Buddhism and quantum theory are one and the same

You have evidence for the existence of the mind?

Originally posted by clearlight
To get all the detailed evidence and arguments you would need to get my book when it is published. However I will think whether I can post something onto my website before. My problem is that I cannot give the full details out before I have a publisher - experience has suggested to me that even Buddhist academics might inadvertently approprate other peoples work.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
To say that Buddhism has known quantum theory centuries ago, is like saying that the ancient greeks knew atom theory.

Yes, the greek used the word atom, 'individable', but they knew nothing about the periodic table. Now we even know that the atom is indeed dividable into smaller component.

But if this make anyone happy to believe that Buddhism invented quantum theory, so be it. It's their religion, but it's not their science.

There is much more evidence for the existence of mind or consciousness than there is for matter:

1. My own first order direct experience of awareness.
2. The collapse of the wavefunction - the event within fundamental consciousness which gives rise to the illusion of the material world..

Originally posted by clearlight
There is much more evidence for the existence of mind or consciousness than there is for matter:

1. My own first order direct experience of awareness.
2. The collapse of the wavefunction - the event within fundamental consciousness which gives rise to the illusion of the material world..

‘My own direct experience of awareness.’

Experience = content of direct observation.
Awareness = State of elementary or undifferentiated consciousness

Therefore my formulation means:

My own direct observation of an interior state of undifferentiated consciousness

As an experienced meditation practitioner I can produce a state of non-conceptual focused awareness quite easily.

There is nothing circular in this. Once again you confuse adolescent attempts at smug cleverness with insight.

As to 2) – unlike you I am not arrogant enough to dismiss the assembled minds of great quantum physicists and the most recent experiments in quantum split beam experiments. Most significant philosophers reach a similar conclusion. I have given you many names in previous posts, if you think you know better than them I cannot help you (and nor can they – although presumably as you are learning quantum physics you are using their equations!). I will merely quote the recent work by Rosenblum and Kuttner – Quantum Enigma – in which they say that ‘Just by observing it you bring the ‘particle’ into existence’ – actually I think they are being a bit loose here – in fact there never is a ‘particle’ in existence – there is actually only the appearance of a particle! Have you read the paper I suggested – There are no quantum jumps – neither are there particles – or do you not want to consider what some of the foremost physicists presently around have to say on the matter?

Mind has always been in existence – it is beginningless and endless. Sentient beings are like ripples (actually quantum fluctuations) within the quantum universal mind. The universe began as a perception within a fundamental mind of reality and then a subsequent infinite cascade of autonomous perceptions within the fundamental universal field of mind, what David Bohm calls ‘the implicate order’, created the appearance of matter.

You seem to think that there is some kind of elementary ‘particles’ inherently existent within the universe. What are they like – tiny little ball bearings? Such entities do not exist, where are your little balls in the wavefunction?

Can you tell me exactly how mindless matter can become mindful? How can something produce something it is completely and absolutely devoid of? How can something turn into its absolute opposite?

Originally posted by clearlight
‘My own direct experience of awareness.’

Experience = content of direct observation.
Awareness = State of elementary or undifferentiated consciousness

Therefore my formulation means:

My own direct observation of an interior state of undifferentiated consciousness

As an experienced meditation practitioner I can produce a state of non-conceptu ...[text shortened]... g it is completely and absolutely devoid of? How can something turn into its absolute opposite?

You can get the paper at:

http://www.rzuser.uni-heidelberg.de/~as3/no-quantum-jumps.pdf

-Elementary particles have no size as far as we can measure today.-

I am beginning to think you are taking the piss because this is silly. Leaving aside the absurdity of talking about measuring things which have 'no size' - if they cannot be measured what evidence for them is there? And what is the wave function?

Can you tell me exactly how mindless matter can become mindful? How can something produce something it is completely and absolutely devoid of? How can something turn into its absolute opposite?

It's simply apparent. Does a chess computer have a mind? Presumably, the answer is "no". Still, it easily wipes me and you off the board. Now consider artificial intelligence is still a very primitive science and it doesn't take much imagination to realize we are simply complex computers (although organized differently).

Goedels theorem cleary indicates that mind has non-computable aspects which cannot be, obviously, ascribed to computers. Further more by 'mind' we mean direct experiential awareness. This is sometimes referred to as direct awareness of 'self', i.e. observing consciousness - this is obviously how I am using the term from my previous post.

I have given you a serious paper to read so that you can possibly make some serious comments (and you could at any time looked at my website www.quantumbuddhism.COM - there are some of my essays there - plus a forum). Your current comments are juvenile and I will not respond to such in the future. If on the basis of the paper that I suggest you read, or any of my own work, you have any serious and reasoned comments to make I will respond. At the moment I am actually corresponding with some serious physicists and philosophers concerning my work; I will only respond to serious, reasoned observations in future.

Good luck with your studies.

Originally posted by clearlight
‘My own direct experience of awareness.’

Experience = content of direct observation.
Awareness = State of elementary or undifferentiated consciousness

Therefore my formulation means:

My own direct observation of an interior state of undifferentiated consciousness

As an experienced meditation practitioner I can produce a state of non-conceptu ...[text shortened]... g it is completely and absolutely devoid of? How can something turn into its absolute opposite?

Hello Black Beetle,

Nice to hear from you. I dont always recognise your terminology (as you know different traditions employ different terminology althought the meanings are the same) - you seem to be using Tibetan words (?) - are you Tibetan?

Originally posted by clearlight
Hello Black Beetle,

Nice to hear from you. I dont always recognise your terminology (as you know different traditions employ different terminology althought the meanings are the same) - you seem to be using Tibetan words (?) - are you Tibetan?

Originally posted by clearlight
Hello Black Beetle,

Nice to hear from you. I dont always recognise your terminology (as you know different traditions employ different terminology althought the meanings are the same) - you seem to be using Tibetan words (?) - are you Tibetan?

I've read the article, it sheds some interesting light on the nature of the collapse of the wavefunction, but it doesn't give any link between mind/consciousness and the collapse of the wavefunction.

He makes it quite clear, as the title suggests, that this idea that material particles exist is incorrect.

Originally posted by clearlight
He makes it quite clear, as the title suggests, that this idea that material particles exist is incorrect.