Quantum Coherence and The Nature of Nature

Would it be surprising for you to learn that scattered throughout our Earth are Human beings of various religious traditions who "land upon" a state of internal coherency that the the "laws" of space-time no longer 'matter'?

Think of this. Consider the word I just used above: I said "didn't matter" - which has two meanings in the English language: 'matter', as in "is significant" i.e. causally, and 'matter', as in the stuff we and the physical world is 'made of'.

People don't you usually consider the relationship between these two senses of the word 'matter', but the physicist-philosopher Karen Barad has made a very compelling case that entanglement between systems (any material 'object') is what underlies the progression of our material universe into its present macroscopic condition.

While I of course do not possess any special knowledge beyond reading claims others have made, it seems plausible that a mystic, disconnected from the "decoherence" of Human societies on Earth, are able to attain a special state of internal coherency that allows the conscious mind to "make matter" - or effect the way matter appears - simply as a function of the way coherence - love - deconstructs the sense of separateness - exposes the mind to a sense of unity - and in doing so, subjects the matter of both the body and the world thought-about to the will of the thinker.

That is, the mental object and its physical correlate become immediately entangled with the clarity of an awakened consciousness - itself embodied and made possible through the body's extraordinarily complex dynamical structure.

If this is true - and the "wave function" obtains in the mind of such a thinker, what will necessarily stand out within their perception is the dynamical unity between self and object despite the fact that a physical world with objects seems to exist - it is nevertheless recognized that this state is conditional - dependent upon all other states in the general system (universe) which complements each individual structure. It is because of the utter unity of the universe that non-locality exists, and that space-time operates in relation to matter - particularly the agencies which emerge through matter, such as animals.

On a quick aside, this brings to mind some thoughts I've recently had on Schroedingers cat, and how his whole thought experiment is built on an anthropocentric bias. If cats are agencies, and therefore observe a reality (i.e. their environments) - albeit, superficially, then why is Schroedinger hypothesizing about their existential status as if only a Human observer on the outside could validate their existence?

That is, Humans do not "create reality" - i.e. we are interacting within-a-world that is taking on its own form, generating things, structures and realities, even as it gives rise to the unusual creature that we experience ourselves to be.

With this sense in mind, how does the mystic on a far away island, isolated from others and immersed in meditation become able to 'maintain the wave function' of his bodies biodynamism, such that he can transplant himself into another place within spacetimematter? The individual Human pace-time-matter is being changed: I'd assume his body would vanish from one locale and instantly appear in another locale, emerging within the new locale "mattering" the empty space with a Human body.

If this phenomena exists - and it may - it arises as a function of a differently organized nervous system, initiated by a self which is interested in understanding its internal condition. In the process of this internal "work", the highest level of the brain-mind system - self-awareness (arising at 300 milliseconds, between billions of interacting neurons) acts down upon individual units (neurons, molecules within neurons; atoms) and at the level of self-reflection, manages to sift and sort and clarify its internal existence and its relation to externality in such a way as to bring about a shift in its organized physiology a "correlated network" - or a mental 'system' which is enlivened to the unity of reality, and disinvested as a "personal self" in such a way that their capacities to perform 'miracles' becomes largely limited to non-egotistically motivated actions.

If this stubborn human fantasy ends up being true, it also would follow that inter-acting with others necessarily forces the enlightened mystics mind into interaction with a "deluded" system, and the mere contact alone - with a being without a strong sense of love, but a lot of unprocessed fear - affect is transferred, and so the remarkable power of clarity - the way matter comes to 'matter', in a very different way, is lost.

The Boddhisatva is said to 'give up' this sort of capacity when he puts himself into regular contact with others. In dynamical systems terms, one macroscopic object - a Human - in interaction with another similarly structured object - Human - puts each Human into a reflexive state of "complementarity": each person is unconsciously looking for that which they need to make their present experience (feeling, in light of how they have constructed their sense of self and identity)coherent: that is, they want the other person to 'complement' their needs by satisfying what they already unconsciously detect: similarity.

