to produce particles, and energetic man-made events in particle accelerators produce secondary particles by hadronization and creation of particle-antiparticle pairs.


(3) The tiniest particles (quarks and leptons) do not have parts because they are physically indivisible, but according to the Madhyamika school they have directional parts and so are mentally divisible. If even these smallest forms have parts, it follows that all gross forms that are composed of them also have parts. - Ocean of Nectar p 164


Rational Buddhism: Buddhism, Quantum Physics and Mind

'Modern science has overturned its own foundations and now presents a picture of reality which is in accord with that proposed by Buddhist sages of two thousand years ago. The Madhyamika philosophers developed a rigorous and razor sharp method of philosophical analysis which, together with meditation investigation, penetrated into the ultimate nature of reality.'

Quantum Buddhism

It seems to me that, for you, QM is a remote, esoteric theory accessible only by a few, whereas for the mystic, the Quantum world is the world they live in and experience in every moment.The 'material' world is not material; it is a single, continuous, unfolding event that is occurring in this eternity we call the present. Our indoctrination has told us over the years that past events lead up to and create the present; but Reality is that the present is actually what creates the past. The ship creates the wake, and not the other way around.

Four and five are simply wrong. Thats quantum quackery the type coming from mystics like chopra. You just take it too far, the rest was fine.

 

[Goblin]

Nothing. But clearly a nothing that an everything can come from...

 

[godnotgod]

Four and five are simply wrong. Thats quantum quackery the type coming from mystics like chopra. You just take it too far, the rest was fine.

Now that is funny. You want to call 'Quantum Quackery' something that is 2000 years older than both Chopra and the discovery of QM by modern science, and then to try to use science to do so. I can tell you what the ancient Buddhists who posited #4 and #5 might say about modern QM, and that is that it is incomplete.

So, according to you, bottom line is that the Madhyamika Buddhist philosophers were quacks. Is that so? Did you even bother to check the link I provided so you can follow the arguments supporting the points you object to as mere 'quackery'?

 

[idav]

Now that is funny. You want to call 'Quantum Quackery' something that is 2000 years older than both Chopra and the discovery of QM by modern science, and then to try to use science to do so. I can tell you what the ancient Buddhists who posited #4 and #5 might say about modern QM, and that is that it is incomplete.

So, according to you, bottom line is that the Madhyamika Buddhist philosophers were quacks. Is that so? Did you even bother to check the link I provided so you can follow the arguments supporting the points you object to as mere 'quackery'?

I know. I have read the dali lamas account when he saw the double slit experiment with his own eyes, he didnt want to believe his own eyes.

 

[idav]

Did you even bother to check the link I provided so you can follow the arguments supporting the points you object to as mere 'quackery'?

I didnt take issue with 1 through 3 somehow 4 and 5 lack evidence?

 

[godnotgod]

And again no one has walked away from the Dalai lama with changed scientific viewpoints. I don't get exactly what it is that you are attempting to do with this. Can you spit it out or say it clearly?

I already did. I told you that Zellinger and his group sought out the Dalai Lama to get some kind of clarification on their findings from a view other than the scientific one. The DL did not provide answers understood in scientific terms by Zellinger. The DL is not a scientist.

Except the philosophical viewpoint that is most accurate or at least the best conceptualized was actually the ancient greek philosophers. Even they were not correct in the end but some got somewhat close. But no one was able to identify what QM actually would be or what kind of laws would be there. The only thing that they have claimed is that this world is some kind of illusion with the spiritual realm being the "real" realm. Though Plato never actually states what the "real" world is or what kind of source would source it. For that I genuinely respect his insight and intelligence.

There are no separate realms known as 'spiritual' and 'material'. Those are rational concepts. What some refer to as spiritual and material are, in reality, the same world. However, because of the subject/object split we are indoctrinated with since childhood, we don't notice how we create 'this world' and 'that world', thinking them to be real things. In addition, because of our inheritance of the Greek method of Logic and Reason, and its tendency to objectify the world, there is a tendency toward reductionism, rendering the world a lifeless artifact. Both science and religion are guilty of this.

