Quantum Systems and Spirituality

[Forestluv]

We are fortunate to have a physicist with expertise in Quantum Systems on the forum. As well, we may have other members with expertise on the spiritual side. By request, let's start a thread for exploration and integration.

For those of us new to Quantum systems, I encourage you to watch Leo's video:

 

[Forestluv]

I'll start the ball rolling with a couple questions for @graded24:

As a preface, I have little knowledge in Quantum Systems - yet I find it fascinating. Almost like a bridge from science to mysticism.

First, the stereotype of science is that it is limited to materialism, yet Quantum Mechanics seems to include both. For example, there is the basic idea that a material entity can have an immaterial superposition. For example, could one imagine an electron as both form and formless - the formless takes form upon observation? Or, would it be better to use a more classic scientific view in that energy is neither created or destroyed - only transformed. Here, one could one imagine an unobserved electron is an energy field of possible positions and upon observation that energy is transformed into a physical particle? Similar to chemical energy in a car being transformed into kinetic energy? 

[graded24]

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

I'll start the ball rolling with a couple questions for @graded24:

As a preface, I have little knowledge in Quantum Systems - yet I find it fascinating. Almost like a bridge from science to mysticism.

First, the stereotype of science is that it is limited to materialism, yet Quantum Mechanics seems to include both. For example, there is the basic idea that a material entity can have an immaterial superposition. For example, could one imagine an electron as both form and formless - the formless takes form upon observation? Or, would it be better to use a more classic scientific view in that energy is neither created or destroyed - only transformed. Here, one could one imagine an unobserved electron is an energy field of possible positions and upon observation that energy is transformed into a physical particle? Similar to chemical energy in a car being transformed into kinetic energy? 

I don't think science itself is limited to materialism, but yeh, most scientists do have the  working metaphysics of materialism. They consider any sway from materialism as a slippery slope to pseudo-sciences. Since there is a legitimate basis for this concern it is a hard nut to crack. Keep in mind that most scientists are not spiritual, so there is just no way of getting them out of materialist metaphysics. What is strange is, physics heavily relies on maths, and math is anything but materialistic. But most do not see this strangeness. In short, Leo is quite accurate in his bashing of academic circles.

Whether or not electron was formless before an observation happened is an open question within physics and is considered under the subfield of 'Interpretation of Quantum Physics'. People still do not know exactly what happens in the process of observation.  I would say that it is best to not take away the reality of electrons before observation, because whatever it is, it is very well defined. Just call it 'quantum reality', as opposed to the more familiar, 'classical reality'. 

Imagine quatum reality as a 'fuzzy reality' where things are uncertain: particles can be both here AND  there, spins can be both up AND down etc. It is different from our day to day classical reality in which things are certain. A ball is either here OR there. (notice the difference between OR and AND). It is like how when you zoom in on a picture, it becomes fuzzy. In a very similar manner, when we zoom in on the universe, things are fuzzy.

At this point confusion arises: people tend to think that things are fuzzy because we cant investigate them down to their last details at such small scales.  That is not the case at all. They are fuzzy because that is what they are, that is their very reality. That is what quantum reality is. Quantum objects satisfy all qualifications of being Real. They have quantum properties that can be  calculated and measured to an unbelievable accuracy.  So what all this means is, quantum reality is extremely accurate as quantum reality, but when you try to impose your classical reality on  it, it looks fuzzy to you. It is the reality of the particle to be both here and there. It is YOU who want it to here or there and call  it weird when it is not.  Imagine if we were visited by creature from the quatum realm. She would look at us and say 'wow pretty weird reality. Everything is definite'.

No, observation is not related to transfer of energy. However there is a transfer of classical-ness/quantum-ness when observation happens.  When you, a big classical being, observe an electron, you transfer your classical definiteness  to the electron and make it classical as well. The electron stops being quantum (both here and there) and becomes classical (here or there). 

So if you want to contemplate on physics, try to imagine what it is like for one thing to be many things at once! Because that is how physical Reality is at the most fundamental level. 

Edited November 12, 2018 by graded24

[graded24]

Here is another perspective on it. English was developed by our minds to discuss classical reality. When you try to fit quantum reality into English, it doesnt make much sense.  There is another language suitable for quantum objects, where no such confusions arise, and that language is mathematics. Why we humans are capable of speaking the language of the quantum realm, is a big mystery! 

