Buddhism amazingly describes QM

[thaiboxerken]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj_i7YqDwJA

Wow, check out the woo in this!

[Apathia]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj_i7YqDwJA

Wow, check out the woo in this!


Cool woo-woo!
Thanks!

[thaiboxerken]

It's amazing how they will take some hard to grasp concepts of QM, stretch it to mean something totally different and get people to believe this nonsense.

[Dancing David]

I made it three minutes...I suppose the QM is as bad as the buddhism?

[AkuManiMani]

Just a few minutes into the vid. Wouldn't necessarily go with all the terminology the author chooses, but it seems that hes drawing parallels between Śūnyatā of buddhim and the quantum vacuum state. Sounds like an apt analogy.

Gunna watch a little more and see if I can find any seriously factual/logical faults.

[AkuManiMani]

It's amazing how they will take some hard to grasp concepts of QM, stretch it to mean something totally different and get people to believe this nonsense.

Considering that you find the concepts hard to grasp to begin with its more than a little premature for you to judge them to be 'nonsense'. There's a saying I like to go by:

One must poo-poo once in'while
Lest they end up fulla shi(p)

If one poo-poos all the the time
They're already fulluvit.

[catbasket]

Considering that you find the concepts hard to grasp to begin with its more than a little premature for you to judge them to be 'nonsense'.

"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." Richard Feynman, in The Character of Physical Law (1965)

QM got a lot easier in the last 44 years?

[thaiboxerken]

Aku, it's nonsense. For instance, the explanation of waves states is wrong. They fail to tell the audience that macro level objects have smaller wave states, for example. Thus, the apple is not all over the universe, as is implied. Also, the assertion that consciousness effects reality is just wrong.

[Cavemonster]

Most of the language they're using is so vague that it could just as easily match up to Poker or bee-keeping. Every system you could possibly look at could possibly be described in these terms like "Being and emptiness".

[Aepervius]

It's amazing how they will take some hard to grasp concepts of QM, stretch it to mean something totally different and get people to believe this nonsense.

After so many decenny living on earth and watching all the woo and crackpotery going on, I am not amazed by anything (or nealry). Actually I find persons which handle well criticial thinking or the like of randi , schermer and dawkins amazing, an exceedingly rare abnormality in a world completely and toroughly rotten by the woo, to the core. And yes woo have the evry nice habbits to warp anything they can put their paw on, and grasp at the basic without displaying a real udnerstanding.

But cary on ;).

[AkuManiMani]

Aku, it's nonsense. For instance, the explanation of waves states is wrong. They fail to tell the audience that macro level objects have smaller wave states, for example. Thus, the apple is not all over the universe, as is implied. Also, the assertion that consciousness effects reality is just wrong.

Erm...Thai, macroscopic objects do infact have wave-functions. Second of all, just by choosing to type your responses, or take any deliberate action, your consciousness is affecting reality.

[AkuManiMani]

"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." Richard Feynman, in The Character of Physical Law (1965)

QM got a lot easier in the last 44 years?

I've actually watched one of Feynmans lectures where he speaks of the wweirdness of QM. He specifically states that we can understand how the theory works and what it says. His point was that its descriptions go counter to common intuitions.

[thaiboxerken]

Erm...Thai, macroscopic objects do infact have wave-functions. Second of all, just by choosing to type your responses, or take any deliberate action, your consciousness is affecting reality.

Yes, macroscopic objects have wave-functions, they are just much smaller than those of quantum objects. And no, my conciousness does not affect reality until I actually do something. This is totally different than the silly nonsense that the video implies.

[Skeptic]

Buddhism amazingly describes QM in the same way your astrological chart amazingly describes you. If something is vague enough and "positive"-sounding enough, it can be fit to describe, well, everything.

[Twiler]

Buddhism amazingly describes QM in the same way your astrological chart amazingly describes you. If something is vague enough and "positive"-sounding enough, it can be fit to describe, well, everything.

Yes, it would only be impressive if characteristics of QM could be predicted in advance by a study of Buddhism.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Buddhism amazingly describes QM in the same way your astrological chart amazingly describes you. If something is vague enough and "positive"-sounding enough, it can be fit to describe, well, everything.

Mm, not quite apt. Buddhism was more about a study of phenomenology than physics.

[AkuManiMani]

Yes, macroscopic objects have wave-functions, they are just much smaller than those of quantum objects.

Huh? Macroscopic objects have "smaller" wave-functions? Do you even know what the term means?

And no, my conciousness does not affect reality until I actually do something.

So your consciousness and conscious thoughts aren't part of reality...?

This is totally different than the silly nonsense that the video implies.

