The One, a book by Heinrich Pas

[zendancer]

A recently published book by Heinrich Pas, "The One, How An Ancient Idea Holds the Future of Physics," claims that a lot of contemporary physicists are throwing away Bohr's interpretation of QM and realizing that the entire universe (what Bankei called "The Unborn" and what some of us refer to as "THIS") is a unified whole--a fact that sages have known for thousands of years and is pointed to in the earliest Vedas.

The first third of the book brings the reader up to date on how QM was developed and the current state of thinking about QM. The middle of the book wastes too many pages describing past philosophical and religious thought about oneness, but the final portion of the book returns to the author's conjectures about how this new (for physicists) way of thinking about reality is evolving and pointing more and more directly to ND.

The word "entanglement" was initially applied to subatomic particles and the fact that changing the spin on one of a paired set of particles simultaneously changes the spin on the other particle no matter how far apart they are separated, an effect that Einstein labeled as "spooky action at a distance" and which most of us would label as an example of non-locality. "Entanglement," understood from a ND POV, is a misnomer synonymous in meaning with a statement such as "everything is connected." In fact, there are no separate things at all (except in imagination), so in truth there are no things that can become entangled and no things that can be connected or disconnected. Nevertheless, the book is an interesting read.

The book discusses lots of other concepts that are common today in physics, such as "decoherence" and "emergence," but one might get a better grasp on what these words are pointing to by reading the book than by any explanation that could be offered here.

I was most disappointed by the failure of the writer to make a distinction between direct sensory perception and an imaginative interpretation of what the senses reveal. A koan that occurred to me in this regard was: "What does one see when one looks into a cloud chamber?" If a scientist answered, "Tracks made by ionized particles moving through water vapor," I would have to ring a Zen bell and reply, "Better go meditate for a while and bring a better answer than that!"

[laughter]

Sounds interesting ZD. Off the cuff, I'd say that it's inevitable that human intellect will never stop discovering. Copenhagen is very misunderstood, and now I'm curious just to see if this author shared the common misconception: it is about an absence, a limit. Even in the face of that limit, even still using object-mind, intellect has advanced now for 100 years, giving us transistors and lasers, for example. As many physicists will grudgingly point out, for as despised as the Standard Model is for it's complexity and lack of elegance, it is by far the most tested theory ever, in terms of man-hours and resources thrown at it, all of which only ever served to refine it instead of breaking it.

Intuitively, it does seem to me that the next Einstein will eventually shift the paradigm of science beyond the subject-object split. That's what some of the new-agey talk-talk about LOA and vibes on this forum were driving at, to some extent. Maybe I'll check out this book, but at the very least I'll cross-thread the quote from Heisenberg (he was critiquing Bohm's implicate order, as I recall), that seems to me to indicate that he understood nonduality quite deeply, even if he might have not have used the same cultural artifacts we do on this forum. Bohr, after all, included a yin-yang symbol in one of the quadrants of the "coat of arms" the Nobel people insisted on at the time.

[Reefs]

Feb 13, 2023 22:16:53 GMT -5 laughter said:

Sounds interesting ZD. Off the cuff, I'd say that it's inevitable that human intellect will never stop discovering. Copenhagen is very misunderstood, and now I'm curious just to see if this author shared the common misconception: it is about an absence, a limit. Even in the face of that limit, even still using object-mind, intellect has advanced now for 100 years, giving us transistors and lasers, for example. As many physicists will grudgingly point out, for as despised as the Standard Model is for it's complexity and lack of elegance, it is by far the most tested theory ever, in terms of man-hours and resources thrown at it, all of which only ever served to refine it instead of breaking it.

Intuitively, it does seem to me that the next Einstein will eventually shift the paradigm of science beyond the subject-object split. That's what some of the new-agey talk-talk about LOA and vibes on this forum were driving at, to some extent. Maybe I'll check out this book, but at the very least I'll cross-thread the quote from Heisenberg (he was critiquing Bohm's implicate order, as I recall), that seems to me to indicate that he understood nonduality quite deeply, even if he might have not have used the same cultural artifacts we do on this forum. Bohr, after all, included a yin-yang symbol in one of the quadrants of the "coat of arms" the Nobel people insisted on at the time.

