The Message of Emptiness

Originally posted by Taoman
We could resort to calling each other confused but there will be no progress.

Maybe I am just misunderstanding you, but a lot of what you say about quantum mechanics, seems to me to be totally wrong, and doesn't make sense.

Can you expand on what you mean by this sentence:

It neither can be seen as existing in its own independent state, nor can it be said to not be existing.

I have repeatedly said that the wave behaviour of light like the particle presentation does not not-exist.
But how can behaviors be said to exist anyway? Does the the behavior of a happy dog exist? The dog wags its tail, the tail and the dog exist, but does the wagging?
But what I don't get is why you seem to think this is some deep mystery.

Nether the wave nor the particle exist as a self-existent thing in themselves, apart from the other.
Thats because the are not objects, they are properties. You seem to think there are two different objects, one called a wave and one called a particle. This is not the case at all. There is a single phenomena which can be described mathematically using the mathematics describing wave dynamics in some cases and the mathematics describing particle dynamics at others.

You may continue make bland unsupported statements of disagreement without engaging with the logic I present.
First I have to understand what logic you are presenting. So far, I don't think I am following it, partly because I think you are misscharacterising quantum dynamics

Originally posted by Taoman
As you are probably aware, light as a result of quantum experiments is found to have a wavelike aspect and a particlelike aspect. These two states are inherently contradictory. You cannot say light is a wave and you cannot say light is not a wave.
Nor can you say it is a particle nor not a particle. It is not both at the same time nor is it neither of them a ...[text shortened]... ties and super-positions hang out?

Things are, and yet, they are not.

The plot thickens.

But isn't that simply because the taxonomy of particle/wave is incomplete? Why can't we simply improve that taxonomy by having a name for that state?

Seems to me that there is no need for logical contradictory statements like "things are and they are not". It's just that the particular division of states as particle/wave was made before those advances in quantum mechanics and is now not the best one to describe quantum mechanics.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
quantum experiments show:
if you measure/detect/interact with one of them in one kind of way then it shows wavelike behaviour and
if you measure/detect/interact with one of them in a different kind of way then it shows particle-like behaviour
thus this shows sometimes it behaves as a particle and sometimes it behaves as a wave but apparently neve ...[text shortened]... ved/measured at any one point in time.

So where is the logical contradiction in 1, or 2 ?

My dear Mr Hamilton, methinks you are stranded;

You see, the momentum wavefunction contains the probabilities of the momentum of the particle whilst a spread-out position wavefunction contains the localized momentum w/f, and vice versa. Since prior to our measurement neither position nor momentum have actual physical reality, it is clear that solely thanks to our awareness/ conscious decision we can actualize to a greater precision either the position or the momentum. Of course we have to keep in mind that over here (ie in the double slit experiment) we merely describe the way a mathematical entity is changing: we don’t deal with a real wave that hits the screen but with a set of numbers. And, although we calculate how a particle arrived at a certain location, we still ignore what a particle is. Therefore, your (1) does not hold.

Penrose demonstrated how the quantum experiments show that, whenever the classically physical states of the quantum particle are not measured continuously, they revert to be quantum probability waves till the occurring of another measurement. Therefore, when we conduct measurements (for example) of the electron standing waves (that fit around the circumference of the nucleus in a way that the starting point of the wave of the orbit of the electron meets the last point of this exact orbit at the same amplitude and at the same point as the beginning point) we are obliged to use the wavefunction -which, according to Born, is not an actual wave but a set of numbers indicating to a probability wave. When the amplitude of the wavefunction for a specific position at a given time is squared, its value represents the probability that a particle will be located by a process of measurement at that time in that position.
Of course the squared w/f gives merely the probability that, during a measurement (mind you: measurement without some kind of awareness in the context of a specific spacetime is impossible, and methinks this is exactly Taoman’s point; if I am wrong, he will have me corrected) we will establish the presence of a particle. The point is that the particle whose presence we registered thanks to our measurement, does not exist prior to the measurement interaction. Therefore, your (2) does not hold.

Regarding your thesis about the time, maybe we could agree with Penrose (Emperors New Mind, Oxford Un. Press paperback, 1999) that, “…since a w/f predicts the time evolution of the state of a quantum system, whenever we conduct a measurement we have to discard the quantum state we were evolving and use it merely in order to compute various probabilities that the state will jump to one or another of a set of new possible states”. This means that, at least according to Penrose, the transition of the quantum system to the states we are measuring is abrupt and non-deterministic, and this is proven from our inability to predict which exact probability will be manifested out of the (non-manifested mind-only field of probabilities, empty, sunya) continuous development of the wavefunction. This exact string of thoughts forced Rosenblum, Bruce and Kuttner to state in 2006 that the particle “…was not there before you found it there. Your happening to find it there caused it to be there”.

