Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Bildr

Where Science and Buddhism Meet

41 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Non dualism leads pantheism or panentheism. Both a are seriously flawed. Although I am not a materialist, I do believe outside of the mind there is a physical reality! It's true nature is unknown and cannot be proven one way or another. We could be sitting on mars with electrodes in us and living this simulation. Can you prove otherwise? No!

I agree with Leo- this is more mysticism! If a bus hit you head on, and it's the mind that creates that reality, thus you should be able to manipulate reality matter itself.

Well I've posted another video called ''black whole'' in the same forum/subject here( ( http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=228796&hl=%2Bblack+%2Bwhole) you should watch it and then you would understand my point here); and if you think about it, if the mind is the matrix of our universe...we are not alone! We are all mind co-creating this universe so that would say that my limit to ''manipulate'' this corner of the universe is limited by what the other humans on this planet.So indeed that would make our universe one DAMN complex equilibrium. I know that would seems far fetched, but that's only a ''theory'', as far as i know.

Edited by Bildr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What IF consciousness IS truly the essence of our universe and that beings does exist since ''the beginning?'' the big bang is a theory that fist our current understanding of the universe.

You could be right, of course. Why is there a universe in which consciousness can evolve? Is this a predetermined imperative for the creation of universes? Our universe may just be one of many that come into being, most of which are configured in such a way that precludes the evolution of conscious beings.

Our universe has conscious beings in it because in our particular universe conscious beings must evolve. Our universe is configured in that way. Sort of an anthropic principle.

I think for consciousness to be the essence of the universe, our usual personal kind of consciousness can hardly be said to be one with this universal consciousness. What kind of awareness must we have to commune with this universal consciousness?

I would think this universal consciousness would be pure consciousness, pure awareness. I consider pure awareness the essence of Buddhism. Especially Zen (although there is little Buddhism in Zen. Zen is derived from Ch'an which arose in China, which itself is based on Taoism with some Buddhist ideas added to it.)

In any event, how does one's mind merge with this theoretical universal consciousness? If one could achieve this truly, without fooling one's self, only then could one say the thing is real. Mostly we don't have time or the inclination or patience to actually practice what we preach. We all like to philosophize in the grand manner, but our introverted minds remain small and full of personal agendas.

I must say, mine included.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

That is a involuntary way to affirm that we are alone in this universe.

It says nothing of the sort. His question brings up the point that this magical thinking is incompatible with science.
What IF consciousness IS truly the essence of our universe and that beings does exist since ''the beginning?'' the big bang is a theory that fist our current understanding of the universe. I know I have no fact or proof about what i'm affirming, but like i said; WHAT IF? You know, most theoretical scientist does says that the only empirical and absolute knowledge we have about the universe, is that we know SO LITTLE!
And with make believe you go that step further by knowing nothing at all.

If consciousness is the essence of the universe, then everytime you're unconscious, the universe ceases to exist.

Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2. People who havent studied physics but maybe watched a dual-slit experiment being done with photons on Youtube could make the mistake of thinking it only works on photons. It doesnt. It works on atoms and even small objects. I dont know if my knowledge is still up to date about the largest object they've got it to work on but when I was at college it was buckyballs - http://en.wikipedia....insterfullerene

3. Particle behaviour ceases with no measurement and is replaced with wave behaviour which is the wavefunction. Wavefunctions have different properties than particles such as the ability to produce an interference pattern, non-locality, quantum teleportation etc.

No, it doesn't.

The double-slit experiment works with quantum objects, and no macroscopic object can be a quantum object. Not even an atom is a quantum object.

What these other objects, like Bose-Einstein Condensates, superfluids, superconductors, atoms and even lasers, are, are quantum systems.

While they may exhibit some quantum behaviours, they cannot behave exactly as a quantum object would and are not compatible with experiments designed to show those properties of quantum objects.

The wavefunction is not a concrete phenomenon, like a wave. It is an abstract, a mathematical representation of all possible states of a quantum object (or property). The quantum object does not "exist as a wavefunction" when unobserved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Non dualism leads pantheism or panentheism. Both a are seriously flawed. Although I am not a materialist.

2. I do believe outside of the mind there is a physical reality! It's true nature is unknown and cannot be proven one way or another.

