From: tucker@mitre.org (William Tucker)
Subject: MINDWALKING Buddhists, oh my!
Keywords: MINDWALKING Buddhists, oh my!
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA, USA
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 22:48:53 GMT

Howdy Guys, and Leo and Thaygi too. ;-)

Well, I'm not a physicist, but I do know some math and have spent
my entire life around science since my dad worked in chemistry and
semiconductor R&D and I've got a BS in electronics and computer
architecture. I'm also deeply interested in philosophy/religion and 
yes mysticism, not by choice originally either. I've said much the same
as a lot of you when I was younger that a lot of this "we are all one,"
mystical stuff was trash. I think that rather than refuting science as 
so many that I've read here seem to think that the "New Thought,"
(remember Galileo before you jump guys) fills out or in science as
we know it. Contrary to what passes for popular opinion here, I see
the oneness of the universe stuff as being self evident, and wonder 
how others could think otherwise. 


Following is an excerpt from David Bohm's "Wholeness and the Implicate
Order." Now remember guys, he worked with Einstein and radically changed
quantum mechanics so he's not totally clueless. Not to say he's right either
but, PUT DOWN THOSE GUNS and just read for a moment:



" Chapter 7

The enfolding-unfolding universe and conciousness.

Throughout this book the central underlying theme has been the unbroken 
wholeness of the totality of existence as an undivided flowing movement 
without borders. 

  It seems clear from the discussion in the previous chapter that the
implicate order is particularly suitable for the understanding of such
unbroken wholeness in the flowing movement, for in the implicate order
the totality of existence is enfolded within each region of space (and 
time). So, whatever part, element, or aspect we may abstract in thought,
this still enfolds the whole and is therefore intrinsically related to the 
totality from which has been abstracted. Thus, wholeness permeates all
that is being discussed from the very outset."

Next he discusses the mechanistic order of the universe and how it has
been challenged by relativistic physics and quantuum theory. 

"...indivisible and unchangeable 'elementary particles', which are the
'building blocks' of the entire universe. Originally, these were thougt
to be atoms, but these were divided into protons, electrons and nuetrons
....were in turn found to subject to transormation in to hundreds
of different kinds of unstable particles...........now even smaller
particles called quarks and partrons have been postulated to explain 
these transformations. Though they have not yet been isolated, there
appears to be an unshakable faith among physicists that either such
particles or some other as yet to be discovered, will eventually make
possible a complete and coherent explanation of everything.

   The theory of relativity was the first significant indication in 
physics of the need to question the mechanistic order. As explained in
chapter 5, it implied that no coherent concept of an independently existent
particle is possible, neither one in which it would the particle would be
an extended body, nor one in which it would be a dimensionless point. 
Thus, the basic assumption underlying the generally accepted form of 
mechanisim in physics has been shown to be untenable...........

........As seen in chapter 5, the key features of the quantum theory that
challenge mechanisim are:

1. Movement is in general discontinuous, it the sense that action is 
   constituted of indivisble quanta..

2. Entities, such as electrons, can show different properties
   (e.g., particle-like, wave-like or something in between), depending
   on the the environmental context within which they exist and are
   subject to observation.

3. Two entities, such as electrons, which initially combine to form a 
   molecule and then separate, show a peculiar non-local relationship,
   which can best be described as a noncausal connection of elements 
   that are far apart.

It should be added of course that the laws of are statistical and do not
determine individual events uniquely and precisely."



Pretty standard stuff right? Well jumping ahead, try this one out.



"We can obtain a helpful intuitive sense of what is meant by the notion of 
projection here, through the consideration of the following device.

(book includes picture of a fish tank with fish and plants, cameras, 
 television monitors here)

Let us begin with a rectangular tank full of water, with transparent
walls. Suppose further that there are two walls at right angles to each
other. Now let the corresponding television images be made visible on 
screens A and B in another room. What we will see there is a certain 
relationship between the images appearing on the two screens. For example,
on screen A we may see an image of a fish, and on screen B we will see
another such image. At any given moment each image will generally look
different from the other. Nevertheless the differences will be related, 
in the sense that when one image is seen to execute certain movements,
the other will be seen to execute corresponding movements. Moreover, 
content that is mainly on one screen will pass into the other, and 
vice versa (e.g., when a fish inititally facing camera A turns through
a right angle, the image that was on A is now to be found on B). Thus at
all times the image content on the other screen will correlate with and 
reflect that of the other.

   Of course, we know that the two images do not refer to independently
existent though interacting actualities (in which for example, one image
could be said to 'cause' related changes in the other). Rather they refer
to a single actuality, which is the common ground of both (and this 
explains the correlation of images without the assumption that they casually
affect each other). This actuallity is of higher dimensionality than are
the separate images on the screen; or, to put it differently, the images
on the screen are two-dimensional projections (or facets) of a three-
dimensional reality. In some sense this three-dimensional reality holds
those two-dimensional projections within it. Yet, since these projections
exist only as abstractions, the three-dimensional reality is neither of 
these, but rather something else, something of a nature beyond both."

   
This was written in 1980. I know some things have changed since then, what
I'm not sure of. Perhaps some will post and tell me. I personally don't have
stock in any of Capras' movies, nor am I related to David Bohm. I have no
axis to grind (physics joke) and could care less who's right. What I'm 
interested in is what is right, or most right. I am interested in Socratic
Dialogue where knowledge is of more importance than who wins. I personally
could care less who is right, I didn't create this reality so I don't need
to prove it, just discover it. I find answers not create them.

Wm T.


ps. Amanda Walker wherever you are, I guess science does prove
    that Buddhism is the one true religion. ;-)

.standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta