Quantum Theory and Meditation
Paul Trafford
I would welcome any considered responses and/or criticisms to my
following attempt to provide a link between ('Eastern') meditation
and Quantum Theory.
'Classical' models in physics are *deterministic* - ultimately
they treat of all physical matter as behaving in a completely
predictable manner.
Quantum theory is *probabilistic* - it offers only likelihoods of
condensations of sub-atomic particles being in certain states at
certain times. There are theoretical laws into which these
probabilistic properties fit. For a given quantum mechanical model,
the outcomes depend upon observation (or lack of it) of _degrees of
freedom_ which completely define the model. The more the unobserved
degrees of freedom, the more classically the model behaves (the process
of _decoherence_ ).
Clumsy scientific instrumentation (classical/linear and
relativistic in nature) can observe only a few of these degrees of
freedom, so for 'large' models there is only observed a classical
outcome. Nevertheless, at least the theory allows for the possibility
of what used to be regarded as unfathomable miracles - 'mind over
matter' - such as passing one 'solid' object through another.
The practice of meditation, however, may cultivate non-classical/
non-linear/non-relativistic integrated awareness, through the increasing
realisation of unconditioned mind (hence externalisation from the
conditioned mind) thereby releasing an ability to observe mindfully many
degrees of freedom (ultimately the quantum universe) and to actually
perform the miraculous feats!
If there is inappropriate mindfulness in meditation, then there is
what I've heard called 'piggy concentration' (Thai: "Samadhi moo")' -
concentration on one aspect at the expense of all others. This
relativistic view achieves nothing and is analogous to setting up
classical instruments to observe only one part of a quantum mechanical
experiment. The outcome is consequently mundane and predictable.
Consider the following application - performing some magic in front
of an audience.
Suppose you wish to produce from 'thin air' an egg. Then it will
be much easier for you to take an empty opaque cup, place it upside down
on an empty table and lift it up, revealing an egg than to produce the
same egg without the use of the cup.
This is because the latter case requires the observation of far
more degrees of freedom - the pertinent quantum model includes in that
instance all the members of the audience.
Sincerely,
Paul.
+------------------------------------+
| Paul Trafford |
| CSES Research |
| Faculty of Technology |
| Kingston University |
| U.K. |
+------------------------------------+
Thomas J. McFarlane
> I would welcome any considered responses and/or criticisms to my
>following attempt to provide a link between ('Eastern') meditation
>and Quantum Theory.
>
appears to draw certain parallels, but no real link.
> Quantum theory is *probabilistic* - it offers only likelihoods of
>condensations of sub-atomic particles being in certain states at
>certain times. There are theoretical laws into which these
>probabilistic properties fit. For a given quantum mechanical model,
>the outcomes depend upon observation (or lack of it) of _degrees of
>freedom_ which completely define the model. The more the unobserved
>degrees of freedom, the more classically the model behaves (the process
>of _decoherence_ ).
>
What are "condensations" of sub-atomic particles?
What do you mean by these "degrees of freedom" that "completely define
the model"? Are you talking about eigenstates of the Hamiltonian?
When you say "The more the unobserved degrees of freedom", I'm left
wondering, The more *what*? The more numerous? The more purple?
> Clumsy scientific instrumentation (classical/linear and
>relativistic in nature) can observe only a few of these degrees of
>freedom, so for 'large' models there is only observed a classical
>outcome. Nevertheless, at least the theory allows for the possibility
>of what used to be regarded as unfathomable miracles - 'mind over
>matter' - such as passing one 'solid' object through another.
While there is, according to quantum mechanics, a non-zero probability
that a large object can pass through another, that probability is
astronomically small. There is a much larger probability that such
an object will simply fall apart. A phenomenon such as passing one
object through another would be just as miraculous within quantum
mechanics as within classical mechanics. Unless we're talking about
electrons or something.
> The practice of meditation, however, may cultivate non-classical/
>non-linear/non-relativistic integrated awareness, through the increasing
>realisation of unconditioned mind (hence externalisation from the
>conditioned mind) thereby releasing an ability to observe mindfully many
>degrees of freedom (ultimately the quantum universe) and to actually
>perform the miraculous feats!
>
This would imply that the mind can alter the natural probabilities of events,
making, for example, the probability that an object can go through another
much more likely than quantum mechanics predicts. It is therefore a super-
natural phenomenon outside of the predictions of quantum mechanics.
Quantum mechanics does not explain or allow for such deviations from
its laws.
> If there is inappropriate mindfulness in meditation, then there is
>what I've heard called 'piggy concentration' (Thai: "Samadhi moo")' -
>concentration on one aspect at the expense of all others. This
>relativistic view achieves nothing and is analogous to setting up
>classical instruments to observe only one part of a quantum mechanical
>experiment. The outcome is consequently mundane and predictable.
>
What do you mean by "classical instruments"? What makes an instrument
classical? What makes one non-classical?
> Consider the following application - performing some magic in front
>of an audience.
> Suppose you wish to produce from 'thin air' an egg. Then it will
>be much easier for you to take an empty opaque cup, place it upside down
>on an empty table and lift it up, revealing an egg than to produce the
>same egg without the use of the cup.
