1. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39559
    17 Apr '07 07:37
    Poking around for articles on Bell's Theorem, I found this fascinating article:

    Does Objective Reality Exist, or is the Universe a Phantasm?

    In 1982 a remarkable event took place. At the University of Paris a research team led by physicist Alain Aspect performed what may turn out to be one of the most important experiments of the 20th century. You did not hear about it on the evening news. In fact, unless you are in the habit of reading scientific journals you probably have never even heard Aspect's name, though there are some who believe his discovery may change the face of science.
    Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them. It doesn't matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion miles apart. Somehow each particle always seems to know what the other is doing. The problem with this feat is that it violates Einstein's long-held tenet that no communication can travel faster than the speed of light. Since traveling faster than the speed of light is tantamount to breaking the time barrier, this daunting prospect has caused some physicists to try to come up with elaborate ways to explain away Aspect's findings. But it has inspired others to offer even more radical explanations.

    University of London physicist David Bohm, for example, believes Aspect's findings imply that objective reality does not exist, that despite its apparent solidity the universe is at heart a phantasm, a gigantic and splendidly detailed hologram.

    http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~sai/hologram.html#David

    As the article points out, Bohm's thesis is akin to the Eastern BTV view that reality is but an illusion. Thus, experimental results on the cutting edge of quantum mechanics are not only compatible with, but supportive of, the concept of Brahman/Tao/Void.

    Comments?
  2. Joined
    19 Nov '03
    Moves
    31382
    17 Apr '07 08:21
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Poking around for articles on Bell's Theorem, I found this fascinating article:

    Does Objective Reality Exist, or is the Universe a Phantasm?

    In 1982 a remarkable event took place. At the University of Paris a research team led by physicist Alain Aspect performed what may turn out to be one of the most important experiments of the 20th century. Yo ...[text shortened]... ot only compatible with, but supportive of, the concept of Brahman/Tao/Void.

    Comments?
    I have long held that the nature of existence is relative and subjective, both materially and intellectually. The notion that people can describe the universe in any way is only possible by mean agreement on terms and processes, and even then interpretation is only subjective opinion.
  3. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    83887
    17 Apr '07 09:39
    Originally posted by Starrman
    The notion that people can describe the universe in any way is only possible by mean agreement on terms and processes, and even then interpretation is only subjective opinion.
    You have to blow into it.
  4. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    17 Apr '07 09:49
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    As the article points out, Bohm's thesis is akin to the Eastern BTV view that reality is but an illusion. Thus, experimental results on the cutting edge of quantum mechanics are not only compatible with, but supportive of, the concept of Brahman/Tao/Void.

    Comments?
    I think that the reality is that it is only an illusion that the two concepts in question (Bohm's thesis and the Eastern BTV view) are even remotely similar.

    Of course our every day reality is an illusion. We see air as 'space' and solid objects as things where-as the difference is really only a matter of distribution of particles. To an xray many solid objects are as transparent as glass. At the quantum scale elementary particles do not even have an exact position.
    But we mustn't confuse scientific theories and mathematical models with reality. There is often more than one mathematical model which accurately predicts the behavior of physical systems. If you have model A and model B and you discover that model B is a more accurate model for predicting reality it does not mean that reality is model B.
    In mathematics a point on a plane may be accurately described using Cartesian co-ordinates or polar co-ordinates and for some paths such as a circle it is much more elegant to use polar co-ordinates but that does not make the circle an illusion in the Cartesian co-ordinate system nor does it mean that or view of the circle from the Cartesian co-ordinate system an illusion.
  5. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39559
    17 Apr '07 10:082 edits
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I think that the reality is that it is only an illusion that the two concepts in question (Bohm's thesis and the Eastern BTV view) are even remotely similar.

    Of course our every day reality is an illusion. We see air as 'space' and solid objects as things where-as the difference is really only a matter of distribution of particles. To an xray many soli r does it mean that or view of the circle from the Cartesian co-ordinate system an illusion.
    Thanks for the meaningless doubletalk. dj2becker would be proud. It's painfully clear that you didn't bother to read the article or the one I cited in the other thread regarding Bell's Theorem.

    Bohm said this in an interview with Omni:

    Classical physics says that reality is actually little particles that separate the world into its independent elements. Now I'm proposing the reverse, that the fundamental reality is the enfoldment and unfoldment, and these particles are abstractions from that. We could picture the electron not as a particle that exists continuously but as something coming in and going out and then coming in again. If these various condensations are close together, they approximate a track. The electron itself can never be separated from the whole of space, which is its ground.

    http://www.fdavidpeat.com/interviews/bohm.htm


    This sure sounds like BTV to me.

