What Is Truth?

[sabaijai]

"Two ideas are psycologically deep-rooted in man: self-protection and self-preservation. For self-protection man has created God, on whom he depends for his own protection, safety and security, just as a child depends on its parent. For self-preservation man has conceived the idea of an immortal Soul or Atman, which will live eternally. In his ignorance, weakness, fear, and desire, man needs these two things to console himself. Hence he clings to them deeply and fanatically."

Interesting view. But I don't think self-protection and self-preservation are the origin. I think a much stronger reason, at a higher level when the latter two are achieved (at least temporarily), is the presence of the universe itself which implies a creator.

Both ideas are just theories, with no empirical evidence to back them up. The notion that self-protection and self-preservation are prime motivators for creating 'god' and 'self' are intuitively compelling, however, and have been put forth quite often by Buddhist educators.

Really these questions belong in the realm of philosopy and I have to admit they are beyond me. But there's a passage somewhere in the Tipitaka that talks about a sentient being living in the deva realms who has deluded himself into thinking he is the creator of the universe, and has deluded others into believing him. If I can find it, I'll post it later.*

I also recently came across an Amazon review of a book on atheism that contained this intriguing notion: 'Virtually every one of God's supposed attributes (omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence) when considered in conjunction, show his alleged existence to be self-contradictory and thus makes the existence of a supreme being not only improbable (given evidential considerations), but rather impossible (given logical considerations).' I believe the Greek philsopher Epicurus entertained a similar line of thought well before the Christian era.

*Found it, basically an Access to Insight paraphrase of a longer passage in the Digha Nikaya:

According to Buddhist cosmology, every living being dwells in one of thirty-one distinct "planes," of which our familiar human plane is but one. Some of these realms are home to beings (the devas) with unusual powers and extraordinarily subtle and refined physical bodies — or even no body at all. Their god-like status is, however, short-lived; like all living beings, they are mortal and ultimately subject to death and rebirth in other planes according to the purity and skillfulness of their actions (kamma). One of these devas, the Great Brahma, is so clouded by his own delusion that he believes himself to be the all-powerful, all-seeing creator of the universe (see DN 11).

DN 11

Question to those familiar with the Abrahamic monotheisms: are God, Allah and Yaweh thought to be the same entity or is each competing with the other two (not to mention Brahma, etc) for supreme status?

[Gulliver_in_LOS]

Therefore if there is a creator it should be outside the domain of the "created" space and time, and the question above implies implicitly the notion of time.

That breaks the law of cause and effect. Cause and effect are always related. The creator must ultimately be the same as the effect.

The causality law exists only within space-time. Therefore the initial cause must be before space-time itself is created, and the effect appears at the Big Bang.

Ok before the BB we have a state of nothing, no time, no space, nothing, void. What do we have after the big bang? Do time and space exist out there waiting to be discovered, separate from the mind? If so upon philosophical investigation we should be able to find such an existent universe.

In a dream we have dream space time and it follows physical laws that we can test and debate within the dream. A dream has reality has history and geography but it does not exist separate from the mind. Can we prove that our waking state is any different?

Therefore if there is no universe outside the mind then there is no creator outside the mind.

First, I would like to know what is your definition of the mind. Is it located in the brain? Or can it exist without any material support? If it is located only in the brain (or another "hardware") then it needs the space dimensions to exist, which were created, as well as time, at the BB. Hence, according to this perspective, the universe does not need the presence of the mind to exist, while the opposite is true. On the other hand, if the mind can exist outside space-time, then logical thinking (or philosophy) cannot be used, such as causality and so, because we get the infinity problem again.

Once again we need to define the mind to talk about what we define as "reality" and "dreams". If we use the first definition of the mind, then "reality" is the mind or brain interpretation of the signals received from our senses (vision, hearing,...) from the outside world, while the dreaming state is when these senses are not used. For example, virtual reality is not dreaming as you need to connect your senses to specific signals controlled by a computer. On the other hand, I don't believe we can define dreaming if the mind is outside the space-time.

Therefore I think the mind can not exist outside the space-time universe and if there is a creator it should be outside the space-time.

Edited January 19, 2006 by Gulliver_in_LOS

[Suthep_Steve]

First, I would like to know what is your definition of the mind. Is it located in the brain? Or can it exist without any material support? If it is located only in the brain (or another "hardware") then it needs the space dimensions to exist, which were created, as well as time, at the BB. Hence, according to this perspective, the universe does not need the presence of the mind to exist, while the opposite is true. On the other hand, if the mind can exist outside space-time, then logical thinking (or philosophy) cannot be used, such as causality and so, because we get the infinity problem again.

