Is Buddhism a philosophy or a religion?

[Frank Merton]

No you have rebirth mixed up with popular nonsense. People are reborn people. The rebirth comes out of the desire of the spirit to get back what it just lost. The animal womb would have no appeal.

[Mr Right Wing]

According to your egocentric philosophy and nothing more.

Again, there is no 'I' only oneness.

[Mr Right Wing]

The collapse happens when we make the observation or measurement. Is that right? Now it may be an illusion -- the dual state remains because it isn't really a dual state but just some state we can't deal with in our minds -- and we infer a collapse.

The wavefunction (non-dualism) is a probability equation listing possible outcomes.

When you gain information on a probability you have an outcome destroying the probability. Hence gaining information collapses a wavefunction (non-dualism) bringing into existance a reality (duality).

A wavefunction is not limited by the speed of light as it isnt an object with mass its just a probability equation. If you put an atom inside a container, turn off your measuring device (reverting it to a wavefunction), turn it back on after a fraction of a second (collapsing the wavefunction) then you can find it somewhere inside the container it couldnt have reached unless it violated the speed of light. Quantum Tunneling does the same.

Why does this happen? It happens because when no measuring is going on there is no atom.

Nothing objective exists at all and that is the mainstream stance in Quantum Mechanics.

[Grandpa Greenman]

Evil Buddhist not flying planes into buildings or going to war and killing in the name of Buddha.

[Frank Merton]

The illusion is of a self. It is process, not thing. But an electromagnetic wave is also a process, not a thing, and it can exert force.

There was a philosophical movement in the US called Transcendentalism (Emerson, etc.) that took the view of Buddhism as saying that at Enlightenment one becomes one with an eternal ocean -- that in the meantime we are puddles on the beach that can't figure out how to fix it until the tide comes in.

This is a pretty metaphor, but it didn't last. Way too speculative. We have no idea what the Buddha would have said either (by the way, the authority of the Buddha is respected but not final). We know that the term used to describe Nirvana is "bliss." To me this does not sound like either extinction nor submersion into a bigger entity. Until you get into the mythology, which is irrelevant, Buddhism is silent on what this might mean, basically maintaining that it is not something we are able to understand.

[Guest]

All meditative processes lead to a state which cannot be described other than experiencing them. One-ness with everything seems to be a universal aspect of any "enlightenment" experience though.

Br Cornelius

[Guest]

The wavefunction (non-dualism) is a probability equation listing possible outcomes.

When you gain information on a probability you have an outcome destroying the probability. Hence gaining information collapses a wavefunction (non-dualism) bringing into existance a reality (duality).

A wavefunction is not limited by the speed of light as it isnt an object with mass its just a probability equation. If you put an atom inside a container, turn off your measuring device (reverting it to a wavefunction), turn it back on after a fraction of a second (collapsing the wavefunction) then you can find it somewhere inside the container it couldnt have reached unless it violated the speed of light. Quantum Tunneling does the same.

Why does this happen? It happens because when no measuring is going on there is no atom.

Nothing objective exists at all and that is the mainstream stance in Quantum Mechanics.

This is only because all experience is mediated by the nervous system. Its not a very productive stance to take to assume that the experience our nervous system mediates to us isn't based on some shared objective reality - even though we can never prove this fact.

Br Cornelius

[Mr Right Wing]

This is only because all experience is mediated by the nervous system. Its not a very productive stance to take to assume that the experience our nervous system mediates to us isn't based on some shared objective reality - even though we can never prove this fact.

Br Cornelius

There is no shared objective reality or even a shared subjective one.

Schrodingers Cat experiments show reality is unique to each observer and wave-particle duality shows no atom exists without measurement as indicated by the interference pattern.

[media=]

[/media]

There is no objective reality. I realise that sounds ludicrus for some people but thats what it all means.

Edited March 8, 2013 by Mr Right Wing

[Guest]

There is no shared objective reality or even a shared subjective one.

Schrodingers Cat experiments show reality is unique to each observer and wave-particle duality shows no atom exists without measurement as indicated by the interference pattern.

[media=]

[/media]

There is no objective reality. I realise that sounds ludicrus for some people but thats what it all means.

