Quantum Phenomena

[Smaragd]

Thought I'd start a new topic on quantum phenomena because the discussion on it was so interesting in another topic. I assume the the discussion might take all sorts of directions so feel free to ponder all smaller or bigger themes relating to the topic. I want to say that I'm coming from a point of view that is not too versed on the subject (what a drag, I know) but perhaps the discussion can overcome these problems.

To start I will quote some interesting bits from the discussion on Good & Bad in Conspiracy Theories topic:

Quantum physics is actually quite a lot about mathematical abstract models - even many physicists who are not that philosophical confuse this with philosophical questions about the macro level world.

What I know, a lot of quantum physics makes sense only in the language of math. So do you imply that quantum theory is irrelevant to the macro level world? (Otherwise than in techical applications such as the quantum computer, which still is not more than a lousy computer, what I've heard. Correct me, if I'm wrong.) As a hermetist I have to note that as above so below etc. In my mind, there is very little doubt that the quantum structure - and phenomena - that we can witness in the micro level would not apply in the macro level. But the question is, in what way will it play out and what is the role of (human) consiousness in it.

***

The quantum phenomena are not necessarily spiritual in any mystical sense, they just prove that the Newtonian paradigm (which is not a paradigm of philosophical materialism but a paradigm of measuring the empirically observable nature) is insufficient. ... And if they are spiritual (that is, not material) in some ontological sense, it is different from spiritual in the religious/mystical sense associated the existential meaningfulness of life.

I'd like to point that the difference seems to be only the difference of the lense we are looking through a quantum phenomena. At least from my own point of view the religious mystical lense is the kind that seeks to bring the understanding of phenomenas (including scientific understanding) in to the greater whole where different mechanism of the world are mirrored in each other (existential meaningfulness of life relates to the interconnectedness of things) and their relationships with each other hopefully gains clarity in the process. This could be seen (admittedly a clumsy) point of view to mysticism. In religious context, the metaphysical beyond the physical phenomena is usually ofcourse observed through different gods or spirits, but the "mechanisms" of these beings could be seen atleast having correspondence to the phenomena. Let's take an awfully broad example: Hermes with it's fast travelling wings and the role as the Messenger God, as well as the Iocator aspect of it; isn't it obvious that quantum phenomena in it's tongue in cheek mechanisms the physicists are quite enthralled by is somewhat close to this God?

The idea that quantum phenomena have been thus far (to my knowledge) only observed on the micro level, holds interesting notions to theorize around. Let's take for example Blavatsky often writing about atoms and the Monads being at least nearly the same thing (I'm thinking fundamental particles possibly being quite high spirits), and if we are zooming in the atomical level and the phenomena there seems to change, could we be sort of zooming out from the illusory objective world in to the subjective-objective world where Gods are present in elementary particles and what not, and thus we could, in theory, be observing for example Mercurial mechanics in quantum phenomena, in vitro. (I think I just accidentally found modern alchemy or should it be called quantum alchemy. ) I mean this would be sort of symbolical zoom because the observer would likely think to be watching the same objective world and thus the illusion would remain. This could be also some part of to the reason why it matters the observer is present in the double-slit experiment. But as everyone can see, this is quite wild theorizing I just had to give a voice to as these things have been baffling me.

[Soror O]

Thank you for opening this thread, fra Smaragd. It has been on my mind for awhile.

I though that it would be fitting to summarize the quantum phenomena in short, so that even the readers not familiar with the subject, could follow the thread and maybe participate in it. (I'm not familiar with this myself, hehe.)

Quantum phenomena in short:

Micro scale entitities (ie. quantic entities) act both as particles and and as waves. They are both particles and waves.

A particle has a certain point in space, it exists in a one place at a time. A wave reaches through space, not having a single point of existing. Waves are measured in wave length.

What follows is:
- Non-locality: These entities exist in a multiple places at a same time
- These entities can move through physical barriers (the double slit experiment) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9tKncAdlHQ
- Uncertainty-principle: One can never predict entity’s location and momentum*/ speed. If one wants to know the momentum in a greater certainty, the location comes more uncertain. If one wants to know the location, the momentum comes more uncertain.