Once again we need to define the mind to talk about what we define as "reality" and "dreams". If we use the first definition of the mind, then "reality" is the mind or brain interpretation of the signals received from our senses (vision, hearing,...) from the outside world, while the dreaming state is when these senses are not used. For example, virtual reality is not dreaming as you need to connect your senses to specific signals controlled by a computer. On the other hand, I don't believe we can define dreaming if the mind is outside the space-time.

Therefore I think the mind can not exist outside the space-time universe and if there is a creator it should be outside the space-time.

1, Define the mind:

The nature of the mind is clarity and it's function is to perceive objects.

2, Is the mind located within the brain

No. Why because if the mind is largely within space time (cause and effect must apply). Therefore even at the time of death there remains a cause (previous moment of mind) which will give rise to an effect (first moment of the next life or intermediate state.) Argument works for existance of mind before birth as well.

Lets say and this is a guess because I'm not even signing up to the big bang just yet. That an Enlightened mind exists/dwels outside space time. Therefore an enlightened mind is not subject to cause and effect as long as it exists outside space time. If however the enlightened mind wishes to act within space time then it must obey some if not all of the laws of space time.

An unelightened mind exists/dwels mostly within space time and therefore is almost totally at the mercy of the laws of space time. Just as the dreamer is bound by the laws of the dream universe.

So then does space time create the mind or does the mind create space time. Both are flawed as you point out. If space time creates mind and space time is logical then we should be able by using logic to find space time on logical investigation. You have so far ignored this and I'm of the opinion it can't be done so let say an externally existant space time is out.

Next option mind creates space time. Mind exists inherently from it's own side and as a by product of it's existance creates space time. If that's the case then we should be able to find the mind upon investigation but we can't.

Therefore we need a third option. Buddha presents one in the Perfection of Wisdom sutras as explained by Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti. Namely the view of dependent relationship. An unenlightened mind and the space time that it perceives are mutually dependent. One can't exist without the other. You can't have a mind with out an object and you can't have an object without a mind. Both arise simultaneously and within space time obey cause and effect. But neither creates the other they both lack inherant independent existance like the objects in a dream.

Outside space time there is no self, no other, no time, no space, no cause and effect, no rebirth, no mind.

Inside space time is meerly an illusion where we wrongly grasp on to the existance of a self, other, time, space, cause and effect, rebirth, mind etc. All of space time arises because we grasp on to a sence of self as oposed to other, having done this we feel that self is seperate and unrelated to other and from making this mistake the whole of space time and all it's sufferings appears.

None of the above is supposed to be representative of any particular school or organisation it's just my ideas whilst standing on the shoulders of giants.

Edited January 19, 2006 by Suthep_Steve

[robitusson]

Have a look at this audiobook which can be downloaded for free.

http://greylodge.org/gpc/?cat=15&paged=2

The one I'm talking about is called "Kinds of Minds" by Daniel Dennett. It really goes into the whole question of what mind is, what the purpose of the mind is and who or what has them. Recommended.

[camerata]

Question to those familiar with the Abrahamic monotheisms: are God, Allah and Yaweh thought to be the same entity or is each competing with the other two (not to mention Brahma, etc) for supreme status?

According to a book on Islam that I read last year, it's the same deity, and Muslims originally gave special consideration to Jews and Christians as "Children of the Book." I think the difference lies mainly in the interpretation of God's wishes. I don't know if the average guy in the street sees it that way, though. I remember after Holyfield beat Mike Tyson (a Muslim by then) to a pulp one time he was yelling, "My God's greater than your God!" But I guess heavyweight boxers aren't exactly known for their intelligence.

[Gulliver_in_LOS]

Question to those familiar with the Abrahamic monotheisms: are God, Allah and Yaweh thought to be the same entity or is each competing with the other two (not to mention Brahma, etc) for supreme status?

According to a book on Islam that I read last year, it's the same deity, and Muslims originally gave special consideration to Jews and Christians as "Children of the Book." I think the difference lies mainly in the interpretation of God's wishes. I don't know if the average guy in the street sees it that way, though. I remember after Holyfield beat Mike Tyson (a Muslim by then) to a pulp one time he was yelling, "My God's greater than your God!" But I guess heavyweight boxers aren't exactly known for their intelligence.