For example, Here is how you would write an electron that is both here and there (say at distance x):   |e> = |0> + |x> . 
As a mathematical statement is perfectly meaningful sentence. Problems arise when you try to translate it into English. 

[Aimblack]

@graded24 I think I love you.

 

[electroBeam]

A Scientist and an Artist Walks into a bar...

The scientist is socially awkward, got scraggly, untrimmed hair which never ceases to go beyond the imagination of the people around him. He triumphs forth with his chemical cups and flasks, and as confident as an alpha ape, gets out his equipment and takes very precise, measurable data on the phenomena he's looking at. He believes that the power of the universe is in understanding reality as deeply as possible, he's a post rationalist, and makes his living giving lectures about deep epistemological insight about reality. He cared about his work so much that he called it a secret name, a name that sounds spiritual to remind him of how deep his work is. He called it 'CHIT'. Yet there was one problem, his best friend was dying of cancer, and all he did and cared about was pray to Jesus. No matter how much the scientist proclaimed to his friend "jesus is an illusion in the mind, all there is, is the one omnipresent god, do not pray to jesus for he is an illusion" it had no effect on the best friend's mental state. The wise old scientist felt depressed. No matter how hard he tried, he couldn't cure his friend. 

Then a woman with long, very straight, very curtailed hair walks in. she's wearing a spotted vest, full of paint. He clothe's are ragged but beautiful, sort of a wabi-sabi style. She believes the point of life, rather, is to make life highly emotionally/feely energetic. She makes emotionally captivating paintings about god, how beautiful her body is, how compassionate his heart is, how wise his mind is. Everyone cries at the sight of her paintings, so much so that their worlds disappear, and bathe in the beauty of the energy. She cared about her work so much that she called it a secret name, a name that sounds spiritual to remind her of how deep her work is. She called it 'ANANDA'. Yet there was one problem, she was so creative, that she was starting to loose her mind. She couldn't tell right from wrong, truth from falsehood, she felt like she was turning schizophrenic. 

 

The scientist spots the woman, drawing on a canvas, for what he couldn't see as it was facing her and not him, and laughs "how do you waste so much time drawing bullshit on a canvas" he disgustedly proclaimed. "All you do is draw delusion after delusion, when will you grow up?".

The woman proclaims "how are you so cold and harsh! All you do is measure and measure, yet do you even know why you measure?, I'm drawing heart and soul, and this is my greatest painting yet!"

The main arrogantly smirks, and for curiosity, looks to see what she's drawing. He first giggled at the sight, but then contemplated closer. It was a brown haired man, slightly tanned. The scientist had no choice but to admit, it may be bullshit, but it was the most beautiful bullshit he had ever seen, he couldn't resist but to drop a few tears. "Its Jesus" proudly explained the woman. 

The scientist gave a few tips, "you know, if you add a few more wrinkles to his face, you could make the painting look that bit more realistic and ..." the scientist continued on. The woman was delighted to get such sound advice!

The conversation got so deep that the woman even asked about her psychosis and how to resolve it, of course the scientist knew all about delusion, and so he explained. The scientist also had a brilliant idea to show this picture to his friend dying of cancer, which made both him and his friend feel profoundly fulfilled in life.

They ended up living their life together, feeling complete. 

The woman and the scientist ended up marrying and having 1 child, later known as the buddha. He use to sit under a tree a lot meditating, so they called him 'SAT'. He was the union of both, ANANDA and CHIT, the perfect balance. 

'the end'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satcitananda

Edited November 12, 2018 by electroBeam

[Forestluv]

@graded24 Great stuff. Thank you. The part about the quantum world appearing "fuzzy" is awesome. The human mind has millions of years of evolution to easily understand a macro environment. As well, humans get conditioned from birth to conceptualize a macro world: object : subject, motion, gravity etc. It's like we develop a maco lens for the world and when we try to focus on something close-up - the image is fuzzy. 

I remember when the internet arose - conceptually it was mindblowing. It took a while to process new ways of looking at reality. Yet, kids today need zero processing - digital phenomena just is. They have no more difficulty accepting nearly instantaneous transfer of images across the world as they have accepting the sandwich they are eating. Both simply are. I wonder if children were taught concepts like superposition - they would easily accept and grasp it - since they have no prior lens to make it "fuzzy". They are taught Europe is a continent on the other side of the world - they accept it no problem. They are taught the earth revolves around the sun - they accept it no problem. What if they are taught one thing can be many things at once? I bet they would accept it no problem.