All the above are analyzed in detail by Smetham -I still cannot find a paper or a book that debunks the core theses of his “Dancing in Emptiness”
😵

Originally posted by Palynka
But isn't that simply because the taxonomy of particle/wave is incomplete? Why can't we simply improve that taxonomy by having a name for that state?

Seems to me that there is no need for logical contradictory statements like "things are and they are not". It's just that the particular division of states as particle/wave was made before those advances in quantum mechanics and is now not the best one to describe quantum mechanics.

What happened to them juicy sardines?
😵

Originally posted by Taoman
"The vacuum is a sacred silence filled with profane noise.
The noise that echoes in its emptiness is the voice of randomness,
the signature of chance made manifest. This is the inner meaning of chance. Its utter fickleness gives it absolute freedom, making it the very root of creativity, the inexhaustible source from which all structure is drawn and into wh ...[text shortened]... gift of silence."

"Music of the Mind
- an adventur into consciousness"

Darryl Reanney

When I see "the message" sunyata is noise, when I discard "the message" sunyata is noise, when I discard my mind sunyata is nowhere, when I use my mind sunyata is there😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Since prior to our measurement neither position nor momentum have actual physical reality, it is clear that solely thanks to our awareness/ conscious decision we can actualize to a greater precision either the position or the momentum.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with awareness or consciousness.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It has nothing whatsoever to do with awareness or consciousness.

Everything is about Jesus 🙂

Originally posted by twhitehead
It has nothing whatsoever to do with awareness or consciousness.

If it has indeed nothing to do with awareness or consiousness, then kindly please feel free to show me how exactly are we able to register prior to our measurement either the position or the momentum and prove that the quantum system we have been laboriously evolving has actual physical reality and that, therefore, the position or the momentum are actualized with (the attributed by us thanks to our awareness alone) precicion in a specific realm of existence that is not in full dependence to our awareness/ consiousness
😵

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Everything is about Jesus 🙂

Please tell me what my left sock has to do with Jesus. He didn't even know what socks were!

Originally posted by black beetle
When I see "the message" sunyata is noise, when I discard "the message" sunyata is noise, when I discard my mind sunyata is nowhere, when I use my mind sunyata is there😵

Yes, indeed, I allowed some poetic license. I do accept your expanded explanation to Mr Hamilton. It is a technical subject and it is well beyond my ability to argue at that level of detail. Thank you.

My main grumble with the gentlemen is the the apparent lack of recognition of the utter strangeness of, and related historical discussions on quantum behaviours, from the viewpoint of classical physics, and that the 'observing' is directly involved in the changing phenomenon.

I am anxiously awaiting "Dancing in Emptiness" to arrive. Smetham puts it together so very well.

I liked this:

"This exact string of thoughts forced Rosenblum, Bruce and Kuttner to state in 2006 that the particle “…was not there before you found it there. Your happening to find it there caused it to be there”.

Originally posted by black beetle
If it has indeed nothing to do with awareness or consiousness, then kindly please feel free to show me how exactly are we able to register prior to our measurement either the position or the momentum and prove that the quantum system we have been laboriously evolving has actual physical reality and that, therefore, the position or the momentum are actu ...[text shortened]... a specific realm of existence that is not in full dependence to our awareness/ consiousness
😵

I will repeat. It has nothing whatsoever to do with consciousness or awareness. Quantum mechanics only deals with interactions. A 'measurement' in quantum mechanics is an interaction with another particle/group of particles. It has nothing whatsoever to do with consciousness.
A particles momentum or position are not solely determined because of our consciousness awareness. You are just making that up.
Light from distant stars manages to land on earth and interact with particles on earth all without you, or anyone else ever being consciously aware of it.
Or are you simply playing the old Buddhist card of 'everything only exists in our minds', but then again, that has nothing whatsoever to do with quantum mechanics.