That's correct. In the Quran Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, are all considered prophets of Allah. The correct translation is "The People of the Book", and by book it means the Bible for Christians and the Torah for Jews.

[Lilyflower]

Question to those familiar with the Abrahamic monotheisms: are God, Allah and Yaweh thought to be the same entity or is each competing with the other two (not to mention Brahma, etc) for supreme status?

According to a book on Islam that I read last year, it's the same deity, and Muslims originally gave special consideration to Jews and Christians as "Children of the Book." I think the difference lies mainly in the interpretation of God's wishes. I don't know if the average guy in the street sees it that way, though. I remember after Holyfield beat Mike Tyson (a Muslim by then) to a pulp one time he was yelling, "My God's greater than your God!" But I guess heavyweight boxers aren't exactly known for their intelligence.

here's how i understand it...

abraham believed in god. that god had the name 'yahweh' and was referred to as 'god'.

abraham had two sons: ishmael and isaac.

ishmael became the 'father of 12 nations' (nowadays they're generally referred to as 'the arab nations'). these nations are muslim nations and the name of their god is allah.

isaac became the father of jacob (his name was later changed to israel) and jacob/israel became the father of 'the twelve tribes of israel'.

christianity came into being with jesus christ. he was from one of these tribes (judah).

jews see yahweh as the name of god. some bible translations used by christians (eg new jerusalem bible) also use this name - but most christians just use the title (ie god) rather than a specific name.

muslims, jews and christians all have abraham as their father. it sounds to me like they all started off with the one god - so i would say that yahweh and allah are the same in that sense. over the years, the beliefs that came with that have become more diverse (that might explain camerata's comment that muslims originally thought of jews and christians as 'children of the book' when i'm pretty sure they're not viewed like that now).

[Gulliver_in_LOS]

1, Define the mind:

The nature of the mind is clarity and it's function is to perceive objects.

Interesting definition. Could it be elaborated more to define what it meant by clarity in this context and how the mind can perceive “objects” without physical or material support, i.e. the brain and the body senses (from point 2 it is concluded that the mind is not located in the brain or body).

2, Is the mind located within the brain

No. Why because if the mind is largely within space time (cause and effect must apply). Therefore even at the time of death there remains a cause (previous moment of mind) which will give rise to an effect (first moment of the next life or intermediate state.) Argument works for existance of mind before birth as well.

In my best knowledge, it is not proven that the mind will continue to exist after the death of the body. The above conclusion is based on a “belief” in rebirth and reincarnation. If we take the analogy with computers (as camerata did in a previous mail), once the hardware (the brain) vanishes (or breaks down!), all the software or information vanishes as well. Using the same analogy, and defining the mind as the “software”, then you can for example transfer the same set of data of information from one computer hardware to another without the need to quit space-time (for example by radio waves between the two computers). So even assuming that the mind, defined as information or data according to the computer analogy, can move from one body to another is true it does not need to be outside space-time.

Lets say and this is a guess because I'm not even signing up to the big bang just yet. That an Enlightened mind exists/dwels outside space time. Therefore an enlightened mind is not subject to cause and effect as long as it exists outside space time. If however the enlightened mind wishes to act within space time then it must obey some if not all of the laws of space time.

Again, I am not sure what it is exactly meant by an “enlightened mind”. But from the onset, if the mind is defined as in point 1, it is not suited for a creator, as “perceiving objects” requires implicitly acting within space-time. It does not obey the causality law outside space-time. But I repeat again the initial cause does not need to be within space-time, however the subsequent effect, cause-effect, …, do. Subsequently to act within space-time, using the same process, a cause can be generated at the boundary (from the outside) of space-time and the resulting effect will be inside, and causality is preserved.

An unelightened mind exists/dwels mostly within space time and therefore is almost totally at the mercy of the laws of space time. Just as the dreamer is bound by the laws of the dream universe.

Agree, if this “enlightened mind” is defined as in point 1. It could be for example a super intelligent being where its supporting hardware or material part, i.e. the brain, as it always needs one, is a solar system or a whole galaxy. But this is not the creator because it is always confined to space-time. (I already responded about dreaming).

