Leo's Quantum Physics video is wrong (as well as others)

[GreenWoods]

It is funny how most people have it backwards.

They think spiritual people need to find scientific evidence for their spiritual awakening in order to validate it. But such procedures are completely meaningless.

Actually, good scientists should try to find similarities with non-dual wisdom as a means to validate their scientific theories.

[Jacob Morres]

Literally no arguments just a bunch of appeals to authority 

Great post ? 

[caelanb]

On 2021-09-23 at 10:04 AM, Leo Gura said:

No scientist is God-realized. If you realized you were God, you would stop doing science because science is stupid compared to Infinite Consciousness.

@Leo Gura Isn't that a judgment on science? all judgments of something shallow and biased in one form or another. Science is just learning about the world through the scientific method. Calling it stupid would be a projection upon it, correct? At least this is how it seems like.

On 2021-09-23 at 10:04 AM, Leo Gura said:

Because you are God constructing reality. There is no reality outside your imagination, therefore what you see and think is the only reality there is.

@Leo Gura But this can't be, because in New York (or whatever example you want to take), which is beyond my direct experience, there are people living there and experiencing it. I can call them on the phone or something and they will tell me "yes, New York is true, I am experiencing it right now". And when we meet in person not in New York, and they recall from memory what happened in New York, this shows that New York is real because they are recalling from memory the direct experiences of being in New York, they wouldn't just be imagining it because it happened to them. But, at the very least, those thoughts that one thinks are true, according to Rene Descartes, "I think, therefore I am", this statement aligns with my direct experience of thoughts.

Also, you are God construction reality and everything is imagination is a larger assumption than the other way around, because, we are all in the same reality, it is not much different for everyone else around you (depending on where you are), therefore it is safer to say that reality is not imagination because it's more plausible. In other word, I'm just trying to say that you can turn that statement (you are God constructing reality) on it's head, and the opposite would be just as possible, and actually even more certain; believing that the reality that you see around you is true, is a way smaller assumption than believing that it could be just imagination, because the reality around you is tangible and material. But, after all, most people would say, if there is something beyond our perception of this reality here and now (assuming there is), there is no way to know. See what I mean? I hope that makes sense, That's one of my biggest objections.

23 hours ago, RMQualtrough said:

So? I haven't yet seen or understood anything in any scientific study that has ever encroached upon the nature of what things fundamentally are... We just break things down smaller and smaller, atoms, quarks, and just keep digging deeper.

With "things" there will never be a point where the very nature of the thing will be revealed by the thing.

Eventually nothingness must be accepted.

@Blackhawk There are probably some out there, in the field of quantum physics. And I guess science is hoping to eventually get there (for example we're getting quite close to understanding Black Holes according to the documentary 'Black Holes'), because that is the only way you can really understand the fabric of reality, is to break it down into the smallest pieces possible. There's an interesting YouTube channel called Quantum Gravity Research that seems to have good insights into this stuff.

23 hours ago, RMQualtrough said:

Do you not literally see that as long as a person searches for things there must come a point where you ask "what are those made of?" and you say "they're not made of anything". Or "they're made of themselves" in which case "where did they come from?" and answer "they didn't come from anywhere".

Do you see that inevitability? This is where all things lead, like the Abrahamic forms of God. There's no real difference except we feel smart to find tiny things.

@RMQualtroughI see your point, but seems to break all laws, you're literately saying that everything comes from nothing. All matter according to science comes from the Big Bang (all the universe was condensed into a very small point in time space, I think that's what the Big Bang is), matter can't come from nothing, because matter cannot be created nor destroyed. How does it have anything to do with the Abrahamic forms of religion? I'm not very familiar with them.

Thank you.

