Buddhism and quantum theory are one and the same

Originally posted by clearlight
THE FOLLOWING IS A REPLY TO YOUR LAST POST - MY PREVIOUS POST IS A REPLY TO YOUR PRECEEDING POST-

This is not correct - see my previous post. As Wigner, Bell, Everett, Wheeler and many others have concluded - all remain superposed until an observing consciousness intervenes. Even people who desperately do not want to beleive this - Penrose for exampl ...[text shortened]... y special person. But why do you think that these extraordinary talented people are so deluded?

I don't think the view that consciousness has a central role in quantum physics is as popular as you would make it seem. The more pragmatic approach I support is derived from a textbook by Griffiths.

I think these people are deluded because it seems very arrogant to me to believe that humans and/or conscious beings in general are so important in nature. In the early days of the universe, quantum physics was as valid as it is today. It didn't suddenly change upon the evolution of conscious beings, that's just absurd. Suggesting that humans specifically, and not cats, are conscious seems even more naive to me.

Originally posted by clearlight
Actually the mapping between the correct interpretation of quantum theory and the Buddhist Madhyamaka philosophy are absolutely precise and profound and go well beyond anything Gell-mann speculated upon. Buddism has known all this stuff for 2.5 thousand years and has only been waiting for the rest of you to catch up. Buddhist philosophers knew about the Q ...[text shortened]... ects, implicate/explicate and quantum darwinism eons ago - they just had different words for it.

Therefore, my brother 'Od Gsal,

which answer based on your scientific facts and evidence can you offer me once I ask where exactly in my consiousnesses can I locate the centre of the visualisation of the zhikhro Iha that I may see at the last three bardos?
Which way, according to the quantum theory, can I ngo-shes-pa these visualisations of mine just as such?
And at what partition of my consciousness this Knowledge of mine will be saved, and which way may I recall it at the next bardos after the three last ones?
😵

THIS IS IN RESPONSE TO A FEW POSTS BACK:

1) and 2) are not the same - they are defined to be different. If you believe that there is nothing but 'matter' underliying the experiential continuums of sentient beings please define matter and tell me how it produces the illusion of mentality, mind and awareness. If you can do this you should get a Nobel prize because no one else in the consciousness studies community has achieved this despite their best efforts.

By the way I DO understand quantum physics precisely because I understand Buddhist philosophy. It is only not understandable to people who expect the world to be classical.

These definitions seem a little dubious:

"1) matter - this is a substance extended in space, it fills space and does not have the quality of experiential awareness.

2) consciousness or mind - this is not extended in space but has the essential nature of experiential awareness and thought."

By including these statements in your definitions, and then using your definitions to demonstrate these statements, aren't you reasoning in a circular manner? Also, doesn't the idea that the ethereal pulls the puppet-strings of the material run headlong into the mind-body problem? What precisely would the interface between the two consists of? And why would the interface only exist between some disembodied consciousness and matter in a certain configuration? And yhy would we observe a continuum of conscious behaviours throughout the animal kingdom, from mosquito to puppy to gorilla to human? It seems more reasonable that consciousness is an emergent property of certain complex systems, and that the term "observer" in quantum theory needs some clarification.

Very strange indeed - "preposterous" even, as described by the investigating scientists - but possibly extra fodder for this thread:

http://www.economist.com/science/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=13226725

(originally posted by ephineas in the Science Forum)

Originally posted by clearlight
THIS IS IN RESPONSE TO A FEW POSTS BACK:

1) and 2) are not the same - they are defined to be different. If you believe that there is nothing but 'matter' underliying the experiential continuums of sentient beings please define matter and tell me how it produces the illusion of mentality, mind and awareness. If you can do this you should get a Nobel ...[text shortened]... one else in the consciousness studies community has achieved this despite their best efforts.

The burden of proof is not on me. The mind may be a very popular philosophical construct, but it's just that. There is no reason to believe there is more than just matter (which I'm conveniently defining as all particles in the universe(s?)) and there is no reason to believe consciousness stems from anything other than simply the wiring in your brain (and the "brains" of other conscious beings). That does not mean we understand consciousness completely, but that's no proof for the existence of the mind, the spirit, or whatever you may call it.

Originally posted by clearlight
By the way I DO understand quantum physics precisely because I understand Buddhist philosophy. It is only not understandable to people who expect the world to be classical.

I think the key philosophical concept you can distill from quantum physics is the indeterminacy of the universe. Other than that, it's simply a more accurate description of the world than classical physics.

'Matter' is as much a 'philosophical' concept as 'mind' but if you mean by the term 'matter' what Descartes meant by it, it does not exist - quantum physics has clearly shown that. I repeat a previous question - name one significant quantum physicist who clearly supports your position that material particles are the ultimate constituents of reality.

Furthemore - what do you mean by indeterminacy? Do you mean we cannot know whether the universe is composed of mind or matter, but you said that the universe was primarily 'matter'. Do you mean that we cannot know what 'matter' is, if so then how can we know that the universe is comprised of 'matter'. Your assertions are full of incoherence and confusion.

Originally posted by clearlight
'Matter' is as much a 'philosophical' concept as 'mind' but if you mean by the term 'matter' what Descartes meant by it, it does not exist - quantum physics has clearly shown that. I repeat a previous question - name one significant quantum physicist who clearly supports your position that material particles are the ultimate constituents of reality.

