I always thought that the connection that the TMO made to quantum physics was always just a cute little analogy and nothing more. Never took it seriously and I always hoped no one else would either.
Beyond being an analogy and using the platform of quantum mechanics to serve as an illustration for how consicousness works, I never saw an actual connection between the working of the mind and consciousness and physics. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > File Under: TMO lies and marketing ploys; Boomeritis Hinduism; Pseudo- > advaita > > Answers from biologist and physicist Ken Wilber. > > http://www.tinyurl.com/cmay6 > > The first question has to do directly with the relation of modern > quantum physics and spirituality. In effect, does physics prove God, > does the Tao find proof in quantum realities? > > Answer: "Categorically not. I don't know more confusion in the last > thirty years than has come from quantum physics...." > > Ken goes on to outline the three major confusions that have dominated > the popular (mis)understanding of the relationship of physics and > mysticism. > > #1: Your consciousness does not create electrons. Unlike Newtonian > physics, which can predict the location of large objects moving at > slow speeds, quantum physics only offers a probability wave in which > a given particle, like an electron, should show up. But here's the > funny thing: it is only at the moment that one makes the measurement > that the electron actually does "show up." Certain writers and > theorists have thus suggested that human intentionality actually > creates reality on a quantum level. The most popular version of this > idea can be found in the movie What the Bleep Do We Know?!, in which > we "qwaff" reality into existence. > > Ken suggests this is both bad physics and bad mysticism. As for the > former, in his book, Quantum Questions, Ken compiled the original > writings of the 13 most important founders of modern quantum and > relativistic physics, to explore their understanding of the > relationship of physics and mysticism. Without exception, each one of > them believed that modern physics does NOT prove spiritual realities > in any fashion. And yet each of them was a mystic, not because of > physics, but in spite of it. By pushing to the outer limits of their > discipline, a feat which requires true genius, they found themselves > face to face with those realities that physics categorically could > not explain. > > Likewise, none of those founders of modern physics believed that the > act of consciousness was responsible for creating particles at the > quantum level. David Bohm did not believe that, Schroedinger did not > believe that, Heisenberg did not believe that. That belief requires > the enormous self-infatuation and narcissism, or "boomeritis," of the > post-modern ego, and Ken goes into the possible psychology behind all > of that. > > #2: Quantum vacuum potentials are not unmanifest Spirit. The > immediate problem with the notion that certain "unmanifest" or > "vacuum" quantum realities give rise to the manifest world, and that > the quantum vacuum is Spirit, is that it immediately presupposes a > radically divided Spirit or Ultimate. There is Spirit "over here," > manifestation "over there," and it's only through these quantum > vacuum potentials that Spirit actualizes manifestation—with Spirit > set apart from manifestation. > > As the great contemplative traditions agree, true nondual Spirit is > the suchness, emptiness, or isness of all manifestation, and as such > leaves everything exactly where it finds it. Nondual Spirit is no > more set apart from manifestation than the wetness of the ocean is > set apart from waves. Wetness is the suchness or isness of all waves. > By identifying Spirit with quantum potential, you are actually > qualifying the Unqualifiable, giving it characteristics—"and right > there," Ken says, "things start to go horribly wrong, and they never > recover. These folks are trying to give characteristics to Emptiness. > They therefore make it dualistic. And then things get worse from > there...." > > #3: Just because you understand quantum mechanics doesn't mean you're > enlightened. Physics is an explicitly 3rd-person approach to reality, > whereas meditative, contemplative, or mystical disciplines are > explicitly 1st-person approaches to reality. Neither perspective is > more real than the other, but each perspective does disclose > different truths, and you cannot use the truth disclosed in one > domain to "colonize" another. The study of physics, as a 3rd- person > discipline, will not get you enlightenment; and meditation, as a 1st- > person discipline, will not disclose the location of an asteroid (or > an electron). The "content" of enlightenment is the realization of > that which is timeless, formless, and eternally unchanging. The > content of physics is the understanding of the movement of form > within time, i.e. that which is constantly changing. And if you hook > Buddha's enlightenment to a theory of physics that gets disproved > tomorrow, does that mean Buddha loses his enlightenment? > > Ken goes on to suggest that what might be influencing quantum > realities is not Suchness per se, but bio-energy or prana, which may > be the source of the crackling, buzzing, electric creativity that so > many theorists have tried to explain at the quantum level. Of course, > it remains to be seen exactly what further research does and does not > support. > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