Momentum = a mass in motion. Mass x velocity. An entity’s wavelength is related to its momentum.

Quantum entanglement, “spooky action at a distance”
= A set of correspondences that happen when there is a group of particles interacting or close to each other

Physical properties of these particles seem to align with each other without any physical relation. Measurement of one of the entangled particles makes the wave-function of all the particles collapse.

The act of sheer measuring/ observing has an effect on the object.

- To me this suggests that consciousness/spirit could be one of the missing variables in the quantum theory. To me, this would also be aligned with what Jesus told about faith:
“(...) For truly I tell you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.” (Matthew 17:20)

Let's take for example Blavatsky often writing about atoms and the Monads being at least nearly the same thing (I'm thinking fundamental particles possibly being quite high spirits), and if we are zooming in the atomical level and the phenomena there seems to change, could we be sort of zooming out from the illusory objective world in to the subjective-objective world where Gods are present in elementary particles and what not, and thus we could, in theory, be observing for example Mercurial mechanics in quantum phenomena, in vitro. (I think I just accidentally found modern alchemy or should it be called quantum alchemy. ) I mean this would be sort of symbolical zoom because the observer would likely think to be watching the same objective world and thus the illusion would remain. This could be also some part of to the reason why it matters the observer is present in the double-slit experiment. But as everyone can see, this is quite wild theorizing I just had to give a voice to as these things have been baffling me.

It has been said that quantum phenomena is hard to crasp for it's not mechanical and ontologically dualistic, but from an occultist point of view it just feels extremely natural. The ancient wisdom has for thousands of years spoken of the non-dual, and "consiousness-based" nature of being. These ancient presentations are not mere dead symbols, they point to the core of reality.

Physics Nobel Prize winner Werner Heisenberg stated about his relation science and religion:

“In the history of science, ever since the famous trial of Galileo, it has repeatedly been claimed that scientific truth cannot be reconciled with the religious interpretation of the world. Although I am now convinced that scientific truth is unassailable in its own field, I have never found it possible to dismiss the content of religious thinking as simply part of an outmoded phase in the consciousness of mankind, a part we shall have to give up from now on. Thus in the course of my life I have repeatedly been compelled to ponder on the relationship of these two regions of thought, for I have never been able to doubt the reality of that to which they point.”
(Scientific and Religious Truth, 1974)

[Kavi]

Just a quick question :

What do you think happens for Oneness if seeing through quantum physics and different theories about universe, like multiverse theory etc.?

I have tended to think multiverse just as a science fiction, but I really don't know that much of it, and maybe just people working in physics knows or has knowledge of it.

[Nefastos]

Just a quick question :

What do you think happens for Oneness if seeing through quantum physics and different theories about universe, like multiverse theory etc.?

And a quick answer:

Nothing. For the Absolute oneness remains regardless in which way the universe or multiverse is seen:

6. Two separated from each other cannot exist. If they could, then our unity separate from otherness would be, for us, the only unity, making the other a completely non-existent reality. If the other were unobservable for the concrete, intellectual, and spiritual senses, it could not be counted as existent. (Polyharmonia, I)

The different lesser onenesses are the major and minor buddhic fields, so to say, or auric eggs, which pertain throughout the universe, for the sum total of the multiverses is always the one universe because of the above mentioned necessary metaphysics.

And what the horizonally-viewing modern thought sees as strings or different modes of being are actually just the dimensions already known for occultists. The ideas of quantum physics do not question, but rather support, the ancient ideas of esotericism. All these seemingly different modes of being are just the fundamental aspects of the same absolute being.

[Angolmois]

I can warmly recommend Wolfgang Smith's 'The Quantum Enigma' for anyone interested on the topic. The most important distinction he makes in the book is based upon Aristotelian ontology, where the so called 'physical universe' is the quantum level "right between possibility and reality" and the 'corporeal universe' which is the world we actually perceive, and where the quantum world is the world of Prakriti containing the possibility of manifestation when activated by the Form.

