Guest guest Posted September 29, 1999 Report Share Posted September 29, 1999 At 10:15 PM 9/28/99 -0500, you wrote: >Dharma <fisher1 > >A thought just occurred to me... Feel free to kick it around. > >I wonder if this present argument on the list doesn't have a lot in common >with the wave/quanta problem. Is energy composed of waves or quanta >(discrete bits)? There's one set of equations to use when you assume it's >waves, and another set to use if you assume it's quanta. They both work, >but not at the same time! So you can treat energy as waves or quanta, but >not both at once. It seems to me that if you assume this manifest world is >blinking into and out of existence at every moment then both views make >sense. Dan: "First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is" Donovan Leitch ("stolen" from a Zen koan) >It's like the pictures that make a movie... they're so fast they >don't seem to be discrete pictures. D: Yes, and how can one "picture" make so many pictures, so many stories, so many colors of glass in the mosaic of itself? >I do think, as you said, that "Each instant is a complete universe in >itself." D: And each instant is myriads of instants... >Everything flashes forth from the All and subsides again. But I >also think the continuity of daily life is real too... quite real enough >for all practical purposes. D: Or quite unreal, particularly for that most "Impractical" of purposes .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 29, 1999 Report Share Posted September 29, 1999 Hello Dan: >>I wonder if this present argument on the list doesn't have a lot in common >>with the wave/quanta problem. -snip- >> >>I do think, as you said, that "Each instant is a complete universe in >>itself." -snip- >> >>Everything flashes forth from the All and subsides again. But I >>also think the continuity of daily life is real too... quite real enough >>for all practical purposes. > >D: Or quite unreal, particularly for that most "Impractical" of purposes Exactly my point. >>Is energy composed of waves or quanta >>(discrete bits)? There's one set of equations to use when you assume it's >>waves, and another set to use if you assume it's quanta. They both work, >>but not at the same time! So you can treat energy as waves or quanta, but >>not both at once. waves v quanta, but not both. (Either waves or quanta, but not both.) In similar fashion, 1) >>.... "Each instant is a complete universe in >itself." Everything flashes forth from the All and subsides again. But also 2) >>... the continuity of daily life is real too... quite real enough >>for all practical purposes. Like quanta and waves, both seem to be real, but they seem to be contradictory... they cannot both be real and true. Nevertheless, like waves and quanta, it depends on how you look at it, your angle of approach, your purpose at the moment... >>They both work, >>but not at the same time! >> quanta events >> or or >> waves continuity waves v quanta, but not both. continuity v events, but not both. Or so it seems. ))))))) LOL ))))))))) Love, Dharma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 29, 1999 Report Share Posted September 29, 1999 In a message dated 9/29/99 2:48:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time, fisher1 writes: << Shrodinger's Cat. Once you open a box, there's the cat. But was it in that box before you opened it? )))))) >> Ah, the Schrodinger Cat question is one of alive or dead, not existence or non existence. He did not seek to repeal all ontology. Zenbob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 29, 1999 Report Share Posted September 29, 1999 >Dharma: waves v quanta, but not both. (Either waves or quanta, but not both.) > >In similar fashion, > >1) >>.... "Each instant is a complete universe in >>itself." Everything flashes forth from the All and subsides again. > >But also > >2) >>... the continuity of daily life is real too... quite real enough >>>for all practical purposes. > >Like quanta and waves, both seem to be real, but they seem to be >contradictory... they cannot both be real and true. Nevertheless, like >waves and quanta, > >it depends on how you look at it, your angle of approach, your purpose at >the moment... > >>>They both work, >>>but not at the same time! > >>> quanta events >>> or or >>> waves continuity > >waves v quanta, but not both. >continuity v events, but not both. > >Or so it seems. ))))))) LOL ))))))))) > D: Yes - and your words elucidate - and it's quite intriguing. When we look for waves or quanta, continuity or discontinuity, our looking is a "doing." We "make" reality as we look. We can see "continuing movement" or "instant whole" see ourselves moving "from here to there," or "all at once" Is there such as thing