|
Post by tzujanli on May 25, 2015 10:30:27 GMT -5
It is a possible indication that most of the participants understand that existence is still evolving/devolving(?), and are not interested in attaching to any particular theory.. rather, for the scientist/explorer there is the genuine curiosity of the unknown, allowing it to unfold without attachment to theories.. Micro AND macro are not separate, they unite in the reality we are experiencing.. I would say that it has just taken some years for physicists to see that Bohr had used smoke and mirrors to pull the wool over everybody's eyes, that he was playing a shell game. He actually did a great deal of bull-sh!tting in talking his way out of these philosophical problems. He gave the example of a blind man with a cane, the blind man makes the cane a part of his sensory system, an extension of himself. IOW, he gave the impression he knew what he meant, that you didn't know what he meant was your problem, not his. The 50 that picked none of the above are probably just unhappy that the Copenhagen interpretation doesn't explain enough, doesn't go deep enough. But there actually may not be a way to go any deeper, in a physical manner. Exploring consciousness probably is the way to go forward, but this gets out of the realm of physics (unless you are the great John Wheeler), so physicists are no longer interested at this point. The fact that the micro world and the macro world are not separate is actually the crux of the problem. The question is why does the quantum world operate randomly but the macro world operates deterministically? Quantum mechanics is effective because of adding up statistical probabilities. One-by-one the results are random. But if you add up the one-by-one random results you end up with macro-world picture of events. QM has never been proven to be wrong. You've have probably heard the saying, "You can't get there from here". This is the quantum world. Nobody can explain how you can get "there from here". The math works, always, but nobody can explain why. There is no agreement on a "philosophical" picture of what's happening. Thus, it is said, "Nobody understands quantum mechanics, anyone who says they do, doesn't", Richard Feynman. The issue is that in studying QM's role as 'part', some people lost the awareness of QM's relationship with the whole.. the issue is what is happening right here, right 'now', THIS is what we are living/experiencing.. physics is a rabbit hole when separated from the whole.. QM reflects the unpredictable/predictable nature of existence, it is fluid and dynamic..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2015 11:19:07 GMT -5
That may be so laffy, but it is the only practical description of Life and our place in it that offers any semblance of security in the face of the unknown. To whom?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2015 11:20:47 GMT -5
Very clear, the best definition of chegg so far. But I would argue that there is a solution for the intellect and it points to Unity and a single source of everything. Although it isn't provable it solves the brain/ consciousing problem, the subject object problem as well as the physical universe/Consciousness problem. There is no-thing other than Awareness/Consciousness. To settle on the idea of this instead of quiescing the mind is about the worst cheat that I can possibly ever imagine. Well how do you think that knowledge came about?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 25, 2015 11:38:24 GMT -5
I would say that it has just taken some years for physicists to see that Bohr had used smoke and mirrors to pull the wool over everybody's eyes, that he was playing a shell game. He actually did a great deal of bull-sh!tting in talking his way out of these philosophical problems. He gave the example of a blind man with a cane, the blind man makes the cane a part of his sensory system, an extension of himself. IOW, he gave the impression he knew what he meant, that you didn't know what he meant was your problem, not his. The 50 that picked none of the above are probably just unhappy that the Copenhagen interpretation doesn't explain enough, doesn't go deep enough. But there actually may not be a way to go any deeper, in a physical manner. Exploring consciousness probably is the way to go forward, but this gets out of the realm of physics (unless you are the great John Wheeler), so physicists are no longer interested at this point. The fact that the micro world and the macro world are not separate is actually the crux of the problem. The question is why does the quantum world operate randomly but the macro world operates deterministically? Quantum mechanics is effective because of adding up statistical probabilities. One-by-one the results are random. But if you add up the one-by-one random results you end up with macro-world picture of events. QM has never been proven to be wrong. You've have probably heard the saying, "You can't get there from here". This is the quantum world. Nobody can explain how you can get "there from here". The math works, always, but nobody can explain why. There is no agreement on a "philosophical" picture of what's happening. Thus, it is said, "Nobody understands quantum mechanics, anyone who says they do, doesn't", Richard Feynman. The issue is that in studying QM's role as 'part', some people lost the awareness of QM's relationship with the whole.. the issue is what is happening right here, right 'now', THIS is what we are living/experiencing.. physics is a rabbit hole when separated from the whole.. QM reflects the unpredictable/predictable nature of existence, it is fluid and dynamic.. Well, QM is about physics. But it does get weird (because it seems to be about consciousness too).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2015 11:49:50 GMT -5