F is comprised of 'matter'. Your assertions are full of incoherence and confusion.

I defined "matter" for the purposes of my argument in that post. Your argument of authority is flawed; although surely there will be quantum physicists who support my position, it does not matter as they are only qualified in the field of physics, not philosophy.

By indeterminacy I mean you cannot predict the future with absolute certainty.

We cannot know that the universe only consists of matter. But things that are not matter cannot be measured and are therefore metaphysical and thus irrelevant.

YOU SAID - I defined "matter" for the purposes of my argument in that post.
I SAY - Generally people who try and have some kind of mutually beneficial discourse try to use common defintions in order to reach some kind of conclusion. If you insist in using your own defintions then you can say whatever you like with impunity because you are defining your own terms, as you say in your post, 'for your own purposes'. This is not a valid philosophical procedure, unless you only want to debate with yourself. I am happy to use the established definitons derived from Descartes. If I need to make new definitions I clearly indicate this fact and will give the definitions clearly, this you seem to refuse to do.

YOU SAID - Your argument of authority is flawed; although surely there will be quantum physicists who support my position
I SAY - this is speculation. In your discussions so far I have always supported my assertions regarding the existence of quantum physicists who support my position by giving both their names and also quotes from them to show that my assertions are correct. You have never supplied a shred of support for any of the assertions that you make. Furthermore, when I clearly show that you are mistaken, as when I showed that a large number of eminient quantum physicists support the viewpoint that the nature of reality is mind not matter you do not acknowledge the point, you simply move on to another unsubstantiated claim.

YOU SAID - it does not matter as they are only qualified in the field of physics, not philosophy.
I SAY - Do you wish me to give a list of philosophers who have concluded that the nature of reality is mind not matter. The vast majority of them DO reach this conclusion. Philosophers who do not reach this conclusion, such as Dan Dennett and friends, can easiliy be shown to be incoherent.


YOU SAID - By indeterminacy I mean you cannot predict the future with absolute certainty.
I SAY - I agree with you on this point.

YOU SAID - We cannot know that the universe only consists of matter. But things that are not matter cannot be measured and are therefore metaphysical and thus irrelevant.
I SAY - The concept of 'matter' is also metaphysical. Furthermore, as I have repeatedly indicated, all quantum physicists that I know of say that 'classical' type matter does not exist. So far you have not provided any further definition of 'matter'. Neither have you given the name of one physicist who supports your position.

I fail to see how you can possibly think you are doing very well in supporting any of your claims in this debate.

Is the value of h defined in Buddhist texts?

Originally posted by clearlight
YOU SAID - I defined "matter" for the purposes of my argument in that post.
I SAY - Generally people who try and have some kind of mutually beneficial discourse try to use common defintions in order to reach some kind of conclusion. If you insist in using your own defintions then you can say whatever you like with impunity because you are defining your ...[text shortened]... ossibly think you are doing very well in supporting any of your claims in this debate.

I am happy to use the established definitons derived from Descartes.

Esthablished? Come on, Descartes' ideas are perhaps understandable in the context of his time, but who takes religious and determinist philosophers seriously these days?

as when I showed that a large number of eminient quantum physicists support the viewpoint that the nature of reality is mind not matter

Once again, this doesn't matter. Some quantum physicists may even believe in a god, does that mean gods exist? Of course not.

Philosophers who do not reach this conclusion, such as Dan Dennett and friends, can easiliy be shown to be incoherent.

But you haven't shown that I am incoherent. You just keep reiterating your arguments based on authority.

The concept of 'matter' is also metaphysical.

No. If I say "matter is all the particles in the universe" then this implies they can be measured.

Originally posted by clearlight
Now we need to determine exactly what the ontological nature of the wavefunction is. Acccording to Descartes there are two possible ontological aspects that may be ascribed to reality (I cannot think of a third which is independent of these two):

1) matter - this is a substance extended in space, it fills space and does not have the quality of experie ...[text shortened]... highly regarded - despite his lunatic notion of quantum gravity causing collapse) people do not.

Descartes is merely another dualist and he offers just his personal configuration, "matter and spirit", which it long ago went down the drain. I accept this configuration just for the sake of the conversation;

It seems to me that the wavefunction is a representation; and I know that matter can change/ transformed into energy. Therefore methinks that thanks to the Science of Today we are free to conclude that "1" and "2" must be either a wrong assertion or that they are just the same, or that they have a relation which for the time being is not possible to be answered by scientific means and evidence (ie, the relation between the so called body and and the so called soul).
Therefore, either the wavefunction is encompassed by "1" and "2" at the same time, or it cannot exist itself at all because matter has dynamic potentialities too due to the fact that it can be transformed into energy.

Well, let's suppose now that "energy" is "consiousness" and that "body" is "matter". Does your theory can offer me by scientific means and evidence the essence of the relation "body-mind/ body-soul" as expressed by the Gampodar gterma?
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Descartes is merely another dualist and he offers just his personal configuration, "matter and spirit", which it long ago went down the drain. I accept this configuration just for the sake of the conversation;

It seems to me that the wavefunction is a representation; and I know that matter can change/ transformed into energy. Therefore methinks that ...[text shortened]... e relation "body-mind/ body-soul" as expressed by the Gampodar gterma?
😵

Matter and energy are just different manifestations of the same thing. Energy comes in packets which are carried by particles.