So then does space time create the mind or does the mind create space time. Both are flawed as you point out. If space time creates mind and space time is logical then we should be able by using logic to find space time on logical investigation. You have so far ignored this and I'm of the opinion it can't be done so let say an externally existant space time is out.

Yes space-time was found by logical investigation, which is by the way also called science. But this does not imply that mind, or “information” as was defined from the computer analogy, is created by space-time itself either.

Next option mind creates space time. Mind exists inherently from it's own side and as a by product of it's existance creates space time. If that's the case then we should be able to find the mind upon investigation but we can't.

Already responded to this point: in my opinion the mind can not exist without material support (for example the brain). Hence how can it create its support before it exists?

Therefore we need a third option. Buddha presents one in the Perfection of Wisdom sutras as explained by Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti. Namely the view of dependent relationship. An unenlightened mind and the space time that it perceives are mutually dependent. One can't exist without the other. You can't have a mind with out an object and you can't have an object without a mind. Both arise simultaneously and within space time obey cause and effect. But neither creates the other they both lack inherant independent existance like the objects in a dream.

Interesting. This view reminds me of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics(championed by the physicist Nils Bohr). It basically states that just before you measure one particle’s specific property, for example the location of an electron, the electron could be anywhere in space-time with equal probability. In other words, the act of measurement has made it to appear in a specific position, or to exist. Today this interpretation is the orthodox view of quantum physics. But Einstein was strongly against it, and said famously that “God does not play the dices with the world”. Personally I don’t believe that the mind creates reality.

Inside space time is meerly an illusion where we wrongly grasp on to the existance of a self, other, time, space, cause and effect, rebirth, mind etc. All of space time arises because we grasp on to a sence of self as oposed to other, having done this we feel that self is seperate and unrelated to other and from making this mistake the whole of space time and all it's sufferings appears.

This a Buddhist religious statement, which is as in most religions, cannot be debated logically, but can lead to some social benefits.

... standing on the shoulders of giants.

Sir Isaac Newton (1643-1727)

[Ijustwannateach]

Have a look at this audiobook which can be downloaded for free.

http://greylodge.org/gpc/?cat=15&paged=2

The one I'm talking about is called "Kinds of Minds" by Daniel Dennett. It really goes into the whole question of what mind is, what the purpose of the mind is and who or what has them. Recommended.

Cool! I've read a lot of Dennett, but never heard him speak.

"Steven"

[chownah]

Interesting. This view reminds me of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics(championed by the physicist Nils Bohr). It basically states that just before you measure one particle’s specific property, for example the location of an electron, the electron could be anywhere in space-time with equal probability. In other words, the act of measurement has made it to appear in a specific position, or to exist. Today this interpretation is the orthodox view of quantum physics. But Einstein was strongly against it, and said famously that “God does not play the dices with the world”. Personally I don’t believe that the mind creates reality.

OFF TOPIC

I may be wrong but I believe that an electron can be anywhere it space-time but not with equal probability....I believe that it has a FINITE probability to be at any location...not an equal probability.

[Misplaced]

Religion aside,

IMO, the truth is "whatever yourself truly believe in"

[robitusson]

Have a look at this audiobook which can be downloaded for free.

http://greylodge.org/gpc/?cat=15&paged=2

The one I'm talking about is called "Kinds of Minds" by Daniel Dennett. It really goes into the whole question of what mind is, what the purpose of the mind is and who or what has them. Recommended.

Cool! I've read a lot of Dennett, but never heard him speak.

"Steven"

It's some other person reading the book, not him reading it himself. Unfortunately the guy reading it has a kind of annoying tone. What the BBC tv series Grumpy Old Men called the Moronic Interrogative, when people go up at the end of their sentences even though it's a statement and not a question. Sorry, off topic, I'll shut up now.

[Gulliver_in_LOS]

Interesting. This view reminds me of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics(championed by the physicist Nils Bohr). It basically states that just before you measure one particle’s specific property, for example the location of an electron, the electron could be anywhere in space-time with equal probability. In other words, the act of measurement has made it to appear in a specific position, or to exist. Today this interpretation is the orthodox view of quantum physics. But Einstein was strongly against it, and said famously that “God does not play the dices with the world”. Personally I don’t believe that the mind creates reality.

OFF TOPIC

I may be wrong but I believe that an electron can be anywhere it space-time but not with equal probability....I believe that it has a FINITE probability to be at any location...not an equal probability.