[Smaragd]

Thank you Ave, for the coherent and needed introduction!

It has been said that quantum phenomena is hard to crasp for it's not mechanical and ontologically dualistic, but from an occultist point of view it just feels extremely natural.

In my layman philosophy seeing quantum phenomena ontologically dualistic (because of the either-or situation?) is a simplification of the phenomena. That is if 'dualistic' is not simply stating the phenomenal reality but rather defining ontological reality as a whole. On the other hand the dualism could be describing ontological reality of the nature of manifested world, a sort of basic dynamism of giving birth to the illusory world between the two poles of one reality.

How is it not mechanical though? It might be that I'm using the term in a bit different way than actual scientists. I mean, is it not mechanical controlling of the phenomena to for example add a measuring tool to control the outcome? Or is it not a mechanism of the phenomena that adding a measuring tool alters the result? Mechanism as controlled manifestation of nature's law.

[Soror O]

Thank you Ave, for the coherent and needed introduction!

I was writing it just as much for myself as for you all :3

How is it not mechanical though? It might be that I'm using the term in a bit different way than actual scientists. I mean, is it not mechanical controlling of the phenomena to for example add a measuring tool to control the outcome? Or is it not a mechanism of the phenomena that adding a measuring tool alters the result? Mechanism as controlled manifestation of nature's law.

I was using the concept in a horribly sloppy manner, my bad. Ofcourse quantum phenomena has their own peculiar mechanics - it just differs from the Newtonian mechanics (which is predictable and causal in its own manner). So I guess I was referring more to the phenomenom which appears as unpredictablity.

(I've been thinking about the wave function lately. About colours being light at a certain wavelenght. The red apple is, in its essence, anything but red (for the red colour one sees in the "red apple" is just a sensory signifier of a certain wavelenght which has not been absorbed into the object.)

[Cerastes]

Interesting discussion.
I'm currently trying to read a book by a Robert Schuster who tries to prove scientifically by means of quantum mechanics that there is an immortal soul.(Warum der Mensch unsterblich ist - Quantenphysik, Bewusstsein und das Leben nach dem Tod) Due to a lack of sleep I'm a very slow reader by now and the book is quote difficult. Obviously quantum physics follows very different ruls than the macroscopic world. Schuster says there in an inner world of possibilities and an outer world thats consists of manifested possibilities and connects this to quantum entanglement. (-> Schrödinger) As soon as the possibility manifests, it follows the ruls of the outer world. Before that, it exists as a possibility.
He discribes consciousness as the perception of the cause of change and believes that every atom has it's own consciousness.
... unfortulatelly I did not read the last 20 pages yet. Looking forward to unterstand how he justifies the eternity of what he calls "inner world".

[Zeraim]

I was reading (bit old) news article tittled:
New hypothesis argues the universe simulates itself into existence.
A physics paper proposes neither you nor the world around you are real.

The news article is easy to read summary and seems to correlate with some ideas many occultist might find familiar.

https://bigthink.com/surprising-science ... -existence

The paper itself (https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/2/247/htm) is bit more time consuming to read, but I think it is worth it. This may be just my personal obstacle on the path, but I have sometimes notices how even in my dreams, I do not allow myself experience something and state to myself that something is not physically possible etc. preventing myself for experience something. And reading papers like this, sometimes my critical mind seem to release its grip to some learned conceptions and allow ever increasing freedom for new experiences and conscious states.

Here are few quotes to give some idea of content:
"In this dualistic view, dividing reality between physical stuff and consciousness, advanced waves allow for consciousness to have new retrocausal dynamics on the physical stuff. From this perspective, consciousness of the future can influence the past so long as freewill is not violated."