As I've mentioned, I am going thru the Seth books again, specifically in order to find something QM related, because I think Seth is somehow pointing the way. But before I can join a discussion like that, I first have to brush up my knowledge on both Seth and QM.

In the meantime, if you have the time, maybe you can summarize the dilemma in your own words. What is the official interpretation? What are alternative interpretations? And what is your own (or preferred) interpretation?

Seth has a very high opinion of Einstein, btw. While he sees him as somewhat equally deluded as all the other mainstream scientists, he also sees him as at least pointing into the right direction. Seth actually puts great hope into so-called "amateur" scientists, who do not work in any field of science and are therefore not as stuck in official dogma as the professional scientists, and therefore already think outside the "official line of consciousness" (aka consensus trance).

Based on my understanding, LOA will somehow have to become part of a conclusive explanation, but the key to a universal theory that actually works, IMO, is consciousness, specifically what Seth calls CU's (units of consciousness) and how it relates to EE Units and particles. In terms of the probability issue, I think Seth's probable realities/selves concept (i.e. your now reality is determined by both your past and your future) and the A-H concept of the Vortex (the 'you' you have already become but which hasn't manifested in the physical yet) could also be helpful. Seth's main point basically is that the blueprint of matter cannot be found by examining matter. One has to see beneath matter to do that. Which scientist cannot do, because they and their instruments are part of the matter framework. So an entirely different approach is required.

I'll get back to this when I'm done reading. I may need some help from you guys who are much deeper into QM already. Could be interesting!

[inavalan]

Feb 16, 2023 21:58:07 GMT -5 Reefs said:

Feb 13, 2023 22:16:53 GMT -5 laughter said:

...

As I've mentioned, I am going thru the Seth books again, specifically in order to find something QM related, because I think Seth is somehow pointing the way. But before I can join a discussion like that, I first have to brush up my knowledge on both Seth and QM.

...

Probably you're aware of the Seth Material search-engine:

nowdictation.com/q/quantum/

Also: A Seth/Jane Roberts Annotated Book Listing, Compiled by Paul M. Helfrich

www.newworldview.com/freebies/a-sethjane-roberts-annotated-book-listing-2/

[Reefs]

Feb 17, 2023 0:54:42 GMT -5 inavalan said:

Feb 16, 2023 21:58:07 GMT -5 Reefs said:

As I've mentioned, I am going thru the Seth books again, specifically in order to find something QM related, because I think Seth is somehow pointing the way. But before I can join a discussion like that, I first have to brush up my knowledge on both Seth and QM.

...

Probably you're aware of the Seth Material search-engine:

nowdictation.com/q/quantum/

Also: A Seth/Jane Roberts Annotated Book Listing, Compiled by Paul M. Helfrich

www.newworldview.com/freebies/a-sethjane-roberts-annotated-book-listing-2/

Thanks for the links.

Yes, Seth doesn't actually directly address QM. But a lot of what he says dovetails nicely with QM. Here's a part of the essay Robert wrote about Seth and QM (see your link):

RB: That all seeming divisions reflect portions of a unified whole is surely one of our oldest concepts, growing, in those terms, with us out of our prehistory as we struggled to grasp the “true” nature of reality. Traditionally we’ve cast that feeling or knowledge in religious terms, for want of a better framework, but I think that more and more now the search is also on within science for a theory—even a hypothesis—that will lock up our often subjective variables into what might be called a more human equivalent of the still-sought-for unified theory in physics. What are human beings, anyhow? From what Jane and I can gather (through our reading especially), at least some of the world’s leading scientists are becoming willing to contend with consciousness itself. (Including their own consciousnesses? I can’t help wondering!) Portions of the latest scientific literature I have on hand, particularly that produced by physicists, contain references that not long ago would have been branded as metaphysical, or even worse.

