The Mental Universe

[Bindi]

"The stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the Universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter... we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter." - Sir James Jeans

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

The mental Universe

Professor Richard Conn Henry¹

 

The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things.

Historically, we have looked to our religious leaders to understand the meaning of our lives; the nature of our world. With Galileo Galilei, this changed. In establishing that the Earth goes around the Sun, Galileo not only succeeded in believing the unbelievable himself, but also convinced almost everyone else to do the same. This was a stunning accomplishment in 'physics outreach' and, with the subsequent work of Isaac Newton, physics joined religion in seeking to explain our place in the Universe.

The more recent physics revolution of the past 80 years has yet to transform general public understanding in a similar way. And yet a correct understanding of physics was accessible even to Pythagoras. According to Pythagoras, "number is all things", and numbers are mental, not mechanical. Likewise, Newton called light "particles", knowing the concept to be an 'effective theory' — useful, not true. As noted by Newton's biographer Richard Westfall: "The ultimate cause of atheism, Newton asserted, is 'this notion of bodies having, as it were, a complete, absolute and independent reality in themselves.'" Newton knew of Newton's rings and was untroubled by what is shallowly called 'wave/particle duality'.

The 1925 discovery of quantum mechanics solved the problem of the Universe's nature. Bright physicists were again led to believe the unbelievable — this time, that the Universe is mental. According to Sir James Jeans: "the stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the Universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter... we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter." But physicists have not yet followed Galileo's example, and convinced everyone of the wonders of quantum mechanics. As Sir Arthur Eddington explained: "It is difficult for the matter-of-fact physicist to accept the view that the substratum of everything is of mental character."

In his play Copenhagen, which brings quantum mechanics to a wider audience, Michael Frayn gives these word to Niels Bohr: "we discover that... the Universe exists... only through the understanding lodged inside the human head." Bohr's wife replies, "this man you've put at the centre of the Universe — is it you, or is it Heisenberg?" This is what sticks in the craw of Eddington's "matter-of-fact" physicists.

Discussing the play, John H. Marburger III, President George W. Bush's science adviser, observes that "in the Copenhagen interpretation of microscopic nature, there are neither waves nor particles", but then frames his remarks in terms of a non-existent "underlying stuff". He points out that it is not true that matter "sometimes behaves like a wave and sometimes like a particle... The wave is not in the underlying stuff; it is in the spatial pattern of detector clicks... We cannot help but think of the clicks as caused by little localized pieces of stuff that we might as well call particles. This is where the particle language comes from. It does not come from the underlying stuff, but from our psychological predisposition to associate localized phenomena with particles."

Proof without words: Pythagoras explained things using numbers.

In place of "underlying stuff" there have been serious attempts to preserve a material world — but they produce no new physics, and serve only to preserve an illusion. Scientists have sadly left it to non-physicist Frayn to note the Emperor's lack of clothes: "it seems to me that the view which [Murray] Gell-Mann favours, and which involves what he calls alternative 'histories' or 'narratives', is precisely as anthropocentric as Bohr's, since histories and narratives are not freestanding elements of the Universe, but human constructs, as subjective and as restricted in their viewpoint as the act of observation."

Physicists shy from the truth because the truth is so alien to everyday physics. A common way to evade the mental Universe is to invoke 'decoherence' — the notion that 'the physical environment' is sufficient to create reality, independent of the human mind. Yet the idea that any irreversible act of amplification is necessary to collapse the wave function is known to be wrong: in 'Renninger-type' experiments, the wave function is collapsed simply by your human mind seeing nothing. The Universe is entirely mental.

In the tenth century, Ibn al-Haytham initiated the view that light proceeds from a source, enters the eye, and is perceived. This picture is incorrect but is still what most people think occurs, including, unless pressed, most physicists. To come to terms with the Universe, we must abandon such views. The world is quantum mechanical: we must learn to perceive it as such.

One benefit of switching humanity to a correct perception of the world is the resulting joy of discovering the mental nature of the Universe. We have no idea what this mental nature implies, but — the great thing is — it is true. Beyond the acquisition of this perception, physics can no longer help. You may descend into solipsism, expand to deism, or something else if you can justify it — just don't ask physics for help.

There is another benefit of seeing the world as quantum mechanical: someone who has learned to accept that nothing exists but observations is far ahead of peers who stumble through physics hoping to find out 'what things are'. If we can 'pull a Galileo,' and get people believing the truth, they will find physics a breeze.

The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy.

 

1. Richard Conn Henry is a Professor in the Henry A. Rowland Department of Physics and Astronomy, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218, USA.

Nature 436, 29 (7 July 2005)

http://www.newdualism.org/papers/R.Henry/436029a.html

 

 

 

[Marblehead]

Well, being the materialist that I am, I simply can't agree with that.  Oh well.

 

[Bindi]

I am thinking how close this concept (above) seems to be to the neidan concept that the physical body proceeds from Original Essence and the thinking mind proceeds from Original Spirit.