 

Edited September 24, 2021 by caelanb

[JuliusCaesar]

2 hours ago, caelanb said:

@Leo Gura But this can't be, because in New York (or whatever example you want to take), which is beyond my direct experience, there are people living there and experiencing it. I can call them on the phone or something and they will tell me "yes, New York is true, I am experiencing it right now". And when we meet in person not in New York, and they recall from memory what happened in New York, this shows that New York is real because they are recalling from memory the direct experiences of being in New York, they wouldn't just be imagining it because it happened to them. But, at the very least, those thoughts that one thinks are true, according to Rene Descartes, "I think, therefore I am", this statement aligns with my direct experience of thoughts.

This can easily be recreated in your sleeping dreams. Does that prove they aren't dreams? Or that they aren't your imagination? How do you think "nightmares" are possible?

2 hours ago, caelanb said:

Also, you are God construction reality and everything is imagination is a larger assumption than the other way around, because, we are all in the same reality, it is not much different for everyone else around you (depending on where you are), therefore it is safer to say that reality is not imagination because it's more plausible.

The dream characters you encounter in a sleeping dream experience a separate reality to you. Are you saying that makes them real? In your worldview surely dreams must be somehow unreal as compared against the waking world. Furthermore, you couldn't possible know that we all live in the same reality without having direct access to our experiences and comparing them against yours. For example, when you look up at the sky and see what for you is the color blue and call it blue, I might also call it blue, but the color I see as blue you might see as red. But, if you were to become me(or anyone or anything other than yourself for that matter) you would think you're losing your mind. So it's impossible for you to determine whether or not I share your experiences. Which defeats your whole argument as it's based on the notion that we all live in the same reality.

 

2 hours ago, caelanb said:

I see your point, but seems to break all laws, you're literately saying that everything comes from nothing

No, everything is literally the same as nothing. The absolute truth is Omnipresence or in other words, you aren't the body/human you think you are, rather you are everything(all possible realities/things that can be imagined by infinite imagination) and nothing(the non attributional consciousness of which all those things consist). And really, you aren't actually any of those things, because you're a self, and the self is whatever it permits itself to become.

 

I know I may appear to be beating a dead horse, everything is easy to explain. However, nothing is much more difficult. Because when we say nothing, we almost certainly mean something other than what you think we mean. This definition of nothing, is not something which doesn't exist, that's a different nothing. Nor is it empty space, though it's more similar to the spacetime continuum than for example solid matter, because space is more subtle than matter. And the definition of nothing I'm using refers to the most subtle form possible. Which is essentially no form at all, the problem with saying that though, is that it's so formless it isn't even formless. Because just as a form needs to exclude every other possibility to be itself, so the formless would need to exclude every possible form. But this kind of nothing does nothing of the kind, it rather includes every possibility, so much so that it includes every possible form of exclusion. Hence why it's nothing and everything simultaneously.

 

It's only logical that nothing is inevitable. Because for reality to consist of something would mean that all realities and everything within them would be that something. Like for instance, if the building block of the universe were chickens, everything would be a chicken. Humans would be a chicken, their hand would be a chicken, the molecules which make up their hand would also be chickens etc etc. You see why existence in it's rawest form cannot be a chicken. But let's take this a step further. If this were so(the chickens being everything notion) it would be impossible to differentiate between one chicken and the other. Like the chicken I am(as a human), and the chicken the Sun is would be indifferentiable because we'd be exactly the same thing. You see how they cancel each other out? It's only because there are differences between myself and the sun that the the sun and myself exist.

3 hours ago, caelanb said:

because that is the only way you can really understand the fabric of reality, is to break it down into the smallest pieces possible.

This is an assumption which needs reevaluation. Reality is made out of differences, not physical matter. The problem with your understanding is that you're making metaphysical assumptions without even realizing it. Which is what most professional scientists of our day are doing also. There's also the fact that you seem to be limited to the human experience. Whereas I've experienced things beyond what's ordinarily possible for a human. Consequently, I have a very different worldview to yours. It's sort of like this, imagine you think the world is flat because it appears so to you as a puny creature sitting on the globe. Now imagine we send you up 500 miles to look down on your home and see that it's in fact spherical. This is effectively like what would happen if you were to reach the states of consciousness I've reached. The only difference being that this awakening affects all of existence, not just a planet.

