Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8748 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-23-2017 10:57 AM
417 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: kmastes01
Post Volume:
Total: 808,870 Year: 13,476/21,208 Month: 2,958/3,605 Week: 300/933 Day: 42/154 Hour: 14/6

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67
...
10Next
Author Topic:   The God Hypothesis
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2678
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 61 of 150 (690006)
02-07-2013 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Straggler
02-07-2013 1:00 PM


Re: Table of Specific Similarities - Quantum Physics and Buddhism Compared
“Alluded to”…? “Reminiscient”…. You seem to be rapidly backtracking from the original assertion made in this thread that started all this “Buddhist have already made all the observation Quantum Physicist have made about the nature of our Universe.”
Where the hell did I say that? Please provide a link.

Just how much (or little) of a correlation are you now claiming that there is? (and why can’t you demonstrate it in my little head to head concept comparison table?)

Correlation I claim has not changed. I contend that the Buddhist concept of reality as I understand it and apparently most people to include fuckin Buddhist is one that reality is illusory. That things that we think are things are actually dependent on components of them. That they derive they're existance from our observing them and they're interrealitonships to things around them. Which has been shown to coincide and compared to modern scientific models.

In the case of Buddhism we can look at what is meant by the terms used in the context of that religion specifically. And here we see that it’s all about life, birth, death, conflict, the negation of suffering and the nature of an impermanent self – All in the context of reincarnation.
Well you derive that from one internet search my hats off to you. As there are so many schools and interpretations I find it difficult to track it all down. Not to mention every school having they're own interpretations of those interpretations. But I will say there seems to be a consensus on my initial interpretations and understanding (however slight).

There seems to be far to much woo to this subject to warrant any concrete side by side comparisons as obviously indicated. But hey I tried. Perhaps a Buddhist can fill it in.

Edited by 1.61803, : No reason given.


"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Straggler, posted 02-07-2013 1:00 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Straggler, posted 02-08-2013 11:51 AM 1.61803 has acknowledged this reply

  
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2678
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 62 of 150 (690013)
02-07-2013 2:26 PM


The bowl
I would like to state that I did read several books on Buddhism.
I was attracted to the non-dogmatic approach of Buddhism.

Buddhism was one religion that actually encouraged skepticism.

The problem I found was it offers no answers. It is open to interpretation on a scale more than any other religion.

I still find it is healthy to meditate. I also find it is a stress reliever to not take ownership in many of the problems we percieve intrude in our lives. One story that comes to mind.

There was a grand mother and grand daughter washing the evening meal dishes. The mother and and family friends sitting nearby. The grand daughter drops a bowl on the floor and it shatters. Not missing a beat, the grand mother picks up the dust pan and broom and without a word sweeps the pieces up and throws them away.
The grand daughter stands mortified. One of the family friends says: " My word that bowl was a heirloom and been in your family for generations, how can you simply just sweep it away?" To which the grand mother replys: " It was already broken."

When ever I lose something, or something breaks I try to remember this story. That we are just passing through this life, and take nothing beyond the grave. Why get angry and upset over something material. Enjoy what you have for now but leave the attachments that will cause you pain.

Since we were talkin Buddhism I hope mods will afford latitude.

Edited by 1.61803, : added word: to

Edited by 1.61803, : changed bold to italic


"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10195
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 63 of 150 (690068)
02-08-2013 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by 1.61803
02-07-2013 1:25 PM


Re: Table of Specific Similarities - Quantum Physics and Buddhism Compared
As long as you keep alluding to equivalences via the use of buzzwords, jargonistic phrases and meaningless sentences I will keep requesting that you explain yourself. Let’s see if any of your latest claims stand up to scrutiny.

Numbers writes:

That things that we think are things are actually dependent on components of them.

I have no idea what this sentence means. What Buddhist concept are you talking about? What concept in modern physics are you equating it to?

Numbers writes:

That they derive they're existence from our observing them.

I’m sorry but that is just bollocks. Firstly can you show me where Buddhism talks about observers? Secondly – Physics certainly doesn’t say that things “derive their existence from us observing them”. Where are you getting this from? Nothing in quantum mechanics requires human involvement in order for things to exist. This mystical drivel about things not existing until they interact with a “mind” is the very worst kind of pop-science gone mad.

Where exactly are you getting your information from on this?

Numbers writes:

Interconnectedness

The notion of “interconnectedness” isn’t specific to Buddhism. The notion of an all pervasive transcendental divinity exists in many religions. ‘God is everywhere and within each of us’ is one sort of example. The sort of all pervading ‘cosmic awareness’ mumbo-jumbo the author of this thread has talked about is another. So what “interconnectedness” are you talking about exactly?