 

 

 

[Bindi]

  On 11/28/2018 at 12:22 AM, Marblehead said:

Well, being the materialist that I am, I simply can't agree with that.  Oh well.

 

 

Did you read the attached essay?  

[Marblehead]

  On 11/28/2018 at 12:27 AM, Bindi said:

 

Did you read the attached essay?  

I started but had to stop.  Perhaps I would have said something else had I read it all the way through.

 

[wandelaar]

  Quote

There is another benefit of seeing the world as quantum mechanical: someone who has learned to accept that nothing exists but observations is far ahead of peers who stumble through physics hoping to find out 'what things are'. If we can 'pull a Galileo,' and get people believing the truth, they will find physics a breeze.

The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy.

 

Did the earth only started to exist at the moment that the first conscious creatures on it first observed it?

[rideforever]

Even if you wrote out a "correct theory" that would certainly not mean that anyone here reading it .... is in the correct state.
Entering the correct state is not the result of reading a correct theory.
That's the problem with these kinds of authors, they don't really understand that more theories is not inner change.
Most of them are using spirituality as another ego game and may not be in any way connected to the soul of the path.
Also the Earth does not go round the Sun nor did Gallileo succeed in convincing everyone, nor did Newton discover gravity ... but it makes for a great story !!!!!
He says the world is Quantum Mechanical ... what on earth does that mean.
"And we must learn to perceive it as such."
.... thanks .... .... ... how ?
- oh the book ended - 
- well that's great !!!! -

Edited November 30, 2018 by rideforever

[doc benway]

He's essentially expounding a Yogacara view, the mind only school of Buddhism. 

Scientists often see this illusory perspective of what's "out there" but rarely turn that light of awareness back at itself.

Turning that light back at the observer leads to the Madhyamika view.

[Zen Pig]

My personal view, is the "I don't have a view, view"....... mind, matter, reality, illusion are only words, not good, not bad.  The seeing life as it is, is beyond words,  but it is still fun to fuck around with them.  LOL

[wandelaar]

  On 11/30/2018 at 8:53 PM, Zen Pig said:

My personal view, is the "I don't have a view, view"....... mind, matter, reality, illusion are only words, not good, not bad.  The seeing life as it is, is beyond words,  but it is still fun to fuck around with them.  LOL

 

You may of course declare that you don't have a view, but as soon as you act (or even if you don't act) then the way in which you act will betray your implicit view of life. For instance: you posted the above message, so it's likely that you thought that there are actually people (other Bums) reading your message on their computer screen.

[Zen Pig]

yes, very true. even the "I don't know view" is a view, which brings us back to the idea of words.  fun, but not something I would hang my hat on. 

[wandelaar]

  On 11/30/2018 at 9:14 PM, Zen Pig said:

yes, very true. even the "I don't know view" is a view, which brings us back to the idea of words.  fun, but not something I would hang my hat on. 

 

I don't see how you can avoid choosing something to hang your hat on, if that is what you wish to do...

 

And that choice again presupposes an expectation that the chosen "thing" to hang your hat on is more than just an observation that goes up in smoke when you look away.

[Taoist Texts]

 

 

The article is new-agey nonsense. "The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. " Whose spirit we talking about?

It is also factually wrong

 

  On 11/28/2018 at 12:03 AM, Bindi said:

Galileo Galilei, this changed. In establishing that the Earth goes around the Sun, Galileo

 

He did nothing of the sort. Earth orbiting sun was known to ancient Greeks. In pre-modern times, it was theorized by Copernicus in 1543, 20 years before GG was even born.

 

  Quote

 following the death of Copernicus and before Galileo, heliocentrism was relatively uncontroversial;^[68] Copernicus's work was used by Pope Gregory XIII to reform the calendar in 1582.^[a]

 

All he did was  suggesting a false proof for heliocentrism, somewhat  popularizing it in the process .

 

  Quote

As a general account of the cause of tides, however, his theory was a failure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#Galileo,_Kepler_and_theories_of_tides

 

[Zen Pig]

  On 11/30/2018 at 9:37 PM, wandelaar said:

I don't see how you can avoid choosing something to hang your hat on,

I get that.  I don't have a clue how I choose anything.  Not trying to be glib, but It is fun to talk about. Like I said, not good, not bad, as far as I have seen to date. of course my "view" changes every day, and yet it all seems to work out, ...../ so far, but that to might change.  My rhetorical question: "how would life be right now, if we could never know anything for sure"???  like I say, rhetorical question. not really meant to be answered, but no problem if anyone wants to either.

[wandelaar]

  On 11/30/2018 at 11:04 PM, Zen Pig said:

My rhetorical question: "how would life be right now, if we could never know anything for sure"???  like I say, rhetorical question. not really meant to be answered, but no problem if anyone wants to either.

 

Simple: you would have to depend on your intuitive or instinctual understandings. Why? Because in that case there is no sense in forcing yourself to go against what you strongly feel as being the correct approach. Kind of like how animals act. And the explanation of why it generally works is the same: evolution.

 

Edited November 30, 2018 by wandelaar