Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Is Buddhism a philosophy or a religion?

buddhism philosophy religion

  • Please log in to reply
283 replies to this topic

#91    Mr Right Wing

Mr Right Wing

    Poltergeist

  • Banned
  • 2,924 posts
  • Joined:16 Nov 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 08 March 2013 - 10:09 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 08 March 2013 - 09:46 PM, said:

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 -



Edited by Mr Right Wing, 08 March 2013 - 10:09 PM.


#92    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 13,791 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 08 March 2013 - 10:10 PM

View PostMr Right Wing, on 08 March 2013 - 09:59 PM, said:

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

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#93    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 13,791 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 08 March 2013 - 10:14 PM

View PostMr Right Wing, on 08 March 2013 - 10:09 PM, said:

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 -


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

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#94    Mr Right Wing

Mr Right Wing

    Poltergeist

  • Banned
  • 2,924 posts
  • Joined:16 Nov 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 08 March 2013 - 10:20 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 08 March 2013 - 10:10 PM, said:

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 by Mr Right Wing, 08 March 2013 - 10:25 PM.


#95    Mr Right Wing

Mr Right Wing

    Poltergeist

  • Banned
  • 2,924 posts
  • Joined:16 Nov 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 08 March 2013 - 10:23 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 08 March 2013 - 10:14 PM, said:

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.


#96    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 13,791 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 08 March 2013 - 10:28 PM

View PostMr Right Wing, on 08 March 2013 - 10:20 PM, said:

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

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#97    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 13,791 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 08 March 2013 - 10:31 PM

View PostMr Right Wing, on 08 March 2013 - 10:23 PM, said:

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 by Br Cornelius, 08 March 2013 - 10:34 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#98    Mr Right Wing

Mr Right Wing

    Poltergeist

  • Banned
  • 2,924 posts
  • Joined:16 Nov 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 08 March 2013 - 10:32 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 08 March 2013 - 10:28 PM, said:

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.


#99    Mr Right Wing

Mr Right Wing

    Poltergeist

  • Banned
  • 2,924 posts
  • Joined:16 Nov 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 08 March 2013 - 10:54 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 08 March 2013 - 10:31 PM, said:

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 by Mr Right Wing, 08 March 2013 - 11:03 PM.


#100    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 13,791 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 08 March 2013 - 11:02 PM

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

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#101    Mr Right Wing

Mr Right Wing

    Poltergeist

  • Banned
  • 2,924 posts
  • Joined:16 Nov 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 08 March 2013 - 11:05 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 08 March 2013 - 11:02 PM, said:

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

And is also why many of the worsts greatest Quantum Physicists have at some point had a trip to the looney bin lol

Edited by Mr Right Wing, 08 March 2013 - 11:07 PM.


#102    ciriuslea

ciriuslea

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 490 posts
  • Joined:08 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • CHAMP20NS

Posted 09 March 2013 - 01:06 AM

View PostFrank Merton, on 08 March 2013 - 06:55 AM, said:

Excellent question.  I guess the reason is because Westerners tend to think a religion has to be about gods or God, and to Asians this isn't an issue.  Confucianism is mainly about deportment and proper ritual but has "Heaven" in it (a bad translation of something I think is untranslatable but certainly has divine aspects).  Taoism is loaded with spirits and demons and what-not, but treats them magically and is mainly a philosophy of the Tao -- again something untranslatable that fortunately no one tries to translate but certainly is not a deity.

Several of the religions of India are rigidly atheist.  Buddhism, coming out of this, argues that anything that exists must be subject to the laws of existence -- karma -- and therefore, if gods exist, they are not relevant to our own personal destinies, which we have to work out on our own.  It is officially agnostic, although as I said earlier most educated Buddhists go further than that.

You note that I call them religions even though gods play a minor if any role.  I think that is because they have so many other things in them that the English language sees as religious -- rituals, temples, monks, prayers, idols, special days for this or that, and so on.

I used to love reading discussion on how people defined god on myspace forums and such places, but just how would a Buddhist define god ? if they would even try does that word even exist for a Buddhist...can it be said that religion is basically an immature philosophy ?


#103    chopmo

chopmo

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 342 posts
  • Joined:22 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

  • aaaah rabble rabble rabble rabble

Posted 09 March 2013 - 01:53 AM

My difference maker would be Philosophy is an understanding in ways of life, ect. and Religion is a grand structure of everything. Buddism might not use gods but they still have a grand structure of life, reincarnation and meditation strength/psyche training to explore other realms of reality. So I would lean more to Buddism being a religion. Mind you it does has some of the best philosophy out of most of the movements existing today.

Well in my opinion & understanding at least.

Edited by chopmo, 09 March 2013 - 01:54 AM.

why is everyone so &^%$ing concerned with "the end"...
new beginnings is what you should be concerned about...

#104    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,573 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Australia

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 09 March 2013 - 02:10 AM

View PostMr Right Wing, on 08 March 2013 - 08:45 PM, said:

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.
Schrodingers Cat is a thought experiment which has been resolved in many different interpretations.


#105    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,573 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Australia

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 09 March 2013 - 02:19 AM

View PostMr Right Wing, on 08 March 2013 - 10:54 PM, said:

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.
A circle made up of atoms would have an *approximate* area of 2πr, so would a computer generated circle consisting of pixels.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users