That is an interpretation of the data but it isn't necessarily reality.

For me it is prudent to assume that we share reality but our views of it could be radically different (ie subjective).

Schrodengers cat actually says that reality is made manifest by the process of observation. All of reality can be an observer of the system which means that reality can be shared.

Again in quantum physics - what it ultimately says is that there are definite limits to what can be known - not that the unknown doesn't have some objective reality.

Ultimately very few quantum physicists would interpret their knowledge to mean that there is no objective reality.

Br Cornelius

Edited March 8, 2013 by Guest

[Mr Right Wing]

That is an interpretation of the data but it isn't necessarily reality.

For me it is prudent to assume that we share reality but our views of it could be radically different (ie subjective).

Schrodengers cat actually says that reality is made manifest by the process of observation. All of reality can be an observer of the system which means that reality can be shared.

Again in quantum physics - what it ultimately says is that there are definite limits to what can be known - not that the unknown doesn't have some objective reality.

Ultimately very few quantum physicists would interpret their knowledge to mean that there is no objective reality.

Br Cornelius

All interpretations of QM technically mean the same thing and are clear that this reality only exists upon measurement. Here is Schrodingers Cat and his thought experiment has been carried out (without cats) over recent decades and proven -

[media=]

[/media]

When you have two observers instead of one then the cat is in a superposition of states to each one. Lets say the two observers are me and you.

1. Me - When I look the superposition collapses fixing the outcome for the cat plus what you will see (you are part of the reality I experience).

2. You - When you look the superposition collapses fixing the outcome for the cat plus what I will see (I am part of the reality you experience).

With me being a part of the reality you experience from your point of view and you being a part of the reality I experience from my point of view both realities appear coherent to each observer while being different from each other. A simple explaination is to think of the film the matrix with us both being locked in our own virtual reality booth experiencing our own version of reality which is different from each other.

QM is nuts but thats what it says and what lab experiments have proven.

Edited March 8, 2013 by Mr Right Wing

[Guest]

All interpretations of QM technically mean the same thing and are clear that this reality only exists upon measurement. Here is Schrodingers Cat and his thought experiment has been carried out (without cats) over recent decades and proven -

[media=]

[/media]

When you have two observers instead of one then the cat is in a superposition of states to each one. Lets say the two observers are me and you.

1. Me - When I look the superposition collapses fixing the outcome for the cat plus what you will see (you are part of the reality I experience).

2. You - When you look the superposition collapses fixing the outcome for the cat plus what I will see (I am part of the reality you experience).

With me being a part of the reality you experience from your point of view and you being a part of the reality I experience from my point of view both realities appear coherent to each observer while being different from each other. A simple explaination is to think of the film the matrix with us both being locked in our own virtual reality booth experiencing our own version of reality which is different from each other.

QM is nuts but thats what it says and what lab experiments have proven.

My interpretation is that there is a race between the observers to collapse the waveform - not that there are two superimposed realities which coincidentally are identical in their measured outcomes (from each individuals point of view).

The fundamental point of QM is that the uncertainty principle says definitively that we can never have the whole set of information about reality - so ultimately these philosophical points can never be resolved. This is why QM is full of competing "Interpretations" dealing with the same partial datasets. You could only verify your position if the outcomes where different and your universes diverged, but there would never be a way to verify this so it is wrong to assume that it has taken place rather than some other more mundane interpretation (ie that your realities are shared).

Br Cornelius

Edited March 8, 2013 by Guest

[Mr Right Wing]

My interpretation is that there is a race between the observers to collapse the waveform - not that there are two superimposed realities which coincidentally are identical in their measured outcomes (from each individuals point of view).

Br Cornelius

Two superimposed realities is called superposition - http://en.wikipedia....nd_applications

Reading down to 'Experiments and applications' I quote - 'Successful experiments involving superpositions of relatively large objects have been performed'

Searching on the internet shows everything from photons to lasers to objects large enough to be seen with your naked eyes have been placed into superposition proving superimposed realities exist. The EPR Paradox also failed showing superpositions and non-locality exist if you want to view academic papers.