I meant to say that before the measurement is done the probabilities of finding the electron at any location in space-time are equal. In other words, the electron can be located anywhere, and have no preffered position before the measurement. Yes, this probability has a "finite" value if space-time is quantized...

[Ijustwannateach]

I have the feeling this whole electron thing is off-topic, but I have to agree with the previous disagreement- the greatest probability of the location of the electron (around a particular atom) is *in its orbit*- that's why we distinguish the location of the orbit from the rest of space. I'm not sure at exactly what point the line is drawn (arbitrarily, no doubt) separating the higher-probability orbit from the increasingly lower chance area of space outside it, but the probability is *not* equal and does drop off as distance from the orbit increases.

To quote from McMurry 4th Edition, "[the probability function of the electron] for an s orbital is greatest near the nucleus and then drops off rapidly as distance from the nucleus increases, although it never goes all the way to zero, even at a large distance. As a result, there is no definite boundary to the atom and no definite "size." For purposes of convenience and diagramming, however, we usually imagine a boundary surface enclosing the volume where the electron spends most (say, 95%) of its time."

Question to those familiar with the Abrahamic monotheisms: are God, Allah and Yaweh thought to be the same entity or is each competing with the other two (not to mention Brahma, etc) for supreme status?

I believe each of the three is more or less interpreted as being the same God with a different perspective (or rather, disagreements)- members of each religion would tell you there is only one God and theirs is right- the Christians would tell you that their God is the same one the Jews had but the Jews have not kept up with the new rules. The Jews would tell you that the Christians were misled about Jesus being the Messiah. And the Muslims regard Jesus as a holy man, so I assume their "God" is believed to be the same one as well.

"Steven"

P.S. For those interested in theories regarding the relationship of quantum mechanics to consciousness, Roger Penrose recently published a rather controversial (and many critics said unconvincing) book on the topic- he's also on Hard Talk on the BBC this week talking about this and his recent revisions regarding the Big Bang.

[Ijustwannateach]

P.P.S. His new and somewhat wild speculation about the BB involves the idea that if the universe were open (i.e., kept expanding forever until it reached maximum entropy) that most particles would evaporate into various forms of EM energy which would somehow coalesce into the core of a new BB. He said there wasn't enough evidence yet for this theory but that it has a chance.

[Gulliver_in_LOS]

I have the feeling this whole electron thing is off-topic, but I have to agree with the previous disagreement- the greatest probability of the location of the electron (around a particular atom) is *in its orbit*- that's why we distinguish the location of the orbit from the rest of space. I'm not sure at exactly what point the line is drawn (arbitrarily, no doubt) separating the higher-probability orbit from the increasingly lower chance area of space outside it, but the probability is *not* equal and does drop off as distance from the orbit increases.

To quote from McMurry 4th Edition, "[the probability function of the electron] for an s orbital is greatest near the nucleus and then drops off rapidly as distance from the nucleus increases, although it never goes all the way to zero, even at a large distance. As a result, there is no definite boundary to the atom and no definite "size." For purposes of convenience and diagramming, however, we usually imagine a boundary surface enclosing the volume where the electron spends most (say, 95%) of its time."

I should have mentioned in my previous posts that I was referering to a free electron or particle in space-time. As correctly mentioned above, the presence of a nucleus (protons and neutrons) in an atom affects the probability distribution of the electrons around it.

[Gulliver_in_LOS]

I have the feeling this whole electron thing is off-topic...

I don't think it's off-topic because this probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics implies that the act of measurement made the particle to appear somewhere at some time. In other words, "reality" appears only after a measurement (a mesurement inludes vision, hearing, etc). I admit though that it's may be "off-forum"...

[thaibebop]

I have the feeling this whole electron thing is off-topic...

I don't think it's off-topic because this probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics implies that the act of measurement made the particle to appear somewhere at some time. In other words, "reality" appears only after a measurement (a mesurement inludes vision, hearing, etc). I admit though that it's may be "off-forum"...

Einstein thought physics could prove God ( or a God like order) and tried to do just that. So, such things could be considered on topic I think.

[Abandon]

Einstein is continually quoted for religious purposes. Shameless name dropping to try and add a bit of 'credit by association' - especially by Buddhists. Much in the same way as a car advert has pretty women hugging the bonnet (hood).

Einstein knew didley squat about religion. He was no master of meditation. And, though he had a respect for Buddhism, had a very warped understanding of it, as did Schopenhauer and other Germans of the era.

