Quantum ZD

[stardustpilgrim]

The big mystery in quantum physics is the nature of what the quantum realm is. There are lots of theories but nobody knows. The double-slit experiment is the epitome of the quantum question, it's still a mystery of what's occurring.

If you are very familiar with quantum physics, you can skip to the last paragraph.

I'll simplify as analogy. If you fire frozen ice particle-bullets at a screen you get haphazard pattern of bullet strikes, you've all seen a target after target practice. We can turn this into a quantum experiment. We load our gun, a revolver, with quantum bullets (the experiment has been done with various quantum thingys, including photons and electrons), spin the chamber. Now we set up a screen with one slot and a second slot you can either open or close, between the gun and the receiving-target. Shot through one slot you get a bullet pattern showing you had a particle-frozen bullet in the chamber. If you open the second slot and fire, you get a diffraction pattern on the receiving-target, no hits-lightness and heavy hits-darkness showing the bullet was a water-wave. Lightness shows wave troughs and peaks canceled each other out, darkness shows troughs and peaks overlapped doubling peaks and troughs.

Now it gets complicated. Same setup. If we don't observe the two slots, we get a diffraction pattern at the receiving-target. If we put a camera-observing device at the slots, we get a bullet pattern showing a frozen particle-bullet was fired. Turn off the camera, we get a diffraction-pattern showing a water-wave bullet was fired. What does having either one or two slots open have to do with what kind of bullet was fired? It doesn't, because all the bullets are the same, there are no frozen ice bullets or water-wave bullets. The same bullets form either a bullet pattern or a diffraction light-dark pattern. Does this show our bullet can be either a wave or a particle? No. It shows our "bullet" isn't anything until we get a detection at our receiving-target. And, the pattern we get depends upon whether we observe the slots, or not. (Physicists have invented even more complicated experiments, able to "take pictures" after the "bullets" have gone through the slits. This is called delayed measurement, and it looks like we either have backwards causation or time travel. QM is truly mysterious).

OK, where does ZD fit into all this? I saw it today, it took picking up a book I had set aside 2 years ago. The writer went into the many different interpretations of quantum physics. He emphasized Bohr (Copenhagen interpretation) doesn't say anything about what a quantum thingy is. We only know results from experiments. So a quantum thingy isn't anything we can describe in any way whatsoever. This not-knowing is called a superposition in quantum physics. But it hit me that ZD being adamant that there is no distinction until a mind makes a distinction is very-like this not-knowing what a quantum thingy is, until we see the results on a receiving-target, or otherwise make a measurement. I don't know what else to make of it (yet), but ZD's view is a very good analogy for QM.

[inavalan]

Jun 4, 2023 19:16:32 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

The big mystery in quantum physics is the nature of what the quantum realm is. There are lots of theories but nobody knows. The double-slit experiment is the epitome of the quantum question, it's still a mystery of what's occurring. ...

The double-slit experiment is the result of "the present being the point of power": from the present both the future and the past are continuously recreated.

[sharon]

Jun 4, 2023 21:30:56 GMT -5 inavalan said:

Jun 4, 2023 19:16:32 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

The big mystery in quantum physics is the nature of what the quantum realm is. There are lots of theories but nobody knows. The double-slit experiment is the epitome of the quantum question, it's still a mystery of what's occurring. ...

The double-slit experiment is the result of "the present being the point of power": from the present both the future and the past are continuously recreated.

I thought it was more to do with the nature of Light and how it replicates itself.

[laughter]

Jun 5, 2023 3:35:53 GMT -5 sharon said:

Jun 4, 2023 21:30:56 GMT -5 inavalan said:

The double-slit experiment is the result of "the present being the point of power": from the present both the future and the past are continuously recreated.

I thought it was more to do with the nature of Light and how it replicates itself.

[stardustpilgrim]

Jun 5, 2023 4:17:51 GMT -5 laughter said:

Jun 5, 2023 3:35:53 GMT -5 sharon said:

I thought it was more to do with the nature of Light and how it replicates itself.

That's a cool demonstration.

[sharon]

Jun 5, 2023 4:17:51 GMT -5 laughter said:

Jun 5, 2023 3:35:53 GMT -5 sharon said:

I thought it was more to do with the nature of Light and how it replicates itself.

[inavalan]

"Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser: Does the Future Affect the Present?"