Judging from your own use of the term 'wave-function, I don't think you even know what you're disputing.

[thaiboxerken]

Huh? Macroscopic objects have "smaller" wave-functions? Do you even know what the term means?

Do you? Please explain it to me.

Here is how wikipedia explains it: In quantum mechanics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics), wave function collapse (also called collapse of the state vector or reduction of the wave packet) is the process by which a wave function (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function), initially in a superposition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition) of different eigenstates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigenstates), appears to reduce to a single one of the states after interaction with the external world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse

So your consciousness and conscious thoughts aren't part of reality...?My consciousness alone does not affect reality. This assertion of consciousness affecting reality seems to be a gross misinterpretation of the observer effect.


Judging from your own use of the term 'wave-function, I don't think you even know what you're disputing.You'd be hard pressed to show how that video is scientifically accurate in any sense.

[Dancing David]

Erm...Thai, macroscopic objects do infact have wave-functions. Second of all, just by choosing to type your responses, or take any deliberate action, your consciousness is affecting reality.


Nope, that is not the QM consciousness argument AMM.

It is a misinterpretation of the double slit experiment and others that says the act of observation is needed for reality to exist.

[Dancing David]

Huh? Macroscopic objects have "smaller" wave-functions? Do you even know what the term means?

The range of possible space/time positions for large conglomerate objects is contrained to a very small area.

Electrons can in some ways manifest over very large areas (something Epekeke tried to explain to me) and can be thought of as having potential to be at great distance, probability distributions getting smaller with distance.

For a macrospopic oject this is not true, they have multple wave functions but are contrained to a very small area in space time.

So... you can have quantum tunneling if you are a quantum object, not if you are macrospopic.




So your consciousness and conscious thoughts aren't part of reality...?

Again that is not the QM Consciousness argument at all. It comes about because some people think that 'things' only exist when the 'waveform collapses' therefore they think 'if the wave form does not collapse a thing does not exist and since you need an observation for the waveform to collapse, you need observation for things to exist', they then take it one step further and say 'it takes an act of observation for the universe to exist'.

That is the QM Consiousness argument.

They misundertsnad what the 'act of observation' is in QM, like a photon interacting with an electron.



Judging from your own use of the term 'wave-function, I don't think you even know what you're disputing.


TBK seems to have a good understanding of waveform.

It is a description of potential position for a quantum particle/energy. The waveform exist all the time, there is no 'waveform collapse' there is an intersection of wave states.

There is no superposition either.

[AkuManiMani]

Huh? Macroscopic objects have "smaller" wave-functions? Do you even know what the term means?

Do you? Please explain it to me.

Basically, its the expression of all the possible states of a given system. These possibilities are expressed as waves of probability which may effectively reinforce or cancel each analogous to the way ripples on a pond interact with one another [Except a significant difference is that such waves are represented as occurring within a multidimensional "Hibert Space" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert_space)]. The wave function of a particular particle, or group of particles, exists thought out every point of space and the amplitudes of the function signify the likelihood that a particle will be in any given location or in any given state. Also, the wave-function is not simply part of the description of a particular system but actually extends to include every system in the universe. To try and put it more simply, all objects that we observe are akin to waves in a universal sea of probability. The interference patterns these waves of probability make are what we observe as the physical world.

There are numerous interpretations of QM and all of them concern the nature of the wave-function. Depending on interpenetration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics) the theory has different metaphysical implications.


Here is how wikipedia explains it: In quantum mechanics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics), wave function collapse (also called collapse of the state vector or reduction of the wave packet) is the process by which a wave function (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function), initially in a superposition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition) of different eigenstates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigenstates), appears to reduce to a single one of the states after interaction with the external world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse


First, I was hoping that you'd explain in your own words what your understanding of the the word 'wave-function' is, and possibly explain where you got the idea that macroscopic objects have 'smaller' wave functions that microscopic objects. But since you've decided to simply quote mine instead, its interesting to note that you choose the portion of the wiki article discussing wave-function collapse.

Wave-function collapse is a concept introduced in the Copenhagen interpretation of QM which, for practical reasons, considers the unobserved portions of the wave function to not exist. This is actually the school of thought that gave rise to the idea that particles do not exist until they are observed, and that the act of observation itself causes "wave-function collapse" and the particle takes on definite co-ordinates/states/etc. The concept of wave-function collapse is, in fact, not a central feature of the theory but an idea imposed to try and make sense of the extremely weird predictions of the theory. Needless to say, it didn't help very much.

My consciousness alone does not affect reality. This assertion of consciousness affecting reality seems to be a gross misinterpretation of the observer effect.