as "nondoing"? Seeing without a "map" and without an "intention"? This sounds easy, but maybe not so easy as it might appear. If one is intending to have no map, that's an intention. If one is purposely leaving aside intention, that's having a "map." If there is neither "now" nor "past and future" then what? Love, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 29, 1999 Report Share Posted September 29, 1999 Hi Dan, >>waves v quanta, but not both. >>continuity v events, but not both. >> >>Or so it seems. ))))))) LOL ))))))))) >> >D: Yes - and your words elucidate - and it's quite intriguing. > When we look for waves or quanta, continuity or discontinuity, > our looking is a "doing." We "make" reality as we look. Isn't that part of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle? You can't look to something to see it "as it is," because the action of the observer changes things? Shrodinger's Cat. Once you open a box, there's the cat. But was it in that box before you opened it? )))))) > We can see "continuing movement" or "instant whole" > see ourselves moving "from here to there," or > "all at once" > > Is there such as thing as "nondoing"? Outside of the All? We say so... but that may be illusory... when I seem to be non-doing, I may be doing at another level that I'm not paying attention to. > Seeing without a "map" and without an "intention"? I'll say yes... but then I'm probably guided... and the spiritual guide is also me, you know. > This sounds easy, but maybe not so easy as it might appear. > If one is intending to have no map, that's an intention. > If one is purposely leaving aside intention, that's having a "map." Well, I don't think I have to work to lay aside the map and intention... it's called surrender. Just let go... melt... let go of the focus of consciousness even, let it spread out until it doesn't seem to exist... but it does appear again. > If there is neither "now" nor "past and future" then what? The All. Brahman. Love, Dharma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 1999 Report Share Posted September 30, 1999 Hi Zenbob, ><< Shrodinger's Cat. Once you open a box, there's the cat. But was it in > that box before you opened it? )))))) > >> >Ah, the Schrodinger Cat question is one of alive or dead, not existence or >non existence. He did not seek to repeal all ontology. Oh well. <shrug> The point is, once you open the box, the cat is as you find him. But was he before you opened the box? And did your opening the box influence/determine what you found? Love, Dharma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 1999 Report Share Posted September 30, 1999 At 04:48 PM 9/29/99 -0500, you wrote: >Dharma <fisher1 > >Hi Dan, > >>>waves v quanta, but not both. >>>continuity v events, but not both. >>> >>>Or so it seems. ))))))) LOL ))))))))) >>> >>Dan: Yes - and your words elucidate - and it's quite intriguing. >> When we look for waves or quanta, continuity or discontinuity, >> our looking is a "doing." We "make" reality as we look. > >Dharma: Isn't that part of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle? You can't look to >something to see it "as it is," because the action of the observer changes >things? > >Shrodinger's Cat. Once you open a box, there's the cat. But was it in >that box before you opened it? )))))) Dan: Yup - and let's look at the "big picture" here: there's me looking into the box to see the cat, thus determining a "cat" from an indeterminate situation. Now, just "who" is it that is observing me observing the cat, thus determining "me,cat," and the observation I am making? And who is observing that who???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 1999 Report Share Posted September 30, 1999 In a message dated 9/30/99 5:12:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time, carrea writes: << We could say that the one opening the box is inside a "biggerbox" of his mind applied to Quantum physics principles or is inside the "box" of the one thinking "the cat is as you find him" after that "one" inside the "bigger" box opens the smaller box of the cat. The box simply opens, no one opens it, could be another way to open the box. And so own.... Until their is only a breath of fresh air... >> Dearest Antoine: You know for a person who relaxes a lot you sure are brilliant at times. Few fully appreciate the "box in the box" [in the box] aspect of the Schrodinger thought experiment/allegory. Schrodinger himself, was of course painfully aware that this was nothing but a mental construct of an allegory designed to test out probability and uncertainty...aspects that on a Quantum level reduce down to thought/non thought causality. He was certainly fearful of either outcome and what it represents