> This is because the latter case requires the observation of far
>more degrees of freedom - the pertinent quantum model includes in that
>instance all the members of the audience.
>
The probability that an egg will spontaneously be created will not be
made significantly larger by the presence or absence of a nearby
opaque cup or an audience. In either case it is astronomically small.
According to quantum mechanics, anyway. If you want a theory to explain
how such events should be more probable than quantum mechanics predicts,
you'll have to invent a theory that supercedes quantum mechanics.
Tom McFarlane
Steven M. Stoltz
>Hello!
> I would welcome any considered responses and/or criticisms to my
>following attempt to provide a link between ('Eastern') meditation
>and Quantum Theory.
I hope you don't mind ..... I liked your article and put a commentary
on quantum mechanics on it ..... I have studied a lot of quantum ....
> 'Classical' models in physics are *deterministic* - ultimately
>they treat of all physical matter as behaving in a completely
>predictable manner.
> Quantum theory is *probabilistic* - it offers only likelihoods of
>condensations of sub-atomic particles being in certain states at
>certain times. There are theoretical laws into which these
>probabilistic properties fit. For a given quantum mechanical model,
>the outcomes depend upon observation (or lack of it) of _degrees of
>freedom_ which completely define the model. The more the unobserved
>degrees of freedom, the more classically the model behaves (the process
>of _decoherence_ ).
What you've said is true, also here is a physicists view of quantum
reality .....
Quantum mechanics is based on the assumption that matter is composed
of vibration. It assumes that all matter is described by an abstact
(non - observable) mathematical wavefunction. Because matter is essentially
wave-like in nature, classical concepts like "points" of mass have no meaning.
It's like one who naively assumes that the ripples on the surface of a
pond have an existence which is independent of the pond. However,
the ripples are not really localized as points - they are merely interference
patterns of waves of more vast extent.
In quantum mechanics, there is this notion that the universe of waves can
"divide itself" into a "system" and a "surroundings" which, although both
"wave-like" in nature, are nontheless separately endowed with different
properties. It would appear that "the entire universe of waves" can
consciously bring about this distinction - in such a way as the system
is confined to obey precise rules dictated by measurements imposed on it by
it's surroundings ...... Furthermore, the surroundings are endowed with
the property of "consciousness" - whereas the system is not. (I.e. the
system cannot divide itself into other subsystems of measurement .....)
- or, at least quantum mechanics has not advanced to that state yet, ...
The postulates of quantum mechanics say that an observer (i.e.
the surroundings ....) knows nothing at all about a system (and cannot
say wether it exists or not) until he measures some aspect of it. (Strange
that the concept of "it" has already arisen in "it's" mind, despite the
fact that "it" does not really exist until it has been perceived in some
way .....) Quantum mechanics is able to precisely define what the
allowable outcomes of a measurement will be, even if nothing is known about
the system's wavefunction. Measuring an outcome from the system, however,
will then impose some restrictions on what the wavefunction is. Once
enough measurements are made to completely define a system's wavefunction,
then the system's wavefunction will evolve in a completely deterministic
way......... until a future measurement is made to change the system's
wavefunction. Once a wavefunction is known exactly however, not only
are the possible outcomes known as before, but a probability can be assigned
to each outcome ...... .(the probability is determined by mathematical
operations on the wavefunction ......)
Let me rehash these ideas with the "pond" analogy. Although you (as the
perceiver of waves on a pond) and the pond are really part of a huge
system , you as the perceiver can view the pond as a separate system
if you are endowed with "consciousness". Then, if you wish to exercise
you're "consciousness" and view the pond as something which really
has an independent existence (which it really does not) , then you're
forced into making certain compromises by the very fact that you have
chosen to endow that which is not real as something which is. If you
want to observe waves, then there are only certain places that you
can observe waves. (In the pond at least - since this is the system
which you are considering to be real ...) Once you've seen waves somewhere, then the waves must move in a deterministic way after that .......
> Clumsy scientific instrumentation (classical/linear and
>relativistic in nature) can observe only a few of these degrees of
>freedom, so for 'large' models there is only observed a classical
>outcome. Nevertheless, at least the theory allows for the possibility
>of what used to be regarded as unfathomable miracles - 'mind over
>matter' - such as passing one 'solid' object through another.
> The practice of meditation, however, may cultivate non-classical/
>non-linear/non-relativistic integrated awareness, through the increasing
>realisation of unconditioned mind (hence externalisation from the
>conditioned mind) thereby releasing an ability to observe mindfully many
>degrees of freedom (ultimately the quantum universe) and to actually
>perform the miraculous feats!
Meditation makes one realize several things:
(1) That it is not a good idea to view yourself as something separate
from the rest of the universe, because this puts "self imposed"
restrictions on you .....
(2) Meditation helps you to realize that you are not separate from
the universe - even though you have put that illusion to work
(3) Meditation helps you to realize that the universe is
wave-lik in nature .... i.e. that it is in an eternal state
of vibration ....
> If there is inappropriate mindfulness in meditation, then there is
>what I've heard called 'piggy concentration' (Thai: "Samadhi moo")' -
>concentration on one aspect at the expense of all others. This
>relativistic view achieves nothing and is analogous to setting up
>classical instruments to observe only one part of a quantum mechanical
>experiment. The outcome is consequently mundane and predictable.