Now QM is nothing about "illusions". It is the study of the very small and how they behave. Nothing "non-physical" or "spiritual" about it. You have misrepresented it as something it is not. Plain and simple.

This study of the very small has overturned the classical view on its ear, demonstrating the illusory quality of the material world. Not only is the atom over 99.99999% empty space, but what remains only energy. There is no such thing as the material world. QM itself refers to it as a 'field of possibilities'. So if you can come to grips with the idea that the world is illusory, both from your science and from the mystics, then it should point you to seek the source of the illusion, which will reveal the spirituality inherent in Reality. Again, the reason you fail to see is because you have the cart ahead of the horse; you want to study the manifestation of the source, rather than the source itself. IOW, you want to find out about the nature of things by studying phenomena, rather than where the phenomena comes from.

Of the two, science has changed its mind with new evidence. The "mystic" side has not. Which of the two are "stuck"?

Science. It keeps going round and round, while the mystic has already nailed it in a single stroke. Stop puttsying around with your theories and then trying to overlay them onto reality. You will get a few seemingly good answers, at least for awhile, until someone comes along and blows the current paradigm out of the water. Know this: No concept can encapsulate the Infinite. It is folly to think one can. As another wise scientist has told us: "Nature is smarter than we are". (Michio Kaku.)

yes. It is based entirely on the observed data. Not on presuppositions and guesses.

The observed data leads to presuppositions and guesses called scientific hypothesis. The mystical view is neither guess, presupposition, idea, thought, belief, concept, or conjecture: it is simply to see things as they actually are. Seeing is without thought. It is what pure awakened consciousness does. Observed data is the tracks of Reality held in memory. It is, therefore, dead. Realty is conscious and alive, and as such, has no history, no memory, because it only exists in this present moment and in no other moment.

Part of the mystics and their brilliance (at least that of ancient greek philosophers) is that there is that two conflicting things cannot exist at once. We cannot have square circles. Aristotle proved this. However now you are claiming he was wrong and I would like to know evidence why.

They were correct. But the idea that subject and object are real things is an illusion. The only reality is that there is only one Reality, and it lies just beyond the mind that creates the illusory duality of 'subject/object'. There is no conflict here; the only conflict is within your own mind.

When you start saying things of substance come find me.

It is you who have come to me. Unfinished business, you might say. You're on the path.

Science does not say that QM is anything like dancing on the cave wall. Other than you I have never heard anyone make that comparison. And in what way are they similar? Give me some examples of how its comparable?

All descriptions of Reality are illusions, dancing shadows on the cave wall of the mind which we fool ourselves into thinking to be real. Science's observations of QM are like a child playing with a stick in an oily pool of rainwater.

QM is a theory of science. What you mean to say is that we don't understand the quantum world. Which would be accurate.

What I mean to say is what I said: that the source of the theory is from Reality itself. The source of the scientific mind is from consciousness.

But there is zero evidence that mystics know anything about the quantum world. Nothing in their philosophy actually matches. It is a huge leap and a stretch to misrepresent the findings of QM and then try to make a reach to connect the dots with mystic philosophy.

The mystic's observations about the nature of Reality came first. How do you suppose they could make such observations? By guesswork? No. They left the cave wall shadows of delusion and went topside to see the Sun. We call this transformation of consciousness 'Enlightenment'.

Nothing matches? See here, for one:

Rational Buddhism: Buddhism, Quantum Physics and Mind

The biggest problem with the debate I've had with you is that you talk about things as if you don't know what your talking about. Its one of the largest hurdles I have with you personally on this topic. On other topics its not so bad but on this one it seems to be. You make points and talk about QM as this vague thing without actually bringing up any specifics and it doesn't wound anything like QM. Then you talk about mysticism but you mix all kinds of different "mystic" teachings together in a hodgepodge of things that doesn't sound like mysticism either.

There may seem to be many views, but there is only one Reality.

