The Mysticism and Quantum Mechanics Confusion.
posted by Thomas Bonde | September 29, 2009
- Login or register to post comments
- Print this page
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Propeller
Reddit
Magnoliacom
Newsvine
Furl
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
Icerocket"A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever", said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"
From Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time.
From a philosophical point of view, the above mentioned dialog is an example of what is known as absurd reduction (reductio ad absurdum). A metaphysical argument that grounds Being in a more primordial being, that is grounded in a more primordial Being... etc. immediately leads to absurdities, and we should instead propose , from a strictly philosophical standpoint, that it would be more sensible to say, that the ground of Being is emptiness.
Quantum Physics tells us that atoms largely consist of empty space, that their subatomic particles are entangled with other subatomic particles even though these might be hundreds of miles apart, and we are told, that these subatomic particles exist in strange states of non-locality, when they are not measured. Quantum physics tells us that the reality we perceive on the quantum level is real, only relative to the perceiver, the instrument through which he is perceiving, and where that instrument is situated in Space and Time.
Check out these videos on parallels between Buddhism and Physics:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj_i7YqDwJA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlmrHMBW36w&feature=related
Though there are many parallels between Buddhist/Vedantic philosophy, and Quantum Mechanics, there is still a great deal of difference between correspondence and similarity.
I think we should abstain from trying to qualify mysticism through the means of arguments grounded in quantum physics, because what quantum physics tell us is, that reality on the quantum level is hard to take apart and understand in its depth and scope, at least until we get better equipment, but it doesn't tell us very much about the content of a state of satori or a communion with the emptiness that is said by Buddhism to be the ground of being, witnessed in a state of non-meditation and non-grasping.
Furthermore physics might be wrong! Should this be the case we would have to take the logical consequence, and throw the baby (mysticism) out with bathwater, because we have proved one with the other. Quantum Physics is about what can be said to be objectively true about lifeless matter, mysticism is about the subjective truthfulness witnessed in the higher realms of mental life, and we should therefore be careful about reducing one to the other.
Comments
the meaning of existence is
— Sep 29, 2009
the meaning of existence is to exist, i can see like this symbiotic one ness cycle spherelike throb
of continual consciousness
kinda like this image
but maybe flowing more than one way
at the risk of sounding cheesy, almost like a re)cycle of energy, giving and getting by all sides continuously to maintain all sides
i just thought of this today, like evrything else im kind fluid, so forgive its lack of refinement
Con-fusion?
— Sep 29, 2009
Good points. What does the image say?
The problem I see is the arbitrary dichotomy between "what can be said to be objectively true about lifeless matter" (what is lifeless matter?) and "the subjective truthfulness witnessed in the higher realms of mental life".
Where do we draw the line between biotic and abiotic, animate and inanimate? Is there such a line? Is there anything really inert? These are the concepts that are blurring, where the real unification is taking place.
The notion of a clockwork "real world" made up of unchanging elements following deterministic laws is long gone. There is no objective truth without subjectivity—observation/perception/subjectivity is a fundamental element of the universe, let's stop trying to leave it out of the picture!
I definitely agree though, we should not be reducing anything to anything, but integrating the whole.
Namaste
Let's do some Conscious Science
Very good points. Reject
— Sep 29, 2009
Very good points.
Reject all dichotomies. Including the subjective/objective dichotomy. All is one and one is all, divisions and dichotomies are the creations of the egoic mind.
What is that image at the top?
@ Yellowseed
— Sep 30, 2009
“What does the image say?”
My biblical hebrew is kinda rusty, meaning non-existent, but I believe it is about the essential emptiness of Ein Sof.
“The problem I see is the arbitrary dichotomy between "what can be said to be objectively true about lifeless matter" (what is lifeless matter?) and "the subjective truthfulness witnessed in the higher realms of mental life".”
Its not so much a question of a false dichotomy in my view. They are not opposites. The point I was trying to make is that in quantum mechanics we are told about waves, which are not really waves in the sense, that they are waves of something or in something, but rather in the sense, that the mathematical way of describing waves can be apllied to QM. My point is here, that I don't think we really want to describe experiences of ectasy and illumination as mathematical probabilities, and then not care about the possible content and symbolism of a state of satori. It cannot be represented with chalk on a blackboard, and any attempt to reduce the advanced interiority of a transcendental mental-emotional experience to mathematics is therefore futile.
“Where do we draw the line between biotic and abiotic, animate and inanimate? Is there such a line? Is there anything really inert? These are the concepts that are blurring, where the real unification is taking place.”