    EDIT: I posted this in the Reincarnation thread:

    Among those who accept Bell's Theorem [all but a small minority according to this and other articles], Dr. David Bohm of the University of London offers three interpretations of what it means: "It may mean that everything in the universe is in a kind of total rapport, so that whatever happens is related to everything else (non-locality); or it may mean that there is some kind of information that can travel faster than the speed of light; or it may mean that our concepts of space and time have to be modified in some way that we don't understand"(London Times, February 20, 1983).

    Bohm's first model, "total rapport," also called non-locality, brings us very close -- very, very close -- to Oriental monism: "All is One," as in Vedanta, Buddhism, and Taoism. It also brings us within hailing distance of Jungian synchronicity, an idea that seems "occult" or worse to most scientists -- even if Wolfgang Pauli, a quantum heavyweight and Nobel laureate, once endorsed it. You can see why New Agers like this; it is argued with unction and plausibility in Fritjof Capra's The Tao of Physics. It means particles are correlated because everything is correlated.

    http://www.gettingit.com/article/266
  6. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    17 Apr '07 10:241 edit
    At first you said that the similarity was in the claim that the universe is an illusion, now you are saying that the similarity is that "all is one".

    What I am trying to say (and I realize that my previous post didn't quite articulate it the way I wanted to) is that our view of reality is necessarily an illusion as it is only a view and not reality. The best we can ever hope for is to find and accurate model.

    [edit]
    If light travels "at the speed of light" then from its point of view it takes no time at all to get where it is going and thus its start point and end point are "one".
  7. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39559
    17 Apr '07 10:331 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    At first you said that the similarity was in the claim that the universe is an illusion, now you are saying that the similarity is that "all is one".

    What I am trying to say (and I realize that my previous post didn't quite articulate it the way I wanted to) is that our view of reality is necessarily an illusion as it is only a view and not reality. Th no time at all to get where it is going and thus its start point and end point are "one".
    Those claims are equivalent in both BTV and Bohm's thesis.

    We're not talking about the POV of the particle travelling the speed of light, but of the observer as Aspect's experiment makes clear.
  8. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52614
    17 Apr '07 15:38
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Those claims are equivalent in both BTV and Bohm's thesis.

    We're not talking about the POV of the particle travelling the speed of light, but of the observer as Aspect's experiment makes clear.
    The thing about instant communications between particles is not exactly earth shaking, it has been known for a long time when two particles are entangled quantumwise, if you let them fly off apart from each other, and later you intercept one of the particles and the act of observation forces the particle to reveal aspects of its existense such as its spin or momentum, the other particle will immediately go to the same state, no matter how far apart they are, they seem to communicate with each other at effectively infinite speed. That was what Einstein referred to when he talked about the 'spooky action at a distance'. It bothered him no end. So this kind of thing was well known way before 1982.
  9. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    17 Apr '07 15:49
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Poking around for articles on Bell's Theorem, I found this fascinating article:

    Does Objective Reality Exist, or is the Universe a Phantasm?

    In 1982 a remarkable event took place. At the University of Paris a research team led by physicist Alain Aspect performed what may turn out to be one of the most important experiments of the 20th century. Yo ...[text shortened]... ot only compatible with, but supportive of, the concept of Brahman/Tao/Void.

    Comments?
    It sounds to me like you've become interested in Eastern philosophies and are now looking for, or paying attention to, research that seems to support that point of view. In other words, you are starting with a specific conclusion in mind and are singling out data which seems to support that conclusion. Where have we seen this approach before?
  10. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39559
    17 Apr '07 16:03
    Originally posted by rwingett
    It sounds to me like you've become interested in Eastern philosophies and are now looking for, or paying attention to, research that seems to support that point of view. In other words, you are starting with a specific conclusion in mind and are singling out data which seems to support that conclusion. Where have we seen this approach before?
    Let's see; ignoring the scientific data - where have we seen this approach before?

    Bell's Theorem is real and creates a major problem for locality and thus relavitivy. Why don't you try and read some of the material rather than dismissing it out of hand? You're starting to sound like a fanatic.