From my experience in cellular biology, assumptions and dogma is most strongly ingrained in the "old guard". I'd say young scientists are more open to new discoveries, looking at things differently and progressing into new frontiers. Yet it seems their zealous nature is prone to drifting off into what some call "pseudo science". I'm curious of the "old guard" physicists put up more resistance than the young budding physicists.

As well, you mentioned the language of math is better suited to convey quantum phenomena. I often hear nonduality teachers say that "It" cannot be explained in words - that words are inherently dualistic. The words only point to what cannot be described with words. I'm curious if you think it is similar with quantum mechanics. Are words inherently unable to describe quantum phenomena? Or language simply lagging behind? If quantum phenomena became mainstream, could new English words / concepts arise to communicate it on par with the language of math? English has evolved to communicate other physical phenomena such as electricity, magnetism, gravity, Could English evolve to communicate quantum phenomena?

[electroBeam]

@graded24

but the mathematical language is definitely not 'fuzzy' either. 

The mathematical language is a typical formal system which inherents clearly defined, consistent sets of rules for how a particular idea is to behave. From what you are describing in the 'fuzzy' sense, it seems like the electrons are performing inconsistently, and unclearly. Furthermore, as you said above, this is not due to our inability to measure precisely, but because the very nature of the system itself inherets inconsistency and undefined behaviours. 

Quantum physcicists try to get away with this problem by using the theory of probability, but see I personally believe they are using the wrong tool for the wrong job. Probability was designed to define things which we couldn't measure accurately, in quantum mechanics this is not the case. 

Am I wrong in these assertions and if so why?

[graded24]

2 hours ago, Ero said:

To start a discussion, I have several questions :

Does the engagement in scientific intellectual process hinder in some way the peace /nondual understanding you have? After all you think within models. 

 To some extent, yes. But i dont think it has to do with modeling.  Physics is a LOT OF analytical thinking. Over time it becomes a habit. So switching between physics and nonduality can be difficult for this reason. 

Quote

It came up that post-rational science is the bridge to spirituality - else it's a dogmatic approach - trying to fit reality in a box. How can the scientific landscape progress from the rational standpoint. 

This is going to be a challenge. It is not at all clear what post-rational science would look like. Science means a very high bar against falsehood. As long as you can maintain that, there can be a hope. 
 

Quote

I myself am still learning quantum physics (not systems yet), but I can see a lot of the misconceptions, called "quantum fantasy". How can scientists change the misconception, spread all around. 

That is great! Which book are you using?
They can try doing what I am doing. But it is difficult. First,  scientists can be pretty closed minded themselves to even engage with non-materialist viewpoint. Almost all of them see consciousness as a by-product of the brain. So they feel materialism is the end of story pretty much. Second, even if they try it is hard to  convey ideas accurately  to the general public without being too technical. Physics has this problem more than any other science because "true" physics is actually just math. No words. And a very abstract math at that. As soon as you translate it into general language, you are bound to run into fantasies and falsehoods. 
 

Quote

This is more about the metaphysics and epistemology of science :

Because I love visualising phenomenona to understand them, I always reach the base of the rational science. I can't get behind certain assumptions, such as that the nature of a particular particle is such and such. I mean the easiest - why da fck would those particles interact. Hmm their respective force fields, okay. But what are those exactly? or the energy - mass connection. How should I imagine that. How does a post - rationalist tackle that? 

(not the particular explanation, but the process of making sense of phenomenona) 

I know what you're saying. Things, statements, don't feel intuitive until you can visualize them.  But you must be able to see that our visualization is so very limited that it cannot possibly be a test of what is legitimate what is not. For example, can you visualize a 4 dimensional sphere? I sure cant. But can i calculate and hence make statements about its surface areas and its volume? I sure can. 
Physics is mathematics. Rest are just stories, mnemonics if you will, to aid to or to shorten the mathematical calculations. 
 

[graded24]

54 minutes ago, electroBeam said:

@graded24

but the mathematical language is definitely not 'fuzzy' either. 

The mathematical language is a typical formal system which inherents clearly defined, consistent sets of rules for how a particular idea is to behave. From what you are describing in the 'fuzzy' sense, it seems like the electrons are performing inconsistently, and unclearly. Furthermore, as you said above, this is not due to our inability to measure precisely, but because the very nature of the system itself inherets inconsistency and undefined behaviours. 