When in the video was this claim made? Tell me the exact portion.

You'd be hard pressed to show how that video is scientifically accurate in any sense.

It simply paraphrases one of the mainstream interpretations of the theory and draws parallels between it, and some of the eastern philosophies. Considering the fact that you came into this thinking that wave functions of macroscopic systems are "smaller" than "quantum objects" illustrates to me that you have even less of an understanding of the theory than the author of the video.

[Cavemonster]

My consciousness alone does not affect reality. This assertion of consciousness affecting reality seems to be a gross misinterpretation of the observer effect.

When in the video was this claim made? Tell me the exact portion.


5:40

[thaiboxerken]

It simply paraphrases one of the mainstream interpretations of the theory and draws parallels between it, and some of the eastern philosophies. Considering the fact that you came into this thinking that wave functions of macroscopic systems are "smaller" than "quantum objects" illustrates to me that you have even less of an understanding of the theory than the author of the video.

Really? The reduction in the number of possible states doesn't mean the wave form is "smaller"? To me, it seems that it is so. Perhaps you didn't like my description of this collapse of the wave form state, but that's your problem, not mine. The reality is, that apple is not interconnected throughout the universe, as the video suggests.

I think you've illustrated to me that you're apologizing for the video by attempting to paint critics as being "just as ignorant."

[AkuManiMani]

5:40

The author simply says that the quality of a particle is not predetermined but relative to the very mind perceiving it. This is an accurate statement, and one that can be arrived at without even needing to invoke QM.

[AkuManiMani]

Really? The reduction in the number of possible states doesn't mean the wave form is "smaller"? To me, it seems that it is so. Perhaps you didn't like my description of this collapse of the wave form state, but that's your problem, not mine. The reality is, that apple is not interconnected throughout the universe, as the video suggests.

The wave function that describes the physical system we call an apple does NOT cease existing once the apple is observed. Wave-function collapse is just a fancy way of saying: "Okay, we got the result we want; stop calculating".

I think you've illustrated to me that you're apologizing for the video by attempting to paint critics as being "just as ignorant."

You've illustrated to me that that your own criticisms are based on misconception. I have my own criticisms of the video and its faults are not what you think they are.

[thaiboxerken]

Strange, I didn't even claim that the wave form ceases to exist. Just that it gets much smaller. The probability of that apple being in many different places at once diminishes as it interacts with the world. Also, the observation affect has nothing to do with consciousness. The "observer" could be an inanimate object, for example.

[Gate2501]

I got into a big argument about the observer effect(well, sort of) with a very good real life friend. She was absolutely convinced that things like electrons, did in fact have a definite position and momentum, just so long as we weren't looking at them!

Granted, that is a much more murky argument than than what is going on here.

QM and consciousness. /sigh. It seems that QM, it being all counter-intuitive and mysterious to the layman(which I admittedly am), has become the "go-to guy" for those who wish for there to be wiggle room for some immaterial aspect of mind. In fact, this video seems to take it a step further and almost posits full blown idealism as a function of QM. Every time that I get into an argument about my philosophical position on the mind(materialism), someone tries to apply quantum phenomena to macroscale objects, usually within the first 15 minutes.

[technoextreme]

Every time that I get into an argument about my philosophical position on the mind(materialism), someone tries to apply quantum phenomena to macroscale objects, usually within the first 15 minutes.
Gosh darn it. Does anyone remember reading about an experiment that was devised to test quantum mechanics on macroscale objects?

[Gate2501]

Gosh darn it. Does anyone remember reading about an experiment that was devised to test quantum mechanics on macroscale objects?

The QM consciousness crowd normally cites experiments done on superfluids and superconductors. In which some quantum effects can manifest on the macro scale. These are exceptions to the rule.

[Dancing David]

The author simply says that the quality of a particle is not predetermined but relative to the very mind perceiving it. This is an accurate statement, and one that can be arrived at without even needing to invoke QM.


Nope, stars fuse without our observation and as a result we can perceive structires and elemesnts that result from that fusion prior to the development of life on earth.

The 'qualities' of the particle are represented within the waveform. It is a model of our description of QM, it is not true that superposition exists at all.

What 'qualaties' do not exist prior to a mind perceiveing it? Descriptive labels?

[Dancing David]

The wave function that describes the physical system we call an apple does NOT cease existing once the apple is observed. Wave-function collapse is just a fancy way of saying: "Okay, we got the result we want; stop calculating".

Youch Batman, that is specious.

the intersection of two QM waveforms in a partcile interaction is commonly called waveform collapse. it is not a real 'collapse' at all, it is a very small intersection of the two waveforms bounded by the Heisenberg Indeterminancy Principle. You don't continue the caluclation because you are interested in the intersect of the two waveforms. the waveforms of the partciles are waveforms before, during and after the intersection.