The thread is about ultimate reality ... quite the opposite to a scientific reality, because it it a subjective experience.

Science splits the universe up into more and more components, in ever widening layers. Analyzes parts in isolation.

Religion - means re-ligare .. to re - bind together.

Concentration - (to centre) Yoga (union/unification) Meditaiton (bring to the middle/balance) all these words are pointing to a unification of the mind and the universe as it is experienced. The goal of religion is Non-Duality .. thus by definition does not accept of science which relies on duality as its main tool for analysis.

Religion and science both have their parts to play. But looking for ultimate reality in science, or science in religion, is like looking for birds in the sea, and fish in the sky. There is no scientific theory or reality that can take one to enlightenment. Nor can enlightenment be explained in an impersonal 'theory of everything'.

While enlightenment, or nibbana/nirvana, is personally experienced, it is a universal truth, and one that is common to all comers, and is not 'subjective' in terms of ones own thoughts and ideas. It can only be attained to after all self, all thoughts, all opinioins, and all sense experience has been put aside.

[Ijustwannateach]

I should have mentioned in my previous posts that I was referering to a free electron or particle in space-time. As correctly mentioned above, the presence of a nucleus (protons and neutrons) in an atom affects the probability distribution of the electrons around it.

This doesn't sound right, either- if the probability distribution were equal over all the volume of space, you wouldn't be able to predict with any accuracy at all where it was- when in fact free electrons are fairly predictable, if you know some initial conditions like velocity. If you aim an electron beam from across a room at a luminescent screen, the beam still arrives at the screen even after leaving the zone of accelerating potential- demonstrated by the bright spot seen on the screen; it doesn't suddenly spread throughout the universe with equal probability. I would expect an electron to have a "free" probability distribution similar to a sphere of rather high probability density dropping off in all directions.

While enlightenment, or nibbana/nirvana, is personally experienced, it is a universal truth, and one that is common to all comers, and is not 'subjective' in terms of ones own thoughts and ideas. It can only be attained to after all self, all thoughts, all opinioins, and all sense experience has been put aside.

I suppose this might be at the core of my objection to most forms of religious instruction- they all seem to argue for "our one way is right." Among the most liberal descriptions of Hinduism, by contrast, I am under the impression that there are 8-9 different forms of "Yoga" which are all paths to enlightenment (which may in fact be some sort of absolute in the end) of different types: intellectual effort, worship of a God, physical asceticism and control, meditation, etc. It also seems to me given the range of different kinds of experience and personality that while enlightenment itself may be a kind of universal experience, the paths to it may be pluralistic- and may even include some sort of meditation of science, for all I know (though that would not be the path I would choose).

What a relief it would be to find religions which don't claim exclusivity in their relationships to enlightenment, salvation, goodness, God, or whatever else!

"Steven"

[Gulliver_in_LOS]

I should have mentioned in my previous posts that I was referering to a free electron or particle in space-time. As correctly mentioned above, the presence of a nucleus (protons and neutrons) in an atom affects the probability distribution of the electrons around it.

This doesn't sound right, either- if the probability distribution were equal over all the volume of space, you wouldn't be able to predict with any accuracy at all where it was- when in fact free electrons are fairly predictable, if you know some initial conditions like velocity. If you aim an electron beam from across a room at a luminescent screen, the beam still arrives at the screen even after leaving the zone of accelerating potential- demonstrated by the bright spot seen on the screen; it doesn't suddenly spread throughout the universe with equal probability. I would expect an electron to have a "free" probability distribution similar to a sphere of rather high probability density dropping off in all directions.

To stay in-topic, the main issue which I wanted to present here is the probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics, which states that a physical quantity, such the position of an electron in space or in an atom, can not be determined exactly (i.e. has a finite probability to have a value from a range of values) before doing the act of measurement. Philosophically it means that we created a "reality", for example the presence of an electron at a specific position, only because of the act of measurement. Or in other words, “realty” does not exist by itself but conceived from our interference. Einstein was strongly against it, and had famous debates with Bohr about it (if it is permitted here I am referring to Einstein within a scientific context).

(off-topic.

1-“free electrons are fairly predictable, if you know some initial conditions like velocity”:

but you have already made a measurement of their velocity which made their probability distribution more "narrower" (more predictable), but not fully predictable (pls see point 2).