Quantum physcicists try to get away with this problem by using the theory of probability, but see I personally believe they are using the wrong tool for the wrong job. Probability was designed to define things which we couldn't measure accurately, in quantum mechanics this is not the case. 

Am I wrong in these assertions and if so why?

I am not exactly sure what you are trying to say. The mathematical system is not fuzzy, no. And that's the reason for me calling quantum objects every bit as Real as anything else. 
I dont think electrons are performing inconsistently. They look inconsistent only if you approach them with a wrong assumption about reality. For example, lets imagine you say that objects should have a certain position. I ask you to make it more precise. So you say, 'position of an object is a real number, like x=2.5'. Notice that it is mathematical statement which matches with our physical intuition.  But now, i can forget about the physical intuition and ask mathematically, 'why should it be a real number? What if it is a matrix-- a collection of 4 real numbers? like  x= [ 1.5, 2; 3.3 5] " . And indeed it turns out that position of quantum objects is a matrix not a number. So you see, mathematically all i did was to generalize the classical idea of position and it is still well defined, but now we dont know how to physically interpret it anymore. But who cares if it gives me all the right results when i do the experiments? Would you call this inconsistent or consistent? It is only inconsistent if you insist that position must be a real number. But what is the basis of saying that? Only your experience with classical reality. 

Actually quantum physicist do not really use probability theory. The quantum objects need no probabilities in them. They are defined on their own. Probability enters only when you perform an experiment and, you being classical, want to know the classical outcome. Only hen probability theory is used to predict the outcome. 

[electroBeam]

9 minutes ago, graded24 said:

 But who cares if it gives me all the right results when i do the experiments?

Firstly, I think where we are disagreeing here is our understanding of what mathematics is.

The materialist paradigm is an ideology. It contains properties commonly found in ideologies, because it is one. Its a system that contains a bunch of assumptions (called definitions) and rules for which these assumptions can interact with each other. The whole reason why quantum mechanics isn't working is simply because these definitions and rules are not conforming to empirical evaluations. 

What I'm saying is, and this is where we may disagree, mathematics is also an ideology. It contains a set of rules that must be followed, and a set of definitions. Where the beauty comes in with mathematics is that its a highly flexible ideology. It can describe many things because it's definitions are not constrained to specific physical gross phenomena, unlike the materialistic paradigm. you can allow x = a position, amount of apples you have, qualitative features like somebody's mood, etc. This is why Plato loved mathematics so much, because it was so flexible that he mistakenly confused it as the language of god. 

But its still an ideology. Really what I am asking is, does mathematics, with all its rules and definitions, really have the power and right form to explain quantum mechanics consistently? Of course you could twist your way into making it true, to some extent at least, by coming up with weird definitions like matrices describing a position, but is this because reality is adhering to the laws of mathematics, or because you want it to and so you're putting in the effort to twist reality into the mathematical paradigm?

Also yes the mathematical formulas and models may be working in quantum mechanics, and may be giving you the correct results, but the whole point to having a theory is so that the human race has an understanding of how reality is working. Abstract thought (or 'mathematics' as you are using the term in your responses) do not provide this understanding. They provide results, and instructions for how to get those results, but this is simply just observing thought phenomena, this is not understanding anything. 

[graded24]

27 minutes ago, electroBeam said:

Firstly, I think where we are disagreeing here is our understanding of what mathematics is.

The materialist paradigm is an ideology. It contains properties commonly found in ideologies, because it is one. Its a system that contains a bunch of assumptions (called definitions) and rules for which these assumptions can interact with each other. The whole reason why quantum mechanics isn't working is simply because these definitions and rules are not conforming to empirical evaluations. 

What I'm saying is, and this is where we may disagree, mathematics is also an ideology. It contains a set of rules that must be followed, and a set of definitions. Where the beauty comes in with mathematics is that its a highly flexible ideology. It can describe many things because it's definitions are not constrained to specific physical gross phenomena, unlike the materialistic paradigm. you can allow x = a position, amount of apples you have, qualitative features like somebody's mood, etc. This is why Plato loved mathematics so much, because it was so flexible that he mistakenly confused it as the language of god. 

