Chris, Would this be another way of saying that the jury is still out on matters of the quantum and macro systems?
Mike ________________________________ From: ChrisAustinLane <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, 4 April, 2011 2:51:40 Subject: Re: [Zen] Why bother with Zazen? Better a Roulette Current systems of quantum mechanics are deterministic but do not determine what happens, but determine probability distributions. The collapse of these distributions into the macro world is not currently understood, but it seems to have something to do with the interactions between small systems and the whole mass of reality. Thanks, Chris Austin-Lane Sent from a cell phone On Apr 3, 2011, at 2:01, mike brown <[email protected]> wrote: Steve, > >I'm not so sure that science has proven false the idea that all phenomena are >strictly determined. I think the jury is still out on that one. It's true that >what happens in the micro, quantum world is random and unpredictable, but not >so >in the macro-universe. Determinism seems to play a major role in life. Take a >look at environmental determinism. The cultural life of mountain people, being >shaped by the mountains, is different from the culture of fishing villages, >being shaped by close proximity to the sea. Culture itself plays a key role in >determining the social and psychological life of an individual. Likewise, >being >6ft 2 and 200lbs it is highly unlikely I'll ever be a horse jockey. Also, >isn't >it one of the core tenents of Zen/emptiness that there is no object or >phenomena >that is self-created and independent - everything is interdependent? Speaking >for myself, I have no fixed position on these questions. I do believe, >however, >there is a difference in determinism and self-determinism (as opposed to >predestination) and we do make choices (freewill) that can influence the >future. > >Mike > > > > ________________________________ From: SteveW <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Sent: Sun, 3 April, 2011 13:21:34 >Subject: Re: [Zen] Why bother with Zazen? Better a Roulette > > > > >--- In [email protected], Anthony Wu <wuasg@...> wrote: >> >> Steve, >> Â >> I ask you which one of the four you support. >> Â >> '1' was missing. I put it back. >> Â >> Anthony >> >Hi Anthony. In my opinion, reality is a mixture of chance and necessity. Any >account of reality must take into account uncertainty and non-locality. These >two facts have been scientifically established beyond a reasonable doubt, imo. >This is why I don't endorse Advaita Vedanta. Advaita Vedanta asserts that the >world is an unreal appearance superimposed upon the face of static Being. >Advaita Vedanta believes in strict determinism. If you read Be As You Are by >Ramana Maharshi's student David Godman you will see that Maharshi believed >that >all phenomena are strictly determined. Modern physics has proven him wrong. >For >a while, some hoped that David Bohm's deterministic hidden variables model >might >prove to be true, but few now accept it. As the physicist Paul Davies comments >in his book The Mind of God, the new physics has driven the final nail in the >coffin of strict determinism. > >Some shit just happens, for no reason that can be given. You know, Zen people >don't actually give a philosophical explanation for existence, but the >Non-Dual >Hindu traditions do. IMO, in comparing Advaita Vedanta with Kashmir Shaivism, >Kashmir Shaivism is actually more in accord with the facts. > >Steve >> >> >> > >> > >
