Advaita Vedanta and Quantum Mechanics

Originally posted by JS357
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!

The statement was referring to our perspective (BB is quoting from my OP).

From that perspective, we are observers of the manifestation.

Of course, we are also part of the manifestation.

Originally posted by josephw
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.

I reckon that the performance of the scientific work that is 'manifest' in this thread has to proceed to a point where it yields simple conclusions that support or do not support what #1 is aiming at, and the language will simplify as well.

Alan Watts covered a lot of the spiritual territory in his book:

THE BOOK: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

http://terebess.hu/english/AlanWatts-On%20The%20Taboo%20Against%20Knowing%20Who%20You%20Are.pdf


especially starting on page 16 where he reverts to mythology. It is no accident that our ancient beliefs are preserved in myth.

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

Can Brahman not observe Brahman?

Originally posted by no1marauder
The statement was referring to our perspective (BB is quoting from my OP).

From that perspective, we are observers of the manifestation.

Of course, we are also part of the manifestation.

I like the idea that part of the All observes part of itself and those parts are growing and converging.

Originally posted by josephw
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 ...[text shortened]... ou ever discover that there's a creator let me know. I'd like to know how it happened.

Peace!

No metaphysics.
If you ever can prove there is a creator, let me know how it happened😵

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

Then the claim that Brahman is existent doesn't make any sense😵

Originally posted by DeepThought
Can Brahman not observe Brahman?

I like this question;

Also (this time from the perspective of Acerbi's epiontic principle -is this afterall a thread where philosophy, not religion, is supposed to cope with the deepest realm of existence), how and which way Brahman can be evaluated as an existent observer?
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Then the claim that Brahman is existent doesn't make any sense😵

If you say so though such a claim is hardly intellectually defensible.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Can Brahman not observe Brahman?

Could you and/or BB define what you mean by "observer" so that we are not committing the Fallacy of Equivocation?

The questions the two of you have asked seem to imply duality i.e. that Brahman is a God when that has been specifically stated to be not so in the OP. I'm having a problem understanding the point being made since it seems to be based on a misunderstanding of AV.

Originally posted by black beetle
I like this question;

Also (this time from the perspective of Acerbi's epiontic principle -is this afterall a thread where philosophy, not religion, is supposed to cope with the deepest realm of existence), how and which way Brahman can be evaluated as an existent observer?
😵

Was looking at Acerbi's blog and found this statement from Graham Smetham in one of the Comments:

To put my position crudely and simply, the quantum epiontic paradigm requires that the ‘ultimate’ nature of reality consists of an infinite pool of potentiality which contains within its own nature an epiontic trigger of cognizance.

That sounds interesting.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Was looking at Acerbi's blog and found this statement from Graham Smetham in one of the Comments:

To put my position crudely and simply, the quantum epiontic paradigm requires that the ‘ultimate’ nature of reality consists of an infinite pool of potentiality which contains within its own nature an epiontic trigger of cognizance.

That sounds interesting.

Of course it is interesting. I had a conversation with Smetham in the past concering his whole approach as it was presented in his "Dancing in Emptiness" and I know that his book, which I appreciate it in full, is very well backed up, and I remember that Acerbi could not get to grips with Graham in a fruitful way as regards the ontological consequenses of the epiontic universe.
However, as is also the case with Stetham's multileveled analysis, I think it is not tenable to claim that the (epiontic) observer universe is a manifestation of Brahman, or that the universe is created by a Supreme Being; Stetham is grounded on the Yogachara and partly on the Madhyamaka approach during his epistemology and then comes up with a specific and concrete mind-only ontology based on our scientific knowledge of the subatomic realm of existence and its extrapolation at the macrocosmic realm of existence. The result is a highly enjoyable and deep book that I recommend to anybody without the slightest hesitation.

Back to the OP of this thread: if the observer universe is indeed epiontic, the Brahman thingy, just like any other Being Supreme, is superficial. On the other hand, if you are about to bring up specific Stetham's theses as regards dualism and the bond "Reality-Consciousness"without involving theist approaches, methinks I could hardly find something that I would oppose😵

Originally posted by no1marauder
Could you and/or BB define what you mean by "observer" so that we are not committing the Fallacy of Equivocation?

The questions the two of you have asked seem to imply duality i.e. that Brahman is a God when that has been specifically stated to be not so in the OP. I'm having a problem understanding the point being made since it seems to be based on a misunderstanding of AV.

"Observer" at that question of mine is the measurement apparatus as it is defined in Quantum Mechanics😵

Originally posted by no1marauder
If you say so though such a claim is hardly intellectually defensible.

Of course it is; in other words, you have at first to explain how and by what means did you get to know that Brahman is existent😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Of course it is interesting. I had a conversation with Smetham in the past concering his whole approach as it was presented in his "Dancing in Emptiness" and I know that his book, which I appreciate it in full, is very well backed up, and I remember that Acerbi could not get to grips with Graham in a fruitful way as regards the ontological consequenses ...[text shortened]... ithout involving theist approaches, methinks I could hardly find something that I would oppose😵

Again, Brahman is not a "Being Supreme" nor is the "the universe created by a Supreme Being" in my view. Brahman is everything, we are part of everything and we perceive the universe in a certain way because of our apparent nature.

I hadn't heard of Stetham before today so I cannot comment on his views without further study. They seem "interesting' but the Buddhist idea that ultimately nothing exists isn't very appealing to me.

Originally posted by black beetle
Of course it is; in other words, you have at first to explain how and by what means did you get to know that Brahman is existent😵

By logical deduction and as a best hypothesis that fits the facts.

I'm still organizing my thoughts as far as posting a follow up supporting argument going from QM to AV though the basic gist should be rather apparent. To start with, QM and the research emanating from it have shown that the universe isn't real in the classical sense; it does not consist of actual physical objects subject to uniform laws. From Heisenberg:

the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.

More later.