[Danioover9000]

@caelanb

On 9/21/2021 at 3:45 PM, caelanb said:

Hello, so I making this post to point something out. It is by no meant to be an attack on Leo, or actualized.org, but just a heads up, warning, or criticism of Leo videos from what I've seen from his science and philosophy videos. I do find a lot of Leo's points nuanced and interesting, even though many can be quite radical.

But anyway, this post is mainly about the quantum physics videos Leo made to prove metaphysical ideas (however, it extends to all the other scientific philosophical videos), that are apparently based on science, however, if you would ask a expert, professor, or someone who really understands the subject matter; in this case Quantum Physics, what Leo says is not actually correct.

Here is a video by a professor named David Farina who has BA in chemistry a MA in science education. If you don't want to watch the whole thing, just read the description.

This video essentially debunks the claims (the ones that are in the title, and probably others too) that are now called Quantum Mysticism (considered to be pseudoscience according to physics and professional academics), which uses Quantum Physics to try to prove certain mystical world view, such as materialism (the world being physical) is not real. Which in fact, according to scientists, quantum mechanics does not at all prove that the world is not physical. The twisting of of scientific theories and the like by people who try to promote a certain world view, that is not correct is apparently pretty common according to scientists.

In a different video, for example Leo uses a quote by Paul Feyarabend, a philosopher of science, who has a had a lot of criticisms about his work (etc.scientific America article). The main criticism from the latter article is I think; "Feyerabend attacked science not because he actually believed it was no more valid than astrology or religion. Quite the contrary. He attacked science because he recognized--and was horrified by--science's vast superiority to other modes of knowledge. His objections to science were moral and political rather than epistemological. He feared that science, precisely because of its enormous power, could become a totalitarian force that crushes all its rivals".

There are many criticisms of Leo's scientific videos that I have seen, but these are just a few.

And so, this is why, I think it is better, to ask a real professional about whether or not the scientific - philosophical claims that Leo makes about reality and the world, are based on science, are truly based on science and just a pseudo scientific. Because that can be very harmful for people watching the video, due to the fact that they could be being deluded into thinking that what is being said is what science actually says too.

A great way to possibly handle this that Leo proposed in the comments of debunking science video part 1; is having a real scientist on to talk to him face to face for a part 5. This can really help to prevent any claims that are factually wrong in science from being made. Unfortunately, Leo never made a part 5, and even 4 for that matter. But would be great to have one.

All in all, I very much appreciate Leo's nuanced perspectives, and am thankful that he uploaded his videos (even though it's hard for me to grasp it's claimed truthfulness). But, when the videos aren't actually based on real science, and claim to be, then it makes me annoyed. Because it makes, in my view, actualized.org less trustworthy, due to the miss information that is shared. And this applies to all of the science based videos from Leo that have connections to philosophy (which is most of them) and even just science videos. This is just my perspective, based on my understanding scientific miss information, accurate information and critical thinking. Hope I'm not missing anything.

Thank you for reading.

   Watched video and read your post, so your welcome in advance.

   I'm responding to provide some food for thought to you, but have you considered from a strategic and practical point of view what this thread is about? If you have looked through this forum in general, you'd notice that criticism, from the emotional ad homonym based, to cleanly constructed and specific criticisms, are not generally well received here anyways. If you had come across the video, and had to list out solutions to address a problem in a worldview of a speaker that has a following, then making a thread and replying to posts in a forum (an echo chamber of reinforced ideas) is gonna be at the low end, or the lowest yielding solution to a problem you became aware of. It does not provide immense practical value, and if the assumption that this place is deluded is true, then realistically it's low impact to engage in this echo chamber. A better alternatives would be to instead, focus on building your skills for your life, or go pursue your life purpose, get basic material reality managed, make your energy and time on your life priority over time on the forum, and so forth. Practically speaking, there are better uses for your time and energy than to try and persuade someone their world view is wrong, in an echo chamber. Think about it deeply.      