This becomes a problem for the enlightened one - because one party projects a universe of expectation into the mystic, and the mystics, no doubt, will then be forced into reflection upon the nature of the feelings moving through him. His system is being 'disrupted'. Tension down below lowers the coherency of the structure - and the longer you stay within this relational construct, the more likely you too will develop an "ego" i.e. to achieve that blessed sense of coherency which comes with getting someone to speak to you in the way you want unconsciously want them to.

It's because complementarity is so basic to the nature of reality that Human beings - poorly educated and socially intoxicated by the mindless affirmation of ignorant others - can be so incredibly naive - and indeed, animal-like in their simplicity, to think that enlightenment, or understanding the true nature of existence, doesn't entail an intense amount of reading and private reflection. The fact of the reality is this: in a screwed up social-reality which propagates

autonomic dysfunction i.e. persistent negative affect,

, the only way to restructure the dynamics of individual actors within that society is through mindfulness: a person who does not practice mindfulness i.e. focusing upon what is "happening in the now", has literally not developed the orbitofrontal cortices on the right and left sides of his brains to realize how insufficient his present understanding of reality is.

a reply to: Astrocyte

I love these threads which start off with "i have no idea what quantum means, but i'm pretty sure i turns people into wizards"!!

My query has been the same for a long time: What is the purpose of a universe without life consciousness? It doesn't make sense without life there to regard it.

'Mattering' with ones consciousness is evident everyday, no doubts there.
But I'm not sure I read the second part of your thread right, did you say "people can teleport", "using their minds", or words to that effect?

Side note. Look at that dude's belt pulled way up high like that.

originally posted by: FlyingFox
My query has been the same for a long time: What is the purpose of a universe without life consciousness? It doesn't make sense without life there to regard it.

Why would the universe need a purpose? That's a classic projection from mankind.

a reply to: Astrocyte

Asstocyst...TLDR... Good attempt at a Jay and Silent Bob 711 Dumpster Thesis!

Being mindful is a good thing. I never called it that way thou, in Aikido is named Zanshin, I prefer that one. And I can compare it only with multi-layered awareness. It is the main requirement to be able to differentiate between the different distractions and pick the ones you need. However I also think you quantum ideas tend to sound a bit over-hyped.

I love etymology...

But I don't think I can teleport because of it.

matter (n.)
c. 1200, materie, "subject of thought, speech, or expression," from Anglo-French matere, Old French matere "subject, theme, topic; substance, content, material; character, education" (12c., Modern French matière), from Latin materia "substance from which something is made," also "hard inner wood of a tree" (source also of Portuguese madeira "wood"), from mater "origin, source, mother" (see mother (n.1)). Or, on another theory, it represents *dmateria, from PIE root *dem-/*dom- (source of Latin domus "house," English timber). With sense development in Latin influenced by Greek hyle (see hylo-), of which it was the equivalent in philosophy.

Meaning "physical substance generally, matter, material" is early 14c.; that of "substance of which some specific object is made or consists of" is attested from late 14c. That of "piece of business, affair, activity, situation, circumstance" is from late 14c. From mid-14c. as "subject of a literary work, content of what is written, main theme." Also in Middle English as "cause, reasons, ground; essential character; field of investigation."

Matter of course "something expected" attested from 1739. For that matter attested from 1670s. What is the matter "what concerns (someone), the cause of the difficulty" is attested from mid-15c. To make no matter "be no difference to" also is mid-15c.

matter (v.)
"to be of importance or consequence," 1580s, from matter (n.). Related: Mattered; mattering.

originally posted by: savemebarry
I love etymology...

But I don't think I can teleport because of it.

I love when people elaborate complex theories based on a language particularity in English without realizing that this particularity is only found in the English language. Like god speaks English or something. That borders delusion.

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFart

originally posted by: savemebarry
I love etymology...

But I don't think I can teleport because of it.

I love when people elaborate complex theories based on a language particularity in English without realizing that this particularity is only found in the English language. Like god speaks English or something. That borders delusion.

Absolutely agree. And the funny thing is, what we consider English language is a mix of old English and stolen words/consonants.