Of course the lines are blurry, where does life begin, where does mind begin? This cannot be stated in objective terms but can only be a consensus reliant on an intersubjective consensus.
here i would say that i
— Sep 30, 2009
here i would say that i never considered that anything might not be alive
it all seems alive to me
thats not exactly consensus
but it might as well be (j/k)
consensus can only exist within dimensions anyway
like in one person, or one group
i yearn for universal consensus
but i realize that even that is a dimension
i see us each as our own dimensions
that share perceptions with other dimensions
to the unified purpose of life
because everything contributes to life
obviously there is a strong argument that things like plants and water
are alive because of the sensory perception they possess
and the micro-organisms they host and embody
but have you ever looked at something and just saw the love in it
how much the stream loves the sand it caresses
an likewise
the trees roots in the ground and its branches
ALL UP IN the air
its all good man lol
we are all just moving at different rate sof speed
the rocks grow for ten thousands years or so
the way they express theirselves is unlikely to us
it is obviously a significant part of the equation though
ROCK HARD
we just have to be up for the adventure
intersubjective consensus
— Sep 30, 2009
Then we surely agree. A mathematical approach will never say anything about content.
But I do think that investigating and integrating these phenomena through states of "advanced interiority" definitely yields some very necessary knowledge.
I think what we're trying to say is,
“Blessed is the lion which a man eats so that the lion becomes a man. But cursed is the man whom a lion eats so that the man becomes a lion."
—Gospel of Thomas 7
Let's do some Conscious Science
Concur
— Sep 30, 2009
I was trying to make just this point on Facebook in relation to an article in Resurgence magazine that argues that the 'new physic'offers a new spiritual vision. Why would quantum physics, or chaos, or whatever 'new perspective' the author might quote alter the culture of human sapiens and its way of life? Old spiritualities (e.g. animism) were very close to the current complex systems / ecological worldview and that did not prevent some very nasty historical episodes - I would argue to do with ego, social power structures, over-population. It seems to me that a physics which is not easily comprehensible (or potentially uncomprehensible) offers mytholigisers the opportunity to create new esoteric stories that they can control for their own ego's needs, that the belief's followers can have faith in them remaining mysteries of the heart for the ego's sake, and so the fairy tales continue... http://www.resurgence.org/magazine/article2895-Remaking-the-World.html
Thanks for the article
— Oct 01, 2009
I agree that mystifying and esotericist talk is of very little use. We need concrete answers.
The thing with quantum physics is that cuts away at the underlying ontology of the scientific picture. It is no longer possible to build a model of the world "as it would be in our absence", which is the position of philosophical "realism", better known as philosophical materialism.
So the crisis is now philosophical, inductive not deductive, "pre-scientific" if you will. We must adjust the philosophical backdrop on which we piece together our scientific concepts.
The modern mind is now forced to put observation—itself—back into the equation, to account for its existence. Something which materialism has conveniently evaded throughout human history.
Let's do some Conscious Science
-?
— Oct 01, 2009
What is it in quantum mechanics that forces a particular interpretation of it, demands special status for the observer, or otherwise instigates a crisis?
The dominant philosophical position in physics today is realism, and the statistical math works out just fine.
observation is "real"
— Oct 02, 2009
Math works under any philosophical umbrella. I'm talking about a conceptual disconnect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)
From Lee Smolin's "The Trouble with Physics",
"Quantum mechanics, at least in the form it was first proposed, did not fit easily with realism. This is because the theory presupposed a division of nature into two parts. On one side of the division is the system to be observed. We, the observers, are on the other side. With us are the instruments we use to prepare experiments and take measurements, and the clocks we use to record when things happen. Quantum theory can be described as a new kind of language to be used in a dialogue between us and the systems we study with our instruments. This quantum language contains verbs that refer to our preparations and measurements and nouns that refer to what is then seen. It tells us nothing about what the world would be like in our absence" (Smolin, 7).
I see you're a champion of science. So am I! But science only works with the concepts we put into it. Why the need to explain reality as if we weren't here?
Let's do some Conscious Science
Realism
— Oct 02, 2009
You understand that Lee Smolin is himself a realist, right?
And you understand that quantum mechanics is the mechanics of the very small, yes? And so naturally, the testing device itself is a relevant aspect of the outcome, and that this is to be expected?
It is as if there is a dark box and an object inside made of clay. To know the feel of the object, you must put your hand inside, and feel the clay. Of course, this will leave imprints. But it would be absurd to then conclude that the "hand-clay system" has magical properties, that clay does not exist unless we stick our hand in, to invoke language, verbs, and nouns, paradox, and mysticism -- to say that "modern science forces a reunderstanding of observer and observed," to describe the situation.
No. There's clay in the box. All Lee Smolin is saying is that what we know about the clay, we know from sticking our hand in there. But Lee Smolin argues that there is clay in there, even when we haven't stuck our hand in.