More specifically – Which Buddhist concept are you talking about? Are you talking about dependent origination?

And what physics concept of interconnectedness are you talking about? Presumably quantum entanglement (if so I’ll include it in our handy table). But can you really meaningfully equate entangled states of particle pairs with spiritual notions of mystical interconnectedness?

Really?

Numbers writes:

”Reality is illusory”

What do you mean when you say that “reality is illusory”? Do you mean reality doesn’t exist? Or do you mean that our perception of objective reality is necessarily subjective and incomplete? If the latter (as I have said previously) I don’t see this as the big “wow” that you are making it out to be because it is a truism that any thinking person can derive.

More specifically when Buddhism talks about reality being illusory what exactly does it say? And what exactly does physics say (if anything) about reality being illusory? Be specific.

Numbers writes:

Which has been shown to coincide and compared to modern scientific models.

Really? You keep asserting this but is it true? If it is true why are you so utterly unable to show these comparisons in a head to head table of Buddhist and physics concepts? I put it to you that you can’t because the comparisons don’t stand up beyond wild conflation of terminology.

Numbers writes:

Well you derive that from one internet search my hats off to you.

That is rich coming from a man who only a few posts ago equated the Buddhist concept of Sunyata as having something to do with observers and the uncertainty principle.

Numbers writes:

As there are so many schools and interpretations I find it difficult to track it all down. Not to mention every school having they're own interpretations of those interpretations.

As you have personally demonstrated any notion that Buddhist concepts and and physics concepts are significantly comparable relies on interpretation piled upon interpretation piled upon yet more interpretation until both physics and Buddhism are left utterly diminished.

Numbers writes:

But I will say there seems to be a consensus on my initial interpretations and understanding (however slight).

What consensus about what interpretation?

Numbers writes:

There seems to be far to much woo to this subject to warrant any concrete side by side comparisons as obviously indicated.

So you recognise that equating physics with Buddhism relies on relentless interpretation and a heavy dose of woo but you just can’t help yourself do it anyway?

Straggler writes:

You seem to be rapidly backtracking from the original assertion made in this thread that started all this “Buddhist have already made all the observation Quantum Physicist have made about the nature of our Universe.”

Numbers writes:

Where the hell did I say that? Please provide a link.

If you look at the post of mine in this thread to which you first responded you will see that it was originally said by the author of this thread. That claim is the fire that lit this damp squib of a conversation between you and I.

If you disagree with that statement I am left wondering why you decided to argue with me rather than him?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by 1.61803, posted 02-07-2013 1:25 PM 1.61803 has acknowledged this reply

  
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 957 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 64 of 150 (690205)
02-10-2013 4:36 PM


The Free Lunch Fallacy
Mark Perakh addresses William Dembski’s book about Specified Complexity quite brilliantly in his article ...

...There Is a Free Lunch After All:
William Dembski’s Wrong Answers to Irrelevant Questions

I bring this up because I do not think that ID has a proper understanding of "Intelligence" in the Universe. The ID debate is about Intelligence for a reason. To the ID proponent Intelligence must mean a conscious entity that can reason and make decisions. Most importantly their God Hypothesis rest on a sentient being that can plan.

But as I pointed out before ID Proponents can not be clear on whether their idea rest on a plan or on guiding a mechanism. To me they want it both ways. The Mechanism must be both designed for end results and be correctable by Guidance. In both cases the Designer is the God of religion and is a person like you and me. Or to put it in more Theological terms we are imperfect creations that resemble God superficially. Again they want it both ways .

As I see it in this debate the problem always comes back to Teleology. I can see that Teleology is the foundation for Theology whether it is used to justify Creationist Theology or the Pseudo Scientific ID movement. In fact the reason ID is seen as a Pseudo Scientific movement is inherent in the word Design.

ID Proponents may see Intelligence in nature as something testable but like their opponents the Natural Selection/Evolutionist they fail to see that The Hard Problem of Consciousness stands in their way.

If we can not scientifically solve the Hard Problem of Consciousness with Materialistic Reductionism that may seem on the surface a point for ID proponents but in reality you can not base a God Hypothesis on the fact that you do not know what consciousness is .

How can you stipulate that the Universe is designed when you can not state what Intelligence is?

If you can not explain what intelligence is in a human being you certainly can not postulate a higher being as an explanation for complexity.

We have not established the fact that Complexity is the origin of Intelligence. All animals are Conscious but we do not see consciousness that is dependent on Intelligence. What we see is quite the opposite that if anything Intelligence is dependent on Consciousness . This is significant because in Evolutionary terms Consciousness is the simpler product of Evolution and therefore is most likely found in Biological Evolution as a precursor to Intelligence. That is the simpler organisms from which all life evolved probably had nothing we would recognize as intelligence.