"While the self-simulation hypothesis can have mental simulations within mental simulations, all simulations are made of the same stuff—thought. Specifically, one might question, in a simulation hypothesis ontology, if they are physical, i.e., real, or if they are merely information in one of the nested simulations within simulations. However, because the self-simulation hypothesis is based on panpsychism, where everything is thought, it does not require a physical universe with computers to run the mental self-simulation. The difference here is that physical information can emerge out of a conscious realm rather than just physical information emerging from a physical realm."

"For example, coherent patterns of pure EC (Emergent Consciousness Thought) information can allow the emergence of higher-order collective consciousnesses that is not at the level of the panconsciousness but that is, in some sense, a higher level than human animal-level consciousness."

"Emergentism typically subscribes to the philosophy of materialism. While our panpsychic view is opposite from materialism, our model nevertheless has the notion of emergent consciousness (EC) from emergent physicality (EP), both of which are forms of thought in the strange loop of the self-simulation. In this sense, our view is philosophically different than emergentism, yet effectively accomplishes the same goals, as a type of consciousness emerges from physical information, which emerges from the panconsciousness, and so forth."

"The ideas laid out in this document as a whole cannot be defined as spiritualism because, as the above definition states, spiritualism says nothing about matter, the nature of the supreme being or a universal force, or the precise nature of spiritual reality itself. Our thesis does indeed say several things about those ideas, as we focus on issues such as mathematical physics, symbolism, and the finite but evolving nature of the supreme being and its origin story, i.e., the emergent panconsciousness substrate as a strange loop. We have not used the term “God” in place of panconsciousness in this document because that is an ambiguous and confusing term. It has many meanings. Two of the most general meanings associated with that word are ideas anathema to this thesis. The first is that God is infinite. This is not the case in the SSH model. Our panpsychic substrate evolves. The second is the popular idea in many religions that God creates everything. Our panpsychic self-simulation is everything and is collectively created by everything within it. It is unitary and interdependent, where the panconsciousness cannot exist without evolving through us and everything else that can make decisions."

[Soror O]

"We have not used the term “God” in place of panconsciousness in this document because that is an ambiguous and confusing term. It has many meanings. Two of the most general meanings associated with that word are ideas anathema to this thesis. The first is that God is infinite. This is not the case in the SSH model. Our panpsychic substrate evolves. The second is the popular idea in many religions that God creates everything. Our panpsychic self-simulation is everything and is collectively created by everything within it. It is unitary and interdependent, where the panconsciousness cannot exist without evolving through us and everything else that can make decisions."

Yes, this is as far as one can get using human concepts and dualistic perception.
But:
Why couldn't an infinite being the same as evolving being? Why 'pan' (all) couldn't be same as 'one'? Why 'the creator' couldn't be the same as 'the created'. Why 'simulation' couldn't be the same as 'reality'?

Yes, the world and the self are "not real", in the narrow sense we are thought to perceive them. But the way one decides to perceive is the game changer.

Schuster's immortal soul is the panconsciousness, is you, is me, is God, is Atma. But this was a science thread, so one must not skip to the chase, hahahhahah.

What really is interesting, is the way that one's self-realisation (as being God) relates to one's everyday life, in which we are called upon to join the coarse perception of so called reality (the human condition as we have known it). One would argue that divination leads to amorality (because if God is all then God is also war, pedophilia etc.) and amorality would be the same as immorality. But true morality is beyond what it perceived good and bad by humans. True morality is residing beyond dualism, true morality is Love. And who resides in Love, is not able to do harm. People see things as painful, as birthing is perceived "painful" to the physical body. But what pain really is? I felt "pain" in my physical body during birth, but I never regarded it as pain because there was no harm. Pain does not equal with harm. One ought not to fear (pain).

I also have felt "more true" pain (harm) due to things that have been done to me during my childhood. This pain was real in a sense that it needed to be reckoned with properly. But in the end, it was not really any more "metaphysical" ie. real than any other thing. So why would one dedicate one's life to avoiding pain and dying? For what never was born (the immortal soul, God, Atma) can never really die.

(These grains of thought are of my own perception and ought not to be taken as claim of truth any other than my own.)