Ordinarily, we shine a light at something, and -- while it doesn't do much more than warm the surface, we get a fair picture of what's going on. That doesn't work with light and electrons though -- not because they're magic and consciousness plays a dramatic role, but because they're small. So we have to try other things to tease out information; But it's tricky, and the quantum plays different than macroscopic objects.
Is there any reason at all to think that consciousness somehow plays a magical role, and that observations break apart unless we grant this? There are interpretations of QM that are like that, but is there any reason to specially priviledge them? I don't think so.
I feel like I am talking with my younger, 16 year old self, before I went to college and talked with real physicists.
real realism
— Oct 03, 2009
I'll take that as a compliment, and in that case I guess I'm talking to my older self after I bought into the physicists' worldview.
Smolin would probably agree that "there is clay in there, even when we haven't stuck our hand in". Schrodinger's cat is an explanatory tool. The lump doesn't display non-locality when filmed at a distance, and then solidify at statistically predictable locations when we reach inside. But micro particles are essentially "nowhere" and "all over" until we measure them.
I think Smolin would hardly agree that "this is to be expected":
"This is probably the most serious problem facing modern science. It is just so hard that progress is very slow. I deeply admire the physicists who work on it, both for the purity of their intentions and for their courage to ignore fashion and attack the hardest and most fundamental of problems.
"But despite their best efforts, the problem remains unsolved. This suggests to me that it's not just a matter of finding a new way to think about quantum theory. Those who initially formulated the theory were not realists. They did not believe that human beings were capable of forming a true picture of the world as it exists independent of our actions and observations. They argued instead for a very different vision of science: In their view, science can be nothing but an extension of the ordinary language we use to describe our actions and observations to one another" (9).
Yes, he is a realist. But what's so wrong with being "nothing but" and extension of our ordinary language?
"All of this suggests that quantum theory does not tell the whole story. As a result, in spite of its success, there are many experts who are convinced that quantum theory hides something essential about nature that we need to know" (Smolin, 6).
Might that essential component have something to do with, dare we say it, perception?
That's exactly the point: science will never reach "objective truth" beyond human subjectivity. Our perception is real, and it will become a part of the scientific picture no matter how much "realists" fight it.
And by the way, your tactual, visual, and conceptual construct of the "lump of clay" does not exist as such unless you reach inside the box. I will have a slightly different perception of it, and we can only imagine what a plant's experience would be like as it grows on clay soil.
So who are we to pretend to somehow bypass our imperfect perception to get to "the real truth"? Reality is fickle, just like the electron. And as long as we keep overlooking the fact of looking, our conception of reality will make no sense at all.
Consciousness is not "magical", it is real. All perceptions of reality hinge on the element of perceiving.
Don't chide the need for "language, verbs, and nouns, paradox, and mysticism", as reality is made of language, and these have all been part of humanity's ongoing construction of reality. Is it really that unconscionable that earlier cultures could have built far more meaningful understandings of this world, and that we stand to gain a lot from studying their inheritance?
Thanks for the conversation. I'd be happy to talk by phone, but I don't live in the US. I hope this doesn't sound offensive in any way, as I'm sort of just ranting to "realists" in general. And if you are truly a "philosophical realist", then this should only get more interesting.
Peace
Let's do some Conscious Science
(Where to continue?)
— Oct 03, 2009
Yellowseed, it appears we have replied each other into a literal corner! -- I am refering to the column space available.
I am looking for a better place to place our exchange; Perhaps in the ConSciEnce forum? Look there; I will try to find a place to put this.
great
— Oct 03, 2009
I did notice that...
Thanks for getting an intro going, start wherever you'd like. I'm heading down to the Amazon tomorrow morning, I'll have sporadic web access for the week. Sure look forward to your contributions though.
In lak ech
Let's do some Conscious Science
i like a good mystery <3
— Oct 02, 2009
an i dont need to know all the history
i love equating
i am a libra
i am the equatOR
nah, but understanding and wisdom are great
and trying to understand the highest of possible understandings is great to
but if osho is actually correct, and there is no purpose
what do you expect to find
except an equation
we=exist
but i like this one
wexist=wilfukamugup=bestactright
We are part of nature
— Oct 02, 2009
Any attempt to leave ourselves out of our understanding is fundamentally flawed.
So let's not talk mysticism. Let's bring in the new science, and then we'll see how it sounds a lot like the words of the mystics.
Because science is not a unique human fancy, an irrelevant curiosity in the vastness of the cosmos. It is a very clear expression of the primordial force, the creation of reality. If only it could bear looking back at itself.
Let's do some Conscious Science