But its still an ideology. Really what I am asking is, does mathematics, with all its rules and definitions, really have the power and right form to explain quantum mechanics consistently? Of course you could twist your way into making it true, to some extent at least, by coming up with weird definitions like matrices describing a position, but is this because reality is adhering to the laws of mathematics, or because you want it to and so you're putting in the effort to twist reality into the mathematical paradigm?

Also yes the mathematical formulas and models may be working in quantum mechanics, and may be giving you the correct results, but the whole point to having a theory is so that the human race has an understanding of how reality is working. Abstract thought (or 'mathematics' as you are using the term in your responses) do not provide this understanding. They provide results, and instructions for how to get those results, but this is simply just observing thought phenomena, this is not understanding anything. 

In short the answer would be, may be there will be something beyond mathematics which would help us understand quantum mechanics better than we do today, but it's just that it is the best we got at the moment. 
I dont think people are 'twisting reality into mathematical paradigm' when it comes to physics. It may be true for other sciences when mathematical models are forced upon a data. Physics is as if the natural laws were actually written in mathematics. Mathematics is "unreasonably effective" in explaining physics. Note that it didnt have to be this way. It could have been that mathematics was about as effective in explaining atoms as it is in explaining humans (which is not effective at all). But it just so happens that this is not the case. The more fundamental you go, the more accurate mathematical predictions become. 

I share your skepticism of whether or not physics really "understands" reality. But the problem is, what would you call understanding something in any case? When you can explain things in an intuitive common sense way? That cant be it. 
And how do you know whether quantum mechanics is just 'providing results' ? May be it is pointing to the way things actually are and it is just that the way we can verify it is by getting results. 

[electroBeam]

@graded24 interesting points, especially the last paragraph.

29 minutes ago, graded24 said:

 The more fundamental you go, the more accurate mathematical predictions become. 

Wow, if what you are saying is true, that's very strange to me. Maybe I am assuming something that isn't actually true. 

I'm definitely aware of chaos theory though. A pendulum behaves appropriately with newtonian physics, but when you do something like add a double pendulum, newtonian physics stops predicting the right thing.

But if quantum mechanics is predicting things more accurately the closer you zoom in, then that's the opposite effect of newtonian physics (newtonian physics predicts more accurately the more you zoom out).

 

Yeah its a tough one, why is mathematics aligning with empirical knowledge? Like why? What is so special about the laws of mathematics? Surely you can't just make up a formal system like mathematics and expect it to have the ability to predict empirical phenomena?

[graded24]

4 minutes ago, electroBeam said:

@graded24 interesting points, especially the last paragraph.

Wow, if what you are saying is true, that's very strange to me. Maybe I am assuming something that isn't actually true. 

I'm definitely aware of chaos theory though. A pendulum behaves appropriately with newtonian physics, but when you do something like add a double pendulum, newtonian physics stops predicting the right thing.

But if quantum mechanics is predicting things more accurately the closer you zoom in, then that's the opposite effect of newtonian physics (newtonian physics predicts more accurately the more you zoom out).

 

Yeah its a tough one, why is mathematics aligning with empirical knowledge? Like why? What is so special about the laws of mathematics? Surely you can't just make up a formal system like mathematics and expect it to have the ability to predict empirical phenomena?

It is quite a mystery to all physicists why the more fundamental you go, the  purer thought (mathematical object can be looked as units of pure thought) becomes more applicable.  There is a classically famous essay on it:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness_of_Mathematics_in_the_Natural_Sciences 

You are exactly right: predictions in newtonian mechanics are more accurate the more you zoom out while opposite is true in quantum mechanics. Magnetic moment of electron is an example of this. Its value was predicted with 99.9999999% accuracy by quantum mechanical calculations way before it was actually measured. 

This has made many people say that reality on the most fundamental level is pure mathematical. There is no substance there, just mathematical objects. This would match up nicely with nondual worldview. 

[electroBeam]

8 minutes ago, graded24 said:

It is quite a mystery to all physicists why the more fundamental you go, the  purer thought (mathematical object can be looked as units of pure thought) becomes more applicable.  There is a classically famous essay on it:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness_of_Mathematics_in_the_Natural_Sciences 

You are exactly right: predictions in newtonian mechanics are more accurate the more you zoom out while opposite is true in quantum mechanics. Magnetic moment of electron is an example of this. Its value was predicted with 99.9999999% accuracy by quantum mechanical calculations way before it was actually measured. 