The issue is that in studying QM's role as 'part', some people lost the awareness of QM's relationship with the whole.. the issue is what is happening right here, right 'now', THIS is what we are living/experiencing.. physics is a rabbit hole when separated from the whole.. QM reflects the unpredictable/predictable nature of existence, it is fluid and dynamic.. Well, QM is about physics. But it does get weird (because it seems to be about consciousness too). Yes, QM physics is a relative description of reality that points to a single source of everything which is Consciousness. QM physics is a relative description, of the play and display of our sacred Source.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on May 25, 2015 12:00:31 GMT -5
The issue is that in studying QM's role as 'part', some people lost the awareness of QM's relationship with the whole.. the issue is what is happening right here, right 'now', THIS is what we are living/experiencing.. physics is a rabbit hole when separated from the whole.. QM reflects the unpredictable/predictable nature of existence, it is fluid and dynamic.. Well, QM is about physics. But it does get weird (because it seems to be about consciousness too). QM is a function of the totality.. focusing on any specific function, i.e.: QM, Consciousness, duality, nonduality, oneness, separation, etc... blinds the experiencer to the totality.. It's like understanding that gasoline makes most automobiles move, and then claiming that automobiles are illusions.. it is a failure of willingness to be open to what is happening, demanding that the automobile experience conform to that experiencer's interpretation of it..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 25, 2015 15:29:20 GMT -5
To settle on the idea of this instead of quiescing the mind is about the worst cheat that I can possibly ever imagine. Well how do you think that knowledge came about? Silence can be a means to an end, sure, but to say that that's all it is, or even to say that it's an end in and of itself, obscures what can be found in it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2015 17:02:57 GMT -5
Well how do you think that knowledge came about? Silence can be a means to an end, sure, but to say that that's all it is, or even to say that it's an end in and of itself, obscures what can be found in it. Obscured? No my friend nothing can obscure Silence, it can only be ignored. Nor is any thing found in it and yet everything comes from it, is it.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 25, 2015 22:10:58 GMT -5
QM quotes: Nevertheless, the Copenhagen view asserts a privileged position to the observer, be it human or a mechanical device, in the construction of reality. But all matter is made up of atoms and therefore subject to the laws of QM, so how can the observer or measuring apparatus have a privileged position? This is the measurement problem. The Copenhagen's interpretation's assumption of the prior existence of the classical world of the macroscopic measuring device appears circular and paradoxical. Einstein and Schrodinger believed it to be a glaring indication of the incompleteness of QM as a total world-view, and Schrodinger tried to highlight it with his cat-in-the-box. Measurement in the Copenhagen interpretation remains an unexplained process, since there is nothing in the mathematics of QM that specifies how or when the wave function collapses. Bohr 'solved' the problem by simply declaring that measurements can indeed be made, but never offered an explanation of how. (page 318) Einstein accepted that QM was the best theory available, but it was 'an incomplete representation of real things, although it is the only one which can be built out of the fundamental concepts of force and material points (quantum corrections to classical mechanics)'. (page 321) Since the macroscopic world is described by classical physics and its concepts, Bohr argued that even to seek to go beyond them was a waste of time. He had developed his framework od complementarity in order to save classical concepts. For Bohr there was no underlying physical reality behind that exists independently of measuring equipment, and that meant, as Heisenberg pointed out, 'we cannot escape the paradox of quantum theory, namely, the necessity of using classical concepts'. It is the Bohr-Heisenberg call to retain classical concepts that Einstein called a 'tranquilizing philosophy'. Einstein was desperately seeking to change the physics as well; for he was not the conservative relic many thought. He was convinced that the concepts of classical physics would have to be replaced by new ones. Einstein never abandoned the ontology of classical physics, an observer independent reality, but he was prepared