Note: The text on the picture misses the point. It isn't about the photon reaching the detectors 2,3,4 after reaching detector 1, but about reaching the decision point (2 or 4, 3 or 4) after reaching the detector 1. This means: displaying the result before making the decision that causes that result.


The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser explained simply provides a shocking answer to whether the future affects the past. Could it be possible that that the future can influence the present? An enhanced version of the famous double slit experiment, called the delayed choice quantum eraser implies exactly that mind blowing scenario – that future events can influence past results.

What exactly is a delayed choice quantum eraser, and how can it possibly show that the future is affecting the past? In 1978, a physicist by the name of John Archibald Wheeler proposed a thought experiment, called delayed choice. Wheeler’s idea was to imagine light from a distant quasar being gravitationally lensed by a closer galaxy. Wheeler noted that this light could be observed on earth in two different ways. This is called a delayed choice because the observer’s choice of selecting how to measure the particle is being done billions of years from the time that the particle left the quasar.

But how could this be?...the light began its journey billions of years ago, long before we decided on which experiment to perform. It would seem as if the quasar light “knew” whether it would be seen as a particle or wave billions of years before the experiment was even devised on earth. Does this prove that somehow the particle’s measurement of its current state has influenced its state in the past? The act of measurement gives reality to the quantum particle. So in the delayed-choice experiment, this means the quantum doesn’t become “real” until you measure it. So this experiment does not prove that the present has influenced the past because the light could have been a wave and particle at the same time, and only become real when it was measured.

However, another more recent experiment set up used a more complicated method to determine this idea of the future influencing a past. It introduced something called the quantum eraser to the delayed choice. So it is called the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser designed by Kim, Kulik, Shih and Scully in 1999.

It is a complicated construction that introduced entangled pairs of photons to Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment.

I am going to show you a much simpler set up that will illustrate this concept in easier-to-understand terms. The results of this experiment are pretty amazing - because Here’s what happens. It tells us that when the which way information is known, that is, when the detector can ascertain which slit the photon came from, it always presents as a particle. But when the detector cannot ascertain which slit the photon came from, that is, when the which way information is erased, then the photon acts like a wave.

I left out a tiny but crucial detail that makes these results shocking. And that detail is that the path to detector 1 is much shorter than the paths to detectors 2, 3, and 4. So the photon is always detected at detector 1 BEFORE it is detected on any other detectors.
An interference pattern forms on detector 1 even if the which-path information pertinent to the photons that form it are only erased until much later in time at detector 4. And a double line pattern forms at detector 1 even before its which path information is ascertained at detectors 2 or 3. This shows us that somehow the photon at detector 1 knows ahead of time which detector its entangled pair will end up at in the future.

How is this possible?

To be perfectly honest, I don’t have an answer. No one has a good answer. If you have an answer, let me know – because there is a Nobel prize waiting for you. But maybe our sense of time flowing in one direction is not something that quantum particles are constrained by. The entangled particles seem to be immune to the direction of time, or are somehow connected in time even when not connected in space.

Maybe our causal experience is just that - an experience, but not the true nature of reality.
cause and effect seem to be temporally separated in the quantum world.

But let’s extrapolate these results to their most absurd extremes. There can be no communication between the future to the past. This would violate all kinds of laws in physics – like conservation of information, energy, etc.

But Does backward causation mean that a future cause is changing something in the past? No. What came about in the past already happened, when the past was the present.

The past cannot be changed. The past is fixed.

...Or Maybe the past can be changed.

[inavalan]

An interesting parallel can be drawn between the metamorphosis of this thread's original subject (Q), and the evolution of Christianity (C).

Q: The wave-particle quantum reality

C: The wide-reality

Q: The author referenced by stardustpilgrim: we don't know exactly what he wrote on the subject

C: Jesus; we don't know exactly what he said on the subject

Q: Stardustpilgrim quoted that author, adding his involuntary distortions

C: Apostles wrote gospels quoting Jesus, adding their involuntary distortions

Q: Laughter came with a simple eye-catching image, unrelated to the subject, to attract interest

C: Christian church came with a simple catchy story, unrelated to the subject, to attract interest

Q: Sharon, based on Laughter's misdirection, showed interest in a representation even furter from the original subject / reality

C: Christian adepts, based on their church dogma / misdirection, showed interest in a representation even furter from the original subject / reality

[sharon]

Jun 5, 2023 22:38:40 GMT -5 inavalan said:

"Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser: Does the Future Affect the Present?"