 

[godnotgod]

...Now QM is nothing about "illusions"....

....But there is zero evidence that mystics know anything about the quantum world....

You speak as if there is the Quantum World and the non-Quantum World. There is no such thing. There is only this world, and it is this world with which the mystics are concerned. For the Zen Buddhist, for example, this Ordinary World is none other than the Miraculous World. There is no difference. It's just that science has stumbled across it in which it thinks it to be the objective world, and wants to lay exclusive claim to knowledge about it. That's rubbish. This ordinary miraculous Quantum world has been here all along. The scientists have simply failed to see it as such, because they are so transfixed on objectivity, which QM itself has now shown to be an illusion.

"...quantum mechanics demonstrates that the world as we commonly experience it does not, in fact, have an objective existence independent of its observation. In the words of Niels Bohr, the pioneer of 20thcentury quantum physics,

An independent reality, in the ordinary physical sense, can neither be ascribed to the phenomena nor to the agencies of observation.​

This remarkable claim is entirely compatible with the claims of the mystics. For example, consider the following fundamental teaching of the Center for Sacred Sciences:

The appearance of an objective world distinguishable from a subjective self is but the imaginary form in which Consciousness Perfectly Realizes Itself.*
​

In the same spirit, the third Chinese Zen patriarch, Sengtsan, teaches us:

Things are objects because of the subject [mind]; the mind [subject] is such because of things [object]. Understand the relativity of these two and the basic reality: the unity of emptiness. In this Emptiness the two are indistinguishable and each contains in itself the whole world.**​

The mystics and physicists, therefore, both make the outrageous claim that the materialistic belief in an objective world independent of observation is a delusion. Or, in Buddhist terms, all objects are empty of any inherent existence. Since this claim is in blatant contradiction with both our ordinary experience and conventional worldly wisdom, our natural response is to dismiss it as ludicrous. We might say to ourselves, "Those mystics are obviously the deluded ones who have lost touch with reality, not me and everyone else."

Although it might be easy for a modern Westerner, raised in a materialistic culture, to dismiss the radical claims of the mystics, it is not so easy to dismiss the most eminent of our physicists, who make claims remarkably similar to those of the mystics. Consider, for example, the words of Werner Heisenberg, the inventor of quantum mechanics:

The ontology of materialism rested upon the illusion that the kind of existence, the direct "actuality" of the world around us, can be extrapolated into the atomic range. This extrapolation is impossible, however.​

The Buddha, speaking about the true nature of reality, makes the following very similar claim:

There is that which does not belong to materialism and which is not reached by the knowledge of philosophers who...fail to see that, fundamentally, there is no reality in external objects."


http://www.integralscience.org/materialism/materialism.html

* what I said earlier about the merging of subject/object.
** what I said earlier about the center being everywhere/nowhere.
​

 

[idav]

"...quantum mechanics demonstrates that the world as we commonly experience it does not, in fact, have an objective existence independent of its observation. In the words of Niels Bohr, the pioneer of 20thcentury quantum physics,

An independent reality, in the ordinary physical sense, can neither be ascribed to the phenomena nor to the agencies of observation.​

This remarkable claim is entirely compatible with the claims of the mystics.

Please stop this. That claim is simply not true and if you understood the experiments behind QM better you would know this. Thats why the Dali Lama couldn't believe his own eyes.

The only 'observer' which is essential in orthodox practical quantum theory is the inanimate apparatus which amplifies the microscopic events to macroscopic consequences. Of course this apparatus, in laboratory experiments, is chosen and adjusted by the experiments. In this sense the outcomes of experiments are indeed dependent on the mental process of the experimenters! But once the apparatus is in place, and functioning untouched, it is a matter of complete indifference - according to ordinary quantum mechanics - whether the experimenters stay around to watch, or delegate such 'observing' to computers, (Bell, 1984).

Journal of Cosmology

 

[Skeptisch]

Do any of you experts want to comment on what Deepak Chopra says?