[Endangered-EGO]

@GreenWoods Sam Harris is a "monist".

He thinks that reality has to be one, but doesn't go as far as saying that one thing is me/consciousness.

 

I guess that most scientists are not dualists, but they just model everything (including monism) and they can't help it.

[RMQualtrough]

8 hours ago, caelanb said:

@Leo Gura Isn't that a judgment on science? all judgments of something shallow and biased in one form or another. Science is just learning about the world through the scientific method. Calling it stupid would be a projection upon it, correct? At least this is how it seems like.

@Leo Gura But this can't be, because in New York (or whatever example you want to take), which is beyond my direct experience, there are people living there and experiencing it. I can call them on the phone or something and they will tell me "yes, New York is true, I am experiencing it right now". And when we meet in person not in New York, and they recall from memory what happened in New York, this shows that New York is real because they are recalling from memory the direct experiences of being in New York, they wouldn't just be imagining it because it happened to them. But, at the very least, those thoughts that one thinks are true, according to Rene Descartes, "I think, therefore I am", this statement aligns with my direct experience of thoughts.

Also, you are God construction reality and everything is imagination is a larger assumption than the other way around, because, we are all in the same reality, it is not much different for everyone else around you (depending on where you are), therefore it is safer to say that reality is not imagination because it's more plausible. In other word, I'm just trying to say that you can turn that statement (you are God constructing reality) on it's head, and the opposite would be just as possible, and actually even more certain; believing that the reality that you see around you is true, is a way smaller assumption than believing that it could be just imagination, because the reality around you is tangible and material. But, after all, most people would say, if there is something beyond our perception of this reality here and now (assuming there is), there is no way to know. See what I mean? I hope that makes sense, That's one of my biggest objections.

@Blackhawk There are probably some out there, in the field of quantum physics. And I guess science is hoping to eventually get there (for example we're getting quite close to understanding Black Holes according to the documentary 'Black Holes'), because that is the only way you can really understand the fabric of reality, is to break it down into the smallest pieces possible. There's an interesting YouTube channel called Quantum Gravity Research that seems to have good insights into this stuff.

@RMQualtroughI see your point, but seems to break all laws, you're literately saying that everything comes from nothing. All matter according to science comes from the Big Bang (all the universe was condensed into a very small point in time space, I think that's what the Big Bang is), matter can't come from nothing, because matter cannot be created nor destroyed. How does it have anything to do with the Abrahamic forms of religion? I'm not very familiar with them.

Thank you.

 

Well Christians and materialists face the same infinite regress where it leaves questions forever no matter how deep you go. Why is there a quark and not infinite nothingness? Replace quark with the God of the Bible and you see it's the same issue. Matter never being created btw, I think just applies to the laws inside the universe.

Nothingness cannot ever be separated from somethingness, because only things can be finite and limited. If nothing exists, neither do limitations of any kind, so boom infinity.

[Leo Gura]

12 hours ago, caelanb said:

@Leo Gura Isn't that a judgment on science? all judgments of something shallow and biased in one form or another. Science is just learning about the world through the scientific method. Calling it stupid would be a projection upon it, correct? At least this is how it seems like.

No, it's just a factual description of the situation.

You will never achieve God-realization or Truth through science. The belief that you ever could is simply delusion.

Science is a dream. You cannot awaken from a dream by dreaming harder.

Quote

@Leo Gura But this can't be, because in New York (or whatever example you want to take), which is beyond my direct experience, there are people living there and experiencing it. I can call them on the phone or something and they will tell me "yes, New York is true, I am experiencing it right now". And when we meet in person not in New York, and they recall from memory what happened in New York, this shows that New York is real because they are recalling from memory the direct experiences of being in New York, they wouldn't just be imagining it because it happened to them. But, at the very least, those thoughts that one thinks are true, according to Rene Descartes, "I think, therefore I am", this statement aligns with my direct experience of thoughts.

You are imagining New York and all the people you could be calling.

None of it exists outside your imagination.