Note: The text on the picture misses the point. It isn't about the photon reaching the detectors 2,3,4 after reaching detector 1, but about reaching the decision point (2 or 4, 3 or 4) after reaching the detector 1. This means: displaying the result before making the decision that causes that result.


The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser explained simply provides a shocking answer to whether the future affects the past. Could it be possible that that the future can influence the present? An enhanced version of the famous double slit experiment, called the delayed choice quantum eraser implies exactly that mind blowing scenario – that future events can influence past results.

What exactly is a delayed choice quantum eraser, and how can it possibly show that the future is affecting the past? In 1978, a physicist by the name of John Archibald Wheeler proposed a thought experiment, called delayed choice. Wheeler’s idea was to imagine light from a distant quasar being gravitationally lensed by a closer galaxy. Wheeler noted that this light could be observed on earth in two different ways. This is called a delayed choice because the observer’s choice of selecting how to measure the particle is being done billions of years from the time that the particle left the quasar.

But how could this be?...the light began its journey billions of years ago, long before we decided on which experiment to perform. It would seem as if the quasar light “knew” whether it would be seen as a particle or wave billions of years before the experiment was even devised on earth. Does this prove that somehow the particle’s measurement of its current state has influenced its state in the past? The act of measurement gives reality to the quantum particle. So in the delayed-choice experiment, this means the quantum doesn’t become “real” until you measure it. So this experiment does not prove that the present has influenced the past because the light could have been a wave and particle at the same time, and only become real when it was measured.

However, another more recent experiment set up used a more complicated method to determine this idea of the future influencing a past. It introduced something called the quantum eraser to the delayed choice. So it is called the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser designed by Kim, Kulik, Shih and Scully in 1999.

It is a complicated construction that introduced entangled pairs of photons to Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment.

I am going to show you a much simpler set up that will illustrate this concept in easier-to-understand terms. The results of this experiment are pretty amazing - because Here’s what happens. It tells us that when the which way information is known, that is, when the detector can ascertain which slit the photon came from, it always presents as a particle. But when the detector cannot ascertain which slit the photon came from, that is, when the which way information is erased, then the photon acts like a wave.

I left out a tiny but crucial detail that makes these results shocking. And that detail is that the path to detector 1 is much shorter than the paths to detectors 2, 3, and 4. So the photon is always detected at detector 1 BEFORE it is detected on any other detectors.
An interference pattern forms on detector 1 even if the which-path information pertinent to the photons that form it are only erased until much later in time at detector 4. And a double line pattern forms at detector 1 even before its which path information is ascertained at detectors 2 or 3. This shows us that somehow the photon at detector 1 knows ahead of time which detector its entangled pair will end up at in the future.

How is this possible?

To be perfectly honest, I don’t have an answer. No one has a good answer. If you have an answer, let me know – because there is a Nobel prize waiting for you. But maybe our sense of time flowing in one direction is not something that quantum particles are constrained by. The entangled particles seem to be immune to the direction of time, or are somehow connected in time even when not connected in space.

Maybe our causal experience is just that - an experience, but not the true nature of reality.
cause and effect seem to be temporally separated in the quantum world.

But let’s extrapolate these results to their most absurd extremes. There can be no communication between the future to the past. This would violate all kinds of laws in physics – like conservation of information, energy, etc.

But Does backward causation mean that a future cause is changing something in the past? No. What came about in the past already happened, when the past was the present.

The past cannot be changed. The past is fixed.

...Or Maybe the past can be changed.

www.biblehub.com/john/8-58.htm

[zendancer]

Jun 4, 2023 19:16:32 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

The big mystery in quantum physics is the nature of what the quantum realm is. There are lots of theories but nobody knows. The double-slit experiment is the epitome of the quantum question, it's still a mystery of what's occurring.

If you are very familiar with quantum physics, you can skip to the last paragraph.

I'll simplify as analogy. If you fire frozen ice particle-bullets at a screen you get haphazard pattern of bullet strikes, you've all seen a target after target practice. We can turn this into a quantum experiment. We load our gun, a revolver, with quantum bullets (the experiment has been done with various quantum thingys, including photons and electrons), spin the chamber. Now we set up a screen with one slot and a second slot you can either open or close, between the gun and the receiving-target. Shot through one slot you get a bullet pattern showing you had a particle-frozen bullet in the chamber. If you open the second slot and fire, you get a diffraction pattern on the receiving-target, no hits-lightness and heavy hits-darkness showing the bullet was a water-wave. Lightness shows wave troughs and peaks canceled each other out, darkness shows troughs and peaks overlapped doubling peaks and troughs.

