h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Thank you Xanatic. The main thrust of this thread has been to say that Buddhists have converged with Physicists. And then the above quote is provided.

You can't have it both ways. If your Buddhists are converging then they need to have rigourous scientific definitions. If they can't meet those standards, then there is no convergence.

They are not 'my Buddhists' as you suggest Arnie. They are in fact the Dalai Lama's Buddhists and the quote in my previous posting is an English translation of an ancient Buddhist text as a preface. It has nothing to do with the convergence argument. In fact I often see QM scientists using similar quotes, perhaps from Shakespeare, in their books.

"In each atom of the realms of the universe,
There exist vast oceans of world systems."
"this is a translation from an ancient Tibetan text and that the meaning is not in the words used but in the sense."

What is the sense that it is conveying then?
Thing is, the word 'atom' has a defined meaning in modern english language which is not the same as the original greek use of the word.
The quote seems to be running along the lines of the outdated comparison of an atom to a star system (eg solar system) which spawned much sci-fi writing of hierarchical worlds where one being's atom was another being's universe. The comparison is not valid, as we now know.

If the meaning of the word translated as 'atom' is fundamental indivisible particle then that term would be better used, but would not seem to make much sense. If it is indivisible then there can;t be anything in it.

Indeed it seems to be translating one view of the universe into language used to describe another view of the universe. What, for example, is meant by 'realms of the universe'?

Not expecting answers to the questions per se, just showing the thinking behind some of my views on this. I would guess the number of people on here who can read ancient tibetan texts first hand and understand them is somewhat limited! Therefore we are relying on the understanding of the translator here and we don't know what their particular understanding of the original text and the english words used is.

But if a scientists quotes Shakespeare in his book, he has specifically chosen a piece of his writing that he thinks fits. He doesn´t mean that Shakespeare was somehow onto the workings of the universe 400 years early.

Thank you Xanatic,
That's exactly my point and the point of including the quotation.
Nobody is trying to say that an ancient monk in a cave has the knowledge of a modern scientist. That would be ridiculous.
Dalai Lama "has chosen" a quote which "he thinks fits" just as our fictional Shakespeare-quoting QM scientist "has chosen" a quote which "he thinks fits".

Hmmm, well that is not what I was saying. I mean that scientists use quotes that sound good and remind you of the subject, but that is just for the sake of having a neat quote. To me it seems more likely Dalai Lama tried to get some scientific credibility by using that quote. "Look, they knew atoms are not the end, but consists of little solar system-like systems!" but atom is just the greek word for indivisible. Atoms were named atoms exactly because the scientists thought they were indivisible, but they were wrong. Which is why I´m curious what tibetan word was translated into atom.

which is what I was getting at. Using the word atom in translation is a conscious choice. The word has a particular meaning in modern english vocabulary. The ancient tibetan word may well have meant little indivisible bit, in which case 'atom; is a mistranslation. This is also why I was asking about the phrase 'realms of the universe' which is not a concept I can directly translate into cosmological terminology - it hides, I think, a particular view of the universe. If you are fluent in ancient tibetan then perhaps we can move this forwards, otherwise we are stuck with wondering what meaning has been translated and not able to find out.

I can´t find online any mention of The Great Flower Ornament without the word atom in it. Judging from the title of Dalai Lama´s book, he does seem to mean the planetary model of atoms. But he also talks about the uncertainty that has been shown by QM, problem is that the planetary model was pretty much overthrown by QM and it´s uncertainty.
Besides QM is not saying we can´t be certain of anything(any more than science usually does) but that for certain objects with a certain momentum, there is a well defined uncertainty.

I'd like to move the discussion on with a quote from Deepak Chopra from his book How to Know God, which is recommended by Amit Goswami, professor of physics, University of Oregon, Professors Rustum Roy, science and Evan Pugh geochemistry at Pennsylvania, Candence B Pert research professor physiology and biophysics at Georgetown, Mikhail Gorbachev, and many other important people including of course The Dalai Lama.

The quote is: "You and I exist as flashing photons with a black void in between each flash - the quantum light show comprises our whole body, our every thought and wish, and every event we take part in. In other words we are being created over and over again, all the time...."

That's how I see it. Beyond this, in the void, is the virtual reality where science can't go and therefore we need people like the Dalai Lama, Vasudevanand Saraswati and professor Robert Thurman and also religious-type language to explore it. QM can bring us only to the brink.

Well, in that case could you expand on the quote? I don´t see how we are photons. Human bodies emit and absorb photons, but we are made of sturdier stuff like protons and neutrons. Those might be superstrings vibrating according to some theories, but they are still not photons.

"That's how I see it"

Well, is that based on experimental evidence, or personal belief?

If it's experiemental evidence, please elaborate.

If it's personal belief, maybe you should move this discussion to the forum.

OK Xanatic, I can expand the quote by asking 3 questions about quotes on the previous page of Chopra's book. If you agree that the facts are probably as stated, we can take this on to the next obvious step.

"Even at the atomic level all objects are revealed as 99.9999% empty space."

Is that a fact? I presume it must be.

"On its own scale the distance between a nucleus and an electron is wider than between the Earth and the Sun"

Is that also a fact?