You may also have come across an object that appeared to be stuck between two outcomes in your life and passed it off as a trick of your mind. Collapse of superpositions is called decoherence and yes, scientists can delay it. If what I wrote wasnt nuts enough lol

Edited March 8, 2013 by Mr Right Wing

[Guest]

Two superimposed realities is called superposition - http://en.wikipedia....nd_applications

Reading down to 'Experiments and applications' I quote - 'Successful experiments involving superpositions of relatively large objects have been performed'

Searching on the internet shows everything from photons to lasers to objects large enough to be seen with your naked eyes have been placed into superposition proving superimposed realities exist. The EPR Paradox also failed showing superpositions and non-locality exist if you want to view academic papers.

You may also have come across an object that appeared to be stuck between two outcomes in your life and passed it off as a trick of your mind. Collapse of superpositions is called decoherence and yes, scientists can delay it. If what I wrote wasnt nuts enough lol

Superimposed states says that it exists in a probabilistic state not a defined position within multiple realities. That is not the same thing as saying that it exists in multiple different places at once - it has the potential to exist in all places - not quite the same thing at all. Again I can only offer my interpretation that all things are actually in real fuzzy logic states until they are definitively observed to be in a single place - and even then we are only seeing a snap shot of their real state (we can never know more than one aspect of a quantum object).

They can exist in such a state of probability, but to have measured that state must have collapsed the field so to definitively say they were in a superimposed state means they have not been observed yet.

Br cornelius

[Guest]

Basically I am reluctant to go down the whole multiverse interpretation of quantum physics - and that is my very personal choice.

Br Cornelius

[Mr Right Wing]

Superimposed states says that it exists in a probabilistic state not a defined position within multiple realities. That is not the same thing as saying that it exists in multiple different places at once - it has the potential to exist in all places - not quite the same thing at all. Again I can only offer my interpretation that all things are actually in real fuzzy logic states until they are definitively observed to be in a single place - and even then we are only seeing a snap shot of their real state (we can never know more than one aspect of a quantum object).

They can exist in such a state of probability, but to have measured that state must have collapsed the field so to definitively say they were in a superimposed state means they have not been observed yet.

Br cornelius

A superposition is two or more outcomes co-existing (like an alive cat, a dead cat and a cat thats both alive and dead all co-existing at the same time).

If you want to superposition the place of an object you can do that too. All the links on the internet to two atom correlation experiments are academic so I'll explain it instead -

1. Take two atoms and put them into entanglement by firing them off at right angles to each other at the same time.

2. Until measured each atoms location is a superposition.

3. If you measure the location of one then you collapse the entanglement teleporting the outcome to the other atom.

When you do this you can teleport a location to the other atom which is impossible for it to reach. For example there could have been a 100 metre thick wall in its way which its magically jumped beyond to appear at its position. Superconductors work the same way but with pairs of electrons.

[Mr Right Wing]

Basically I am reluctant to go down the whole multiverse interpretation of quantum physics - and that is my very personal choice.

Br Cornelius

The physics doesnt change between interpretations because they're all different ways of saying the same thing. But if you prefer one over the other thats okay.

QM and Buddhism are the same -

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zjd26JSaq64[/media]

Edited March 8, 2013 by Mr Right Wing

[Guest]

A superposition is two or more outcomes co-existing (like an alive cat, a dead cat and a cat thats both alive and dead all co-existing at the same time).

If you want to superposition the place of an object you can do that too. All the links on the internet to two atom correlation experiments are academic so I'll explain it instead -

1. Take two atoms and put them into entanglement by firing them off at right angles to each other at the same time.

2. Until measured each atoms location is a superposition.

3. If you measure the location of one then you collapse the entanglement teleporting the outcome to the other atom.

When you do this you can teleport a location to the other atom which is impossible for it to reach. For example there could have been a 100 metre thick wall in its way which its magically jumped beyond to appear at its position. Superconductors work the same way but with pairs of electrons.

That is not a problem. None locality is implicit in quantum entanglement. The probability waves are entangled but still distinct.

However superposition is the probability wave before it is collapsed.

Br Cornelius

[Guest]

The physics doesnt change between interpretations because they're all different ways of saying the same thing. But if you prefer one over the other thats okay.