Your imagination of New York IS your direct experience. You are dreaming that you could fly to New York. And if you actually buy a ticket and fly to New York, you're dreaming that too.

Quote

Also, you are God construction reality and everything is imagination is a larger assumption than the other way around

It's not an assumption. I am talking about Absolute Consciousness.

Absolute Consciousness is absolutely true. It is not guesswork or theory of any kind.

Open your mind to the possibility of Absolute Truth.

Spiritual work makes zero assumptions.

[Carl-Richard]

On 21.9.2021 at 4:45 PM, caelanb said:

however, if you would ask a expert, professor, or someone who really understands the subject matter; in this case Quantum Physics, what Leo says is not actually correct.

Do you count Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg as experts?

Quote

According to the preface of the first edition, reprinted in subsequent editions, Capra struggled to reconcile theoretical physics and Eastern mysticism and was at first "helped on my way by 'power plants'" or psychedelics, with the first experience "so overwhelming that I burst into tears, at the same time, not unlike Castaneda, pouring out my impressions to a piece of paper". (p. 12, 4th ed.)

Capra later discussed his ideas with Werner Heisenberg in 1972, as he mentioned in the following interview excerpt:

"I had several discussions with Heisenberg. I lived in England then [circa 1972], and I visited him several times in Munich and showed him the whole manuscript chapter by chapter. He was very interested and very open, and he told me something that I think is not known publicly because he never published it. He said that he was well aware of these parallels. While he was working on quantum theory he went to India to lecture and was a guest of Tagore. He talked a lot with Tagore about Indian philosophy. Heisenberg told me that these talks had helped him a lot with his work in physics, because they showed him that all these new ideas in quantum physics were in fact not all that crazy. He realized there was, in fact, a whole culture that subscribed to very similar ideas. Heisenberg said that this was a great help for him. Niels Bohr had a similar experience when he went to China.[1]"

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

[Leo Gura]

Most of the fathers of QM were mystics and idealists.

Today's scientists are so stupid and brainwashed that they don't even know the history of the people who invented QM.

All it takes is to read a few books of their writings.

The funny irony is that "quantum mysticism" is precisely what's true.

This isn't rocket science. Professor Dave is a quantum idiot.

[sleep]

It would be interesting to see Leo have some sort of debate with a scientist experienced in the topic to see how his ideas hold up. Or with professor dave, that would be entertaining. He would probably be open to the debate. 

Edited September 25, 2021 by sleep

[sleep]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Most of the fathers of QM were mystics and idealists.

Today's scientists are so stupid and brainwashed that they don't even know the history of the people who invented QM.

All it takes is to read a few books of their writings.

The funny irony is that "quantum mysticism" is precisely what's true.

This isn't rocket science. Professor Dave is a quantum idiot.

@Leo Gura Why should it matter to modern quantum physicists what the fathers of the field believed? The first natural philosophers believed in all sorts of wacky stuff, it's not like modern physicists should believe the same stuff they did. 

[Leo Gura]

11 minutes ago, sleep said:

@Leo Gura Why should it matter to modern quantum physicists what the fathers of the field believed? The first natural philosophers believed in all sorts of wacky stuff, it's not like modern physicists should believe the same stuff they did. 

Because the materialist's game is to pretend as though quantum mysticism is some stupid New Age idea invented by Deepak Chopra. When in fact it was developed by the most serious intellectuals who invented QM.

The materialists aren't playing a fair fight. Because their ideology is false. So they have to resort to smear tactics and ridicule. It's ignorant as hell.

The first natural philosophers were way more intelligent and had a deeper understanding of reality than any modern scientist.

It is not an accident that the majority of philosophers were idealists and Platonists. Because idealism is true.

Modern day materialists have distorted the history of science and philosophy to make it seems that science was always materialist and atheist, when in fact it never was. Materialism is a stupidity that was developed in the last few centuries. And soon it will die a cringe-worthy death, similar to phrenology.

Pretty soon humans will laugh at materialism the way they laugh at phrenology. And people like Professor Dave will go down in the history books as an embarrassment to science.