To state "We got the result we want." , that comes from where?

A silly imagination? :)

[Dancing David]

Strange, I didn't even claim that the wave form ceases to exist. Just that it gets much smaller. The probability of that apple being in many different places at once diminishes as it interacts with the world. Also, the observation affect has nothing to do with consciousness. The "observer" could be an inanimate object, for example.

AMM is being pedantic, the waveform of the apple is the complex harmonic of all the particles in the apple. So it is a very large set of equations that constrain each other.

However the variation is pace /time is very limited by the multple interactions.

So Yes, they are incorrect if they state that an "apple may manifest across the universe under QM" say the way that the electron probability density may allow it to appear across the universe. An apple is not going to, as the probability is so low as to require more time than the universe will ever exist.

We can always ask in the SMT forum?

And I beleive i shall! :)

[Mojo]

Gosh darn it. Does anyone remember reading about an experiment that was devised to test quantum mechanics on macroscale objects?


Yeah. I tried to replicate it but I couldn't get the damn cat into the box.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Waaaaaaaayy tooooooo sloooowww. I hate that style of presenting.

I sat through 5 minutes, nothing was said. I suspect it is some guy high on something who believes he's had some major revelation when in reality it's crap.

[thaiboxerken]

It's not uncommon for religious people to try to draw parallels between what has been discovered in science and what the revelations in their holy principles and books describe. Quantum physics is just the newer science that people don't understand, thus they use it to justify every type of woo.

[AkuManiMani]

The wave function that describes the physical system we call an apple does NOT cease existing once the apple is observed. Wave-function collapse is just a fancy way of saying: "Okay, we got the result we want; stop calculating".


Youch Batman, that is specious.

the intersection of two QM waveforms in a partcile interaction is commonly called waveform collapse. it is not a real 'collapse' at all, it is a very small intersection of the two waveforms bounded by the Heisenberg Indeterminancy Principle. You don't continue the caluclation because you are interested in the intersect of the two waveforms. the waveforms of the partciles are waveforms before, during and after the intersection.

To state "We got the result we want." , that comes from where?

A silly imagination? :)

What are you disputing? I simply said there is no real collapse of the wave function, they simply stop calculating once a particular result is reached. You pretty much just made a long paraphrase of what I just said :p

[AkuManiMani]

AMM is being pedantic, the waveform of the apple is the complex harmonic of all the particles in the apple. So it is a very large set of equations that constrain each other.

However the variation is pace /time is very limited by the multple interactions.

So Yes, they are incorrect if they state that an "apple may manifest across the universe under QM" say the way that the electron probability density may allow it to appear across the universe. An apple is not going to, as the probability is so low as to require more time than the universe will ever exist.

We can always ask in the SMT forum?

And I beleive i shall! :)

I don't understand why you claim that I'm in error when all you're doing is rephrasing what I've already said :confused:

[AkuManiMani]

Strange, I didn't even claim that the wave form ceases to exist. Just that it gets much smaller.

And your statement is still wrong in either case. The wave function doesn't "get smaller" because it is universal.

The probability of that apple being in many different places at once diminishes as it interacts with the world.

Thats actually one of the inaccuracies of the vid, as far as I can tell. The observed apple is not literally spread over all of space. It is the wave-function, of which it is a part, that is distributed. In the many worlds interpretation of QM, however, all the possible states and positions of the apple expressed by the wave function are all manifest but in an infinite number of parallel worlds.

Also, the observation affect has nothing to do with consciousness. The "observer" could be an inanimate object, for example.

Actually, from what I've read of this topic and from physicists I've actually talked to, there is still some controversy over this issue within the field. A lot of it has to do with the competing interpretations of QM.

[thaiboxerken]

And your statement is still wrong in either case. The wave function doesn't "get smaller" because it is universal.

No, it is not universal.


Thats actually one of the inaccuracies of the vid, as far as I can tell. The observed apple is not literally spread over all of space. It is the wave-function, of which it is a part, that is distributed. In the many worlds interpretation of QM, however, all the possible states and positions of the apple expressed by the wave function are all manifest but in an infinite number of parallel worlds.

The wave function is no more spread out all over of space than the particle.


Actually, from what I've read of this topic and from physicists I've actually talked to, there is still some controversy over this issue within the field. A lot of it has to do with the competing interpretations of QM.The physics simply do not support that a conscious being actually has to interact.

[Dancing David]

What are you disputing? I simply said there is no real collapse of the wave function, they simply stop calculating once a particular result is reached. You pretty much just made a long paraphrase of what I just said :p

They don't get the result they want?