> Consider the following application - performing some magic in front
>of an audience.
> Suppose you wish to produce from 'thin air' an egg. Then it will
>be much easier for you to take an empty opaque cup, place it upside down
>on an empty table and lift it up, revealing an egg than to produce the
>same egg without the use of the cup.
> This is because the latter case requires the observation of far
>more degrees of freedom - the pertinent quantum model includes in that
>instance all the members of the audience.
>Sincerely,
>Paul.
>+------------------------------------+
>| Paul Trafford |
>| CSES Research |
>| Faculty of Technology |
>| Kingston University |
>| U.K. |
>+------------------------------------+
You're article was very interesting .........and food for thought ......
Andrew Willette
want to read Fritjof Capra's _The Tao of Physics_
--
(jimmy) aewil...@csbsju.edu
esotericisms are defining my existence.
Paul Trafford
: In article <2l8nf9$2...@pdx1.world.net> cs_...@kingston.ac.uk (Paul Trafford) writes:
: > I would welcome any considered responses and/or criticisms to my
: >following attempt to provide a link between ('Eastern') meditation
: >and Quantum Theory.
: >
: Perhaps "analogy" would be better than "link." What you propose
: appears to draw certain parallels, but no real link.
Since I find mind and matter inextricably interlinked, I contend that what
I said is appropriate.
I perceive three views of/approaches to Quantum Theory:
1:- as an intellectual discipline, whether in academic circles or for
personal interest.
2:- as above, but then also as a springboard to more refined mental
exploration - often expressed as 'mystical'.
3:- as an expression of the 'mystical' perspective.
My view is the last of these - I am merely trying to use Quantum Theory
as another 'finger pointing to the moon'. (Elsewhere I have highlighted
in a similar way the philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein.)
: > Quantum theory is *probabilistic* - it offers only likelihoods of
: >condensations of sub-atomic particles being in certain states at
: >certain times. There are theoretical laws into which these
: >probabilistic properties fit. For a given quantum mechanical model,
: >the outcomes depend upon observation (or lack of it) of _degrees of
: >freedom_ which completely define the model. The more the unobserved
: >degrees of freedom, the more classically the model behaves (the process
: >of _decoherence_ ).
: >
: What are "condensations" of sub-atomic particles?
: What do you mean by these "degrees of freedom" that "completely define
: the model"? Are you talking about eigenstates of the Hamiltonian?
: When you say "The more the unobserved degrees of freedom", I'm left
: wondering, The more *what*? The more numerous? The more purple?
I've taken my definitions from 'New Scientist' 10/10/92 pp25-29. I've used
the word 'condensation' to emphasise the concept (or mental construct) of a
particle - a more accurate view, I think, is a slow vibration of energy.
: > Clumsy scientific instrumentation (classical/linear and
: >relativistic in nature) can observe only a few of these degrees of
: >freedom, so for 'large' models there is only observed a classical
: >outcome. Nevertheless, at least the theory allows for the possibility
: >of what used to be regarded as unfathomable miracles - 'mind over
: >matter' - such as passing one 'solid' object through another.
: While there is, according to quantum mechanics, a non-zero probability
: that a large object can pass through another, that probability is
: astronomically small. There is a much larger probability that such
: an object will simply fall apart. A phenomenon such as passing one
: object through another would be just as miraculous within quantum
: mechanics as within classical mechanics. Unless we're talking about
: electrons or something.
The crucial point (for me at least) is that quantum theory makes explicit
reference to this possibility, whereas Newtonian mechanics, say, does not.
This is a radical change of perspective.
: > The practice of meditation, however, may cultivate non-classical/
: >non-linear/non-relativistic integrated awareness, through the increasing
: >realisation of unconditioned mind (hence externalisation from the
: >conditioned mind) thereby releasing an ability to observe mindfully many
: >degrees of freedom (ultimately the quantum universe) and to actually
: >perform the miraculous feats!
: >
: This would imply that the mind can alter the natural probabilities of events,
: making, for example, the probability that an object can go through another
: much more likely than quantum mechanics predicts. It is therefore a super-
: natural phenomenon outside of the predictions of quantum mechanics.
: Quantum mechanics does not explain or allow for such deviations from
: its laws.
Rolling an unbiased die 100 times and turning up '6' each time does not affect
the laws of probability, and neither does an egg appearing out of 'thin air'.
Through meditation, one may discover that such relative sizes melt into
insignificance.
Here IS an analogy.
Suppose Quantum Theory is applied to a world perceived in 2D in which a
creature is proceeding along the 'x'-axis. It faces a wall running along
the entire 'y'-axis. Quantum Theory gives it a microscopic chance of
passing through, but it is very lucky, realising that it is in 3D - the
creature steps over the wall!
The practice of meditation can effect the step from our usual 3D world
analogous to the step above.
: > If there is inappropriate mindfulness in meditation, then there is
: >what I've heard called 'piggy concentration' (Thai: "Samadhi moo")' -
: >concentration on one aspect at the expense of all others. This
: >relativistic view achieves nothing and is analogous to setting up
: >classical instruments to observe only one part of a quantum mechanical
: >experiment. The outcome is consequently mundane and predictable.
