Originally posted by James DiracHey James Dirac,
Clearlight,since you claim that Buddhism and quantum theory are one and the same I am interested to learn what you know about quantum theory and should therefore appreciate an answer to my quetion concerning your understanding of its mathematical formulations.
Did you checked the posts from the first page of this thread to this one?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI would strongly disagree with that.
I think the key philosophical concept you can distill from quantum physics is the indeterminacy of the universe. Other than that, it's simply a more accurate description of the world than classical physics.
Surely the universe HAS to exist?!
I have not been checking this forum for a few days because I have been working on the paper I have been writing in response to Hameroff’s unwarranted criticisms. I sent the following to Rupert Sheldrake, who has voiced support for my work today:
I have been writing a paper called `The Quantum Mind-Only Universe` which is a distillation of the metaphysical view proposed in my book. This paper will form the basis for my continuing discussion with Henry Stapp and I will also send it to other quantum physicists, especially those associated with the `quantum Darwinism` perspective. I have contacted Dieter Zeh but unfortunately he is ill at present so is not able to take part in any discussions.
This paper actually addresses exactly the issue you raise in your comments which begins:
`I have always had a problem with the idea that quantum physics by itself can provide a foundation for the understanding even of chemistry, let alone biology and mind`
The latest thinking by some significant quantum physicists like Erich Joos is dramatically non-dual in exactly the same way that Dzogchen, and all other Advaita, perspectives are. Joos, for instance, says quite clearly that the quantum-classical divide is a `delusion`. My work precisely shows how this perspective can be made into a coherent metaphysical perspective which takes account of all the relevant facts known currently.
An important feature of this perspective accords completely with Dzogchen in that it conceives of the ultimate nature of reality as non-dual appearance-emptiness which contains an inherent tendency to create dramatic dualistic illusions in order to play out its own possibilities, which are, of course, infinite. The ultimate nature can also be said, conventionally speaking, to be non-dual primordial awareness which is reflected in the dualistic world as individuated consciousness. From this perspective the mathematical formulations of quantum theory are the mathematical descriptions of the movements of primordial consciousness in the creation of the astonishing illusions of the dualistic world. When one sees this the ramifications are extraordinary.
You also say that you are `not quite sure what they mean by quantum Darwinism and whether it has anything in it that would correspond to morphic resonance`. This is actually next on my list of things to make completely transparent. Briefly stated the view is as follows. In the phenomenon of the `collapse of the wavefunction` physicists have actually penetrated to the `physical` heart of reality; they do not realise it because they do not like the answer, they want something more substantial, hence the woeful, and costly, desperation to find the Higg`s particle and so on. Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche refers to the ultimate nature as `empty cognizance` and this definition gives the game away so to speak. The non dual `empty` ground of all possibility contains within it the `seed` of its own destruction, metaphorically speaking; because it contains the fundamental function of `cognizance`, it naturally produces an illusory play of appearances.
These dualistic appearances, of course, are very, very real to those who do not see through them. The collapse of the wave function, then, is an indication of this self-perceiving functioning of the universal ground of reality. And the more this process continues the greater the resonance of the `reality` of the appearances of the `material` world become. Perception, therefore, through repetition, digs itself into the illusion of materiality. The Buddhist philosopher William Waldron, describing the early, pre-Yogacara, view of this process likens it to the way that a river etches out its bed, a metaphor I believe you have used:
`the entire river came into being through nothing but its own interactive feedback processes; what was formed by previous events becomes the basis for, and thereby conditions, succeeding ones.`
I would be very grateful if you would have a look at my account, when it is finished, of just how my Yogacara view of quantum physics naturally leads into quantum Darwinism and then to your notion of `morphic resonance`. The overarching simplicity and comprehensive explanatory power is remarkable.
IN REPLY to the question regarding my mathematical understanding – I have a degree in mathematics and I do understand the mathematical basis of quantum theory.
Originally posted by clearlightIn that case since modern quantum theory is encapsulated in its mathemtical formulations, and as Nargajuna et al were completely ignorant of the mathematics involved, it is culpably misleading to claim as you have done that "Buddhism and Quantum Theory are the same".
I have not been checking this forum for a few days because I have been working on the paper I have been writing in response to Hameroff’s unwarranted criticisms. I sent the following to Rupert Sheldrake, who has voiced support for my work today:
I have been writing a paper called `The Quantum Mind-Only Universe` which is a distillation of the metaphysica ...[text shortened]... g – I have a degree in mathematics and I do understand the mathematical basis of quantum theory.
The fact that there are some significant parallels between the verbal descriptions of the two, as is also the case between the ancient Greek 'atomists' and modern atomic theory, does not justify your claim.
Frijof Capra's 'Tao of Physics' adequately and convincingly deals with these.
When my compatriot - who is editing my book - stated that quantum physics and buddhism were 'one and the same' he was being deliberately provocative and there is an sense in which they cannot be said to be the 'same' because I agree they did not have the mathematics, it was not relvent for their purposes anyway. However the nature of reality which is revealed by the mathematics of quantum theory was PRECISELY adumbrated by BUddhist philosophy, especially the mind-only school. And amazingly the mind-only philosophers knew about the wavefunction - they called it 'the element of attributes'.
Originally posted by clearlightNow you are just waffling. They are not "One and the Same" full stop.
When my compatriot - who is editing my book - stated that quantum physics and buddhism were 'one and the same' he was being deliberately provocative and there is an sense in which they cannot be said to be the 'same' because I agree they did not have the mathematics, it was not relvent for their purposes anyway. However the nature of reality which is rev ...[text shortened]... nly philosophers knew about the wavefunction - they called it 'the element of attributes'.