Quantum physics tells us that objects exist in a suspended physical state until observed, when they collapse to just one outcome — we don’t know what happens until we investigate, and our investigation influences that reality. Whether or not certain events may have happened some time ago, may not actually be determined until some time in your future — it may actually be contingent upon actions that have not yet taken place.

or

Scientists in France shot particles of light “photons” into a measuring apparatus, and showed that what they did — now, in the present — could retroactively change something that had already happened in the past. As the photons passed a fork in the apparatus, they had to decide whether to behave like particles or waves when they hit a beam splitter. Later on — well after the photons passed the fork — the experimenter could randomly switch a second beam splitter on and off electronically. It turns out that what the observer decided at that point, determined what the particle actually did at the fork in the past.

And here is Chopra’s philosophy:

It was only with the advent of quantum physics that scientists began to consider again the old question of the possibility of comprehending the world as a form of mind.
Indeed, the quantum theory implies that consciousness must exist, and that the content of the mind is the ultimate reality

Chopra thinks that QM applies to everything equally. He writes:

If we do not look at it, the moon is gone. In this world, only an act of observation can confer shape and form to reality — to a dandelion in a meadow, or a seed pod, or the sun or wind or rain. Anyway, it’s amazing, and even your dog can do it too.

 

[idav]

Do any of you experts want to comment on what Deepak Chopra says?

If we do not look at it, the moon is gone. In this world, only an act of observation can confer shape and form to reality — to a dandelion in a meadow, or a seed pod, or the sun or wind or rain. Anyway, it’s amazing, and even your dog can do it too.

I am no expert but that is absolutely absurd. The moon is still there when nobody is looking due to physics and special relativity keeps the moon orbiting without crashing into the earth.

It is a misunderstanding that the wavefunction collapses only when observed by humans. That simply isn't true, observed means some apparatus detected it and caused the collapse and has nothing to do with us watching, we can't even see that stuff we have to use special instruments and have to try and keep these instruments from getting entangled with the experiment.

 

[idav]

All that should pretty much squash the idealist or mentalists monism views. Mental has proved not to be able to control the collapse without actual physical interaction of some sort like entanglement or something similar.

 

[Skeptisch]

I am no expert but that is absolutely absurd. The moon is still there when nobody is looking due to physics and special relativity keeps the moon orbiting without crashing into the earth.

It is a misunderstanding that the wavefunction collapses only when observed by humans. That simply isn't true, observed means some apparatus detected it and caused the collapse and has nothing to do with us watching, we can't even see that stuff we have to use special instruments and have to try and keep these instruments from getting entangled with the experiment.

Thanks, I am not an expert either but I agree with you wholeheartedly. :bright:

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I already did. I told you that Zellinger and his group sought out the Dalai Lama to get some kind of clarification on their findings from a view other than the scientific one. The DL did not provide answers understood in scientific terms by Zellinger. The DL is not a scientist.

And yet everything about that paragraph is misleading to what actually happened.

This study of the very small has overturned the classical view on its ear, demonstrating the illusory quality of the material world. Not only is the atom over 99.99999% empty space, but what remains only energy. There is no such thing as the material world. QM itself refers to it as a 'field of possibilities'. So if you can come to grips with the idea that the world is illusory, both from your science and from the mystics, then it should point you to seek the source of the illusion, which will reveal the spirituality inherent in Reality. Again, the reason you fail to see is because you have the cart ahead of the horse; you want to study the manifestation of the source, rather than the source itself. IOW, you want to find out about the nature of things by studying phenomena, rather than where the phenomena comes from.

But it isn't an illusion. No more so than the fact we are made up of cells. This isn't a new idea.

Science. It keeps going round and round, while the mystic has already nailed it in a single stroke. Stop puttsying around with your theories and then trying to overlay them onto reality. You will get a few seemingly good answers, at least for awhile, until someone comes along and blows the current paradigm out of the water. Know this: No concept can encapsulate the Infinite. It is folly to think one can. As another wise scientist has told us: "Nature is smarter than we are". (Michio Kaku.)