: >
: What do you mean by "classical instruments"? What makes an instrument
: classical? What makes one non-classical?
A 'classical instrument' is one which measures using a relativistic
(subject-object) basis. The ultimate classical instrument is the brain.
: Tom McFarlane
Tom, I'd like you to reflect on the following koan,
EXPERIENCE IS THE BALD MAN'S COMB.
Sincerely,
Paul
P.S. Observation is the key to cracking the egg problem!
Thomas J. McFarlane
>: > I would welcome any considered responses and/or criticisms to my
>: >following attempt to provide a link between ('Eastern') meditation
>: >and Quantum Theory.
>: >
>
> 1:- as an intellectual discipline, whether in academic circles or for
> personal interest.
>
> 2:- as above, but then also as a springboard to more refined mental
> exploration - often expressed as 'mystical'.
>
> 3:- as an expression of the 'mystical' perspective.
>
>My view is the last of these - I am merely trying to use Quantum Theory
>as another 'finger pointing to the moon'.
I have no problems with viewing quantum theory (or anything else) as an
expression or symbol of a mystical perspective. When viewed that way,
however, "quantum theory" means something very different than what the
dictionary, encyclopedia, or average scientist would mean by the phrase.
Thus it can be potentially confusing to say that you are linking quantum
theory with Eastern meditation when what you apparently mean is that you
are *interpreting* quantum theory in terms of a mystical perspective.
These two things seem to be very different to me.
>: > The practice of meditation, however, may cultivate non-classical/
>: >non-linear/non-relativistic integrated awareness, through the increasing
>: >realisation of unconditioned mind (hence externalisation from the
>: >conditioned mind) thereby releasing an ability to observe mindfully many
>: >degrees of freedom (ultimately the quantum universe) and to actually
>: >perform the miraculous feats!
>: >
>Rolling an unbiased die 100 times and turning up '6' each time does not affect
>the laws of probability, and neither does an egg appearing out of 'thin air'.
>Through meditation, one may discover that such relative sizes melt into
>insignificance.
>
If I rolled a die 100 times and got a 6 every time, would you bet the
same amount of money on another 6 as you would if I hadn't rolled all
those 6's?
>
>Tom, I'd like you to reflect on the following koan,
>EXPERIENCE IS THE BALD MAN'S COMB.
>
Paul, I have a koan for you: How do you determine if a die is unbiased?
Lorenzo Farris
All right, now I'll bite too.
In article k...@pdx1.world.net, cs_...@kingston.ac.uk (Paul Trafford) writes:
> Thomas J. McFarlane (mcfa...@corona.math.washington.edu) wrote:
> : In article <2l8nf9$2...@pdx1.world.net> cs_...@kingston.ac.uk (Paul Trafford) writes:
> : > I would welcome any considered responses and/or criticisms to my
> : >following attempt to provide a link between ('Eastern') meditation
> : >and Quantum Theory.
> : >
> : Perhaps "analogy" would be better than "link." What you propose
> : appears to draw certain parallels, but no real link.
>
> Since I find mind and matter inextricably interlinked, I contend that what
> I said is appropriate.
I must agree with Mr McFarlane here. I have considered the very sort of
ideas that you have presented in some depth. It is one of the key reasons
that I am now both a physicist and a Buddhist.
The only 'links' are through analogy. When someone comes up with mathematical
expressions describing mind and metaphysical experience, then you can
start talking about links. Keep in mind, however, that a great deal of
progress occurs in physics through beginning with an analogy.
[snip]
> : > Quantum theory is *probabilistic* - it offers only likelihoods of
> : >condensations of sub-atomic particles being in certain states at
> : >certain times. There are theoretical laws into which these
> : >probabilistic properties fit. For a given quantum mechanical model,
> : >the outcomes depend upon observation (or lack of it) of _degrees of
> : >freedom_ which completely define the model. The more the unobserved
> : >degrees of freedom, the more classically the model behaves (the process
> : >of _decoherence_ ).
> : >
There are two possibilities here. One, you don't care whether people
understand you. Two, you're not quite sure what you are talking about
yourself. Please describe the phenomena in colloquial english, if you
want someone other than physicists to understand what you mean.
Furthermore: if you look at Bohm's formulation of quantum mechanics, while
not it vogue, it is DETERMINISTIC, not probabilistic. Also, the approximation
of classical behavior typically refers to the scale of the phenomenon.
That is, only with very small particles, or at very low energy, are
quantum effects observed.
> I've taken my definitions from 'New Scientist' 10/10/92 pp25-29. I've used
> the word 'condensation' to emphasise the concept (or mental construct) of a
> particle - a more accurate view, I think, is a slow vibration of energy.
>
> : > Clumsy scientific instrumentation (classical/linear and
> : >relativistic in nature) can observe only a few of these degrees of
> : >freedom, so for 'large' models there is only observed a classical
> : >outcome. Nevertheless, at least the theory allows for the possibility
> : >of what used to be regarded as unfathomable miracles - 'mind over
> : >matter' - such as passing one 'solid' object through another.
You don't need to invoke quantum mechanics for the 'miracles' being possible.