So the debate on whether we can form a God Hypothesis that can be examined based on Intelligence or Design is based on several false premises in Metaphysics predominately premises that are based on the idea of Teleology.

Simple Definition From Wikipedia states

"A teleology is any philosophical account that holds that final causes exist in nature, meaning that design and purpose analogous to that found in human actions are inherent also in the rest of nature."

I do not assume as both sides of the Debate seem to do that any God Hypothesis must see God as an "Intelligence" nor do I see evidence of Design as evidence for God.

Mark Perakh further breaks the problem down quite nicely in the same article.

"Biological evolution, however, has no long-term target. Evolution is not directed toward any specific organism.The evolution of a species may continue indefinitely as long as the environment exerts selection pressure on that species. If a population does not show long-term change, it is not because that population has reached a target but because the environment, which coevolves with the species, acquires properties that eliminate its evolutionary pressure on the species."

Basically the idea of Design needs a target. Again I see a bigger problem for ID proponents in the fact that they can not specify whether this target is something that appears all at once with a culmination of specifications being met or if Evolution is "guided" by a designer to reach a target.

Either way the implications of inherent Teleology is unavoidable. Unlike the ID movement based on a personal God or designer my God Hypothesis is not dependent on Teleological assumptions in anyway .

The question remains whether random chance and natural selection is the only viable alternative?

In both propositions of ID and Evolution/Selection we are encouraged to look at Evolutionary Ecology as a closed system. In both propositions Consciousness is seen as an Evolutionary Byproduct. The debate is on whether this byproduct serves a purpose beyond Evolutionary Fitness for survival.

On one side ID proponents argue that we are moral animals and consciousness without a source would justify seeing ourselves as onlyanimals with a higher form of intelligence and may the best man/woman win. Except the best man may not be a good man but simply a more intelligent man who is better at surviving. Theist are threatened by Moral Relativism and are more comfortable with a form of Moral Cruise Control. Only this Cruise Control affects steering rather than speed. Or maybe a better analogy would be a Moral GPS which guides us when we are lost. But this assumes that we are always lost and any form of freewill in this scenario is a joke.

On the other side the Evolution Proponent may argue that even if that is the case that even without a source called God we can create values that are beneficial to society as a whole. And that although religion has seen itself as the arbitrator or morality, religion in itself is not necessary and in no way guarantees a better moral society. Of course their substitute of Biological Determinism and Freewill Compatibilitism are no better offer and is an equally insulting solution to the freewill problem. And neither answer the hard problem of consciousness. And since Awareness is real The Hard Problem will not be going away anytime soon no matter how inconvenient it is to materialist.

The debate goes on based on the question of whether scientific materialism is only compatible with philosophical materialism or is neutral.

By making this a Theological argument on morality both sides conveniently ignore that this is a actually a Metaphysical question and therefore can not be answered directly through Theology or Scientific Analysis.

This is because Consciousness is not a byproduct. Awareness is an intrinsic property of the Universe. This is why no target has to be specified in advance in the Evolutionary process to create the Appearance of Design. Not because searching for a target would be evidence of a Designer.

"Dawkins (1996 [1986], 50) was himself the first to point out that his
algorithm differs from biological evolution in that it proceeds toward a target."

In this case Dawkins provides the target. But as Perakh points out this is only a model used to simulate natural selection.

"But then, a model is not supposed to be a replica of the entire modeled object or phenomenon (Perakh 2002c); models replicate only those features of the modeled objects that are crucial for analyzing a specific, usually limited, aspect of the modeled object or phenomenon and ignore all the aspects and properties which are of minor importance."

This is all based on a target of design. A plan. An artist does not need a plan. (Note I am not claiming here that God is an Artist but the Creative spark inherent in Awareness itself.) Usually intelligence does not enter into the creative aspects of a work of art. There is no Neurological Correspondence to aliveness or the organic part of art.

This is because because Awareness is not a material property. In fact although materialism describes a level of reality, materialism is not reality itself.

If materialism were interchangeable with Reality itself Quantum Physics would not be possible. Notice I am not saying Quantum Physics wouldn't have problems. Unlike Evolution I do not see the problems in Quantum Physics as Explanatory Gaps.

The problems in QM is not in a lack of Information but in the Metaphysical Implications.

The Metaphysical Implications of QM may be the death nell for Materialism but Theology based on a personal God that may have Designed or Guided Evolution does not fare well either.