to make a decisive break with classical physics. The view of reality endorsed by the Copenhagen interpretation was all the evidence he needed of the necessity to do so. He wanted revolution more radical than the one offered by QM. It was hardly surprising that Einstein and Bohr left so much unsaid. (page 321) 'This problem of getting the interpretation proved to be rather more difficult than just working out the equations', said Paul Dirac 50 years after the 1927 Solvay conference. The American Noble laureate Murray Gell-Mann believes part of the reason was that 'Niels Bohr brain-washed a whole generation of physicists into believing that the problem had been solved'. A poll conducted in July 1999 during a conference on quantum physics held at Cambridge University revealed the answers of a new generation to the vexed question of interpretation. Of the 90 physicists polled, only four voted for the Copenhagen interpretation, but 30 favored the modern version of Everett's many worlds. Significantly, 50 ticked the box labeled 'none of the above or undecided'. The unresolved conceptual difficulties, such as the measurement problem and the inability to say exactly where the quantum world ends and the classical world of everyday life begins (which the Paradox of Schrodinger's cat was designed to point out in 1935, note sdp), have led an increasing number of physicists willing to look for something deeper than QM. 'A theory that yields "maybe" as an answer,' says the Dutch Nobel Prizewinning theorist Gerard 't Hooft, 'should be recognized as an inaccurate theory'. (page 358) Quantum: Einstein, Bohr, and the Great Debate about the Quantum Nature of Reality by Manjit Kumar, 2008 (American edition 2010) Kumar has degrees in physics and philosophy ***************** I'd say that backs up many of my points. It is a possible indication that most of the participants understand that existence is still evolving/devolving(?), and are not interested in attaching to any particular theory.. rather, for the scientist/explorer there is the genuine curiosity of the unknown, allowing it to unfold without attachment to theories..Micro AND macro are not separate, they unite in the reality we are experiencing.. The scientist is all about theory and experimentation. He's not sitting in his lawn chair allowing existence to unfold in it's ever evolving blah, blah.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on May 26, 2015 5:13:17 GMT -5
It is a possible indication that most of the participants understand that existence is still evolving/devolving(?), and are not interested in attaching to any particular theory.. rather, for the scientist/explorer there is the genuine curiosity of the unknown, allowing it to unfold without attachment to theories..Micro AND macro are not separate, they unite in the reality we are experiencing.. The scientist is all about theory and experimentation. He's not sitting in his lawn chair allowing existence to unfold in it's ever evolving blah, blah. Yes, the scientist is very much about exploring theories, but.. unlike you, a scientist is not attached to a theory in the face of irrefutable evidence to the contrary as they appeal to their mind's imaginings for authority in their beliefs...
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 26, 2015 8:34:18 GMT -5
It is a possible indication that most of the participants understand that existence is still evolving/devolving(?), and are not interested in attaching to any particular theory.. rather, for the scientist/explorer there is the genuine curiosity of the unknown, allowing it to unfold without attachment to theories..Micro AND macro are not separate, they unite in the reality we are experiencing.. The scientist is all about theory and experimentation. He's not sitting in his lawn chair allowing existence to unfold in it's ever evolving blah, blah. This idea of a scientist without a theory is a fun one that I kinda' like , but it's very obviously got nothing to do with a debate about physics. It's applicable to what Niz meant here by "investigation": (From Chapter 92 of "I AM THAT", "Go Beyond the 'I am the body' Idea")Niz: Only when spirit and matter come together is consciousness born. seeker: Are they one or two? Niz: It depends on the words you use: they are one, two, or three. On investigation the three becomes two and the two becomes one. Take the simile of face, mirror, and image. Any two of them presuppose the third which unites the two. In sadhana, you see the three as two until you realize the two as one. As long as you are engrossed in the world, you are unable to know yourself. To know yourself, turn your attention away from the world and turn it within. seeker: I cannot destroy the world. Niz: There is no need. Just understand that what you see is not what is. Appearances will dissolve upon investigation, and the underlying reality will come to the surface. You need not burn the house to get out of it. You just walk out. It is only when you cannot come and go freely that the house becomes a jail. I move in and out of consciousness easily and naturally and therefore to me, the world is a home, not a prison.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 26, 2015 10:14:55 GMT -5