If mysticism had actually "nailed" anything beyond philosophical concepts (not real knowledge) then science wouldn't be needed. However this is obviously not the case. And you still have not made the case for your point that mysticism has predicted anything. "I'm right trust me" is the length of your argument so far.

The observed data leads to presuppositions and guesses called scientific hypothesis. The mystical view is neither guess, presupposition, idea, thought, belief, concept, or conjecture: it is simply to see things as they actually are. Seeing is without thought. It is what pure awakened consciousness does. Observed data is the tracks of Reality held in memory. It is, therefore, dead. Realty is conscious and alive, and as such, has no history, no memory, because it only exists in this present moment and in no other moment.

Exactly wrong. Theories based on data are SPECIFICALLY not presuppositions. This idea that mysticism somehow has all the answers without explaining how they got those answers amounts to a load of crap.

It is you who have come to me. Unfinished business, you might say. You're on the path.

Then I can freely dismiss all of your claims. If you come at me with more of the psudo wisdom rather than a response I will no longer continue this debate. "Trust me I'm right"

All descriptions of Reality are illusions, dancing shadows on the cave wall of the mind which we fool ourselves into thinking to be real. Science's observations of QM are like a child playing with a stick in an oily pool of rainwater.

And what is the evidence for this. Why should I believe you?

What I mean to say is what I said: that the source of the theory is from Reality itself. The source of the scientific mind is from consciousness.

And this matters why? No one is arguing against sentience. I am arguing that your idea of "consciousness" isn't supported by evidence and thus has no reason to be believed.

The mystic's observations about the nature of Reality came first. How do you suppose they could make such observations? By guesswork? No. They left the cave wall shadows of delusion and went topside to see the Sun. We call this transformation of consciousness 'Enlightenment'.

Nothing matches? See here, for one:

Rational Buddhism: Buddhism, Quantum Physics and Mind

Yeah. Nothing matches unless you stretch it. Buddhism says everything changes. That isn't a difficult theory to come up with. In fact they aren't even the only ones. Philosphers have come up with the same thing.

Now we have verified fact backed by observation that says that not only is everything "changing" but how it changes and with forces that the Buddhist spiritualists did not know anything about. So yes it is a stretch in the most basic of forms.

 

[Skeptisch]

"I'm right trust me" is the length of your argument so far.

“And, next time somebody tells you that something is true, why not say to them: ‘What kind of evidence is there for that?’ And if they can’t give you a good answer, I hope you’ll think very carefully before you believe a word they say.”
Richard Dawkins to his 10 year old daughter

Sounds like good advice for all of us.

 

[godnotgod]

But it isn't an illusion. No more so than the fact we are made up of cells. This isn't a new idea.

Illusion can be defined as seeing something as A when in fact it is not-A.

Ordinary consciousness sees the world as material; QM shows that it is not:

"The ontology of materialism rested upon the illusion that the kind of existence, the direct "actuality" of the world around us, can be extrapolated into the atomic range. This extrapolation is impossible, however."

Werner Heisenberg

If mysticism had actually "nailed" anything beyond philosophical concepts (not real knowledge) then science wouldn't be needed. However this is obviously not the case. And you still have not made the case for your point that mysticism has predicted anything.

Now you want to put words in my mouth.

Neither mysticism nor I have ever claimed to predict anything, nor that a rational analysis of phenomena would be unnecessary. That is not what it is about. It's focus is penetrate into the true nature of Reality. The answers it comes up with have been consistent from one realized practitioner to the next, at different times in history, and in random places around the world. That tells me that there is only one Reality, and that it is universal and constant. Those realizations are that the world is illusory and that there is an underlying true Reality from which the illusory world is being manifested. QM now finds that the material world is illusory via experiment of phenomena, can explain the illusion as being due to decoherence, can even predict behavior, but still does not have a true understanding of what it is looking at. It is still not 'real knowledge', as you put it.

You are wrong about mysticism being nothing more than a collection of philosophical concepts. The mystical experience is beyond philosophy and all conceptual thought. As I tried to explain earlier, it is the union of the observer with the observed. IOW, it is an experiential event, and not just a belief or doctrine.