Originally posted by black beetle
My dear Mr Hamilton, methinks you are stranded;

You see, the momentum wavefunction contains the probabilities of the momentum of the particle whilst a spread-out position wavefunction contains the localized momentum w/f, and vice versa. Since prior to our measurement neither position nor momentum have actual physical reality, it is clear that solely ...[text shortened]... ill cannot find a paper or a book that debunks the core theses of his “Dancing in Emptiness”
😵

“....Since prior to our measurement neither position nor momentum have actual physical reality,...”

that is ONE interpretation of quantum mechanics that may or may not be true.

“... it is clear that solely thanks to our awareness/ conscious decision we can actualize to a greater precision either the position or the momentum. ...”

the idea that nothing exists unless a conscious observer observes it is, in my opinion, a rather extreme interpretation of quantum physics that I think is illogical because it leads to what is called the “measurement problem”. I therefore reject that interpretation and, instead, have what is called a “realist interpretation”.
Although I am completely uncommitted as to exactly which realist interpretation is probably the correct one, one thing they all have in common is that you don't need a conscious observer observing something for that something to exist.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I will repeat. It has nothing whatsoever to do with consciousness or awareness. Quantum mechanics only deals with interactions. A 'measurement' in quantum mechanics is an interaction with another particle/group of particles. It has nothing whatsoever to do with consciousness.
A particles momentum or position are not solely determined because of our consc ...[text shortened]... sts in our minds', but then again, that has nothing whatsoever to do with quantum mechanics.

In fact, quantum mechanics do not deal with classically physical interactions but with a set of numbers that simply depict specific interactions that are monitored by us solely because we want to be aware of specific details regarding these interactions by means of using mathematical formulations we designed especially for this monitoring. The mathematical formulations of quantum mechanics are empty; the mathematical formulations of quantum mechanics are abstract; the mathematical formullations of quantum mechanics are in full dependence with our own collective subjectivity alone and therefore they do not exist for sentient beings who have a different collective subjectivity than ours. Therefore, a particle's momentum/ position can be determined solely by a human being well versed in the language known as "quantum mechanics". Quantum mechanics is only a map of a specific shape of the reality in full dependence with our own awareness/ consiousness alone, and not some kind of physical reality that is common to every sentient being (reality always reveals a different shape to every different sentient being in accordance with the collective subjectivity of each different sentient species). QM is simply an empty projection of our own mind and not the reality itself.

So methinks you have to repeat nothing; it would be enough just to answer my question instead of claiming that I made it up, and I would be grateful if you could share your sources with me so that I can evaluate them. By the way, I didn't made it up and I can give you specific bibliography by Penrose, d' Espangnat, Gribben, Al-Khalili and many more scientists so you may check the whole thing out on your own (for starters I propose you to read Smetham's "Dancing in Emptiness" and to cross-check on your own some of the 989 bibliography quotations that are linked to the text).


Finally, the "old Buddhist card" thingy you mentioned is an ill-considered argument made up from people who ignore the process of the evaluation of the mind as it is perceived and analyzed by the main 6 Buddhist schools. For your information, the Buddhist approach regarding the ability of a (non-delusional) human being to come in grips with reality (without ignorance-grounded distortions, that is), is known as Two Truths
😵

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“....Since prior to our measurement neither position nor momentum have actual physical reality,...”

that is ONE interpretation of quantum mechanics that may or may not be true.

“... it is clear that solely thanks to our awareness/ conscious decision we can actualize to a greater precision either the position or the momentum. ...”

the idea th ...[text shortened]... on is that you don't need a conscious observer observing something for that something to exist.

Cool!
However, since a w/f spreads out from the point where the electron was last observed by us whilst the knowledge of the w/f allows us to assign probabilities to where it might show up again, the sole "realist interpretation" that holds is that the electron does not exist as a definite independent entity between measurments🙂


On the other hand, I do not imply that nothing exists if We are unable to observe it. And, as Acerbi points out at his Epiontic Principle, "observer" is not "an observing person" but any physical system capable of memorising or handling elements of reality (a rock, a tree, a person, a planet, a goldfish, the universe etc)
😵

Originally posted by Taoman
Yes, indeed, I allowed some poetic license. I do accept your expanded explanation to Mr Hamilton. It is a technical subject and it is well beyond my ability to argue at that level of detail. Thank you.

My main grumble with the gentlemen is the the apparent lack of recognition of the utter strangeness of, and related historical discussions on quantum behav ...[text shortened]... ot there before you found it there. Your happening to find it there caused it to be there”.

The gentlemen are blessed because they practice the very essence of the Kalama Sutta
😵