Now it gets complicated. Same setup. If we don't observe the two slots, we get a diffraction pattern at the receiving-target. If we put a camera-observing device at the slots, we get a bullet pattern showing a frozen particle-bullet was fired. Turn off the camera, we get a diffraction-pattern showing a water-wave bullet was fired. What does having either one or two slots open have to do with what kind of bullet was fired? It doesn't, because all the bullets are the same, there are no frozen ice bullets or water-wave bullets. The same bullets form either a bullet pattern or a diffraction light-dark pattern. Does this show our bullet can be either a wave or a particle? No. It shows our "bullet" isn't anything until we get a detection at our receiving-target. And, the pattern we get depends upon whether we observe the slots, or not. (Physicists have invented even more complicated experiments, able to "take pictures" after the "bullets" have gone through the slits. This is called delayed measurement, and it looks like we either have backwards causation or time travel. QM is truly mysterious).

OK, where does ZD fit into all this? I saw it today, it took picking up a book I had set aside 2 years ago. The writer went into the many different interpretations of quantum physics. He emphasized Bohr (Copenhagen interpretation) doesn't say anything about what a quantum thingy is. We only know results from experiments. So a quantum thingy isn't anything we can describe in any way whatsoever. This not-knowing is called a superposition in quantum physics. But it hit me that ZD being adamant that there is no distinction until a mind makes a distinction is very-like this not-knowing what a quantum thingy is, until we see the results on a receiving-target, or otherwise make a measurement. I don't know what else to make of it (yet), but ZD's view is a very good analogy for QM.

Yes, and it's not just an analogy; it's the actual case. If no distinctions are made, THIS remains in a state of infinite superposition, and thingness only comes into being (is brought forth into existence) when there's an observer who makes a distinction. We could say that the act of distinction is what collapses the wave function. A sage is comfortable living in a not-knowing state of mind, and this is what the phrases "non-abidance in mind" and "no-mind" are pointing to.

The conventional statement that physicists make is, "the act of observation collapses the wave function," but this is NOT correct. It is NOT the act of observation that collapses the wave function; it is the act of distinction. Think about it. When a scientist looks into a cloud chamber through which "an ionized particle" has passed, what does she see? Until she makes a distinction, she sees THIS, or "what is" in what we could call "an undistinguished state" or a "stateless state." She can't even talk about what she sees until she distinguishes "tracks in the cloud chamber left by the path of an ionized particle." The same thing is true of a tree. What a tree IS remains in a state of superposition until a distinguisher (NOT an observer) separates that aspect of reality from all else via an act of mind.

The problem for most physicists is that they buy into the idea that reality is composed of separate things being seen by a separate thing. Thinking that reality is composed of separate things, they began searching for the smallest thing that composes everything (every thing). Atoms were initially imagined to be the smallest things, and then atoms had to be imagined as things composed of smaller things (neutrons, protons, electrons), and then those smaller things had to be imagined as composed of yet smaller things (quarks, etc), and this process is still continuing. It's like a dog chasing it own tail.

In a sense a sage goes in the opposite direction from a conventional scientist because a sage discovers that the intellect is what collapses the wave function. The sage reverses the trajectory of dividing reality into imaginary bits and pieces and puts it back together, psychologically, by refusing to imagine it divided into distinct states. Of course, the sage understands that THIS, in the form of humans, can make imaginary distinctions, so she understands the nature of distinctions without attributing the same importance to them as others. She doesn't confuse the distinctions with the underlying unity pointed to with the word "superposition."

[stardustpilgrim]

Jun 6, 2023 7:00:30 GMT -5 zendancer said:

Jun 4, 2023 19:16:32 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

The big mystery in quantum physics is the nature of what the quantum realm is. There are lots of theories but nobody knows. The double-slit experiment is the epitome of the quantum question, it's still a mystery of what's occurring.

If you are very familiar with quantum physics, you can skip to the last paragraph.

