Spritzophrenia

humour, music, life, sociology. friendly agnostic.

Posts Tagged ‘quantum mysticism’

Between Two Towers

Posted by spritzophrenia on September 29, 2010

In 1968, a secret plot to exploit New York’s famous “twin towers” began. On 7 August 1974, shortly after 7:15 am, Phillipe Petit stepped off the South Tower onto a steel cable, a quarter mile above the sidewalks of Manhattan. One of the police officers who tried to bring him down told this story:

I observed the tightrope ‘dancer’—because you couldn’t call him a ‘walker’—approximately halfway between the two towers. And upon seeing us he started to smile and laugh and he started going into a dancing routine on the high wire… And when he got to the building we asked him to get off the high wire but instead he turned around and ran back out into the middle… He was bouncing up and down. His feet were actually leaving the wire and then he would resettle back on the wire again… Unbelievable really… Everybody was spellbound in the watching of it.

His audacious high wire performance made headlines around the world. When asked why he did the stunt, Petit would say, “When I see three oranges, I juggle; when I see two towers, I walk.”

Twin towers tightrope

I sometimes feel I’m balancing between two extremes, but the consequences of falling are far less frightening. Today I talk about one of those extremes.

A Different Logic

The universe has given us a wonderful gift of logic, it’s the mind-power that enables us to do so much; all of our science, art and even love language makes use of it. There is even a case that “the” given-ness of logic, like gravity, tells us something about g0d. However, sometimes people feel constrained by logic in a way that they don’t by gravity. When finding an answer hard to accept, some say “Oh well, there must be some other way of thinking that goes beyond black & white concepts”. I find this hard to accept, but I’m giving it a fair go. To that end I got Edward de Bono’s I Am Right, You Are Wrong out of the library.

The book is about moving “from Rock Logic to Water Logic”. There is something in the back of my mind which hopes, “Maybe He’s not actually throwing away logic, just getting us to think in different ways about it. Logic itself still stands.” However, reading the summary at the end seems to say that, yep, he does think that traditional logic, while very useful, is not enough for “human affairs”.

In the summary he says the objective of his book is “to shift the emphasis to the importance of perception”. De Bono is very good at coming up with simple analogies and illustrations to make hard concepts easy to understand. I want to learn how to do that. His book is challenging me, but its a highly stimulating challenge now that I’m about one third of the way into it.

There is some irony in De Bono’s claims and approach, as he uses logic and criticism against logic and criticism; uses language, which he criticizes as constraining, to criticize language; provides a history of thinking while condemning the focus on history; and, in my opinion, one can claim that he applies a different philosophy to thinking while also declaring an end to philosophy. None of this is a condemnation of his work, but rather and acknowledgement that, ironically, any revolutionary thinker can only inherit for his work the very same tools he seeks to change.”

~ from here

“Feeling” God

I also found a good book on Mystics. Mystics are people who believe we can “encounter” or “feel” ultimate reality. Many religions have a mystical element to them, this book considers the Christian mystics such as Thomas Merton, the Sufi (Islamic) mystics (the most well-known being Rumi) and the Zen Buddhist mystics such as Dogen.

The mystic is often— and mistakenly— portrayed as an otherworldly, dreamy-eyed figure who lapses into ecstatic trances, who beholds strange visions or hears heavenly voices. I grant that one finds reports of such things— and stranger— in some mystical texts. But that is not what mysticism is about. Mystics themselves often regard such phenomena as peripheral to the deeper spiritual quest. According to commonplace mystical wisdom, such experiences should not be sought after, encouraged or cultivated. …

[On the ‘mysticism’ category in booksellers] There you usually find legitimate books on mysticism mixed in with stuff on the occult and witchcraft, fortune-telling, mind reading, and alien abductions. Mysticism, of course, has nothing to do with such matters…

More than a few [mystics] have been hard-nosed practical thinkers, respectful of intellect and education. Many have possessed a healthy, down-to-earth sense of people and politics and have often been movers and shakers in the world of their day.

~ William Harmless, Mystics p 3,4 [Edits mine]

Perhaps we can go beyond logic. And perhaps we can perceive spiritual reality directly. The view from the top is attractive to me and far less terrifying than a tightrope walk. Perhaps I sense that the universe is warmer than that. Perhaps the secret is in training oneself— Petit never fell during a performance in his entire career. Walking the tightrope that values the mind, but is also open to other possibilities is challenging. Philippe Petit did it, I hope I can too.

Respond

? What do you think?