The same is true of thermodynamics. For example, there is indeed a probability
that if you sweep broken glass off a table, upon impact with the ground
it will reconstruct itself. But that's not where the smart people place
their bets. ;-)
If you really want to talk about miraculous stuff, how about the law of
entropy? Except for this law of thermodynamics, all the equations of
classical and quantum physics are time-reversible, that is, they look the
same no matter which direction time is going in. Then how come we only
see time going in one direction?
> : While there is, according to quantum mechanics, a non-zero probability
> : that a large object can pass through another, that probability is
> : astronomically small. There is a much larger probability that such
> : an object will simply fall apart. A phenomenon such as passing one
> : object through another would be just as miraculous within quantum
> : mechanics as within classical mechanics. Unless we're talking about
> : electrons or something.
>
> The crucial point (for me at least) is that quantum theory makes explicit
> reference to this possibility, whereas Newtonian mechanics, say, does not.
> This is a radical change of perspective.
Again, no. The difference is not in the equations. The difference is simply
that classical physics posits a solid object, while quantum physics posits
an object composed mostly of empty space. IF you presumed that the object
in question was in fact mostly empty space, the probability of the two
objects passing through each other might in fact be higher in classical
mechanics.
> : > The practice of meditation, however, may cultivate non-classical/
> : >non-linear/non-relativistic integrated awareness, through the increasing
> : >realisation of unconditioned mind (hence externalisation from the
> : >conditioned mind) thereby releasing an ability to observe mindfully many
> : >degrees of freedom (ultimately the quantum universe) and to actually
> : >perform the miraculous feats!
> : >
You're going to have to make clear what you mean by linear, here. Quantum
mechanics is in fact linear, while most classical phenomena other than
Newtonian mechanics is not. Furthermore, QM itself expresses the utter
impossibility of knowing more that a specific subset of the possible
degrees of freedom of a system. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.
[section on affecting probable outcomes of events deleted]
A couple of points here. First, the broad one. Most mystical schools I
am aware of warn against the practitioner getting too taken with
supernormal phenomena. Second, if you are going to discuss this in the
context of physics, this is all idle chit-chat unless you do it and
provide a testable model of how it happens.
I have had experiences which cannot be explained within the context of
the present knowledge of physics. My point here is this: what's the
point of debating whether or not QM acknowledges certain phenomena are
possible? If you have done 'it' or experience 'it', and have attempted
to be fairly rigorous in ruling out all the simple explanations, then
who do you believe, QM or your experience? When a physicist wants to
determine whether something is happening, s/he either observes the
actual phenomenon carefully, or recreates it, and THEN tries to model
it. In tying together physics and the paranormal, be careful of not
leading the horse with the cart.
> : What do you mean by "classical instruments"? What makes an instrument
> : classical? What makes one non-classical?
>
> A 'classical instrument' is one which measures using a relativistic
> (subject-object) basis. The ultimate classical instrument is the brain.
Again, your use of terms can be confusing. In physics, relativistic phenomena
are not classical. In relativistic phenomena, time and space, matter and
energy, cannot be treated separately, as they can in classical phenomena.
Furthermore, I would very much beg to differ about the brain as a 'classical'
measuring instrument. It depends very much on how you use it.
-Lorenzo
---
Life is a 3D, sensurround, ecstatic far...@llnl.gov
explosion of experience, but only on
the cutting edge of the present
moment. If that's not where your mind
is, you miss it. :-)
Jeffrey B. Green
>
[...]
>
>Furthermore: if you look at Bohm's formulation of quantum mechanics, while
>not it vogue, it is DETERMINISTIC, not probabilistic. Also, the approximation
>of classical behavior typically refers to the scale of the phenomenon.
>That is, only with very small particles, or at very low energy, are
>quantum effects observed.
But don't you wonder at times if there is any reality to it
at the macroscopic level? Perhaps the only visible physical
measurements can be done at the microscopic level. I'm thinking
of the possibilities of choice. How exactly is it possible
to mentally have two choices going at the same time? And
isn't going with one choice analogous to measuring where
that subatomic particle really is? And if it is analogous,
is there more to it than just analogy? Just wondering...
-- Jeff
J.B.Green (gre...@cs.clemson.edu)
Jeffrey B. Green
-In article r...@pdx1.world.net, gre...@walnut.cs.clemson.edu (Jeffrey B. Green) writes:
->
[...]
->
-> But don't you wonder at times if there is any reality to it
-> at the macroscopic level? Perhaps the only visible physical
-> measurements can be done at the microscopic level. I'm thinking
-> of the possibilities of choice. How exactly is it possible
-> to mentally have two choices going at the same time? And
-> isn't going with one choice analogous to measuring where
-> that subatomic particle really is? And if it is analogous,
-> is there more to it than just analogy? Just wondering...
-
-Where a subatomic particle 'really is' is a curious question.
Perhaps I should have said 'really was'.
-There is no 'really' in quantum mechanics.
Isn't that something of a metaphysical question? I say this in
the sense that the model is "intended" to have 'some'
correspondence with something 'out there'. And therefore the
interpretation of 'really' is outside of quantum mechanics (QM).
(I agree that the general emphasis of QM is to 'explain'
experimental results.) Additionally, would the original
pioneers of QM say that there is no reality, i.e. no real,
no really?