    Although it's irrelevant and NOYFB, my initial interest (as far as these things go) was in trying to understand relativity and quantum mechanics. That these subjects raise philosophical issues is hardly surprising.
  11. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    55256
    17 Apr '07 16:16
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Poking around for articles on Bell's Theorem, I found this fascinating article:

    Does Objective Reality Exist, or is the Universe a Phantasm?

    In 1982 a remarkable event took place. At the University of Paris a research team led by physicist Alain Aspect performed what may turn out to be one of the most important experiments of the 20th century. Yo ...[text shortened]... ot only compatible with, but supportive of, the concept of Brahman/Tao/Void.

    Comments?
    I actually find this quite interesting.
    I'll look into it.
  12. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    17 Apr '07 16:22
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Those claims are equivalent in both BTV and Bohm's thesis.

    We're not talking about the POV of the particle travelling the speed of light, but of the observer as Aspect's experiment makes clear.
    Since I think you’re going for the “big picture” here, I’ll throw this into the mix—

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amit_Goswami

    In the late 1980s Goswami developed an idealist interpretation of quantum mechanics, inspired in part by philosophical ideas drawn from Advaita Vedanta and theosophy. Calling his theory "monistic idealism", he claims it is not only "the basis of all religions worldwide" but also the correct philosophy for modern science. In contrast to materialistic conventional science, he claims that universal consciousness, not matter, is the ground of all existence, in congruence with mystic sages. Consciousness, deemed as the precursor of physicality, arises from conscious observation through a process intimately connected to wavefunction collapse in a quantum measurement. Once the assumption that there is an objective reality independent of consciousness is put aside, the paradoxes of quantum physics are explainable, according to Goswami.[1]

    ......

    "Mystics, contrary to religionists, are always saying that reality is not two things -God and the world- but one thing, consciousness. […] The problem with science has always been that most scientists believe that science must be done within a different monistic framework, one based on the primacy of matter. […] quantum physics showed us that we must change that myopic prejudice of scientists, otherwise we cannot comprehend quantum physics. So now we have science within consciousness, a new paradigm of science based on the primacy of consciousness that is gradually replacing the old materialist science. […] the new paradigm resolves many […] paradoxes of the old paradigm and explains much anomalous data."

    ________________________________

    To be fair, I also looked at this article called “Quantum Quakery”—

    http://www.csicop.org/si/9701/quantum-quackery.html

    In fact, superluminal signal propagation has been proven to be impossible in any theory consistent with conventional relativity and quantum mechanics (Eberhard and Ross 1989).

    .....

    Quantum mechanics, the centerpiece of modern physics, is misinterpreted as implying that the human mind controls reality and that the universe is one connected whole that cannot be understood by the usual reduction to parts.

    However, no compelling argument or evidence requires that quantum mechanics plays a central role in human consciousness or provides instantaneous, holistic connections across the universe. Modern physics, including quantum mechanics, remains completely materialistic and reductionistic while being consistent with all scientific observations.

    _________________________________

    Also, these background wiki articles—

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_causes_collapse

    The second one has a list of pro and con articles on the web.

    __________________________________

    I look forward to following the discussion...
  13. Joined
    15 Oct '06
    Moves
    10115
    17 Apr '07 18:401 edit
    For yet another perspective, "Faith, Physics and Psychology" by John Medina looks at Bohm, Descartes, Newtown, and Maslow amongst others in a rethinking of society that points strongly toward the Baha'i Faith. It is well considered and holds up reasonably well. If nothing else it provides a lot of food for thought as it covers a lot of territory.
  14. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    Just another day
    tinyurl.com/y8wgt7a5
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    17 Apr '07 20:20
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    The thing about instant communications between particles is not exactly earth shaking, it has been known for a long time when two particles are entangled quantumwise, if you let them fly off apart from each other, and later you intercept one of the particles and the act of observation forces the particle to reveal aspects of its existense such as its spin o ...[text shortened]... at a distance'. It bothered him no end. So this kind of thing was well known way before 1982.
    Right. The reason this isn't in conflict with relativity is that no information can be transferred via this instantaneous communication, I believe.
  15. Joined
    15 Oct '06
    Moves
    10115
    17 Apr '07 20:212 edits
    I meant to mention that Medina proposes "...experimental results on the cutting edge of quantum mechanics are not only compatible with, but supportive of, the concept of..." God rather than that of "Brahman/Tao/Void."

    Perhaps there's no getting away from all these theories of what the 'ultimate reality' might be. I'm not sure why so many are compelled to take a definitive stance. Perhaps it's just foolishness.
Back to Top