3. We could be sitting on mars with electrodes in us and living this simulation. Can you prove otherwise? No!

4. I agree with Leo- this is more mysticism!

5. If a bus hit you head on, and it's the mind that creates that reality, thus you should be able to manipulate reality matter itself.

1. In Non-dualism there isnt a God there is just oneness.

2. So you believe in something which cant be proven. Isnt that mysticism?

3. Excactly, if you dont know what is truth then why are you asserting that non-dualism is wrong and your world view is right?

4. May I point out once again that non-dualism is a philosophy not mysticism. Both Quantum Mechanics and Buddhism say the same thing.

5

When you are born you have little information on the universe so it behaves as a probabiity. As you live your life you gain more and more information on the universe reducing whats left behaving as a probability. Therefore the mind does have influence on the universe. Through its ability to perceive and acquire information it determines what parts of the universe are certain and what parts are left behaving as a probability.

This brings us to how perceptions can alter reality. If all you perceive when you look out your eyes is the negative then you will reduce the probability one way but if all you perceive is the positive it will reduce in another. A perfect example is the placebo effect or having faith in your follow a religion. Another example which anybody successful in sales will have come across is if you expect to do well you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it doesn't.

The double-slit experiment works with quantum objects, and no macroscopic object can be a quantum object. Not even an atom is a quantum object.

What these other objects, like Bose-Einstein Condensates, superfluids, superconductors, atoms and even lasers, are, are quantum systems.

While they may exhibit some quantum behaviours, they cannot behave exactly as a quantum object would and are not compatible with experiments designed to show those properties of quantum objects.

The wavefunction is not a concrete phenomenon, like a wave. It is an abstract, a mathematical representation of all possible states of a quantum object (or property). The quantum object does not "exist as a wavefunction" when unobserved.

What in Gods name are you on about boy?

Atoms behave quantum mechanically as do photons and all other subatomic particles. Objects normally behave quantum mechanically up to a few hundred atoms in size. A buckyballs contains 60 carbon atoms and the dual-slit experiment can be done with photons, atoms or using it the buckyball if you wanted (as you will know if you actually bothered to read the link I gave you).

Larger objects can be made to behave quantum mechanically by preventing heat loss. Under entropy heat loss is the leakage of information which collapses a quantum state. By preventing heat loss scientists have been able to get an object which is so large it can be seen with the naked eye into a superposition of all states. It was a peice of wire.

As for wavefunctions you are wrong there too but I have written enough. The rest is up to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

What in Gods name are you on about boy?

Atoms behave quantum mechanically as do photons and all other subatomic particles. Objects normally behave quantum mechanically up to a few hundred atoms in size. A buckyballs contains 60 carbon atoms and the dual-slit experiment can be done with photons, atoms or using it the buckyball if you wanted (as you will know if you actually bothered to read the link I gave you).

Larger objects can be made to behave quantum mechanically by preventing heat loss. Under entropy heat loss is the leakage of information which collapses a quantum state. By preventing heat loss scientists have been able to get an object which is so large it can be seen with the naked eye into a superposition of all states. It was a peice of wire.

As for wavefunctions you are wrong there too but I have written enough. The rest is up to you.

Neither I, nor anyone else here is "boy". Either address people with respect or do not bother posting at all.

That buckminsterfullerine exhibits wave-particle duality is neither here nor there. As I stated in my previous post, quantum systems can exhibit quantum properties. That does not suggest they are compatible with experiments such as the double-slit experiment. If you can produce an example of the double-slit experiment being carried out with buckminsterfullerene, or an atom, then I will concede. Until then, you have no support for your conjecture.

Your interpretation of the 'wavefunction' as being the state a quantum object exists in until observed/measured, is a misinterpretation of the Copenhagen Interpretation. And this site will explain why it is a misinterpretation.

The relevant passages...