-In this sense, it is rather like Buddhism.
-At the very best, we have models. We `interpret' a measurement as specifying
-the location of a particle. We don't 'know' where it is.
-
But doesn't the measurement box it in to a certain level of
confidence? One experiment that might indicate this is the
exposure of silver grains to a very small flux of photons.
-
-Until such time as there are measurements relating mind to mathematical models
-and physical quantities, I think it would be best to treat quantum mechanics
-as providing suggestions of ways in which to examine consciousness and awareness.
-
You lost me on this one. I'm assuming that I don't see the
perspective that you're making in the above connection between
the two worlds. I thought that I was somewhat following this
type of approach in the paragraph at the top, but your leading
clause seems to give you an escape... In other words, do
you have any confidence that there could be _mathematical models_
related to physical quantities that would be _effective_ in
Buddhist psychology?
-
-As an aside, the quantum mechanical vacuum provides a very nice analogy to
-emptiness in Buddhism.
-
It's facinating, isn't it?!
-- Jeff
Lorenzo Farris
> In article <2n68hk$p...@pdx1.world.net> far...@dmark.llnl.gov.noname (Lorenzo Farris) writes:
> pioneers of QM say that there is no reality, i.e. no real,
> no really?
What they would say is that we can't know what reality is? We can only build
up models with the power to predict the results of measurements. For all we
can know, there are little nature sprites working feverishly on convincing
physicists that the standard model is true, a practical joke on a collosal
scale, sort of akin to God planting dinosaur bones in the ground to lead
the weak of faith astray. ;-) The point is, all we can hope to do is interpret
result of experiment. We only have access to phenomena, not to noumena.
> -In this sense, it is rather like Buddhism.
> -At the very best, we have models. We `interpret' a measurement as specifying
> -the location of a particle. We don't 'know' where it is.
> -
> But doesn't the measurement box it in to a certain level of
> confidence? One experiment that might indicate this is the
> exposure of silver grains to a very small flux of photons.
Rather, the experiment boxes in our possible observations. The above is indeed
another measurement. The point I am trying to make is that while we may
construct models with excellent predictive power (Quantum ElectroDynamics
is correct to higher precision than I care to remember), it is still a model.
We cannot have direct knowledge of what is going on. As soon as we look at
something, we change it. The way we look at it determines what we can see,
what we will see.
You can think of it in terms of conditional truth and real truth, to put it
in Buddhist terms. The conditional truth is that we can make measurements,
and we can predict what the results of those measurements can be. We can
construct a wonderful, logically consistent model which leads to wonderful
technologies. The real truth is that the model is empty. There is no way
it can tell us what reality is, because there is no way to directly know
reality.
> -Until such time as there are measurements relating mind to mathematical models
> -and physical quantities, I think it would be best to treat quantum mechanics
> -as providing suggestions of ways in which to examine consciousness and awareness.
> -
> You lost me on this one. I'm assuming that I don't see the
> perspective that you're making in the above connection between
> the two worlds. I thought that I was somewhat following this
> type of approach in the paragraph at the top, but your leading
> clause seems to give you an escape... In other words, do
> you have any confidence that there could be _mathematical models_
> related to physical quantities that would be _effective_ in
> Buddhist psychology?
I feel it might be possible to ultimately tie in mental phenomena into a
scientifically valid model. However, we fall back to the fact that it is
still a model.
To try to summarize a bit: Buddhism, in a sense, is a model of human perception,
and human interpretation of that perception. Physics models observations of
phenomena, including interpretations of those phenomena. The fact that there
are parallels in the models of the two fields is very suggestive, but in no
way do they scientifically 'prove' the Buddhist model. The mental phenomena
with which Buddhism is most concerned are not presently amenable to
scientific observation. (I would be happy to be corrected on this.)
As an indication of the practicality of 'scientific Buddhism': physics in
general can only handle simple problems. Just predicting the motion of
three interacting particles is very difficult. We have come up with some
pretty wonderful stuff, concentrating on the simple stuff we can handle,
but we're only scratching the surface. How much more complicated can you
imagine getting when dealing with mind?
Jeffrey B. Green
-In article g...@pdx1.world.net, gre...@hubcap.clemson.edu (Jeffrey B. Green) writes:
[...]
-> -
-> But doesn't the measurement box it in to a certain level of
-> exposure of silver grains to a very small flux of photons.
-
-Rather, the experiment boxes in our possible observations.
This statement doesn't seem quite right. An observation is an
observation after all. "Things" are measured to be in a
particular place, "things" are measured to be aligned a particular
way. In other words, once you've _done_ the experiment, then
there is no going back. I guess in this way QM experiments are
repeatable only in a statistical way and not individually. I
think this comment goes back to the correspondence issue between
_measured_ model and "reality".
-... The real truth is that the model is empty. There is no way
-it can tell us what reality is, because there is no way to directly know
-reality.
-
Does the phrase "experience reality" then make any sense?
My inclination is yes, but I'm curious as to your judgement.
-
[...]
-I feel it might be possible to ultimately tie in mental phenomena into a
-scientifically valid model. However, we fall back to the fact that it is
-still a model.