If we are God then my God Hypothesis will not work within Theology. If the Universe is Aware and creates or interacts with life in order to make life self aware then I can not get you to this truth by reason alone.

If I see someone behind you about to hit you over the head with a heavy blunt object I can not prove this to you by reason alone. In order for you to become aware of this event which is happening at the same time as me and you are standing around talking...and with no apparent conflict beyond a disagreement on the nature of the reality we are participating in ...

... I must get you to turn around and Look

See
There Is a Free Lunch After All by Mark Perakh
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/chap11.pdf

The No Challenge Theory by Brian Gordon
http://philosophicalagain.blogspot.com/...erstanding-of.html

Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : Clarity

Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : Typo

Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : Clarity

Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : Clarity

Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : Clarity


My Karma Ran Over My Dogma

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by AZPaul3, posted 02-10-2013 4:54 PM Spiritual Anarchist has responded
 Message 69 by kofh2u, posted 02-14-2013 12:15 AM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3427
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 7.4


Message 65 of 150 (690208)
02-10-2013 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Spiritual Anarchist
02-10-2013 4:36 PM


Re: The Free Lunch Fallacy
The problems in QM is not in a lack of Information but in the Metaphysical Implications.

Which are ... ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 02-10-2013 4:36 PM Spiritual Anarchist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 02-10-2013 5:56 PM AZPaul3 has not yet responded

  
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 957 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 66 of 150 (690212)
02-10-2013 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by AZPaul3
02-10-2013 4:54 PM


Re: The Free Lunch Fallacy
I am going to assume that you are actually interested in knowing the Metaphysical Implications of QM and start off by stating that it is no coincidence that QM like Metaphysics in relation to the mind/body problem starts off with the problem of Dualism.

In this case the problem of Wave/Particle Duality.

The question of whether QM has Metaphysical Implications is based on QM Interpretations

"An interpretation of quantum mechanics is a set of statements which attempt to explain how quantum mechanics informs our understanding of nature. Although quantum mechanics has held up to rigorous and thorough experimental testing, many of these experiments are open to different interpretations. There exist a number of contending schools of thought, differing over whether quantum mechanics can be understood to be deterministic, which elements of quantum mechanics can be considered "real", and other matters." Wikipedia

Now already by discussing what is "real" you are entering into a question of Metaphysics.

The problems inherent in all Interpretations of QM are Metaphyiscal in nature.

"Problems of interpretation

The difficulties of interpretation reflect a number of points about the orthodox description of quantum mechanics, including:

The abstract, mathematical nature of that description.
The existence of what appear to be non-deterministic and irreversible processes.
The phenomenon of entanglement, and in particular the correlations between remote events that are not expected in classical theory.
The complementarity of the proffered descriptions of reality.
The role played by observers and the process of measurement.
The rapid rate at which quantum descriptions become more complicated as the size of a system increases."

So we already are bringing in an observer and have a problem of Dualism but do we have a Phenomenological problem as we do in Metaphysics?

According to at least one Interpretation we do

"The de Broglie–Bohm theory of quantum mechanics is a theory by Louis de Broglie and extended later by David Bohm to include measurements. Particles, which always have positions, are guided by the wavefunction. The wavefunction evolves according to the Schrödinger wave equation, and the wavefunction never collapses. The theory takes place in a single space-time, is non-local, and is deterministic. The simultaneous determination of a particle's position and velocity is subject to the usual uncertainty principle constraint. The theory is considered to be a hidden variable theory, and by embracing non-locality it satisfies Bell's inequality. The measurement problem is resolved, since the particles have definite positions at all times.[10] Collapse is explained as phenomenological.[11]"

Now let us contrast Science Phenomenology with Metaphysical Phenomenology.

Phenomenology, in Husserl's conception, is primarily concerned with the systematic reflection on and study of the structures of consciousness and the phenomena that appear in acts of consciousness. This phenomenological ontology can be clearly differentiated from the Cartesian method of analysis which sees the world as objects, sets of objects, and objects acting and reacting upon one another.

I am already noticing the similarity in the debate on QM Interpretations and the measurement problem in QM with the Phenomenology debate in Metaphysics.

"Particle physics phenomenology is the part of theoretical particle physics that deals with the application of theory to high-energy particle physics experiments. Within the Standard Model, phenomenology is the calculating of detailed predictions for experiments, usually at high precision (e.g., including radiative corrections). Beyond the Standard Model, phenomenology addresses the experimental consequences of new models: how their new particles could be searched for, how the model parameters could be measured, and how the model could be distinguished from other, competing models. Phenomenology forms a bridge between the highly mathematical world of theoretical physics (such as quantum field theories and theories of the structure of space-time) and experimental particle physics."

