Light Eye
09-22-2006, 12:50 PM
dear friends,
http://www.ianlawton.com/se5.htm
be well, be love.
david
quantum theory: spiritual panacea, or red herring?
ãƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ムâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ãƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ãƒâƒ ã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚â© ian lawton 2006
for many years i have endorsed the idea that modern science is at the
forefront of introducing a new metaphysical worldview. and while i do not now
reject this idea completely, recent investigation has led me to the conclusion
that my own use of elements of both quantum and string theory to support a
rational spiritual worldview requires significant amendment. nor am i convinced
that the recent exposure that quantum theory has had via films such as "what the
bleep do we know?", involving distinguished contributors such as fred alan wolf
and amit goswami, has helped to clear up certain areas of confusion - however
much, in one sense, i am delighted by the effect they have had in galvanising a
more spiritual worldview.
in order to explain some of these reservations, we need to recap a little.
basic quantum theory resolved the paradox that particles such as electrons seem
to have the characteristics of both particles and waves. more specifically, it
proposed that they are ?probability waves? that only become particle-like - that
is, for example, take on a specific position - when they are observed. however
there are a number of supposed implications of this that are not as concrete as
i and others have tended to make out. we will examine each in turn.
is the physical world only an illusion?
the attractiveness of this proposition is two-fold. on the one hand it
reinforces the idea that we can 'create our own reality', and on the other it
appears to confirm ancient esoteric notions of maya. and, in some respects at
least, it is true. for example, atoms and their nuclei are made up almost
entirely of the vacuum that exists between the various particles. so objects
that appear to be largely physical are in fact made up almost entirely of empty
space. however, it is not accurate to claim that the particles themselves are
'only energy'. of course, at one level everything is just energy, but we should
not be sloppy about how we define this. even under the most far-reaching
interpretations of quantum theory, by the time we observe an object we are
causing it to manifest only one particular set of quantum probabilities, and
therefore it is made up of particles and not unmanifested probability waves.
but can we somehow alter our consciousness to allow other probabilities to
manifest? and, to the extent that we can, does this involve quantum theory or
something else?
[non-text portions of this message have been removed]
http://www.ianlawton.com/se5.htm
be well, be love.
david
quantum theory: spiritual panacea, or red herring?
ãƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ムâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ãƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ãƒâƒ ã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚â© ian lawton 2006
for many years i have endorsed the idea that modern science is at the
forefront of introducing a new metaphysical worldview. and while i do not now
reject this idea completely, recent investigation has led me to the conclusion
that my own use of elements of both quantum and string theory to support a
rational spiritual worldview requires significant amendment. nor am i convinced
that the recent exposure that quantum theory has had via films such as "what the
bleep do we know?", involving distinguished contributors such as fred alan wolf
and amit goswami, has helped to clear up certain areas of confusion - however
much, in one sense, i am delighted by the effect they have had in galvanising a
more spiritual worldview.
in order to explain some of these reservations, we need to recap a little.
basic quantum theory resolved the paradox that particles such as electrons seem
to have the characteristics of both particles and waves. more specifically, it
proposed that they are ?probability waves? that only become particle-like - that
is, for example, take on a specific position - when they are observed. however
there are a number of supposed implications of this that are not as concrete as
i and others have tended to make out. we will examine each in turn.
is the physical world only an illusion?
the attractiveness of this proposition is two-fold. on the one hand it
reinforces the idea that we can 'create our own reality', and on the other it
appears to confirm ancient esoteric notions of maya. and, in some respects at
least, it is true. for example, atoms and their nuclei are made up almost
entirely of the vacuum that exists between the various particles. so objects
that appear to be largely physical are in fact made up almost entirely of empty
space. however, it is not accurate to claim that the particles themselves are
'only energy'. of course, at one level everything is just energy, but we should
not be sloppy about how we define this. even under the most far-reaching
interpretations of quantum theory, by the time we observe an object we are
causing it to manifest only one particular set of quantum probabilities, and
therefore it is made up of particles and not unmanifested probability waves.
but can we somehow alter our consciousness to allow other probabilities to
manifest? and, to the extent that we can, does this involve quantum theory or
something else?
[non-text portions of this message have been removed]