But I note with some amusement that science absorbs such heresies by weaving them into and developing them out of current establishment thinking—concepts, say, like the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. Put very simplistically, this “quantum approach” allows for the theme that each of us inhabits but one of innumerable probable or parallel worlds. Even the theory of evolution is invoked, for those other worlds are said to evolve in parallel with the one we inhabit. Yet there is no answer within quantum mechanics as to how or why one’s personal identity chooses to follow a certain probable pathway, and consciousness per se is not considered. (Some physicists, however, have implied that subatomic particles—photons—communicate with each other as they take their separate but “sympathetic” paths.) Pardon my irony here, but Seth has always dealt with the ramifications of consciousness and maintained also that we do not inhabit just one probable world, but constantly move among them by choice—and by the microsecond, if one chooses.

(I’ll add that both Seth and quantum theory predict the spontaneous creation of particles of matter out of or in “empty” space—events that, it seems to me, go against some of the laws of conservation. One of these states that matter cannot be created from nothing. Seth says this spontaneous creation happens all of the time through the actions of consciousness. In the theoretical quantum world, however, certain conditions are needed: superheavy nuclei amid strong electrical fields, and so forth.)

Some of our readers, sending us recent books and copies of articles writ-ten by scientists working on these subjects, have noted that it must be nice for Jane and me to have concepts that Seth has been discussing for years “corroborated” by the establishment (often we already had the material on file, by the way). But once again irony enters in on my part, for I’m afraid our answer is that in general science isn’t even aware of the existence of the Seth material, notwithstanding the letters of approval and/or encouragement we receive from individual scientists, representing a variety of disciplines. We feel no sense of corroboration. As I wrote to a fan just last week: “No matter what he or she may think of it personally, no reputable scientist is going to publicly espouse a belief in the Seth material. Certainly not career-wise. Not for a long time yet, in our opinion, and for many reasons.”

Some day, for our own amusement—but hardly with the idea of convincing others, let alone influential scientists—I’ll ask Seth to comment upon whatever connections may exist between his ideas and those embedded in quantum mechanics. I’m sure he’s quite entertained by the whole situation—yet also compassionate toward the human strivings involved. He’s never mentioned the concept, nor have we asked him to. I think that Jane has little (if any) interest in whether any connections might exist between the Seth material and the mathematical theory of quantum mechanics. Any discussion of this in our books is strictly my own doing, my own speculation: I think it fun to play creatively with a theory that is, after all, there for anyone to consider, from whatever standpoint. And I maintain that the theory of quantum mechanics does contain strong paranormal aspects, whether or not science admits this.

I also think that if asked Seth would point out that since the concept of quantum mechanics is based upon the idea that everything we “know”—matter, energy, our sensual information—is made up of quanta, or the interactions of insubstantial fields that in turn, and quite paradoxically, produce very active subatomic packets or particles, then quantum mechanics is at least analogous with his statements that basically the universe is composed of consciousness itself. But I think that the continuum of consciousness, or All That Is, contains not only the phenomena of quantum mechanics, but also Seth’s nonphysical EE (electromagnetic energy) units, and his CU’s (or units of consciousness). In those terms, then, quantum mechanics is a theory that doesn’t penetrate deeply enough into basic reality, even if physicists these days are basing their unified field theories upon quantum thinking. (These theories are themselves quite incomplete, since at this time they incorporate only three of the four basic interactions in nature: electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. So far, gravitation remains outside all at-tempts at integration.)

To me, consciousness or All That Is is an omnipresent, really indescribable awareness that to us human beings has no limits, “one” containing not only the attributes of time and space and of all feeling, thought, and objectivity, but numberless other properties, manifestations, and probabilities that lie outside our very limited interior and exterior perceptions. In terms of physics, then, reality is still unknowable.

—DEaVF1 Essay 8 Sunday, May 23, 1982

And about Einstein:

Seth: "If Einstein had been a better mathematician, he would not have made the breakthroughs that he did. He would have been too cowed. Yet even then his mathematics did hold him back, and put a kink in his intuitions. Often you take it for granted that intuitive knowledge is not practical, will not work, or will not give you diagrams. Those same diagrams of which science is so proud, however, can also be barriers, giving you a dead instead of a living knowledge. Therefore, they can be quite impractical."