[sleep]

@Leo Gura Good answer, I hadn't seen it from that perspective. 

[RMQualtrough]

18 minutes ago, sleep said:

It would be interesting to see Leo have some sort of debate with a scientist experienced in the topic to see how his ideas hold up. Or with professor dave, that would be entertaining. He would probably be open to the debate. 

Rupert Spira is the best for actual debate, he has a good way of tailoring his metaphors and ideas to the other person's belief system.

Actual truth can't be wrong so it can only be destroyed if the person's understanding of the truth is incorrect, or if they are just bad at debating and lose via that silliness. I say silliness because debate clubs make members debate for things they don't believe in, and win... If you can win a debate with a lie because you're a better debater, the setup is obv trash.

[Leo Gura]

It is pointless to debate someone with closed mind.

That is not how Truth is achieved. That is the polar opposite of truth-seeking.

Once you have the Truth you have no desire to debate anyone. It's too profound and precious such idiotic antics.

Debating is precisely for people who are nowhere close the Truth and have no desire for it.

[Scholar]

Ironically, even from rationalist perspective, the guy would fall apart if you asked him to justify any of his metaphyiscal positions. You can sense how shallow his understanding of metaphysics is, like unfortunately is the case with most scientists.

They are so unaware of their depth of ignorance that they do not even know how many assumptions they just take for granted with their materialist worldview, so much so that they do not even comprehend that they need to justify all of it, which of course they do not and cannot. They are not even equipped to do so on a philosophical level.

They will walk around talking about metaphysics and then when you point out their assumptions and ask to justify them, they will say "That's just philosophy we don't do that in science!". It's really child-like behaviour, as soon as their incompetency is revealed they will immediately dismiss any legitimacy to the rational inquiry into metaphysics, which they themselves claim someone else is engaging irrationally with.

 

How would they even know how to contextualize their physicalist models without metaphysics? Man, scientists are so uneducated it's really a shame.

[Carl-Richard]

4 hours ago, Scholar said:

Ironically, even from rationalist perspective, the guy would fall apart if you asked him to justify any of his metaphyiscal positions. You can sense how shallow his understanding of metaphysics is, like unfortunately is the case with most scientists.

There is an interesting link between between a construct-aware epistemology, mysticism and systems thinking that I think is not much emphasized by people like Ken Wilber who emphasize the distinction between growing up and waking up. It's no coincidence that Fritjof Capra saw the link between non-duality and QM, was inspired by holistic philosophers like Thomas Kuhn and Gregory Bateson, and then went on to revolutionize systems thinking as a field, just like it's no coincidence that people who are averse to these ideas are also averse to systems thinking.

Systems thinking emphasizes the ramifications of relationality/relativity, like the relationship between the observer and the observed in QM, the relationship between the map and the territory in metaphysics, between historical context and scientific discoveries, and the relationship between two dualities in a whole (yin-yan). It's not that mysticism is the whole story (like Ken Wilber points out with pre-rational mysticism), but it's that the marriage of mysticism and rationality leads to transrationality, and transrationality puts the rational in context so that one can observe the relationality of it, of how its constructed as a product of relationships, and hence you break into a construct-aware, paradigmatic systems view.

In that sense, there does appear to be a connection between growing up and waking up that happens at the cutting edge of rationality (Green) that facilitates a movement into Tier 2. Other than that, a pre-rational mystic is still confined to Tier 1.

[Leo Gura]

2 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

there does appear to be a connection between growing up and waking up

Of course there is a connection. The connection is CONSCIOUSNESS.

The higher your consciousness the more intelligent you are, the more holistic your intelligence is.

Stage Orange intelligence is laughably unholistic.

[Proserpina]

29 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

The higher your consciousness the more intelligent you are

Random question but if someone was born with lower intelligence genetically in this lifetime and heavily does consciousness work in this lifetime can they assure a leap in genetic intelligence in their next lifetime/s

Edited September 25, 2021 by Proserpina