Obviously Science Phenomenology differs greatly from Metaphysical Phenomenology. But considering the problems in QM interpretations which are partially based on Wave/Particle Duality and partially on The Uncertainty Principle a case for Metaphysical Implications can be made.

Also Nonlocal Effects in QM are the "Ghost in the Machine" where the machine is materialism. That is materialist challenge Dualism on the basis that the mind being nonphysical of of a different substance can not interact with or influence the material world. And yet in QM we have Entanglement which does precisely that in the subatomic world.

The Measurement problem which debates on what effect if any the Observer has on what is being measured has been accepted as a Metaphysical question as well.

Most Scientist are Atheist and do not believe in the soul. To them Awareness is just another word for Consciousness so there is no problem. But The Copenhagen interpretation is not the only interpretation in QM and the issue is far from settled.

Where there may not be a controversy in Evolution on natural selection not being enough to explain the complexity of life ..you can not claim the same in the Metaphysical Implications of Quantum Physics.

To recap
Quantum Probability & the Measurement Problem

Quantum physics is defined mathematically by the Schroedinger equation, which depicts the probability of a particle being found at a certain point. This probability is fundamental to the system, not merely a result of ignorance. Once a measurement is made, however, you have a definite result.

The measurement problem is that the theory doesn't completely explain how the act of measurement actually causes this change. Attempts to solve the problem have lead to some intriguing theories.

I have already stated my answer to the measurement problem

Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
The physicist Werner Heisenberg developed the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which says that when measuring the physical state of a quantum system there's a fundamental limit to the amount of precision that can be achieved.

For example, the more precisely you measure the momentum of a particle the less precise your measurement of its position. Again, in Heisenberg's interpretation this wasn't just a measurement error or technological limitation, but an actual physical limit.

Unless the Universe itself is Aware there would be no uncertainty on this level is such a precise discipline as Quantum Physics

Quantum Entanglement & Nonlocality
In quantum theory, certain physical systems can become "entangled," meaning that their states are directly related to the state of another object somewhere else. When one object is measured, and the Schroedinger wavefunction collapses into a single state, the other object collapses into its corresponding state ... no matter how far away the objects are (i.e. nonlocality).

All Psychic Phenomena including Precognition "knowing" when the phone will ring and Telepathy the ability to sense emotions other than your own or hear a thought of someone else are made possible if the Universe is an aware Phenomenon and Boundaries are actually agreements rather than physical laws of materialism. Nonlocality demonstrates that these boundaries that separate one aspect of physical reality from another are more apparent then real when looking at the fundamental nature of reality itself.

Buddhism calls this Interbeing

Einstein, who called these influences "spooky action at a distance," illuminated this concept with his EPR Paradox.

And yes...we are still left with
Quantum Consciousness
In attempts to solve the measurement problem in quantum physics (see above), physicists frequently run into the problem of consciousness. Though most physicists try to sidestep the issue, it seems that there is a link between the conscious choice of experiment and the outcome of the experiment.

Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : No reason given.

Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : No reason given.


My Karma Ran Over My Dogma

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by AZPaul3, posted 02-10-2013 4:54 PM AZPaul3 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Coyote, posted 02-10-2013 11:42 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded
 Message 73 by frako, posted 02-19-2013 9:10 AM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5780
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 67 of 150 (690224)
02-10-2013 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Spiritual Anarchist
02-10-2013 5:56 PM


All wrong?
If the universe is aware, what does that imply for all the 40,000+ world's religions?

It would seem to me that they've all got it wrong! Every last one of them.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 02-10-2013 5:56 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by kofh2u, posted 02-14-2013 12:27 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 957 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 68 of 150 (690312)
02-11-2013 5:32 PM


The Conscious Universe: Where Buddhism and Physics Converge
Below is a transcript of Of An Alan Wallace Talk This transcript is partial and is not his whole talk and youtube made a lot of mistranslations so I tried to clean it up.

Notice these videos are NOT< presented as Proofs of anything.

The first Video is a Buddhist Scholar presenting his researched point of view which define a new Metaphysics based on convergence between 2 ideas .