2- “the beam still arrives at the screen even after leaving the zone of accelerating potential- demonstrated by the bright spot seen on the screen; it doesn't suddenly spread throughout the universe with equal probability.”

According the probabilistic interpretation, the act of putting the screen is a kind of measurement which made the electrons to appear at the spot. Quantum mechanics tells us that before putting the screen the electrons have a probability distribution across the whole space, with a higher values along the velocity direction, but still there is a very small but no-zero values to be on the moon for example!).

[sabaijai]

To stay in-topic, the main issue which I wanted to present here is the probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics, which states that a physical quantity, such the position of an electron in space or in an atom, can not be determined exactly (i.e. has a finite probability to have a value from a range of values) before doing the act of measurement. Philosophically it means that we created a "reality", for example the presence of an electron at a specific position, only because of the act of measurement. Or in other words, “realty” does not exist by itself but conceived from our interference.

Although I agree with Abandon that parallels between science and Buddhism are usually overextended, I would say there is a sort of empiricism at work in some areas of Buddhism (and the degree of empiricism varies from school to school), and that probability theory/uncertainty principle appears to go along with the Buddhist notion that nama (mind/mentality) interacts with rupa (physical form) to create a perceived reality. The measurement becomes reality, for that which perceives.

But I don't think we see, in Buddhism, the notion that mentality actually affects physical form, if that's what Heisenberg and Bohr were saying. (Not that Buddhism - let's be specific and say 'canonical Theravada Buddhism' though even that is wide open to interpretation - necessarily rules out that possibility.)

It will be amusing to see what comes next in the worlds of philosopy and physics. In Buddhism all theories, like the evidential objects upon which they are based, must be impermanent, ie, subject to change and decay.

[Gulliver_in_LOS]

Although I agree with Abandon that parallels between science and Buddhism are usually overextended, I would say there is a sort of empiricism at work in some areas of Buddhism (and the degree of empiricism varies from school to school), and that probability theory/uncertainty principle appears to go along with the Buddhist notion that nama (mind/mentality) interacts with rupa (physical form) to create a perceived reality. The measurement becomes reality, for that which perceives.

I am aware of this interaction between physics and Buddhism, such as the visit of the Dalai Lama to a physics laboratory to observe some quantum effects of light.

It will be amusing to see what comes next in the worlds of philosopy and physics. In Buddhism all theories, like the evidential objects upon which they are based, must be impermanent, ie, subject to change and decay.

Interesting. It seems to me from this statement that Buddhism is not interested in the questions that philosophy and physics are trying to answer. But personally cannot understand this self-satisfaction when questions, like the origin of man and the universe, are not addressed in Buddhism. For example, all I could find in this thread was centered on the notions of suffering and enlightment, which I think do not give a satisfactory reply to the original poster's question.

[sabaijai]

Although I agree with Abandon that parallels between science and Buddhism are usually overextended, I would say there is a sort of empiricism at work in some areas of Buddhism (and the degree of empiricism varies from school to school), and that probability theory/uncertainty principle appears to go along with the Buddhist notion that nama (mind/mentality) interacts with rupa (physical form) to create a perceived reality. The measurement becomes reality, for that which perceives.

I am aware of this interaction between physics and Buddhism, such as the visit of the Dalai Lama to a physics laboratory to observe some quantum effects of light.

It will be amusing to see what comes next in the worlds of philosopy and physics. In Buddhism all theories, like the evidential objects upon which they are based, must be impermanent, ie, subject to change and decay.

Interesting. It seems to me from this statement that Buddhism is not interested in the questions that philosophy and physics are trying to answer. But personally cannot understand this self-satisfaction when questions, like the origin of man and the universe, are not addressed in Buddhism. For example, all I could find in this thread was centered on the notions of suffering and enlightment, which I think do not give a satisfactory reply to the original poster's question.

I'm guessing you missed the intent of the original post ...

[Gulliver_in_LOS]

I'm guessing you missed the intent of the original post ...

Truth=Reality -> Origin of Reality?

[Ijustwannateach]

Gulliver, I think you have a somewhat exaggerated idea of the indeterminacy involved in quantum mechanics. It is true that if you wiped the entire universe clean of reference points (so that no potential "measurements" in the form of collisions with other objects) would be available, you could probably say that the electron might as well be anywhere. But in the universe as it really is (with matter and other stuff floating around), electrons have much stronger tendencies to be sequentially in nearby locations than scattered equally randomly around the universe. It is true that there is the tiniest probability of their suddenly showing up when measured for light years away, but it is, as you say, a tiny probability, not an equal probability, as you previously claimed, and would be as much due to statistical result as any teleportation of the electron. [My next-door neighbor, the chemistry Phd., confirms this impression of mine].

