Advaita Vedanta and Quantum Mechanics

Originally posted by no1marauder
I find it very interesting that every time a theory is advanced who's implications you don't like, you feel free to dismiss it even though you admit that there is no satisfactory theoretical explanation at present. That there is "a process we simply don't understand nor have described in a satisfactory way" doesn't mean that attempts to describe it are ...[text shortened]... on "I'm sure we'll figure out something in the future" shows extreme arrogance but little else.

My worldview is that we should let the evidence speak for itself. There is nothing in either the evidence or the theory suggesting a special role of "consciousness" in quantum theory. It's an interpretation, nothing more.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

DWLM is an excellent book though dated (it was written in 1979). Even if you have no interest in Eastern mysticism, the book's descriptions of relativity, quantum mechanics and other features of the "new physics" are very well written and accessible to laymen.

Zukav was not a physicist but he had physicists review every chapter and included footnotes from them:

To compensate for my lack of education in physics (and for
my liberal arts mentality) I asked, and received, the assistance
of an extraordinary group of physicists (They are listed in the
acknowledgments) Four of them in particular, read the entire
manuscript As each chapter was completed, I sent a copy of
it to each physicist and asked him to correct any conceptual or
factual errors which he found (Several other physicists read
selected chapters)
My original intention was to use these comments to correct
the text However, I soon discox ered that my physicist friends
had given more attention to the manuscript than I had dared
to hope Not only were their comments thoughtful and penetrating,
but, taken together, they formed a significant volume
of information by themselves The more I studied them, the
more strongly I felt that I should share these comments with
you Therefore, in addtion to correcting the manuscript with
them, I also included in the footnotes those comments which
do not dupicate the corrected text In particular, I footnoted
those comments which would have slowed the flow of the text
or made it technical, and those comments which disagreed
with the text and also disagreed with the comments of the
other physicists.

Introduction to DWLM

Those interested don't even have to shell out the $8 or so to buy it from Amazon; it's online here: http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/dancingmasters.pdf

Originally posted by no1marauder
Here's recent "ridiculous" research:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116085105.htm

The recent discovery of warm temperature quantum vibrations in microtubules inside brain neurons by the research group led by Anirban Bandyopadhyay, PhD, at the National Institute of Material Sciences in Tsukuba, Japan (and now at MIT), corroborates t ...[text shortened]... and none refuted."


Not bad considering how "poor" our understanding of the human brain is.

It's interesting that they found some measurable quantum effects in the human brain (I wasn't aware that they had).

To go from there and suggest a link between consciousness and wave function collapse, however, is unfounded.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
It's interesting that they found some measurable quantum effects in the human brain (I wasn't aware that they had).

To go from there and suggest a link between consciousness and wave function collapse, however, is unfounded.

Then you 'll really trip when you 'll decide to check seriously Pribram and the consciousness-reality entaglement😵

Originally posted by josephw
[b]".., thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad."

After reading through this thread, I'll try to remember the next time our paths cross in this forum how high the cost is of your condescending to acknowledge my efforts at understanding spirituality. Just sayin'. 😞[/b]

This thread is about to start😵

Originally posted by DeepThought
Ok. I've downloaded it but it's 3am here so I'll read it over the next few days and come back in the thread over in Science to avoid cluttering this one.

Fine, I 'm sure you will enjoy it as much as I did;

Anyway, Bohm's Holomovement, along with the concepts of implicate and explicate order, has serious ontological consequences since it conforms to the proposal that there is a unified reality beyond the appearance of the seeming world which is enveloped within the conventional realm of dualism (subject/ object, matter/ mind). Indeed, if dualism arises from a more unified level of reality, it follows that consciousness must be understood in terms of an order that is closer to the implicate than to the explicate.