I still cant get how people hear the letter Double U, or W and not see it as a combination of UU to create the "wh" sound. We did that, because we just couldn't accept V or O or U or I or J or Y as sounds that changed for different words.

Now I must take in my Vino, oui oui !!

I'll ascend one day, and write a book about it.. if the ancients let me use a pen.. :/

a reply to: Astrocyte

This becomes a problem for the enlightened one - because one party projects a universe of expectation into the mystic, and the mystics, no doubt, will then be forced into reflection upon the nature of the feelings moving through him. His system is being 'disrupted'.

The life of Milarepa:
"Those who do not believe in the Dharma have little understanding and are incapable of abandoning the Eight Worldly Reactions. That is why it is important to believe in the law of karma. When one has continually shown signs of disbelief, even in the obvious aspects of karma, it is far more difficult to understand and believe in the emptiness of things, regardless of ample explanations based on the Buddha's words and rational considerations. If one believed in the emptiness of things one would perceive the interdependence of cause and affect as being inherent in Emptiness itself. Moreover one would achieve greater devotion to the application of noble principles. The foundation of all Dharma practice lies in belief in the law of karma, and therefore it is very important for you to devote yourself wholeheartedly to the elimination of harmful deeds and to the practice of virtue."

The Incredible Life of a Himalayan Yogi:
"After completing the most rigorous and intricate disciplines of yoga, Guru Bhagwan returned with his disciples to their birthplace for the last time. This was in accordance with the injunction of the shastras, which states that after the completion of twelve years of renunciation, the sannyasin should return once more to the place of his birth.
The traditional return to their native place, after twelve years of sannyas life, has a dual purpose. It allows the renunciate to pay respects to what and from whom he comes. At the same time, it tests the level of detachment achieved through yogic disciplines. Guru Bhagwan followed the tradition of bringing the celibates to their own village to experience for themselves the state of their own minds."

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFart

originally posted by: FlyingFox
My query has been the same for a long time: What is the purpose of a universe without life consciousness? It doesn't make sense without life there to regard it.

Why would the universe need a purpose? That's a classic projection from mankind.

So, it has no purpose?

originally posted by: FlyingFox

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFart

originally posted by: FlyingFox
My query has been the same for a long time: What is the purpose of a universe without life consciousness? It doesn't make sense without life there to regard it.

Why would the universe need a purpose? That's a classic projection from mankind.

So, it has no purpose?

Purpose is a human construct. Everything in nature is the result of chance and necessity.

For the universe to have a purpose is to postulate the universe to be able of projection and planning (or the existence of a discarnate architect).



WHY would the universe need a purpose to exist? Everywhere around you things exist whithout any apparent purpose.

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFart
WHY would the universe need a purpose to exist? Everywhere around you things exist whithout any apparent purpose.

Indeed!

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFart
Why would the universe need a purpose? That's a classic projection from mankind.

You may be right that there is no purpose, but if everything came about due to random chance, what are the odds that we would be here, typing on this board at this exact moment in time? Seems the odds would be somewhere between zilch and astronomically low...

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
You may be right that there is no purpose, but if everything came about due to random chance, what are the odds that we would be here, typing on this board at this exact moment in time? Seems the odds would be somewhere between zilch and astronomically low...

In a seemingly infinite universe, astronomically low local probabilities globally turn into very probable ones.

Add to that the human brain is notably inapt at correctly estimating probabilities...


Invoking purpose in the universe is completely unnecessary and shows a propension for the brain to look for meaning whatever the cost, even when there is none. That's why so many people happily believe in astrology or in the existence of human-like deity.


You could even be theist and not believing that the universe needs purpose. The universe could just exists and that would still be something to marvel at.

When you see a newborn, do you think "he must exist for a purpose otherwise he wouldn't be here" ?

No because that's backward thinking. The newborn doesn't exist to fulfill a destiny, it exists because of pre-existing causes.

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFart
In a seemingly infinite universe, astronomically low local probabilities globally turn into very probable ones.

Add to that the human brain is notably inapt at correctly estimating probabilities...