I'll simplify as analogy. If you fire frozen ice particle-bullets at a screen you get haphazard pattern of bullet strikes, you've all seen a target after target practice. We can turn this into a quantum experiment. We load our gun, a revolver, with quantum bullets (the experiment has been done with various quantum thingys, including photons and electrons), spin the chamber. Now we set up a screen with one slot and a second slot you can either open or close, between the gun and the receiving-target. Shot through one slot you get a bullet pattern showing you had a particle-frozen bullet in the chamber. If you open the second slot and fire, you get a diffraction pattern on the receiving-target, no hits-lightness and heavy hits-darkness showing the bullet was a water-wave. Lightness shows wave troughs and peaks canceled each other out, darkness shows troughs and peaks overlapped doubling peaks and troughs.

Now it gets complicated. Same setup. If we don't observe the two slots, we get a diffraction pattern at the receiving-target. If we put a camera-observing device at the slots, we get a bullet pattern showing a frozen particle-bullet was fired. Turn off the camera, we get a diffraction-pattern showing a water-wave bullet was fired. What does having either one or two slots open have to do with what kind of bullet was fired? It doesn't, because all the bullets are the same, there are no frozen ice bullets or water-wave bullets. The same bullets form either a bullet pattern or a diffraction light-dark pattern. Does this show our bullet can be either a wave or a particle? No. It shows our "bullet" isn't anything until we get a detection at our receiving-target. And, the pattern we get depends upon whether we observe the slots, or not. (Physicists have invented even more complicated experiments, able to "take pictures" after the "bullets" have gone through the slits. This is called delayed measurement, and it looks like we either have backwards causation or time travel. QM is truly mysterious).

OK, where does ZD fit into all this? I saw it today, it took picking up a book I had set aside 2 years ago. The writer went into the many different interpretations of quantum physics. He emphasized Bohr (Copenhagen interpretation) doesn't say anything about what a quantum thingy is. We only know results from experiments. So a quantum thingy isn't anything we can describe in any way whatsoever. This not-knowing is called a superposition in quantum physics. But it hit me that ZD being adamant that there is no distinction until a mind makes a distinction is very-like this not-knowing what a quantum thingy is, until we see the results on a receiving-target, or otherwise make a measurement. I don't know what else to make of it (yet), but ZD's view is a very good analogy for QM.

Yes, and it's not just an analogy; it's the actual case. If no distinctions are made, THIS remains in a state of infinite superposition, and thingness only comes into being (is brought forth into existence) when there's an observer who makes a distinction. We could say that the act of distinction is what collapses the wave function. A sage is comfortable living in a not-knowing state of mind, and this is what the phrases "non-abidance in mind" and "no-mind" are pointing to.

The conventional statement that physicists make is, "the act of observation collapses the wave function," but this is NOT correct. It is NOT the act of observation that collapses the wave function; it is the act of distinction. Think about it. When a scientist looks into a cloud chamber through which "an ionized particle" has passed, what does she see? Until she makes a distinction, she sees THIS, or "what is" in what we could call "an undistinguished state" or a "stateless state." She can't even talk about what she sees until she distinguishes "tracks in the cloud chamber left by the path of an ionized particle." The same thing is true of a tree. What a tree IS remains in a state of superposition until a distinguisher (NOT an observer) separates that aspect of reality from all else via an act of mind.

The problem for most physicists is that they buy into the idea that reality is composed of separate things being seen by a separate thing. Thinking that reality is composed of separate things, they began searching for the smallest thing that composes everything (every thing). Atoms were initially imagined to be the smallest things, and then atoms had to be imagined as things composed of smaller things (neutrons, protons, electrons), and then those smaller things had to be imagined as composed of yet smaller things (quarks, etc), and this process is still continuing. It's like a dog chasing it own tail.

In a sense a sage goes in the opposite direction from a conventional scientist because a sage discovers that the intellect is what collapses the wave function. The sage reverses the trajectory of dividing reality into imaginary bits and pieces and puts it back together, psychologically, by refusing to imagine it divided into distinct states. Of course, the sage understands that THIS, in the form of humans, can make imaginary distinctions, so she understands the nature of distinctions without attributing the same importance to them as others. She doesn't confuse the distinctions with the underlying unity pointed to with the word "superposition."

This isn't the way the quantum world-classical world works. That's why I said analogy. There are rocks and trees and planets and stars out there. The manifest world has been around 13.8 billion years. Mind or consciousness isn't needed to collapse the wave function. A very big problem in quantum computing is keeping the qubits in superposition until the answer is arrived at.