If you really want to get into Buddhism and Quantum Physics I will provide another link at the bottom of this post where the Dalai Lama answers specific questions about Quantum Physics
In this second video a Quantum Physicist pursues a sharing of ideas with the Dalai Lama about Quantum Physics based on Metaphysical the Implications of Quantum Physics

But let me give you the transcript of the first video first

To listen to the whole talk http://youtu.be/FEftG26r1Tc

The Conscious Universe: Where Buddhism and Physics Converge

The topic for tonight is one that i think should very properly arouse strong sense of skepticism

where Buddhism and physics converge How could they possibly converge?... and that is if you look at the methodologies how do traditionalist Buddhist monks yogis is and so forth how are they inquiring into the nature of reality merely by way of meditation
and the primary emphasis of that is looking into the very nature of
awareness itself

Not exclusively but thats certainly a central theme
so we have you he's living in caves in himalayas
or little grass huts in india fifteen hundred years ago
meditating allegedly making discoveries

but in terms of sheer methodology
also contemplative methodology

and then we have to possess going back to the time of Galileo
what it where they directing their attention?
not to their minds at all they directly no tension family outwards and moreover that directing their attention outwards by way of increasingly sophisticated technology

Galileo with his twenty power telescope right onto the Hubble telescope
doesn't have nothing like that the asian indians nothing remotely like that and then this marvelous quantitative analysis that it's characteristic of all branches a physics

Buddhist just don't have any of that so how could there possibly be any convergence?
1:21
the methodologies are so different
1:24
just for starters and then we take Buddhism
a lot of people particularly people don't understand
regardless and generically as a religion
1:35
physics is just a paradigm of science
so again people approaching
understanding of reality by way of religion
1:44
that pretty much always until some appeal to authority Buddha or god or Jesus for Mohammed
1:49
but somebody who really knows what's going on and then we take their word for it the physicists tried in just the opposite of that
they're appealing to nature

and if you want to get a Nobel prize in physics
refute your mentor
2:03
refute find the highest mountain behind you
2:06
whether it's whether it' newton whether it's maxwell max plank whether it's Einstein i say if you can refute them and do it in a compelling fashion
2:16
hopefully for you
2:17
yet i know those rights
2:19
you don't to appear too many Buddhist getting a Nobel prize for a refuting the Buddha
2:25
and so far people following something that
certainly has is that walks like a duck and quacks like a duck
in some respects Buddhism took a lot in some respects like a religion

2:38
how could there be any convergence ?
2:40
this not just smoke and mirrors
so shall we stop there?
2:45
i'm inviting you to be skeptical
and in terms of
presenting my case that there is in fact
at least a possible meaningful convergence
2:56
the power of what I'll be presenting if there is any power to it at all will not be the power of shear reasoning
3:02
if you'll go out of there or that i anticipate or even hope you are here
thinking by gum he's right everything you say it was so compelling we argued it must be right
3:10
I don't think so
3:11
what i am suggesting is that they are avenues of empirical inquiry
that may give rise to empirical insights that may suggest a profound convergence so this is not just an exercise in philosophy

This is an opening of a strategy for combining integrating methodologies from physics and Buddhism and see where that might take us

Ok now for the second video ... The Dalai Lama and Quantum Physics
http://youtu.be/Zjd26JSaq64

Sorry no transcript Just a summary of the main points

Uploaded on Jan 8, 2011

"Maybe knowledge is as fundamental, or even more fundamental than reality." (A.Z.) The austrian quantum physicist Anton Zeilinger explains to the Dalai Lama some basics of quantum physics and some results of the last 9 years of experiments in quantum mechanics. Themes: Atomism, randomness, the phenomenon, interdependence, the role of the observer in quantum physics and buddhism (Parts 1-3)


My Karma Ran Over My Dogma

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1228 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 69 of 150 (690528)
02-14-2013 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Spiritual Anarchist
02-10-2013 4:36 PM


Re: The Free Lunch Fallacy
I bring this up because I do not think that ID has a proper understanding of "Intelligence" in the Universe. The ID debate is about Intelligence for a reason. To the ID proponent Intelligence must mean a conscious entity that can reason and make decisions. Most importantly their God Hypothesis rest on a sentient being that can plan.

The ID people are off track since Intelligence is the ability to understand Reality, not to manufacture it.

That an intelligence can understand the creation does not infer that the possessor of said Intelligence has any clue in regard to designing the creation.

Intelligence is the measure of one ability to state the Truth about reality, or the facts of life that are inherent in reality.We actually measure intelligence by how many true answers we can count out of a questionnaire of one type of another.

Intelligence equates to a knowledge of what is True, it could even perhaps be said to be a measure of Truth available to the possessor of some quantity of intelligence.

If we are clear on this, then Intelligence is more the reflection or image in the mind of reality, to a certain degree, the perfection of which is the ideal Truth.

But Truth is not dependent upon a possessor, and truth exists independent of intelligence which might accept and correspond with it.
Truth is born in the wake of the ever unfolding next frame if Reality which sires the Truth that describes it.
The relationship between Truth and Reality is akin to father and son.