Can infinity as a concept be proven, though? Probably no more than life after death can be...so why trust that it is a more likely explanation for the nature of reality?

Invoking purpose in the universe is completely unnecessary and shows a propension for the brain to look for meaning whatever the cost, even when there is none. That's why so many people happily believe in astrology or in the existence of human-like deity.

Why is it part of the brain's function "to look for meaning whatever the cost"? Isn't it strange that as far back as recorded human history goes, there has always been a desire to know or understand the nature of the reality in which they exist?

You could even be theist and not believing that the universe needs purpose. The universe could just exists and that would still be something to marvel at.

If this were the case, why marvel at anything? Where would the motivation to marvel stem from?

When you see a newborn, do you think "he must exist for a purpose otherwise he wouldn't be here" ?

No because that's backward thinking. The newborn doesn't exist to fulfill a destiny, it exists because of pre-existing causes.

What creates the pre-existing cause? Two humans? Where were the two humans created? What created the existing conditions for the two humans to be in a position to create more life?

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
Can infinity as a concept be proven, though? Probably no more than life after death can be...so why trust that it is a more likely explanation for the nature of reality?

Whether it's infinite or not, the number of observable worlds is sufficiently large to make your point that "the probability of life on a planet is very low" completely moot.

Only some religious folks seem to cling to the idea that life in the universe is something very unlikely to happen while the general consensus seems to move away from it.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
Why is it part of the brain's function "to look for meaning whatever the cost"? Isn't it strange that as far back as recorded human history goes, there has always been a desire to know or understand the nature of the reality in which they exist?

If you are interested in the subject I recommend reading on neuroscience. In short the brain uses fuzzy logic to identify meaningful patterns in random noise because it was an evolutionary advantage to spot food and predators.

It's the same mechanism that makes us see objects in clouds.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
If this were the case, why marvel at anything?

Why not?

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
What creates the pre-existing cause? Two humans? Where were the two humans created? What created the existing conditions for the two humans to be in a position to create more life?

That's an interesting question but unfortunately completely unrelated to the question of the purpose of the universe. Like I said, even in the hypothesis that a god could have created the universe, that wouldn't warrant any purpose for it. These hypothesis are unrelated.

You ask interesting philosophical questions, but none would justify the need for giving the universe a purpose. It's important to stay on topic when discussing such complex questions.






Just to make it clear: I'm not claiming the Universe DOESN'T have a purpose. I'm saying :
- we can't answer this question
- this hypothesis isn't necessary for the universe to exist

and finally (probably the most important) :
- "purpose" is a construct of the human mind, like "beauty" or "intent". It's a mistake to attach something like that to non-human objects. It's a projection from the human mind. Anthropomorphism. A pitfall to avoid

The universe could just exists and that would still be something to marvel at.

That would make the purpose of the universe as something to be "marveled at".

Which is why I stated the question like I did; what would be the purpose in a *lifeless* universe?

It seems like the question and answer are entangled.

a reply to: Breakthestreak

Yeah, that was sort of the intention.

Teleportation seems to be a basically plausible phenomenon. If what you are - as a physical being - is the entangled, structured, organization of energy that materializes into a Human being - then what you are is essentially structured information. Teleportation entails destroying that materialized information i.e. dematerializing your body (killing you) in one space-time locale, and recreating yourself - materializing your body - in another space-time locale.

From today's world, this sounds impossible - like a wishful fantasy. And yet, physics - and the things it includes, such as biology, ecology, etc - very much implies that this may be the world we live in.

We have stories of something like this happening. We say "a fall", but we take it as mere metaphor (epistemologically, or semantically), when it has an ontological meaning as well: the relationship of the Human mind with the material world around it may be more unified - or ontologically entangled, then we currently recognize.

Nevertheless, mystics and monks maintain that the material world is an illusion - or its fixity i.e. "lawfulness", is a function of the knowers relationship to the known, such that meditative or contemplative reflection on self-experience can be shaped to the point that the material regularities can be usurped by the consciousness of the knower.

All of this is trauma-based. It's because we function as if we were individuals, that we live in the sort of world we experience today. And what blocks that awareness, but shame?