"You could never capture that electron since it breaks down into energy vibrations and winks in and out of existence millions of times a second."

Is that true?

I aim to come to the connection between 'conciousness and the quantum particle' Arnie; the place where each person's mind is his own quantum experiment.

Well, until you can demonstrate it to another person, it doesn't belong under the heading "science".

But hasn´t the Dalai Lama stated that he believes mind is not an emergent property of the materialistic brain, but rather a mystical "extra" similar to the soul?

The two first quotes seem okay, not sure about the third one. Which is "that electron"? You can capture electrons using positively charged thingys.

Well, taking it from the other end, I'm rather amused by the idea that we need to explain this mysterious beyond the edge of quantum world stuff.

Science has in its retaliatory arsenal a number of questions to explore: experiments on the relationship of mystical experience to various altered mental states. Questions regarding the potential evolutionary advantage of the mind in having such a quality - at the moment I myself reckon its an extreme and dysfunctional side-effect of more obviously useful traits.

The ability for the mind to silence inner commentary and end doubt for a moment could be very useful in risky situations. Moreover, the association with obedience, suppression of the ego and the tendency for women to be more often religious leads me to suspect a social function. Some have suggested faith allows for easy and undisputed dissemination of ideas to children, I think one might extend it to a general utility in encouraging personal sacrifice and dissent for long-term community solidarity and achievement.

Most interesting in Lucky's particular posts is how well it ties in with the model of the Priests as exclusive interpreters of symbols or texts mysterious enough to be considered symbolic. To add to this, in the most developed mystical theologies, it is the act of negation of the symbols and ideas which eventually leads an individual to the divine. So in effect its not mystics who need to look at what's beyond science, but science which needs to look at what is behind the priest.

I have to say I personally have no desire to so desperately grope for an, especially if the authorities are being disingenuous about what question they're actually answering in order to gain unchallengeable authority, but could religion potentially be a system to set up to provide experienced advisors on smoothing interpersonal moral problems? Consider, for example, the persistent cry of the institutionally religious: 'to the people', and the massive experience which a Catholic Confessor might build up on such matters.

In before 'too long, didn't read'.

Xanatic, re your Q. Not easy to answer but I'll try.
Consider,
1.matter- physical objects
2.mind - subjective experiences
3.abstract composites - mental formations

A little thought will reveal that 'mind' (2) also consists of (1) and (3). There is no 'mystical extra' and/or 'soul'. There is only 'consciousness'.

Where is this 'consciousness' when we are in deep and dreamless sleep? Is it dormant? Is it absent?

>>"Nobody is trying to say that an ancient monk in a cave has the knowledge of a modern scientist. That would be ridiculous."

Hang on. Wasn't it you who said:

>>"Once upon a time the Tibetan's were the world's most advanced scientists because they said that an atom was 1/24,000 the size of a rabbit."

Are you just using a flexible definition of the word 'scientist' which means whatever you want it to mean whenever you use it?
Surely one of the defining characteristics of science is that words do have particular meanings, which can't just be changed to suit someone's position.

>>"I'd like to move the discussion on with a quote from Deepak Chopra from his book How to Know God, which is recommended by Amit Goswami, professor of physics, University of Oregon, Professors Rustum Roy, science and Evan Pugh geochemistry at Pennsylvania, Candence B Pert research professor physiology and biophysics at Georgetown, Mikhail Gorbachev, and many other important people including of course The Dalai Lama."

Regarding the academics supporting Chopra's book, I've never heard of any of them apart from Goswami, who I've only heard of previously being hyped by someone who reckoned Goswami's ideas somehow supported their own wishful thinking regarding ghosts, etc.
It's not hard to find a few scientists who believe anything - there are even some creationists who claim to be biological scientists.

What actually matters are credible ideas clearly expressed, and which can stand up to scrutiny. At best, recommendations from well-known or personally known people already reckoned to be capable of sense and clear expression may make one suspect a particular book is worth trying, but they don't/can't/shouldn't add to the actual credibility of a book's contents.

The weird thing is, some people will actually assume a book is of particular quality due to praise from a few scientists they've never heard of, who are almost certainly picked out from the tens or hundreds of thousands of *other* scientists they've never heard of.
Some people will assume a book sufficiently vaguely written must be good even if they don't really understand the contents well enough to criticise them.
Some will even take a lack of understanding as proof of a book's profundity.

"Even at the atomic level all objects are revealed as 99.9999% empty space."
Define 'object'. Do you mean the macro-scale things like chairs and tables? If so yes-ish, although I guess the percentage is up for debate. If you mean the particles themselves then no. But what they are depends on the theory you go for.

"On its own scale the distance between a nucleus and an electron is wider than between the Earth and the Sun"
No. Because an electron doesn;t orbit the atomic nucleus like a planet orbits a star, but rather there is a possibility cloud surrounding the nucleus wherein the electron can be. So there's no reference point between the two to make the comparison.

"You could never capture that electron since it breaks down into energy vibrations and winks in and out of existence millions of times a second."
Um - shakey ground here for me. My understanding is that an electron is not a solid thing, it's sort of smeared over the whole probability field.

p.s. supporting a viewpoint by listing various scientists as some sort of proof always reminds me of project steve:

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp