Quantum Systems and Spirituality

[tsuki]

9 hours ago, graded24 said:

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. 

@Serotoninluv @graded24 As a mechanical engineer, I'd say that science's value lies in its predictive power and I wouldn't be as quick to dismiss the use of imagining interpretations. After all, where does the science's funding come from other than people implementing your ideas? How would the inventors do it if there were no tangible results in the material/classical world? Inventors and investors cannot be expected to learn mathematics of quantum mechanics.

From my point of view, asking about the meaning of interactions between particles in a theory is similar to asking about what is the emptiness of a cup. There is nothing about the cup that makes it empty - and yet - it is! That is how the intelligence enters the domain of mathematics: through our intervention that describes something that is not there. 

Edited November 13, 2018 by tsuki

[Elisabeth]

I also have quantum mechanics education, even basic courses on quantum field theory, which is where stuff gets really fuzzy. Can't claim to really understand even the mainstream metaphysics of that one.

I'll read through the thread and see if I can clarify anything.

@graded24 Nice to see a colleague here. I read through your struggles/questions in the 'ask me anything' thread, and identified quite a bit, thanks for being open. What's your field of study specifically?

 

[graded24]

3 hours ago, Elisabeth said:

 

@graded24 Nice to see a colleague here. I read through your struggles/questions in the 'ask me anything' thread, and identified quite a bit, thanks for being open. What's your field of study specifically?

 

Hi, nice to see you here. Indeed, relieved to see I am not the only black sheep of physics   
i do many body quantum systems, condensed matter, but mostly mathematics. 

[graded24]

18 hours ago, Aimblack said:

@graded24 I think I love you.

 

Haha thank you! I love you too fellow seeker!   

[Forestluv]

@graded24

I've noticed a field of "Quantum Biology" is gradually emerging. Do you think quantum phenomena will be apparent at the molecular level? For example, quantum tunneling playing a role in DNA alterations.

[graded24]

4 hours ago, Elisabeth said:

I also have quantum mechanics education, even basic courses on quantum field theory, which is where stuff gets really fuzzy. Can't claim to really understand even the mainstream metaphysics of that one.

I'll read through the thread and see if I can clarify anything.

@graded24 Nice to see a colleague here. I read through your struggles/questions in the 'ask me anything' thread, and identified quite a bit, thanks for being open. What's your field of study specifically?

 

What is your field of study?

[graded24]

56 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

@graded24

I've noticed a field of "Quantum Biology" is gradually emerging. Do you think quantum phenomena will be apparent at the molecular level? For example, quantum tunneling playing a role in DNA alterations.

Yes, looks that way. It is still in its early stages but looks promising. 

[Elisabeth]

1 hour ago, graded24 said:

Hi, nice to see you here. Indeed, relieved to see I am not the only black sheep of physics   
i do many body quantum systems, condensed matter, but mostly mathematics. 

Me too, lol. Superconducting quantum dots. Except I didn't accomplish much yet. I did general relativity for my master's, and then I switched for phd to get a tiny bit more practical, but I haven't really found passion for the field (nor the courage to leave). Where are you from? Let's pm

49 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

@graded24

I've noticed a field of "Quantum Biology" is gradually emerging. Do you think quantum phenomena will be apparent at the molecular level? For example, quantum tunneling playing a role in DNA alterations.

We once had a talk in 'quantum biology', I think it was concerned with the interaction of some plant receptors and light. Which makes a lot of sense - I expect quantum effects to be relevant when it comes to matter-light interaction. As for tunneling, people can, like, attach a molecule to the leads of an STM and measure the tunneling current, which is electrons being conducted through the discrete energy levels of the molecule.

I wonder how quantum physics plays into transferring nervous signals, I know very little about that.

[Elisabeth]

It's so hard to popularize/intuitively grasp theoretical physics without the mathematics, and conversely get an intuitive picture out of the mathematics, I simply love  @graded24's answers.

22 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

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

19 hours ago, Mikael89 said:

Does quantum mechanics indicate that Consciousness is fundamental? (I don't think it proves.. or does it?)

Quantum mechanics in and on itself does not prove any mystical truths. Yet for most people, it is a radically different description of reality from what they know (and it takes a few years of doing it to accept it as a good description and develop 'quantum intuitions' for how little objects behave). The biggest paradigm shift they've ever had. Having these paradigm shifts is really useful to see how models are just models.

Some of the weird stuff some interpretations of QM said has like surface resemblance with some of the weird stuff spiritual teachers say. People who don't understand QM than adopt these resemblances - which are analogies at best - and use it as "proof". It drives scientists nuts.

But QM taken very seriously does have some mind-twisting/paradoxical implications. So do other fields of study - Leo has talked about Cantor's set theory, the deconstruction of language etc.

Leo did quite a good job explaining the paradoxes in his video on QM (I think it was the second one of the series). Unfortunately I can't repeat the argument in short. It had to do with the division between the "measured object" and the "measurement device" being artificial (which is of course understood by good scientists, but by the average student it's not thought all the way through and accepted as yet another reasonable assumption).

19 hours ago, electroBeam said:

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. 

It's a really interesting question what "real understanding" is. Notice that in science the assumptions that go into constructing your model often are what tells you about 'reality'. Much more then the results.

Take the example of a falling ball (or an apple, if you will). Newton will describe gravity as an attractive force proportional to the masses of the objects. But what is a force? No physicist can tell you what a force is. It's what makes objects move. It's how we describe reality, with objects and forces. Does the concept of a gravitational force lead to more understanding? Yes, probably, because in your mind you now connect the motion of planets with the falling of apples. But is there a force really?