Exactly wrong. Theories based on data are SPECIFICALLY not presuppositions. This idea that mysticism somehow has all the answers without explaining how they got those answers amounts to a load of crap.

Excuse me. Having been a science major at one time, I know that a theory in science does not materialize first. The sequence of events places hypothesis before theory. Theory, in science, can be defined as 'working fact', as in the 'theory of evolution'. The acquisition of data alone does not yield a theory. Data is simply the basis for a hypothesis, which is nothing more than a presupposition. The hypothesis must be proven via replicable experiment before it can be accepted as theory.

Again, you enjoy putting words in my mouth to suit your position.

Did I say that mysticism has all the answers? No, I did not. I said that it tells us what the true nature of Reality actually is. You already know what QM has told you: that what we thought was reality, is not. Therefore, Reality must lie beyond the appearances that the phenomenal world presents, and which QM reveals as such. But you are not even half way home, as QM has just scratched the surface, and science knows this. At this point, you are in paradox.

Mysticism does explain how it derived its answers: it tells us to detach from the dancing cave wall shadows we only think represent Reality, and go topside to take a look at the Sun.

What amounts to a load of crap is your sterile reductionist approach to the question of what constitutes Reality, which you confuse with factual knowledge.

Then I can freely dismiss all of your claims. If you come at me with more of the psudo wisdom rather than a response I will no longer continue this debate. "Trust me I'm right"

And again, you want to put words in my mouth!

All I have ever said was to go see for yourself. Period.

What you want is a neat, black and white response that matches your method of inquiry, and I am telling you that your method pre-determines tha nature of the response, when mystical knowledge does not conform to your methodology. It is not derived via perceptual reality, but from Ultimate Reality. IOW, the mystical experience is beyond validation via the five senses. It can only be validated via direct experience by the one making the inquiry. If the prisoners in Plato's Cave want to verify the existence of the Sun, there is no other way than for them to go see for themselves.

And what is the evidence for this. Why should I believe you?

Is the menu the meal? Is the word 'mountain', the mountain itself?

And this matters why? No one is arguing against sentience. I am arguing that your idea of "consciousness" isn't supported by evidence and thus has no reason to be believed.

The non-local nature of consciousness has already been demonstrated. (ie: Jacobo-Grinsberg.) What has NOT been demonstrated is emergent theory, which is not even a theory by scientifically accepted standards of the term.

Yeah. Nothing matches unless you stretch it. Buddhism says everything changes. That isn't a difficult theory to come up with. In fact they aren't even the only ones. Philosphers have come up with the same thing.

If change were readily apparent to everyone, suffering due to expectation of and confidence in the false idea of permanence would not be the case. That the world is change is not a theory; it is a fact.

Once again, Buddhism is not coming around and stretching its realizations to match scientific findings; Buddhism is doing nothing as regards science; when science comes up with new findings, the mystic is only saying that there is no surprise. Only the specific details seem new, but those details simply fall right in line with what the mystic already knows. IOW, the knowledge of the mystic is the context within which scientific findings are contained. Why? Because the basis for both is Reality itself.

Now we have verified fact backed by observation that says that not only is everything "changing" but how it changes and with forces that the Buddhist spiritualists did not know anything about. So yes it is a stretch in the most basic of forms.

Except that science does'nt have a clue as to the nature of change, while the mystic does. You can keep the fluff; I'll go with the meat and potatoes that is the source of the fluff to begin with.

Ultimately, there is no change in anything, because Everything is illusory, and therefore, any 'change' you perceive is also illusory. It is what the Hindu mystics call 'maya'. The only reality is The Absolute, AKA 'The Changeless'. To realize this truth one must awaken from the dream we only call 'reality', but which in actuality, is only a dream. The clue here is that change can take place only in time, but since time was non existent at the inception of the Big Bang, and since The Absolute is not bound by time, there cannot have been change; therefore, no change can have followed.