—UR1 Section 3: Session 701 June 3, 1974

"Einstein traveled within and trusted his own intuitions, and used his inner senses. He would have discovered much more had he been able to trust his intuitions even more, and able to leave more of the so-called scientific proof of his theories to lesser men, to give himself more inner freedom."

—UR1 Section 3: Session 701 June 3, 1974

 Now that's funny!

[laughter]

Feb 16, 2023 21:58:07 GMT -5 Reefs said:

In the meantime, if you have the time, maybe you can summarize the dilemma in your own words. What is the official interpretation? What are alternative interpretations? And what is your own (or preferred) interpretation?

Sure, I'll come back to ya' with a wall after I've read the book. Bought it today and past the intro. It's well written and promises to be a fun read. The author claims hard creds and states in very blunt terms what I've read other authors on the topic sort of dance around and hint at - comparatively.

Bottom line: the Copenhagen team, lead by Bohr, discovered, and then published the limit of physical objectivity in 1927. Which was quite shocking. Einstein proceeded to troll Bohr for years afterward, and the science of particle Physics has been rolling ever since. Bohr and Heisenberg called their interpretation the "Copenhagen Interpretation" ("CI"). My current understanding of it is that it states an absence of non-stochastic objective knowledge about a system defined in terms of particles in between measurements. Everyone hates it. Me and my study pal back in the day, hated it. It was "bullshit!" I've since come to appreciate the meaning of absence.

"non-stochastic objective knowledge" could be stated a different way: "clockwork deterministic". Einstein didn't like that, which is why he starting trolling, which eventually led to the science of entanglement that ZD referred to in the OP.

[Reefs]

Feb 18, 2023 16:36:01 GMT -5 laughter said:

Feb 16, 2023 21:58:07 GMT -5 Reefs said:

In the meantime, if you have the time, maybe you can summarize the dilemma in your own words. What is the official interpretation? What are alternative interpretations? And what is your own (or preferred) interpretation?

Sure, I'll come back to ya' with a wall after I've read the book. Bought it today and past the intro. It's well written and promises to be a fun read. The author claims hard creds and states in very blunt terms what I've read other authors on the topic sort of dance around and hint at - comparatively.

Bottom line: the Copenhagen team, lead by Bohr, discovered, and then published the limit of physical objectivity in 1927. Which was quite shocking. Einstein proceeded to troll Bohr for years afterward, and the science of particle Physics has been rolling ever since. Bohr and Heisenberg called their interpretation the "Copenhagen Interpretation" ("CI"). My current understanding of it is that it states an absence of non-stochastic objective knowledge about a system defined in terms of particles in between measurements. Everyone hates it. Me and my study pal back in the day, hated it. It was "bullshit!" I've since come to appreciate the meaning of absence.

"non-stochastic objective knowledge" could be stated a different way: "clockwork deterministic". Einstein didn't like that, which is why he starting trolling, which eventually led to the science of entanglement that ZD referred to in the OP.

Take your time. I first have to read some books as well. May take a week or two. I want to do it thoroughly.

[laughter]

Feb 16, 2023 21:58:07 GMT -5 Reefs said:

In the meantime, if you have the time, maybe you can summarize the dilemma in your own words. What is the official interpretation? What are alternative interpretations? And what is your own (or preferred) interpretation?

Reading through The One as I have time. Looking forward to generating multiple walls and other dialog. Meanwhile, I've got time for some cross-threading.

I will post this note from Heinrich that's of course a money shot.

from pg 6 para 3:

underlying everything we experience there is only one, single, all-encompassing thing - that everything else we see around us is some kind of illusion.

I'll be adding some quotes from the Tao of Physics to this thread as well as some from Werner's book to offer comparisons of various understandings. This might get interesting because perhaps Pas isn't pussy-footin' 'round. But of course. Always. Language. He uses the term "monism". 

[Reefs]

As I keep reading about QM and how these ideas came about, I am wondering how much of our current understanding of QM and cosmology is based on solid scientific facts and how much of it is just postulates...