25 May 10
Originally posted by Bosse de NageYes it is ticklish.
Excuse me for interrupting. - On establishing the possibility of randomness: this seems a devilishly ticklish enterprise. For the more one looks at chaos, the less chaotic it appears. Slowly but surely, all phenomena are subjected to the empire of humanly perceived space-time.
Is there a way for us to break out of our skulls?
(A synonym for chaos: a game with no rules?)
No Chaos Theory does not make Chaos seem orderly. It describes chaos and accounts for it. If anything, it explains why Chaos is inevitable and order the exception. Turbulence is still turbulent.
As for getting out of our skulls, if anything does that it is Quantum Mechanics. The point here is that there is nothing in our human perception and sense experience to enable us to anticipate or "visualize" the phenomena described at the level of sub atomic particles and their interactions. It is just too weird in relation to our human senses. The extent to which science and mathematics have penetrated these processes is a testament to our ability to "get out of our skulls." Contrary to claims made for Zen Buddhism, we could have meditated eternally without arriving at this stuff.
26 May 10
Originally posted by AgergWe can register the presence of the particle solely due to a measurement interaction that involves our consciousness, however the particle Does Not Exist Prior To That Measurement. Our happening to find it there caused it to be there.
I fail to see how Heisenberg refutes causation...it refutes the claim we can determine the position/velocity of particles exactly. This does not seem to imply that such motions (indeterminable) are not in some way caused. Making the claim about reason altering the outcome of events is not damaged by a deterministic view since it implies such reason would be m ...[text shortened]... discussion). Either of those being true does not necessarily negate my arguments here though.
I will rephrase it: when we want to apply measurement in the process of the continuous development of the wavefunction, our configuration itself discontinues that process and causes an indeterminate transition to an event. Therefore from each successive continuous development of the wavefunction that evolved deterministically from its prior state, the transition to the event that we measured is abrupt and non-deterministic; one of the probabilities contained in the wavefunction will become real/ event, but there is no way to predict with certainty which one.
However, since the EPR hypothesis does not hold and the quantum non-locality is today a solid given, you are forced to accept that consciousness alone unentagles the universal predisposition to entanglement and therefore all phenomena lack inherent existence. Otherwise you have to prove that Bell's inequality is false and get the glory along with your Nobel prize.
Now I can transpose this quantum product of ours (ie this product of ours that it is scientifically accepted) to the realms of philosophy and metaphysics: the succession of the events itself lacks of such a thing as causality in their very nature of each successive event, and every “event causality” is different than every “event effect”. Also, there is no such a thing as Reason involved in the succession that your deeply localized empiricism conceives as “cause-effect” -it is your mind alone that attributes this kind of understanding of the entanglement of the natural world that surrounds us. You can explain the phenomena the way you please and you can use perfectly well for your convenience the products of your tool, but you fail to understand what is really going on because you refuse to accept the implications of the fact that the inner nature of the observer universe is neither existent nor non-existent, nor both existent and non-existent, nor neither. How come?
Well, if the observer universe was an inherently existing entity it should be changeless, and therefore it could not be manifested because it could not break into existence or break out of it. Universe arose out of a wavefunction (point singularity), therefore it is not an inherently existent observer and thus it cannot inherently cease because there is no such a thing in its nature as an inherently existent observer to cease.
All in all, the "classical cause-effect" approach is inferior to the "quantum cause-effect", whose nature is purely chaotic and thus non-determined due to the fact that "matter" derives from "consiousness". And I maintain no attachment to this view either, for I dislike walking on the middle way with my boat on my back
😵
26 May 10
Originally posted by finneganZen works fine; quantum mechanics is just a Zennist by-product😵
Yes it is ticklish.
No Chaos Theory does not make Chaos seem orderly. It describes chaos and accounts for it. If anything, it explains why Chaos is inevitable and order the exception. Turbulence is still turbulent.
As for getting out of our skulls, if anything does that it is Quantum Mechanics. The point here is that there is nothing in our human pe ...[text shortened]... ims made for Zen Buddhism, we could have meditated eternally without arriving at this stuff.
26 May 10
Originally posted by Bosse de NageHekiganroku😵
Excuse me for interrupting. - On establishing the possibility of randomness: this seems a devilishly ticklish enterprise. For the more one looks at chaos, the less chaotic it appears. Slowly but surely, all phenomena are subjected to the empire of humanly perceived space-time.
Is there a way for us to break out of our skulls?
(A synonym for chaos: a game with no rules?)
26 May 10
Originally posted by black beetleSeems that day by day the "quantum reality" is becoming more tangible than the Newtonian physical model of the universe that we have come to accept as "reality".
We can register the presence of the particle solely due to a measurement interaction that involves our consciousness, however the particle Does Not Exist Prior To That Measurement. Our happening to find it there caused it to be there.