What seems to create the future is the interacting forces of the web of Natural Laws, all subject to some Law of Probability that determines the next outcome of Reality that lasts micro seconds until the next.
This is the creator, not the intelligent witness to those outcomes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 02-10-2013 4:36 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by ringo, posted 03-02-2013 12:16 PM kofh2u has responded

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1228 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 70 of 150 (690530)
02-14-2013 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Coyote
02-10-2013 11:42 PM


Re: All wrong?
If the universe is aware, what does that imply for all the 40,000+ world's religions?
It would seem to me that they've all got it wrong! Every last one of them.

I think they all have it wrong, but so do those who say the universe is aware.

It is living things that are aware.
These life forms contain sensory organs that make them aware of the facts of life, and by the grace of such evolutionary benefits to them, aid in their singular purpose which is to merely survive.

In complex animals, the awareness that focused those species on environment situations that present opportunity for free willed choices as a response to Fear, where the life form could elect to fight or flee, awareness appeared in a conscious form.
These animal experienced at first a millisecond of free choice, but over time, were granted longer durations and more time to decide.

In this age, man has appeared with a 24 hour, 7days duration of awareness designed as a time to plan against the forces of a reality seen evermore full of intrigues and threats against his survival.

Is this state of mind we call Consciousness that is now aware of the Reality that exists as almighty. We are aware that this companion to our existence both nurtures and threatens us if we do not adapt to its changes and obey its Natural Laws.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Coyote, posted 02-10-2013 11:42 PM Coyote has not yet responded

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1228 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 71 of 150 (690534)
02-14-2013 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Spiritual Anarchist
02-03-2013 1:09 PM


Re: Dualism

To me the only problem of Dualism in understanding reality is in accepting the Dualistic concept(s) of reality.
The problem is conceptual thinking itself. Conceptual thinking leads to paradox because paradox is the only way for dualistic mind to escape it's own trap of "the other" .

Triadism makes sense, not dualism.

Between the mind and the "other," i.e. Reality, there lies the Truth.

Truth as access to the mind through the seven senses.
By means of the Scientific Method man now has been able to discern Truth and differentiate it from lies, fantasy, and super-naturalism.

What now is the case is that man can and has been imaging this "other entity" that co-exists with us, Reality, itself. The image is Truth, modelling mentally the Reality external to itself, and even explaining itself, the mind.

The triad relationship is that Truth mediates between Reality and Mind.

This existence, within which we are trapped upon birth, both nurtures and threatens us. It is both friend and foe. But it is also almighty and master over us. Only by the grace of Truth unfolding in the wake of the ever changing next frame of Reality can man hope to survive by adapting indefinitely to this lord over us.

Monotheism is not far off the mark if the force behind the unfolding of the next frame of Reality is what the Bible calls God, and Truth then is our messiah and savior from the quirks of unrelenting change.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 02-03-2013 1:09 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded

    
mrnobody42
Junior Member (Idle past 1076 days)
Posts: 9
Joined: 02-18-2013


Message 72 of 150 (691007)
02-18-2013 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Straggler
02-05-2013 1:12 PM


Re: Dualism
How about these three just for starters.

Observer Created Reality: Do we create reality through consciousness? Some quantum mysticism indicates that a conscious observer creates or manifests an action. To investigate we need to define observation and see the use of it in applied quantum physics. In science there are four possible definitions of observation physical interaction, human experimental design, human passive observation, and human consciousness. In quantum experiments the first two are of great importance the third is almost irrelevant and the fourth most believe plays absolutely no role in quantum events. To gain a better understanding we will look at the uncertainty principle or quantum measurement problem.

Uncertainty Principle: There is wave-particle duality in quantum physics, this has been shown through quantum predictions and quantized in mathematics, it may seem strange but it is the only abstraction the human mind has been able to create in order to deal with the most fundamental levels of physical reality. This duality leads to a limit on the precision we can measure a quantum entity. Example if you want to know the location of an electron you need to fire a photon at the electron in order to pinpoint its location (the photon is the measuring tool in this case) what happens is when the photon interacts with the electron it effects its momentum (an interaction that would have occurred with or without a conscious observer), so now we know where the electron is but cannot know what momentum it was traveling at because we effected it's momentum. This is where observer created reality comes into play, we have in effect created or predetermined what would happen by the tools we used and the measurement taken.

So Observer created reality is simply the tools and the experiment we use will manifest certain realities, it is not really our consciousness that created what happened.