-
-To try to summarize a bit: Buddhism, in a sense, is a model of human perception,
-and human interpretation of that perception. Physics models observations of
-phenomena, including interpretations of those phenomena. The fact that there
-are parallels in the models of the two fields is very suggestive, but in no
-way do they scientifically 'prove' the Buddhist model. The mental phenomena
-with which Buddhism is most concerned are not presently amenable to
-scientific observation. (I would be happy to be corrected on this.)
-
Only one point. Is a human classifiable as an instrument of
scientific measurement? If so, then the mental phenomena are
amenable to scientific observation. (Some instruments are
more sensitive than others.) The only thing lacking in this
analogy is the presence of mathematics. I have no idea on how
it could fit in. I suspect it can't _completely_ since
logical consistency is one of the problems of world view, i.e.
wanting the world to fit the model rather than the other
way around. Mathematics is partial descriptive??
-
-- Jeff
--
J.B.Green (gre...@cs.clemson.edu)
Pat Monardo
Lorenzo Farris <far...@dmark.llnl.gov.noname> wrote:
>construct a wonderful, logically consistent model which leads to wonderful
>technologies. The real truth is that the model is empty. There is no way
the real truth is that the model is bodhi.
bodhi is dependent origination.
dependent origination is bodhi.
cf. heart sutra. bodhidharma. nagarjuna.
Alan Sanders
-Lorenzo Farris
There is no "I" to "know" reality.
But reality can know itself! :^)
-Alan
Lorenzo Farris
> In article <2nd55h$2...@pdx1.world.net> far...@dmark.llnl.gov.noname (Lorenzo Farris) writes:
> -Rather, the experiment boxes in our possible observations.
>
> This statement doesn't seem quite right. An observation is an
> observation after all. "Things" are measured to be in a
> particular place, "things" are measured to be aligned a particular
> way. In other words, once you've _done_ the experiment, then
> there is no going back. I guess in this way QM experiments are
> repeatable only in a statistical way and not individually. I
> think this comment goes back to the correspondence issue between
> _measured_ model and "reality".
When you're talking quantum mechanics, all you are allowed to say is that
thus and so is the result of the measurement, and we interpret that to
mean that we saw a particle there. It would never be correct in quantum
mechanics to say 'we observed the particle there'.
> Does the phrase "experience reality" then make any sense?
> My inclination is yes, but I'm curious as to your judgement.
Quantum mechanically, no.
> Only one point. Is a human classifiable as an instrument of
> scientific measurement? If so, then the mental phenomena are
> amenable to scientific observation. (Some instruments are
> more sensitive than others.) The only thing lacking in this
> analogy is the presence of mathematics. I have no idea on how
> it could fit in. I suspect it can't _completely_ since
> logical consistency is one of the problems of world view, i.e.
> wanting the world to fit the model rather than the other
> way around. Mathematics is partial descriptive??
A human has access to several measuring instruments, being the physical
senses. The interpretive human mind is not a measuring instrument. In
order for it to be considered so, at bare minimum, there has to be
repeatability from human to human in the interpretation of the observation
of phenomena. The process of preconscious filtering varies so widely
and so idiosycratically from human to human that it is hopeless as
a scientific instrument.
Jeffrey B. Green
-In article f...@pdx1.world.net, gre...@jupiter.cs.clemson.edu (Jeffrey B. Green) writes:
[...]
-
-> Only one point. Is a human classifiable as an instrument of
-> scientific measurement? If so, then the mental phenomena are
-> amenable to scientific observation. (Some instruments are
-> more sensitive than others.) The only thing lacking in this
-> analogy is the presence of mathematics. I have no idea on how
-> it could fit in. I suspect it can't _completely_ since
-> logical consistency is one of the problems of world view, i.e.
-> wanting the world to fit the model rather than the other
-> way around. Mathematics is partial descriptive??
-
-A human has access to several measuring instruments, being the physical
-senses. The interpretive human mind is not a measuring instrument. In
-order for it to be considered so, at bare minimum, there has to be
-repeatability from human to human in the interpretation of the observation
-of phenomena. The process of preconscious filtering varies so widely
-and so idiosycratically from human to human that it is hopeless as
-a scientific instrument.
-
You've apparently automatically rejected the possibility of repeatability
from one human to at least one other human. This strikes me as almost
an act of faith since simple measuring experiments work (admittedly without
a high degree of precision). And those are repeatable from human to human.
Is then not the mental phenomenon of whatever the person saw a
scientific experiment, i.e. repeatable. And if that is, then how far
can it be pushed. Admittedly, the number of people capable of doing a
measurement goes down as the technique is pushed to its limits, but
that fact doesn't destroy its basis as a scientific observation.
Okay. I know you must think something is wrong with the above, what is it?
Perhaps the suggestibility of a measurement? What if one isn't told about it?
I'm becoming less inclined to removing the mind from the picture without
something fundamental to base that exclusion. Just because it's dangerous
doesn't cut it anymore for me. I even wonder if the pioneers of science
really made progress sans mind as an instrument of observation. I suspect it's
major drawback today is its lack of acceptance within the current society of
scientists. And in that way, it is not an instrument of observation. Again,
I'm not trying to beat on the scientists so much as I am trying to not
reject a resource without basis. (However it surely would be hard to get anything
published "as science" using mind as a basis of measurement.)