Complementarity is first and foremost a semantic and epistemological reading of quantum mechanics that carries certain ontological implications. Bohr's view was, to phrase it in a modern philosophical jargon, that the truth conditions of sentences ascribing a certain kinematic or dynamic value to an atomic object are dependent on the apparatus involved, in such a way that these truth conditions have to include reference to the experimental setup as well as the actual outcome of the experiment. This claim is called Bohr's indefinability thesis (Murdoch 1987; Faye 1991). Hence, those physicists who accuse this interpretation of operating with a mysterious collapse of the wave function during measurements haven't got it right. Bohr accepted the Born statistical interpretation because he believed that the ψ-function has only a symbolic meaning and does not represent anything real. It makes sense to talk about a collapse of the wave function only if, as Bohr put it, the ψ-function can be given a pictorial representation, something he strongly denied.

...and...

Fourth, although Bohr had spoken about "disturbing the phenomena by observation," in some of his earliest papers on complementarity, he never had in mind the observer-induced collapse of the wave packet. Later he always talked about the interaction between the object and the measurement apparatus which was taken to be completely objective. Thus, Schrödinger's Cat did not pose any riddle to Bohr. The cat would be dead or alive long before we open the box to find out. What Bohr claimed was, however, that the state of the object and the state of the instrument are dynamically inseparable during the interaction. Moreover, the atomic object does not posses any state separate from the one it manifests at the end of the interaction because the measuring instrument establishes the necessary conditions under which it makes sense to use the state concept.

As you have nothing further to say, I expect no comment on this.

Edited by Leonardo
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

That buckminsterfullerine exhibits wave-particle duality is neither here nor there. As I stated in my previous post, quantum systems can exhibit quantum properties. That does not suggest they are compatible with experiments such as the double-slit experiment. If you can produce an example of the double-slit experiment being carried out with buckminsterfullerene, or an atom, them I will concede. Until then, you have no support for your conjecture.

Your interpretation of the 'wavefunction' as being the state a quantum object exists in is a misinterpretation of the Copenhagen Interpretation. And this site will explain why it is a misinterpretation.

Do you have a physics or engineering degree?

Thats why you think the dual-slit experiment only works on photons - http://physicsworld....on-60-molecules

The sites you have viewed haven't given you a full knowledge of Quantum Mechanics. Without measurement there is only wave behaviour (which is the wavefunction) and it causes an interference pattern. Waves have different properties than particles which is why you get the interference pattern. The difference in properties is how we know a wavefunction isnt the same thing as a particle.

Addition - You added in a couple of quotes after I started my reply. With the first one you are making the mistake of thinking the statistical intepretation of quantum mechanics is the correct one. It has many criticisms and problem areas which you arent aware off. The second quote has no relevance to the debate as I'm not claiming you get get something from a wavefunction which isnt there to begin with. The wavefunction contains all possibilities available.

Edited by Mr Right Wing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could be right, of course. Why is there a universe in which consciousness can evolve? Is this a predetermined imperative for the creation of universes? Our universe may just be one of many that come into being, most of which are configured in such a way that precludes the evolution of conscious beings.

Our universe has conscious beings in it because in our particular universe conscious beings must evolve. Our universe is configured in that way. Sort of an anthropic principle.

I think for consciousness to be the essence of the universe, our usual personal kind of consciousness can hardly be said to be one with this universal consciousness. What kind of awareness must we have to commune with this universal consciousness?

I would think this universal consciousness would be pure consciousness, pure awareness. I consider pure awareness the essence of Buddhism. Especially Zen (although there is little Buddhism in Zen. Zen is derived from Ch'an which arose in China, which itself is based on Taoism with some Buddhist ideas added to it.)

In any event, how does one's mind merge with this theoretical universal consciousness? If one could achieve this truly, without fooling one's self, only then could one say the thing is real. Mostly we don't have time or the inclination or patience to actually practice what we preach. We all like to philosophize in the grand manner, but our introverted minds remain small and full of personal agendas.

I must say, mine included.

It's not that hard. We are merely threads of conciousness. One only needs to surrender ones awareness and focus on this particular thread. Then you can experience it. How is it possible? We are not really separate. Separation is an illusion of energy density.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It says nothing of the sort. His question brings up the point that this magical thinking is incompatible with science.

And with make believe you go that step further by knowing nothing at all.

If consciousness is the essence of the universe, then everytime you're unconscious, the universe ceases to exist.