because it defies Newton's "cause effect" relationship of a priori first order unbreakable rule: poison gas is either released by random generator or not...release of gas precedes opening the box...so by Newton, of course Cat was either alive or dead prior to the observation...but Schrodinger meant to prove this was an error in Newtonian thinking and that the act of observation alters the state of the cat...breaking any causal relationships of time. Dharma, you did not quite understand this in context with "cause effect" relationships...i.e., I drink, I drive, I crash, therefore "drinking caused crash." In actual fact, on a Quantum level, only the observer at the scene could determine if : 1) I crashed/did not crash 2) I drove/another drove 3) I had been drinking/not been drinking (perhaps you discover a wine bottle or run a blood test on me...but before you have discovered this, then "drinking did not in fact cause the accident." Now on a macro cosmic scale this seems silly, but at a Quantum level this is perfectly provable with experiments and observation. Do such microcosmic rules say something about reality? Absolutely. Do we still have free will and choice (drink not drink. Drive not drive...even look for crash victim/don't look for crash victim)? Absolutely. But consider the poor subatomic particle that MUST behave a certain way because the researcher or observer EXPECTS it to behave a certain way. Since it's mass and "mind" are small compared to the mass and "mind" of the observer, it cannot violate the quam field tensors that force it to "obey." Now, on a vastly larger scale, can mere individual humans hope to act in ways that are not expected by a Mind of vastly greater mass, size and power? No at all. In these things, we have no more inertial power than does the smallest subatomic particle. We have infinite choice...but despite this, like a subject under hypnosis, we will make only specific choices, despite our protests and intentions. It is worth considering... Blessings Love, Zenbob <<<(:~})> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 1999 Report Share Posted September 30, 1999 > Hi Zenbob, > > ><< Shrodinger's Cat. Once you open a box, there's the cat. But was it in > > that box before you opened it? )))))) > > >> > >Ah, the Schrodinger Cat question is one of alive or dead, not existence or > >non existence. He did not seek to repeal all ontology. > > Oh well. <shrug> The point is, once you open the box, the cat is as you > find him. But was he before you opened the box? And did your opening the > box influence/determine what you found? > > Love, > Dharma We could say that the one opening the box is inside a "biggerbox" of his mind applied to Quantum physics principles or is inside the "box" of the one thinking "the cat is as you find him" after that "one" inside the "bigger" box opens the smaller box of the cat. The box simply opens, no one opens it, could be another way to open the box. And so own.... Until their is only a breath of fresh air... Antoine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 1, 1999 Report Share Posted October 1, 1999 >ZEN2WRK > >In a message dated 9/30/99 5:12:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time, >carrea writes: > ><< We could say that the one opening the box is inside a "bigger" "box" of > his mind applied to Quantum physics principles or is inside the "box" of > the one thinking "the cat is as you find him" after that "one" inside > the "bigger" box opens the smaller box of the cat. > > The box simply opens, no one opens it, could be another way to open the > box. And so own.... Until their is only a breath of fresh air... > >> >Dearest Antoine: > >You know for a person who relaxes a lot you sure are brilliant at times. Few >fully appreciate the "box in the box" [in the box] aspect of the Schrodinger >thought experiment/allegory. Schrodinger himself, was of course painfully >aware that this was nothing but a mental construct of an allegory designed to >test out probability and uncertainty...aspects that on a Quantum level reduce >down to thought/non thought causality. He was certainly fearful of either >outcome and what it represents because it defies Newton's "cause effect" >relationship of a priori first order unbreakable rule: poison gas is either >released by random generator or not...release of gas precedes opening the >box...so by Newton, of course Cat was either alive or dead prior to the >observation...but Schrodinger meant to prove this was an error in Newtonian >thinking and that the act of observation alters the state of the >cat...breaking any causal relationships of time. > >Dharma, you did not quite understand this in context with "cause effect" >relationships...i.e., I