[justlikeyou]

Jun 7, 2023 6:41:11 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

Jun 6, 2023 7:00:30 GMT -5 zendancer said:

Yes, and it's not just an analogy; it's the actual case. If no distinctions are made, THIS remains in a state of infinite superposition, and thingness only comes into being (is brought forth into existence) when there's an observer who makes a distinction. We could say that the act of distinction is what collapses the wave function. A sage is comfortable living in a not-knowing state of mind, and this is what the phrases "non-abidance in mind" and "no-mind" are pointing to.

The conventional statement that physicists make is, "the act of observation collapses the wave function," but this is NOT correct. It is NOT the act of observation that collapses the wave function; it is the act of distinction. Think about it. When a scientist looks into a cloud chamber through which "an ionized particle" has passed, what does she see? Until she makes a distinction, she sees THIS, or "what is" in what we could call "an undistinguished state" or a "stateless state." She can't even talk about what she sees until she distinguishes "tracks in the cloud chamber left by the path of an ionized particle." The same thing is true of a tree. What a tree IS remains in a state of superposition until a distinguisher (NOT an observer) separates that aspect of reality from all else via an act of mind.

The problem for most physicists is that they buy into the idea that reality is composed of separate things being seen by a separate thing. Thinking that reality is composed of separate things, they began searching for the smallest thing that composes everything (every thing). Atoms were initially imagined to be the smallest things, and then atoms had to be imagined as things composed of smaller things (neutrons, protons, electrons), and then those smaller things had to be imagined as composed of yet smaller things (quarks, etc), and this process is still continuing. It's like a dog chasing it own tail.

In a sense a sage goes in the opposite direction from a conventional scientist because a sage discovers that the intellect is what collapses the wave function. The sage reverses the trajectory of dividing reality into imaginary bits and pieces and puts it back together, psychologically, by refusing to imagine it divided into distinct states. Of course, the sage understands that THIS, in the form of humans, can make imaginary distinctions, so she understands the nature of distinctions without attributing the same importance to them as others. She doesn't confuse the distinctions with the underlying unity pointed to with the word "superposition."

This isn't the way the quantum world-classical world works. That's why I said analogy. There are rocks and trees and planets and stars out there. The manifest world has been around 13.8 billion years. Mind or consciousness isn't needed to collapse the wave function. A very big problem in quantum computing is keeping the qubits in superposition until the answer is arrived at.

Look at the following image with a still mind (the mind of a baby who doesn't know a single word yet. And what do you see? You see one big whole image. No distinctions. Now, only after learning words does the baby begin to see distinctions and name "things" in the room. ZD is always pointing to the same thing that a wise man once said when he said "except ye become as little children" you can not see the kingdom of heaven. That you can not see the forest for the trees.

[zendancer]

Jun 7, 2023 7:12:05 GMT -5 justlikeyou said:

Jun 7, 2023 6:41:11 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

This isn't the way the quantum world-classical world works. That's why I said analogy. There are rocks and trees and planets and stars out there. The manifest world has been around 13.8 billion years. Mind or consciousness isn't needed to collapse the wave function. A very big problem in quantum computing is keeping the qubits in superposition until the answer is arrived at.

Look at the following image with a still mind (the mind of a baby who doesn't know a single word yet. And what do you see? You see one big whole image. No distinctions. Now, only after learning words does the baby begin to see dinsctions and name "things" in the room. ZD is always pointing to the same thing that a wise man once said when he said "except ye become as little children" you can not see the kingdom of heaven. That you can not see the forest for the trees.

Exactly. Most people take the word "existence" to mean "separate things that are physically present," so to say that a tree doesn't exist until it is psychologically divided from THIS, as an abstraction, makes no sense, but that's what sages are pointing to. It will never make sense until one gives up the idea of thingness and realizes/discovers suchness. Again, what's being pointed to is the difference between "what IS" and how "what is" can be imagined/distinguished/cognized/delineated.

[ouroboros]

How could you have ATA-T [localised] tree-thwacking, if supposedly in that situation the tree is in a state of superposition.

[zendancer]

Jun 7, 2023 8:13:54 GMT -5 ouroboros said:

How could you have ATA-T [localised] tree-thwacking, if supposedly in that situation the tree is in a state of superposition.

Tree-thwacking is not tree-thwacking if the intellect is not imagining and distinguishing tree-thwacking as tree-thwacking.

If the mind is quiescent, activity continues just as before but without a mental overlay that interprets everything in the form of images, ideas, and symbols.