Quantum Decoherence: Another thing that really applies to this is the gap between macro and micro. What happens on the quantum level does not and will not happen on the large macro level, why you might ask? Because of the decoherence that happens because of randomization of the quantum system, you get to many random quantum entities together and they start to work in a system that is governed by classical physics, it becomes to complex to illicit the quantum coherence and quantum states that the simple and small scale quantum systems do. In other words scientific analysis can show what happens when interactions between wave-particles combine to produce thermodynamic irreversibility (entropywins!) and a decoherence of the mathematical wave-functions calculated in quantum mechanics.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Straggler, posted 02-05-2013 1:12 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Straggler, posted 02-20-2013 1:15 PM mrnobody42 has not yet responded

    
frako
Member
Posts: 2694
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 73 of 150 (691019)
02-19-2013 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Spiritual Anarchist
02-10-2013 5:56 PM


Re: The Free Lunch Fallacy
Well if your hypothesis that the universe is aware and you point to the duality of particles in QM theory then that has some staggering implications.

Because it gets even more weird then if you measure a particle its a particle and if you dont its a wave. If you delay the decision to measure or not to measure trough what slot the particle went, it has the same effect as if you decided on the spot to mesure it or not to. Either the universe is aweare what will happen in a random circumstance and "decides" beforehand is the particle going to be a particle or a wave or the particle travels back in time to decide what it is going to be.

If the universe knows what is going to happen then there is no free will you have no real choice everything is pre determined.

But i dont like the travel back in time particle either because that can relay screw up causality if time travel is possible.

you know a bartender says we dont serve particles here, a particle walks in to a bar kind of screwed up causality.

But its not what i like its what the scientists are going to find out is actually happening

A drawing of the experiment


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

Click if you dare!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 02-10-2013 5:56 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10195
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 74 of 150 (691127)
02-20-2013 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by mrnobody42
02-18-2013 11:13 PM


Re: Dualism
MrN writes:

How about these three just for starters.

What are these musings supposed to demonstrate? An equivalence between modern science and Buddhism? If so this would be much clearer if you were to exhibit these equivalences in a head to head table. So far we have:

Quantum Theory SaysBuddhism Says.
In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle, such as position x and momentum p, can be known simultaneously The term Sunyata in Madhyamaka Buddhism is a description of emptiness. That things don't really exist in of themselves but are dependent on things in relation to them and also upon the observation of them. ("observation" explicitly included as per 1.61803 unsourced assertion)
The holographic principle suggests that the entire universe can be seen as a two-dimensional information structure "painted" on the cosmological horizon, such that the three dimensions we observe are only an effective description at macroscopic scales and at low energies
Wave–particle duality postulates that all particles exhibit both wave and particle properties. A central concept of quantum mechanics, this duality addresses the inability of classical concepts like "particle" and "wave" to fully describe the behaviour of quantum-scale objects

Feel free to add whatever equivalences you are proposing to the head to head table above.

It's easy to suggest vague correlations in paragraphs of prose but much more difficult to specify actual one to one comparisons that support this notion that Quantum-Mechanics-as-described-by-physicists and Buddhism are significantly similar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by mrnobody42, posted 02-18-2013 11:13 PM mrnobody42 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by kofh2u, posted 02-22-2013 3:38 PM Straggler has responded

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1228 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 75 of 150 (691491)
02-22-2013 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Straggler
02-20-2013 1:15 PM


Re: Dualism

Feel free to add whatever equivalences you are proposing to the head to head table above.

It's easy to suggest vague correlations in paragraphs of prose but much more difficult to specify actual one to one comparisons that support this notion that Quantum-Mechanics-as-described-by-physicists and Buddhism are significantly similar.

It was actually Murray Gell-Mann, the famous scientist, who compared his explanation for the fundamental relationship between the elemetal particles that :create" the material unverse and the Buddhist concept of the Eightfold Way,...

In the 50's physicists were faced with a confusing, and still growing multitude of particles. By introducing new quantum numbers, it was clear that this particle zoo exhibited some kind of pattern.
Murray Gell-Mann realized the particles could be classified using the mathematics of Lie-groups.

n 1969, Professor Gell-Mann received the Nobel Prize in physics for his work on the theory of elementary particles.

Professor Gell-Mann's "eightfold way" theory brought order to the chaos created by the discovery of some 100 particles in the atom's nucleus.

Then he found that all of those particles, including the neutron and proton, are composed of fundamental building blocks that he named "quarks."
The quarks are permanently confined by forces coming from the exchange of "gluons."
He and others later constructed the quantum field theory of quarks and gluons, called "quantum chromodynamics," which seems to account for all the nuclear particles and their strong interactions."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Straggler, posted 02-20-2013 1:15 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Straggler, posted 02-25-2013 6:03 AM kofh2u has responded

    
Prev1234
5
67
...
10Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017