William Kish
far...@dmark.llnl.gov.noname (Lorenzo Farris) writes:
>
> A human has access to several measuring instruments, being the physical
> senses. The interpretive human mind is not a measuring instrument. In
> order for it to be considered so, at bare minimum, there has to be
> repeatability from human to human in the interpretation of the observation
> of phenomena.
Are you inclined at this point to see any component of cognition or
perception as entirely non-physical ? Put differently, are Buddhist
who say that the mind continues as a non-material "continuum" after
death likely to be correct (IYO, of course) ?
> The process of preconscious filtering varies so widely
> and so idiosycratically from human to human that it is hopeless as
> a scientific instrument.
Somehow I'm not so sure this isn't a design "feature" :>
> -Lorenzo
-Bill
Alan Sanders
| In order for it to be considered so, at bare minimum, there
-Lorenzo Farris
I do not know whether the interpretive mind is or is not capable
of being used as a measuring instrument (most likely, it can be
with the proper training; but first you must know what you want
to measure); but, strictly speaking, all that is required ("at a
bare minimum") for this to be possible is for the same mind to
produce repeatable results from trial to trial. Since there are
no absolute measurements in any case, all we can ever measure
is the DIFFERENCE between one event and another.
-Alan
Lorenzo Farris
> You've apparently automatically rejected the possibility of repeatability
> from one human to at least one other human. This strikes me as almost
> an act of faith since simple measuring experiments work (admittedly without
> a high degree of precision). And those are repeatable from human to human.
> Is then not the mental phenomenon of whatever the person saw a
> scientific experiment, i.e. repeatable. And if that is, then how far
> can it be pushed. Admittedly, the number of people capable of doing a
> measurement goes down as the technique is pushed to its limits, but
> that fact doesn't destroy its basis as a scientific observation.
I had originally composed a very long response, but it was just too long. ;-)
Interpretation is the problem. Even if I tell you I had the same experience
as you, there is no way to verify it. We just believe we had the same
experience, and there is no evidence beyond that. We have a set of conventions,
which some call cultural conditioning, which helps us to come to some
agreement over what can be observed physically. We have no such
set of conventions for what goes on between our ears. :-)
>
> Okay. I know you must think something is wrong with the above, what is it?
> Perhaps the suggestibility of a measurement? What if one isn't told about it?
> I'm becoming less inclined to removing the mind from the picture without
> something fundamental to base that exclusion. Just because it's dangerous
> doesn't cut it anymore for me. I even wonder if the pioneers of science
> really made progress sans mind as an instrument of observation. I suspect it's
> major drawback today is its lack of acceptance within the current society of
> scientists. And in that way, it is not an instrument of observation. Again,
> I'm not trying to beat on the scientists so much as I am trying to not
> reject a resource without basis. (However it surely would be hard to get anything
> published "as science" using mind as a basis of measurement.)
I do believe that it is possible to apply the scientific method to mental
experience. However, I do not believe you can call it science in the sense
of performing experiments repeatable by others, since there is no real
way to compare the outcomes of the experiments.
I don't believe it is dangerous to use the mind as a measuring instrument.
I don't think it is even possible, in the sense I have already discussed.
I do think that yoga is indeed the result of such scientific exploration.
Jeffrey B. Green
>In article k...@gap.cco.caltech.edu, gre...@mars.cs.clemson.edu (Jeffrey B. Green) writes:
>
>
Although I could pick at a few of the points which you brought up, I
don't know if we would get a whole lot out of it (unless someone else
wants to pick it up from here). Enjoyed it.
Lorenzo Farris
>
> far...@dmark.llnl.gov.noname (Lorenzo Farris) writes:
> > [my gibbering deleted]
> Are you inclined at this point to see any component of cognition or
> perception as entirely non-physical ? Put differently, are Buddhist
> who say that the mind continues as a non-material "continuum" after
> death likely to be correct (IYO, of course) ?
I can have only one answer to that. I don't know, and can't. Because I don't
think we can ever understand physical reality to the point that we could
totally exclude some mental phenomenon from being a physical event. In
my personal view, however, I think that our physical being is only one
aspect of our entirety.
Lorenzo Farris
> I do not know whether the interpretive mind is or is not capable
> of being used as a measuring instrument (most likely, it can be
> with the proper training; but first you must know what you want
> to measure); but, strictly speaking, all that is required ("at a
> bare minimum") for this to be possible is for the same mind to
> produce repeatable results from trial to trial. Since there are
> no absolute measurements in any case, all we can ever measure
> is the DIFFERENCE between one event and another.
>
To clarify what I believe was the original context of the discussion:
Can science be used to 'proove', in the scientific sense, the
phenomena of mind, especially siddha powers. (Had to thrown in that
eastern religious buzzword, just to make a token stab at being
germane ;-) )
In this sense, there has to be direct comparability from instrument
to instrument. An isolated measurement does not scientifically establish
a phenomenon or a model. In my view, this is inherently impossible when the
mind is the instrument.
As I had mentioned before, however, you can certainly use the scientific
method to explore the space of your own mind.