General relativity does away with forces completely. There is no need for them in the mathematics. The motion is explained via the properties of 'spacetime'.  You visualize your spacetime as this bending rubber band or whatever, and now having a visual image you feel like you have an understanding. You've replaced your idea of objects and forces by an idea of objects in a curved spacetime. But is the curved spacetime real? Did you just understand reality better, or did you just make a cool description?

I'd say what is real is the motion of the object. (If that.)

Physics is full of purely abstract concepts that are taken as real. Forces. Curved spacetimes. Energy. The wave function. Fields. Several different ways to look at the same phenomena which are all powerful - competing paradigms.

22 hours ago, Ero said:

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

Yes. But I think studying physics is also helpful in really grasping how these models are just models. Because you are forced to change paradigms - as explained above. Most of my classmates from theoretical physics won't be pure materialists, not in the same way your average person is. I'm not saying they will be spiritual and understand nonduality, I'm not saying they will accept consciousness as primary (I still don't O:)). But the idea that the symbol is not the thing, that descriptions are just that, will come naturally.

17 hours ago, graded24 said:

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'm sure it has been attempted. I have at least one friend who dropped mathematics and accepted the spiritual after diving deep into some philosophy of science (full of set theory) written by a local mathematician. Anyway, that too was just a pointer. 

If what Leo says about the non-dual experience is true, then it means being all of reality. You can't have a model which is as good as reality, otherwise it would be reality. More importantly, you can't ever have a label which accurately conveys the being behind it.

So. I haven't had nondual glimpses, but it makes sense to me intellectually that those would be beyond the scope of mathematics.

[Scholar]

12 hours ago, Mikael89 said:

What about multiverse?

There's one interpretation of QM which says there's a multiverse.

And I believe in it, since everything else also is telling us that multiverse exists. (Inflation theory, string theory, mathematics, it solves the fine-tuning problem, etc.)

It all lines up nicely like this..:

Eternal infinite Consciousness creates a infinite amount of universes, forever. Universes die, multiverse does not. Multiverse takes place in Consciousness/Void. Voilá whole existence solved.

Even if there is no multiverse, there are certainly multiple/infinite universes.

A multiverse is different from multiple independent universes as it implies that the universes interact with each other, one multiverse containing multiple universes instead of completely separate realities. 

Don't conflate infinity with the properties of this particular realiy. Etven if this is not a multiverse, there still can be infinite multiverses "outside" of this particular universe. When talking about multiverses as it is referred to physics it is talking about a very specific model and interpretation of what our particular universe is and how it acts. In fact even if it is true, the multiverse would still be infinitely small compared to infinity.

Edited November 14, 2018 by Scholar

[Elisabeth]

3 hours ago, Mikael89 said:

Btw, it's called the 'many worlds-interpretation' of quantum mechanics.

It's just that.

[Elisabeth]

3 minutes ago, Mikael89 said:

Well, yes, but some scientists believe in it.

Well, sure they do

I don't hate it or anything, I just don't quite see the point of discussing it. It doesn't add to either science or spirituality to choose that interpretation as the right one. (I believe :D)

[graded24]

12 hours ago, Mikael89 said:

You know.. there's only beliefs in science. For example the theory of gravity is just a theory. And theories can always get replaced by a better theory.

Another example would be the string theory vs the inflation theory. They are two major theories which compete with eachother. Some scientists choose to believe in string theory, and some in inflation theory. So it's all about picking a theory which you choose to believe in.

As long as the theory you're choosing does not make predictions that have been proved wrong. It's a choice up to that point. 
Also, saying scientists 'believe' in a theory is misleading. Sure, as humans they have their biases. But what they actually do in this context is, try to prove or disprove a theory. In the process to prove a theory you have to tentatively 'believe' in the theory. As in, "Y would happen if X were true".  To derive Y you first have to tentatively assume X to be true. It is not the same as ideological or religious beliefs. 
I give you an example. A lot of physicists "believed" in supersymmetry.. that is they used supersymmetry to derive many predictions. Now that none of those predictions were confirmed by LHC, they dont "believe" in supersymmetry as much. 

[Elisabeth]

@Mikael89  My point is, the different interpretations don't actually give different predictions, therefore (from the standpoint of science) they are equivalent or close-to-equivalent. It's more useful to be able to dive into whatever interpretation/formalism looks most straightforward/comprehensive/beautiful for the problem at hand, than choose one.

I think it's the same with spirituality. You develop this ability to shift paradigms and look at one topic from many different angles.

Sorry, I sounded arrogant, I didn't mean to put you down.

[graded24]

5 hours ago, Elisabeth said:

@Mikael89  My point is, the different interpretations don't actually give different predictions, therefore (from the standpoint of science) they are equivalent or close-to-equivalent. It's more useful to be able to dive into whatever interpretation/formalism looks most straightforward/comprehensive/beautiful for the problem at hand, than choose one.

I think it's the same with spirituality. You develop this ability to shift paradigms and look at one topic from many different angles.

Sorry, I sounded arrogant, I didn't mean to put you down.

Sorry, I do not quite share your view of the problem of interpretation. I feel it is a very scientific question. Different interpretations would agree on some experiments but would differ on others . It is a different question whether or not we can carry out those experiments with the current technology. 

And of course they differ in their theoretical implications as well..Which is going to be very important in any formulation of quantum gravity.