Therefore a discussion as regards the dBB ontology and some of its specific technicalities could be perfectly well hosted over here too, if I read the OP correctly, that is😵

Originally posted by black beetle
This thread is about to start😵

There aught to be a "science fantasy and stuff nobody understands" forum where idiots like me won't bother interrupting. 😉

Originally posted by josephw
There aught to be a "science fantasy and stuff nobody understands" forum where idiots like me won't bother interrupting. 😉

You are not an idiot and "interrupting" is not a big deal, however there are scientific theories that are either tenable or untenable, and not science fantasy and stuff that nobody understands; in order to understand if a theory holds, methinks you must do your chores. If your final assesment is that it holds, you have to develop it further by means of doing your chores again. Then study hard again, rethink, calculate once more, meditate even deeper, re-evaluate, retest by any means and keep up developing the theory in an holistic way😵

Originally posted by josephw
There aught to be a "science fantasy and stuff nobody understands" forum where idiots like me won't bother interrupting. 😉

Discussing ID and other gussied up euphemisms for 'Goddidit' in the Spirituality forum is close enough to 'science fantasy and stuff nobody understands' for me.

Originally posted by JS357
Discussing ID and other gussied up euphemisms for 'Goddidit' in the Spirituality forum is close enough to 'science fantasy and stuff nobody understands' for me.

I had the feeling it was close enough to "bad philosophy, religious fantasy and stuff nobody can demonstrate that it is tenable"
😵

Originally posted by no1marauder
Consider this thread a follow up on some ideas presented by myself in the "Design Argument" thread with some clarifications as far as my thinking. I'd like to discuss a nondualist view of reality and present some scientific evidence and theory which make it likely IMO. These views has been heavily influenced by Advaita Vedanta Hinduism and some recent th ...[text shortened]... ness in the universe and how I think they offer scientific support for a nondualist perspective.

Edit: "In AV (the nondualism I am discussing), there is no such distinction. Brahman is existence; it is not a "god" even a 4 O one, but the "one without a second" i.e. everything that is. The physical world is not a creation of Brahman it is a manifestation of Brahman. Further, it is not real in the sense of having some ultimate reality; only Brahman is."

How did you get to know that the observer "Brahman" is existent and that the physical world is a manifestation of Brahman?
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
You are not an idiot and "interrupting" is not a big deal, however there are scientific theories that are either tenable or untenable, and not science fantasy and stuff that nobody understands; in order to understand if a theory holds, methinks you must do your chores. If your final assesment is that it holds, you have to develop it further by means of ...[text shortened]... deeper, re-evaluate, retest by any means and keep up developing the theory in an holistic way😵

Really? And then what? Spend the next twenty years playing catchup in metaphysical science? Methinks all you're doing is fishing in an ocean for a drop of water you don't know the name of. Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against learning these things, it's just that I think understanding can be had in simple terms. I don't think one needs advanced knowledge to know God exists, or to know God personally. It's like the kind of religion that creates so many obstacles that the lay person is made to rely on a system of mediation controlled by an elite class of priests, instead of simply turning to God directly who is available to each individual. We cry, "Abba, Father".

To each his own. I don't know what you guys are trying to prove, but it doesn't sound very spiritual to me. If you ever discover that there's a creator let me know. I'd like to know how it happened.

Peace!

Originally posted by black beetle
Edit: "In AV (the nondualism I am discussing), there is no such distinction. Brahman is existence; it is not a "god" even a 4 O one, but the "one without a second" i.e. everything that is. The physical world is not a creation of Brahman it is a manifestation of Brahman. Further, it is not real in the sense of having some ultimate reality; only Brahman i ...[text shortened]... e observer "Brahman" is existent and that the physical world is a manifestation of Brahman?
😵

It doesn't make any sense to call Brahman an "observer".

Originally posted by JS357
Discussing ID and other gussied up euphemisms for 'Goddidit' in the Spirituality forum is close enough to 'science fantasy and stuff nobody understands' for me.

You're probably right. One thing for sure, I don't understand a thing you guys are talking about, although I'm sure it's very interesting for you. I don't hold it against you. I read through this thread. If I read it again fifty times and cross referenced the sources and read all that dozens of times I might catch on to a degree.

It's none of my business, so I'll just have to leave it alone.

Originally posted by no1marauder
It doesn't make any sense to call Brahman an "observer".

Forgive me but there is a point of clarity needed. BB says, 'The physical world is not a creation of Brahman it is a manifestation of Brahman.'

Things are only made manifest to (or for) an observer. What is the non-dualist identity of the observer?

I'm not sure whom I am asking!