You mean , "we got a result"?

[Dancing David]

And your statement is still wrong in either case. The wave function doesn't "get smaller" because it is universal.

I bet if I take this to SMT, they will call you on sloppy language usage!




Thats actually one of the inaccuracies of the vid, as far as I can tell. The observed apple is not literally spread over all of space. It is the wave-function, of which it is a part, that is distributed. In the many worlds interpretation of QM, however, all the possible states and positions of the apple expressed by the wave function are all manifest but in an infinite number of parallel worlds.

That is interpretation, right?

Are you saying that the wave function is spread all over space? It looks like you did, some probabilities, especially in a macro scale object are very very very very very very low.




Actually, from what I've read of this topic and from physicists I've actually talked to, there is still some controversy over this issue within the field. A lot of it has to do with the competing interpretations of QM.

Who said it where, who said that it is a subject of controversy who studies QM?

Really?

So for fusion to have occured in a star 12 BYA ago , 'something conscious' had to 'observe' how two protons had probabilities that they would occupy a very close space for fusion to occur?

Really?

Who said that where?

[AkuManiMani]

They don't get the result they want?

You mean , "we got a result"?

Yea, thats about it. Sorry for the confusion :covereyes

[AkuManiMani]

Are you saying that the wave function is spread all over space? It looks like you did, some probabilities, especially in a macro scale object are very very very very very very low.

And the relatively high crests are what we observe as the macrocopic object. Everything we observe is part of the universal wave-function

Actually, from what I've read of this topic and from physicists I've actually talked to, there is still some controversy over this issue within the field. A lot of it has to do with the competing interpretations of QM.

Who said it where, who said that it is a subject of controversy who studies QM?

Are you suggesting that there aren't multiple interpretations of the theory circulating in the physics community. If you are then you're dead wrong.

Really, Dave. Sometimes I think you argue against my points not because you believe they're wrong, but because you find me annoying :p

[Dancing David]

And the relatively high crests are what we observe as the macrocopic object. Everything we observe is part of the universal wave-function



Are you suggesting that there aren't multiple interpretations of the theory circulating in the physics community. If you are then you're dead wrong.

Really, Dave. Sometimes I think you argue against my points not because you believe they're wrong, but because you find me annoying :p

Nope, i want to know who studies QM as a discipline (especially as a physicist) and takes the QM Consciousness argument seriously.

That is why I asked, it is usually trotted out by philosphers, not people who study QM from the physics side.

That is why I asked, the only people I have seen propose it are philosophers, so I am curious where a physicist said it.

Tis simple curiosity.

I don't find you annoying in the least I reserve that for a very select few, BeAChooser for example.

[thaiboxerken]

Right. Where are the peer-reviewed studies that deal with the QM Consciousness assertion?

[AkuManiMani]

Nope, i want to know who studies QM as a discipline (especially as a physicist) and takes the QM Consciousness argument seriously.

In the different interpretations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics) of QM role of the "observer" takes on varying significance, but the central concept remains the same: Depending on how one observes a given system, they will gain different kinds of tangible results. This is not to suggest that one's thoughts an wishes magically alter the world, but that one's observational frame is crucial in determining the outcome of physical events. Nears I can tell, this is another instance of the relativistic principles that form the heart of Einstein's S/GR theories.

That is why I asked, it is usually trotted out by philosphers, not people who study QM from the physics side.

I personally know individuals who study QM on the physics side. Much of my understanding of it has been shaped both by my independent reading on the subject, and my conversations with them.

I agree that there are some nitpicky flaws in the OP's video but I think the criticisms against it have been overblown simply because the author attempted to draw parallels to some mystical belief systems. Had the author of the vid simply stated his understanding of QM without the comparisons I very much doubt that the OP would have even bothered posting it. Or, if he had, the responders here would not have been nearly so vociferous.

That is why I asked, the only people I have seen propose it are philosophers, so I am curious where a physicist said it.

Tis simple curiosity.

I don't find you annoying in the least I reserve that for a very select few, BeAChooser for example.

Okay :)

[Dancing David]

Well, I think he could have done better which is why I stopped at three minutes. Gack.

BTW I notice you are using the term observation as opposed to consciousness. Which is just as tricky a devil.

PS: I can't say that I understand what you mean about Einstein and relativity, as it breaks down at the QM scale.

[AkuManiMani]

PS: I can't say that I understand what you mean about Einstein and relativity, as it breaks down at the QM scale.

Oh, I know they're two very different theories but I meant that what they both have in common is that results in either theory are relative to how one is observing the world.