Not at all, because even if i am unconscious(like, while sleeping) their's always a conscious mind on earth living and aware right now(human, or animal), so the universe don't ''collapse''. Go watch ''Black Whole'' documentary, you'll understand my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Not at all, because even if i am unconscious(like, while sleeping) their's always a conscious mind on earth living and aware right now(human, or animal), so the universe don't ''collapse''. Go watch ''Black Whole'' documentary, you'll understand my point.

You don't even need that. The quantum eraser shows that collapse is also retroactive. That's right the future affects the past. All you need is one observer and then everything leading to that observer must snap into focus. Of course this means the big bang aswell which was actually itself a tiny quantum event at some point. All it takes is one observation then the entire objective universe should sharpen to focus. It's a an eternal tangled hierarchy.

There is also cascading collapse. If you make a very large observation. ( your eyes gaining knowledge of your environment), then everything associated with your interactions that could have gained knowledge from it... Even a super computer creates a cascading collapse until it reaches things that cannot be be known. One observation has the ability to instantly collapse everything even minutely connected over the entire universe and time.

Edited by Seeker79

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Not at all, because even if i am unconscious(like, while sleeping) their's always a conscious mind on earth living and aware right now(human, or animal), so the universe don't ''collapse''. Go watch ''Black Whole'' documentary, you'll understand my point.

Universe doesn't "collapse" because of lack of consciousness. I understand your point in the same sense I understand that of young earth creationism, it's still pseudoscience.

BTW Sleeping isn't a state of unconsciousness.

Edited by Rlyeh
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't even need that. The quantum eraser shows that collapse is also retroactive. That's right the future affects the past. All you need is one observer and then everything leading to that observer must snap into focus. Of course this means the big bang aswell which was actually itself a tiny quantum event at some point. All it takes is one observation then the entire objective universe should sharpen to focus. It's a an eternal tangled hierarchy.

And as you are already aware "observation" doesn't require consciousness or life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You don't even need that. The quantum eraser shows that collapse is also retroactive. That's right the future affects the past. All you need is one observer and then everything leading to that observer must snap into focus. Of course this means the big bang aswell which was actually itself a tiny quantum event at some point. All it takes is one observation then the entire objective universe should sharpen to focus. It's a an eternal tangled hierarchy.

Hi Seeker its called retrocausality.

The dual-slit experiment is a good example of retrocausality. An interfence pattern exists until the measuring device is turned on. At that point the wavefunction is collapsed causing an atom to have travelled through one slit or the other. In the experiment one history is being selected out of a non-duality of two.

In essence the outcome brings into existance the history required to have produced it. This is part of the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics as it requires all histories and futures to co-exist - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation (first paragraph for anyone reading)

Edited by Mr Right Wing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And as you are already aware "observation" doesn't require consciousness or life.

Oh, that's right chains of coin flips ( reguardless of who is doing the flipping) ending on a choice to observe in Rlyeh world constitutes something other than a living observer. As I have explained to you countless times, you can program a robot to fly into orbit wait 10,000 years then upon a certain random que from the sun ( say an m3 solar flare) come back and land then kill someone.... It is you who are still the murderer. Likewise the robot can make an observation, but it is still you. The fact remaines is that the knowledge becomes knowable and only conciousness can know. As prooven measurements collapse quantum realities that are the building blocks for macro realities. A measurement is an act therefore requires an actor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Oh, that's right chains of coin flips ( reguardless of who is doing the flipping) ending on a choice to observe in Rlyeh world constitutes something other than a living observer.

Are you deliberately being daft? You're over looking the natural universe.

Isotope decay, photosynthesis, etc.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/12/08/further-evidence-that-photosynthesis-involves-quantum-mechanics/

http://phys.org/news/2012-01-role-quantum-effects-photosynthesis.html

As I have explained to you countless times, you can program a robot to fly into orbit wait 10,000 years then upon a certain random que from the sun ( say an m3 solar flare) come back and land then kill someone.... It is you who are still the murderer. Likewise the robot can make an observation, but it is still you. The fact remaines is that the knowledge becomes knowable and only conciousness can know. As prooven measurements collapse quantum realities that are the building blocks for macro realities. A measurement is an act therefore requires an actor.

Sorry, I explicitly said observation.

Your killer robot has nothing to do with the discussion, and I'm not aware of any quantum experiment involving one.

Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.