QM and Buddhism are the same -

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zjd26JSaq64[/media]

The physics equations maybe the same, but the interpretations are distinct and impose structure on the abstract equations. The interpretations are not all compatible and so if we choose to accept them over the raw predictive equations it restricts the ultimate conceptual map we create in our minds.

Br Corelius

[Mr Right Wing]

That is not a problem. None locality is implicit in quantum entanglement. The probability waves are entangled but still distinct.

However superposition is the probability wave before it is collapsed.

Br Cornelius

Yes each atom would have its own probability wave. Both of them are entangled with each other so when you measure the location of one atom collapsing its wavefunction the outcome transfers to the other atom. Just like voodoo. Two atom correlation shows that location is totally plastic.

You know that the second atom didnt get to the location off its own accord when you have a barrier in the way.

Addition - I should point out wavefunctions (probability waves) instantly spread out throughout the entire universe which is how it gets behind the barrier to begin with.

Edited March 8, 2013 by Mr Right Wing

[Mr Right Wing]

The physics equations maybe the same, but the interpretations are distinct and impose structure on the abstract equations. The interpretations are not all compatible and so if we choose to accept them over the raw predictive equations it restricts the ultimate conceptual map we create in our minds.

Br Corelius

Why is it that you think a multiverse doesnt mean the same thing as parallel universes or extra dimensions?

If you have a thought session on them you'll realise they are all the same.

[Guest]

Yes each atom would have its own probability wave. Both of them are entangled with each other so when you measure the location of one atom collapsing its wavefunction the outcome transfers to the other atom. Just like voodoo. Two atom correlation shows that location is totally plastic.

You know that the second atom didnt get to the location off its own accord when you have a barrier in the way.

Addition - I should point out wavefunctions (probability waves) instantly spread out throughout the entire universe which is how it gets behind the barrier to begin with.

Makes a hell of a lot of the paranormal obvious.

Br Cornelius

[Guest]

Why is it that you think a multiverse doesnt mean the same thing as parallel universes or extra dimensions?

If you have a thought session on them you'll realise they are all the same.

i believe that many of the "Constructs" of physics are mathematical devices to explain what we cannot possibly comprehend. I am confident in the predictive results they offer - but skeptical of how they actually map to the underlying reality they attempt to describe.

I believe that the brain has no tools to comprehend the fundamental underlying nature of reality.

What brought this home to me was when I realized that the most perfect description of an atom is a mathematical grid. No visual conceptual model adequately describes the measured phenomenon.

Br Cornelius

Edited March 8, 2013 by Guest

[Mr Right Wing]

Makes a hell of a lot of the paranormal obvious.

Br Cornelius

Its possible but its early days yet.

There is the possiblilty that people like clairvoyants (assuming they're real) arent seeing the future but selecting it.

[Mr Right Wing]

i believe that many of the "Constructs" of physics are mathematical devices to explain what we cannot possibly comprehend. I am confident in the predictive results they offer - but skeptical of how they actually map to the underlying reality they attempt to describe.

I believe that the brain has no tools to comprehend the fundamental underlying nature of reality.

What brought this home to me was when I realized that the most perfect description of an atom is a mathematical grid. No visual conceptual model adequately describes the measured phenomenon.

Br Cornelius

Questioning if maths can actually represent reality or if its actually something real is metaphysics.

Scientists believe everything is made out of fundamental building blocks. If true then it should be possible to calculate the exact area of a circle (2nr). Yet this is impossible because n has iinfinite decimal places meaning the area will too.

All languages suffer from the same problem of them only being able to define what can be defined. Assuming everything is definable isnt supported as n shows. All routes lead to only the mind being objectively real but the maths route is another debate.

Edited March 8, 2013 by Mr Right Wing

[Guest]

Ultimately my position on the multiverse and the objectivity of reality is a pragmatic one.

To entertain the possibility that there is no objective reality on which we base our subjective interpretations is a very slippery slope down which Madness ultimately beacons. It a choice thing in the end. I have seen how flexible reality can be and at some point you need to anchor yourself to some tangibles.

Br Cornelius