The scientist is all about theory and experimentation. He's not sitting in his lawn chair allowing existence to unfold in it's ever evolving blah, blah. This idea of a scientist without a theory is a fun one that I kinda' like , but it's very obviously got nothing to do with a debate about physics. It's applicable to what Niz meant here by "investigation": (From Chapter 92 of "I AM THAT", "Go Beyond the 'I am the body' Idea")Niz: Only when spirit and matter come together is consciousness born. seeker: Are they one or two? Niz: It depends on the words you use: they are one, two, or three. On investigation the three becomes two and the two becomes one. Take the simile of face, mirror, and image. Any two of them presuppose the third which unites the two. In sadhana, you see the three as two until you realize the two as one. As long as you are engrossed in the world, you are unable to know yourself. To know yourself, turn your attention away from the world and turn it within.seeker: I cannot destroy the world. Niz: There is no need. Just understand that what you see is not what is. Appearances will dissolve upon investigation, and the underlying reality will come to the surface. You need not burn the house to get out of it. You just walk out. It is only when you cannot come and go freely that the house becomes a jail. I move in and out of consciousness easily and naturally and therefore to me, the world is a home, not a prison. I just made a comment on the other thread, If I am the world, which applies here. source made a distinction between attention being home and attention chasing thoughts. Attention being "home" is what Niz means here by, turn your attention within.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2015 12:28:30 GMT -5
The scientist is all about theory and experimentation. He's not sitting in his lawn chair allowing existence to unfold in it's ever evolving blah, blah. This idea of a scientist without a theory is a fun one that I kinda' like , but it's very obviously got nothing to do with a debate about physics. It's applicable to what Niz meant here by "investigation": (From Chapter 92 of "I AM THAT", "Go Beyond the 'I am the body' Idea")Niz: Only when spirit and matter come together is consciousness born. seeker: Are they one or two? Niz: It depends on the words you use: they are one, two, or three. On investigation the three becomes two and the two becomes one. Take the simile of face, mirror, and image. Any two of them presuppose the third which unites the two. In sadhana, you see the three as two until you realize the two as one. As long as you are engrossed in the world, you are unable to know yourself. To know yourself, turn your attention away from the world and turn it within. seeker: I cannot destroy the world. Niz: There is no need. Just understand that what you see is not what is. Appearances will dissolve upon investigation, and the underlying reality will come to the surface. You need not burn the house to get out of it. You just walk out. It is only when you cannot come and go freely that the house becomes a jail. I move in and out of consciousness easily and naturally and therefore to me, the world is a home, not a prison. Yes, that Niz is a pretty cool doood. He correctly distinguishes between our natural state of Being, what I call pure Awareness/Consciousness, our true home and the attention attending to it's relative home/world of Consciousing. Basically he's saying it's okay to Be ourself and let go of Consciousing for a while. After all we are our-self.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 27, 2015 0:56:42 GMT -5
The scientist is all about theory and experimentation. He's not sitting in his lawn chair allowing existence to unfold in it's ever evolving blah, blah. This idea of a scientist without a theory is a fun one that I kinda' like , but it's very obviously got nothing to do with a debate about physics. It's applicable to what Niz meant here by "investigation": (From Chapter 92 of "I AM THAT", "Go Beyond the 'I am the body' Idea")Niz: Only when spirit and matter come together is consciousness born. seeker: Are they one or two? Niz: It depends on the words you use: they are one, two, or three. On investigation the three becomes two and the two becomes one. Take the simile of face, mirror, and image. Any two of them presuppose the third which unites the two. In sadhana, you see the three as two until you realize the two as one. As long as you are engrossed in the world, you are unable to know yourself. To know yourself, turn your attention away from the world and turn it within. seeker: I cannot destroy the world. Niz: There is no need. Just understand that what you see is not what is. Appearances will dissolve upon investigation, and the underlying reality will come to the surface. You need not burn the house to get out of it. You just walk out. It is only when you cannot come and go freely that the house becomes a jail. I move in and out of consciousness easily and naturally and therefore to me, the world is a home, not a prison. Good stuff.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on May 27, 2015 5:19:03 GMT -5
To know yourself, experience all of life that you can.. Life IS what you ARE, you ARE the world and you are much more..
What you see is what you see, it is the mind's beliefs that distort that simplicity..
|
|