This has made many people say that reality on the most fundamental level is pure mathematical. There is no substance there, just mathematical objects. This would match up nicely with nondual worldview. 

+1 +1 nice share thanks!

Yeah abstract thought (the thing underneathe mathematics) feels a lot like post rational insight to me rather than typical scientific information. Maybe there's a link going on?

In fact franklin merrel wolfs book has a lot of detail on abstract thought and its relationship to deep existential insight/absolute reality. Of course you always get frustrated because reading things like this though, because no matter how hard you contemplate, and no matter how close you get, you never get to the answer. Its like a pot at the end of a rainbow. 

[graded24]

3 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

As well, you mentioned the language of math is better suited to convey quantum phenomena. I often hear nonduality teachers say that "It" cannot be explained in words - that words are inherently dualistic. The words only point to what cannot be described with words. I'm curious if you think it is similar with quantum mechanics. Are words inherently unable to describe quantum phenomena? Or language simply lagging behind? If quantum phenomena became mainstream, could new English words / concepts arise to communicate it on par with the language of math? English has evolved to communicate other physical phenomena such as electricity, magnetism, gravity, Could English evolve to communicate quantum phenomena?

I mean we have to keep in mind that math is also just a language on one level. IT is a collection of symbols pointing to other things. So in that sense, language is not lagging behind quantum mechanics. It has been formulated in a language, just that it is a special kind of language. But is that a surprise? 

I have wondered about it quite a bit.  I wonder if a mathematical language can be developed to formulate Nonduality, and THEN it CAN be communicated, just like quantum mechanics is now.  Because nondual teachers have never been mathematically inclined perhaps it was never tried. But mathematics is quite powerful, it has the ability to convey extremely complex, often paradoxical ideas in a consistent manner. 

[Forestluv]

3 minutes ago, graded24 said:

I mean we have to keep in mind that math is also just a language on one level. IT is a collection of symbols pointing to other things. So in that sense, language is not lagging behind quantum mechanics. It has been formulated in a language, just that it is a special kind of language. But is that a surprise? 

I have wondered about it quite a bit.  I wonder if a mathematical language can be developed to formulate Nonduality, and THEN it CAN be communicated, just like quantum mechanics is now.  Because nondual teachers have never been mathematically inclined perhaps it was never tried. But mathematics is quite powerful, it has the ability to convey extremely complex, often paradoxical ideas in a consistent manner. 

I've thought about quite a bit myself. I often hear awakened beings say things like nonduality cannot be explained, only pointed to. I acknowledge that has been true for thousands of years - yet I question whether that is an assumption. What if in 200 years all beings are in nondual states? It was not a mindset people had to work years and years to reach. People are born and raised into it. If that was "normal" would not a method of communication arise? Perhaps hyper-intuition would serve as a "language".

[electroBeam]

@Serotoninluv in fact, there is a teacher who taught mathematics non-dually.

look here

He came to the conclusion though, in one of his books, that language can arouse spiritual insight, but it can never be it. He obviously thought that mathematics is a great way to arouse nondual insight, and so that's why he taught it. 

He felt like mathematics could provide very high levels of thought, which almost reaches non duality (well at least reaches non duality much more than english)

but it never ever can contain all of it, for that would defeat the whole premise of a language itself.

You're sort of asking, can a toy car every replace a real car? Sure you can add bigger wheels to the car, maybe give the toy car a toy engine, but for the toy car to ever be as useful as a real car, it needs to be a real car. This perhaps is probably one of the only true absolute, existential laws that exist out there. If you want a mathematical equation to be a non dual insight, it has to be a non dual insight, not a maths equation. 

Although mathematics gets very close, much closer than english. But there's a tipping point, and tipping point simply is not reached symbollically.  

[Leo Gura]

5 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

I've thought about quite a bit myself. I often hear awakened beings say things like nonduality cannot be explained, only pointed to. I acknowledge that has been true for thousands of years - yet I question whether that is an assumption. What if in 200 years all beings are in nondual states? It was not a mindset people had to work years and years to reach. People are born and raised into it. If that was "normal" would not a method of communication arise? Perhaps hyper-intuition would serve as a "language".

No! All communication is dualistic.

Contemplate what language is.

[tsuki]

6 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

People are born and raised into it. If that was "normal" would not a method of communication arise? Perhaps hyper-intuition would serve as a "language".

@Serotoninluv There is no duality between duality and non-duality. Even when it comes to language.