drink, I drive, I crash, therefore "drinking caused >crash." In actual fact, on a Quantum level, only the observer at the scene >could determine if : > >1) I crashed/did not crash >2) I drove/another drove >3) I had been drinking/not been drinking (perhaps you discover a wine bottle >or run a blood test on me...but before you have discovered this, then >"drinking did not in fact cause the accident." > >Now on a macro cosmic scale this seems silly, but at a Quantum level this is >perfectly provable with experiments and observation. >Do such microcosmic rules say something about reality? Absolutely. Do we >still have free will and choice (drink not drink. Drive not drive...even look >for crash victim/don't look for crash victim)? Absolutely. > >But consider the poor subatomic particle that MUST behave a certain way >because the researcher or observer EXPECTS it to behave a certain way. Since >it's mass and "mind" are small compared to the mass and "mind" of the >observer, it cannot violate the quam field tensors that force it to "obey." > >Now, on a vastly larger scale, can mere individual humans hope to act in ways >that are not expected by a Mind of vastly greater mass, size and power? No >at all. In these things, we have no more inertial power than does the >smallest subatomic particle. You are right, I did not quite understand this. )) At the time I threw in Shrodinger's cat (sorry, cat!), I was talking about the Uncertainty Principle and the influence of the observer... >>>waves v quanta, but not both. >>>continuity v events, but not both. >>> >>>Or so it seems. ))))))) LOL ))))))))) >>> >>D: Yes - and your words elucidate - and it's quite intriguing. >> When we look for waves or quanta, continuity or discontinuity, >> our looking is a "doing." We "make" reality as we look. > >Isn't that part of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle? You can't look to >something to see it "as it is," because the action of the observer changes >things? > >Shrodinger's Cat. It was my understanding that at a quantum level we actually can NOT determine both the position and the velocity of an electron... one or the other, but not both at the same time. I confess I have not pitied the poor subatomic particles. And I had not heard that experiment and observation prove my lack of inertial power because of the existence of a big Mind in the sky "of vastly greater mass, size and power." Have the scientists heard about this?? )) Maybe I'd better expand my little diagram again. quanta events synchronicity non-duality or or or or waves continuity causation duality Seems to me you've plunked down squarely on the side of continuity, causation, and the duality of me and the big Mind. Love, Dharma P.S. Still trying to figure out "inertial power." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 1, 1999 Report Share Posted October 1, 1999 In a message dated 10/1/99 5:54:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time, fisher1 writes: << Seems to me you've plunked down squarely on the side of continuity, causation, and the duality of me and the big Mind. Love, Dharma P.S. Still trying to figure out "inertial power." >> Dear Dharma: Well, I have solidly plunked down...but I am uncertain as to where...since I am only sure of my velocity now...and that coupled with mass gives me "inertial power" in a purely Newtonian way. I did not mean to suggest that experiments validate the Big Mind and our own seeming Quantum dependency for action...only that experiments at Cern in Switzerland have shown the "spookiness at a distance" aspect of Quantum interaction and action dependent on observation to be not only true for the one particle, but true for the "brother/sister particle" split off and measured at another locale...it must do what the other particle does...even though there is absolutely no causal connection on any known level of rational, normal Newtonian physics. C'est la vie. We see the same behavior among twins separated at birth and raised in totally divergent environments...they even dress the same and marry mates with the same names! Spookiness at a distance on a greater than Quantum level. So...to the Big Mind...we are all just bundles of Quanta...packets of light, switching information...and sometimes things get jumbled up and we end up with screwy problems. Well, blame the programmer, not the file result, I say. I did not design myself, and by Golly, Gosh, given the chance I would have made a number of improvements. As, I suppose, most of us would do, given the chance. Add an extra three inches or so and I would hardly be overweight! And that Ego! Yucko! I would have taken a scalpel to that thing, too! Love, Zenbob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.