I will rephrase it: when we want to apply measurement in the process of the continuous development of the wavefunctio ...[text shortened]... o this view either, for I dislike walking on the middle way with my boat on my back
😵
I would say that the Newtonian version is is just a model for explaining the "surface" reality of nature and that quantum is the wave of the future for getting into "guts" of the universe.
(Boy wants me...I'll get back to this soon🙂 )
26 May 10
Originally posted by karoly aczelYes😵
Seems that day by day the "quantum reality" is becoming more tangible than the Newtonian physical model of the universe that we have come to accept as "reality".
I would say that the Newtonian version is is just a model for explaining the "surface" reality of nature and that quantum is the wave of the future for getting into "guts" of the universe.
(Boy wants me...I'll get back to this soon🙂 )
26 May 10
Originally posted by black beetleI am falling into a role that I have often complained about in others - looking up Wikapedia and finding stuff to quote. But in this case it seems the best way to avoid confusion. Anyway, I just like the following quote so much that I am posting it here for the pleasure of it.
We can register the presence of the particle solely due to a measurement interaction that involves our consciousness, however the particle Does Not Exist Prior To That Measurement. Our happening to find it there caused it to be there.
I will rephrase it: when we want to apply measurement in the process of the continuous development of the wavefunctio ...[text shortened]... o this view either, for I dislike walking on the middle way with my boat on my back
😵
Bell Inequalities
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem#Bell_inequalities
Theoretical physicists live in a classical world, looking out into a quantum-mechanical world. The latter we describe only subjectively, in terms of procedures and results in our classical domain.
This link is written exceptionally well and clearly.
However, your post also drags us to the Pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus and I enjoyed this quote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclitus
"Among the wise, instead of anger, Heraclitus was overtaken by tears, Democritus by laughter."
26 May 10
Originally posted by finneganIndian philosophy did bequeath us Zero, whereas Aristotle and his Catholic offspring refused to countenance the Void ...
Seriously though, I see why Zen followers love Quantum Mechanics, but I do not see how Zen practice would have led us there any more than Heraclitus did.
26 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by finneganI've been watching some delightful videos attempting to soothe with coruscating geometrical objects the nerves of mathematical landlubbers at sea in the fourth dimension. It has persuaded me that our minds are probably n-dimensional -- that a better approach to getting out of the skull is to dig ever deeper into it. Until the neurological event horizon is crossed and the naked singularity appears ...
As for getting out of our skulls, if anything does that it is Quantum Mechanics. The point here is that there is nothing in our human perception and sense experience to enable us to anticipate or "visualize" the phenomena described at the level of sub atomic particles and their interactions. It is just too weird in relation to our human senses. The ext ims made for Zen Buddhism, we could have meditated eternally without arriving at this stuff.
What do you think of Penrose's efforts to get beneath the skin of quantum mechanics?
26 May 10
Originally posted by finneganYou do not see it probably because your approach to Zen is grounded on dualism, and surely because you are not well versed in this philosophy😵
Seriously though, I see why Zen followers love Quantum Mechanics, but I do not see how Zen practice would have led us there any more than Heraclitus did.
26 May 10
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI worked hard and appreciated his effort to make mathematics intelligible but I found it too time consuming and set him aside. My plans to return to the task have been slightly dented because my daughter has a tendency to "borrow" from my library and Penrose has been absent from home for several years. But to be honest, he is one writer (among many) that I have not been successful with - he is in my pile of good intentions.
I've been watching some delightful videos attempting to soothe with coruscating geometrical objects the nerves of mathematical landlubbers at sea in the fourth dimension. It has persuaded me that our minds are probably n-dimensional -- that a better approach to getting out of the skull is to dig ever deeper into it. Until the neurological event horizon ...[text shortened]... rs ...
What do you think of Penrose's efforts to get beneath the skin of quantum mechanics?
26 May 10
Originally posted by finneganI'm working my way slowly through the Emperor's New Mind as a dress rehearsal for the fat one that came out a few years ago.
I worked hard and appreciated his effort to make mathematics intelligible but I found it too time consuming and set him aside. My plans to return to the task have been slightly dented because my daughter has a tendency to "borrow" from my library and Penrose has been absent from home for several years. But to be honest, he is one writer (among many) that I have not been successful with - he is in my pile of good intentions.
26 May 10
Originally posted by finneganSince Zen is extremely sharp and rejects dualism brutally due to the fact that it appeals to already cultivated consciousnesses regarding the philosophy of the void, methinks that one has to study before trying to conceptualize his Zen view other schools (for starters Yogacara, Madhyamaka, Chittamatra and Dzogchen). Try to study Madhyamaka and you will see on the spot that Heraclitus' approach is almost childish compared to Nagarjunas'
Seriously though, I see why Zen followers love Quantum Mechanics, but I do not see how Zen practice would have led us there any more than Heraclitus did.
😵