Rock Logic? B52s

Please share this article:

Advertisements

Posted in agnostic, epistemology, Mysticism, Philosophy | Tagged: , , , , , | 7 Comments »

Physically Impossible?

Posted by spritzophrenia on August 19, 2010

Here, as promised, is Hugh Ross’ rebuttal of the ideas in Frank Tipler’s “The Physics of Immortality”. You might want to check the first post to refresh yourself.

It is hard to treat these FAP [Final Anthropic Principle] and Omega Point hypotheses seriously. In The New York Review of Books, noted critic Martin Gardner offerred this evaluation of Barrow and Tipler’s work:

“What should we make of this quartet of WAP, SAP, PAP, and FAP? In my not so humble opinion I think the last principle is best called CRAP, the Completely Ridiculous Anthropic Principle.”

Ross goes on to criticise the theory in two scientific areas:

Warning: Journalist does not understand what they are writing about.

Insufficient Memory

Tipler grossly overestimates the role of human memory and the future capability of computers. Just as computers cannot function with memory banks only, so, too, the human mind and human consciousness do not operate by memory alone. While remarkable advances in computer technology are taking place now, the laws of physics impose predictable finite limits on future computer hardware. As Roger Penrose has documented rigorously in The Emperor’s New Mind and Shadows of the Mind, these limits do not even permit the duplication of human consciousness let alone the fantastic capabilities Tipler Suggests.

Let me butt in here, by wondering what those currently engaged in AI research would think of that last statement? I’ve just read an intriguing book about the MIT research with Cog and Kismet, and what implications this has for human consciousness and God.

Expansion of the Universe

Tipler’s cosmic model on which his whole premise rests is now out of date. It depends on the universe possessing enough matter to force the universe into a future stage of collapse. But … measurements in 1999 and 2000 establish that only three-tenths of the mass necessary to force a future collapse of the universe exists. Moreover, the measured value for the space energy density term guarantees that the universe not only will expand forever, it will expand at an exponentially increasing rate.

Science aside, i’ll also note Ross’s objections to

Moral Perfectablity of Humans

Apparently according to Tipler, future computers will give everyone perfect morality by exposing them to game theory. “Consider, however, that if Tipler’s proposal were true, the better people comprehend game theory, the less propensity they would exhibit to commit evil. Unfortunately for Tipler, no such correlation is in evidence”. [Ross]

Relational Bliss

[Tipler] produces an equation to “prove” that this computer generated cosmic utopia will bring a woman to every man and a man to every woman capable of delivering 100,000 times the impact and satisfaction of the most fulfilling partner each can imagine in life as we know it. … Evidently, many people have never tasted any greater delight than what sexual experience can bring.

In an article for the Skeptical Inquirer, Gardner again brandished his satiric knives:

“I leave it to the reader to decide whether they should opt for OPT (Omega Point Theology) as a new scientific religion superior to Scientology – one destined to elevate Tipler to the rank of a prophet greater than L.Ron Hubbard – or opt for the view that OPT is a wild fantasy generated by too much reading of science fiction.”

~ Hugh Ross The Creator and the Cosmos pp 166,167

Tipler’s not the only one to make mileage out of quantum physics, but at least he’s a qualified scientist. I like this comment from Amazon so much, I’m going to repeat it:

Quantum Physics is the new magic. I’ve noticed from hanging out on philosophy forums online, that Quantum Physics is the new magic. There’s a quantum theory of consciousness, quantum this, quantum that. Everything can be proven with Quantum Physics. So some places have a sort of Godwin’s Law that you can’t use Quantum Physics as proof of anything — unless you yourself have a strong background in the subject. Of course, this doesn’t quite apply, as Tipler is a mathematical physicist, but his writings certainly remind me of all the Quantum Physics-as-magic posts I’ve seen written online.

Interestingly, some early quantum physicists speculated on how their theories might speak to our ideas about consciousness, but others in the same period (eg Einstein and Bohr) were equally opposed to these suggestions. Here’s some articles that helped me understand some of the ways people get quantum physics wrong:
* Chopra Mangles Quantum Mechanics – Again
* Wikipedia on Quantum Mysticism
* Quantum Quackery
* Far Out, Man. But Is it Quantum Physics?
* Thinking About Quantum Mysticism

I see at least two interesting things from Ross’s rebuttal. I’m not qualified to comment on the physics, but maybe the full range of human life can’t be modelled in a computer? And what about Ross’s contention that even with better education, we still display far too much evil in our lives?

.

.

Respond

? What do you think?

Please consider sharing this article:

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Add to: Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Yahoo Buzz | Newsvine

Posted in cosmology, God, Physics, Science | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 12 Comments »