The "screen as measurement" thing also doesn't really seem to make sense, as the electrons don't interact with the screen until they actually reach it- it's not like the double slit experiment where an initial measurement is then shown to affect the second measurement- it is the initial measurement.

Most explanations of the behavior of small particles have as much to do with our lack of ability to observe and resolve at such small levels as they do with the probabilistic wave nature of matter. For such reasons, it is usually emphasized in more well-balanced textbooks that the indeterminacy of the position of small objects is not so much about some kind of mystical spreading out of those objects in the universe as it is our lack of ability to *find* them leading to a statistical rather than deterministic expression.

Personally, though (and getting back to Buddhism), as an ethics or a regimen for living or a moral code or a recipe for freedom from suffering, it doesn't seem to me very important how "Buddhist" the way matter and energy behaves is. After all, it's not things at the level of elementary particles that need to be freed from suffering. Choosing a way of life should be something that works on us at the level of our personalities, or whatever spiritual equivalents one would wish to add to that- Buddhism is a concern of persons, not of muons.

"Steven"

[sabaijai]

I'm guessing you missed the intent of the original post ...

Truth=Reality -> Origin of Reality?

Something along those lines. Suegha did ask for the Buddhist perspective, and got various stabs at it. And has not participated in the discussion beyond his original post. Perhaps it's time we heard from Suegha what s/he has learned from pondering the question from a Christian perspective.

I think the intent behind any question involving philosophy or subjective perceptions needs to be looked at. Imagine someone meets a psychotherapist and asks him "Why is everyone picking on me?" The psychotherapist would quite likely ask "Why do you think everyone is picking on you" or something similar, in an effort to help the person.

I answered Suegha's inquiry with my 'youthful folly' I Ching anecdote. I think since that point I've only responded to other posts.

Plenty of Buddhists do get involved with physics, in fact I know two physicists who consider themselves practicing Buddhists. Personally I feel that reality can't be figured out on a purely intellectual level, but watching you and Ijustwannateach bandy the principles of quantum physics about, maybe we'll get to it after all, eventually. Let me know when you figure it all out (chemistry and physics were my worst subjects in school)! It's interesting stuff in its own right, just not sure how it relates to Buddhism (no it doesn't have to, just reminding myself which branch of the forum we're in).

[camerata]

By coincidence I came across this comment on truth in a book recently:

The human desire to see only one phase of the truth which we happen to perceive, and to perfect and elevate it into a perfect logical system, is one reason why our philosophy is bound to grow stranger to life. He who talks about truth injures it thereby; he who tries to prove it thereby maims and distorts it; he who gives it a label and a school of thought kills it; and he who declares himself a believer buries it.

- Lin Yutang

[chownah]

When I was growing up back in the US there was a television show called "Truth or Consequences". It was a daytime game show. Some contestants were chosen from the audience and they were asked a question....if they told the correct answer (the truth) then they were let off the hook and didn't have to pay the consequences....but...the questions were always funny trick joke questions so noone ever told the "truth" and everyone had to pay the consequences which were alway some zany nonsense sort of thing like swimming in pudding etc....you get the idea I hope. So, the Buddhist take on this is that in life when desires start to arise, you either need to see the truth about how they arise and the dukkha they will bring.....or you pay the consequences which is experienceing the dukkha they bring and another round of rebirth!!!!.....in my life it always seem like I get the trick questions!!!!!...never get the answers right!!!!!....oh well!

[suegha]

I have not yet responded to this post as I was enjoying it so much!!! One of the best ever. I do feel that in our efforts to describe truth, we invariably fall into describing 'truths' as we see them.

I totally agree with the posts who said truth, by it's nature, can only be truth. Our definitions, prejudices, personal belief systems, etc, etc, cannot change what by definition just 'is'.

So my findings from a Christian perspective is 'God is truth'.

So whether or not we belief in a 'one true God', like I do, or we believe in a pantheon of gods, or no gods, if one true God exists, he only is truth.

Thanks you all so much for the wonderful debate, I really enjoyed it.

Edited January 23, 2006 by suegha